Tom Bishop & Dark Matter

When interviewed on 10 Sep 2012, Tom Bishop is quoted as saying: "Purveyors of the Scientific Method seek to 'stand on the shoulders of giants', building one hypothesis upon the next in mumbling pretension until we have house of cards model of the universe consisting nothing but undiscovered phenomena like graviton particles and dark matter to glue the entire horrid mess together".

The Flat Earth Wiki says:  "... the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Mr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to dark energy."

Can somebody explain why Bishop accepts the existence of dark energy, but not the existence of dark matter?  As it stands currently, science accepts the existence of dark matter—due to regular perturbations in the path of photonic energy from distant galaxies—but has yet to define a theory about dark matter—other than it's "something" that fills 23.3% of the cosmos.

Why is Bishop's viewpoint on dark energy and matter exactly the opposite of science's?

I think Tom would be the best one to explain that, but when was the last time he posted?  I fear that the conspiracy has gotten to him. 

I think Tom would be the best one to explain that, but when was the last time he posted?  I fear that the conspiracy has gotten to him.

The Flat Earth Wiki describes Bishop as "the great Flat Earth zetetic".  Is this a correct description, or an outdated one?  Are his viewpoints still considered valid by other flat earthers, or do they need revising?

Are there no other flat earthers familiar with this equation who can explain it to me?

I think Tom would be the best one to explain that, but when was the last time he posted?  I fear that the conspiracy has gotten to him.

I doubt it. Even if there were a conspiracy, which there isn't, Tom would have to be a threat for them to want to take him out.

The 'conspiracy' didn't get to Tom yet.  He still posts on the other FES site.




(or at least his plant does)

Personally, I believe both dark energy and dark matter must exist, because positive energy and positive matter exists.
I watched this Stephen Hawking presentation/informative film once, and it gave this example:
You go out in the desert to build a hill.
As you dig for material to stack to build the hill, a hole is created.
You can't have the hill without the hole.
It was something along the lines, I'm sure you get the point.
The existence of positive matter begs the existence of its negative counterpart.

Personally, I believe both dark energy and dark matter must exist, because positive energy and positive matter exists.

Dark matter/energy are not anti-matter/energy.  For starters, dark matter is called "dark" because it isn't observed and doesn't fit any current physical models.  Antimatter, on the other hand, has long been a well known part of the Standard Model and is routinely created and observed in particle accelerators.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on August 03, 2014, 11:48:54 AM

Personally, I believe both dark energy and dark matter must exist, because positive energy and positive matter exists.

Dark matter/energy are not anti-matter/energy.  For starters, dark matter is called "dark" because it isn't observed and doesn't fit any current physical models.  Antimatter, on the other hand, has long been a well known part of the Standard Model and is routinely created and observed in particle accelerators.

Well, dark matter and energy are bullshit.
I figured you were talking about something real.

Quote from: markjo on August 03, 2014, 12:04:43 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on August 03, 2014, 11:48:54 AM

Personally, I believe both dark energy and dark matter must exist, because positive energy and positive matter exists.

Dark matter/energy are not anti-matter/energy.  For starters, dark matter is called "dark" because it isn't observed and doesn't fit any current physical models.  Antimatter, on the other hand, has long been a well known part of the Standard Model and is routinely created and observed in particle accelerators.

Well, dark matter and energy are bullshit.
I figured you were talking about something real.

Superior argumentation once more.

Well, dark matter and energy are bullshit.

Huh? 

Personally, I believe both dark energy and dark matter must exist...

I figured you were talking about something real.

I figured that you knew what you were talking about.  I guess we were both wrong.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on August 03, 2014, 12:28:00 PM

Well, dark matter and energy are bullshit.

Huh? 

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on August 03, 2014, 11:48:54 AM

Personally, I believe both dark energy and dark matter must exist...

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on August 03, 2014, 12:28:00 PM

I figured you were talking about something real.

I figured that you knew what you were talking about.  I guess we were both wrong.

I quit again.

I quit again.

What do you mean by the apparently contradictory claims you've made?

Personally, I believe both dark energy and dark matter must exist...

Well, dark matter and energy are bullshit...

Do you accept dark energy and matter or not?

Why is it that no flat earther is prepared to meaningfully address the questions I raised in my opening post here?

The moderators are really enforcing this Q&A "thing", but at the same time legitimate questions are almost totally ignored.

   

Because your question was directed to one member's theory.  It's similar to the "if the ice dome is real". Questions.  Also, I'm rather suspicious of the sincerity of your question.  Your tone indicates to me you want a debate.  Also, dark energy is most likely a place holder name to indicate the unknown nature of the energy.  However, the great scientist Tom Bishop would be the proper person to answer this question, but he is no longer on this site.

Because your question was directed to one member's theory.

Nope.  The Bishop constant is mentioned in the Flat Earth Wiki—whose contents I assume most flat earthers agree with.

Your tone indicates to me you want a debate.

No again.  No debate required.  Just a few simple answers to my legitimate questions

However, the great scientist Tom Bishop would be the proper person to answer this question, but he is no longer on this site.

Hmm...  You're the second person to neatly sidestep answering my questions by using exactly the same excuse that "the great man" is no longer with us.

Surely there must be more than one person can answer a question about something in the Flat Earth Wiki?

Both Parsifal and Tom Bishop are on the other site.  Perhaps you would get your answers there.

Your question is asking people to explain Bishop's views on dark energy and matter.  If that is not a question directed toward a specific person then I don't know what is. Also, you've been around long enough to know the general view of this topic to FErs, just not Bishop's specific views which is what you asked for. As far as the "side stepping" accusation, Markjo never called Parsifal "a great man", I did not know he had given a nearly identical response, and I'm sorry you don't like the truth of the matter that neither Parsifal or Bishop are here for reasons not pertaining to FET.

Okay guys... I give up LOL.

Apparently there are no flat earthers on this site that can address my questions, despite the "Bishop constant" being directly referenced in their Flat Earth Wiki.  That admission is fair enough I guess, but—call me ignorant—why should I have to visit another FE site to get an answer to a question posted on this site?  Isn't that a little bizarre?

Can someone therefore tell me exactly what the purpose of this Q&A Forum is if—as it's turned out for me—one can't get any answers to a legitimate question?

   

Your question is about the Bishop Constant, whose value is unknown as of yet. The person responsible for the development of the equation have migrated.  Is this concept so hard for you to understand?  I'm still leary of your "legitimate question".

Well,  I guess after ten days and no meaningful answers forthcoming, my original questions apparently can't be answered by any flat earthers.  Even although the basis for prompting my questions is contained within their own Flat Earth Wiki.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that very few flat earthers fully understand or can interpret the contents of their Wiki when taken to task.  But... at the same time, it's frequently referred to by flat earthers when "explaining" some astronomical or astrophysical phenomenon to a round earther, but it would seem that it's because that's the easiest "answer"—just read the Wiki and all will be explained.  Obviously this is not the case.

To refresh people's memory, I'll repeat my questions:

The Flat Earth Wiki says:  "... the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Mr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to dark energy."

Can somebody explain why Bishop accepts the existence of dark energy, but not the existence of dark matter?  As it stands currently, science accepts the existence of dark matter—due to regular perturbations in the path of photonic energy from distant galaxies—but has yet to define a theory about dark matter—other than it's "something" that fills 23.3% of the cosmos.

And I'll add another question or two apropos all the non-answers:  Is the Flat Earth Wiki entry about Tom Bishop's "greatness" over-exaggerated?  Do all flat earthers agree with the alleged value of his "constant"?  Do all flat earthers agree—in very broad terms—with the science of his claims?

To refresh your memory, ausGeoff, Bishop and Parsifal do not post here currently.  They are on the other site.  Why would you insist that someone answers, when the people who might know the answer are not here?  Do you want us to just make stuff up, or are you trying to prove a point that people who do not post on this site will not answer you?  You seem like you have an agenda, and I am trying to figure you out. 

To refresh your memory, ausGeoff, Bishop and Parsifal do not post here currently.  They are on the other site.  Why would you insist that someone answers, when the people who might know the answer are not here?  Do you want us to just make stuff up, or are you trying to prove a point that people who do not post on this site will not answer you?  You seem like you have an agenda, and I am trying to figure you out.

I'm not asking for answers specifically from either Bishop or Parsifal jroa.

I'm asking any flat earther—including you—for answers to questions I've asked about your Flat Earth Wiki.  Or are you admitting that you can't explain stuff in the Wiki to me?  Or can no other flat earther?

The least you could do is answer these questions for me:  "Is the Flat Earth Wiki entry about Tom Bishop's "greatness" over-exaggerated?  Do all flat earthers agree with the alleged value of his "constant"?  Do all flat earthers agree—in very broad terms—with the science of his claims?"

I'm beginning to get the distinct feeling that not many flat earthers have all that much faith in the Flat Earth Wiki. Could that be correct?

And nope;  I don't have any "agenda" in the way you mean it.  My agenda is simply to get some answers to a few questions I have about flat earth doctrine.  Pretty obvious really.

Nobody cares to answer. Different than "can't answer".

It's hard for all FEers to have the same value for a constant whose value is not known...

It's hard for all FEers to have the same value for a constant whose value is not known...

Oxymoron time.  Do you even understand what a "constant" is?

My dictionary defines a constant as not changing or varying; uniform; regular; invariable.  Avogadro's number is a constant, so are the speed of light in vacuum, the electron volt, the Newtonian constant of gravitation, the molar gas constant, the Compton wavelength, and the triton g factor etc.  Their numerical values never vary over time.  That's why they're called... uh... constants LOL.

Or are you saying that Bishop's constant—as defined in the Flat earth Wiki is incorrect or non-existent?

You asked if all FEers agree with the value of the constant.  I'm telling you it's impossible to agree with the value if it is unknown.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem or was that not very clear from my previous post?

You asked if all FEers agree with the value of the constant.  I'm telling you it's impossible to agree with the value if it is unknown.

I can see I'm only banging my own head here trying to get an intelligent response about the Bishop Constant that appears in the Flat Earth Wiki.  It's also interesting that flat earthers themselves are unable to interpret the contents of their own Wiki.  So what chance does a round earther have?

Being unable to agree on the numerical value of Bishop's Constant makes the entire entry headed Electromagnetic Accelerator—which proposes a formula for the "large-scale bending of light"—totally irrelevant and worthless as any sort of theoretical proof.  And yet time and again, flat earthers claim the bending of light as a major—if not sole—reason for so many visual astronomical phenomena.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or was that not very clear from my previous post?

This response seems to be a common fallback whenever flat earthers are backed into a corner without any appropriate answers LOL.  I can assure you that I have not the slightest problem with reading the usual high-school level syntax posted in these forums. 

I do thank you though for at least attempting to address my questions.  Sadly, your flat earth peers don't seem to have that ability.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on August 13, 2014, 06:48:17 AM

You asked if all FEers agree with the value of the constant.  I'm telling you it's impossible to agree with the value if it is unknown.

I can see I'm only banging my own head here trying to get an intelligent response about the Bishop Constant that appears in the Flat Earth Wiki.  It's also interesting that flat earthers themselves are unable to interpret the contents of their own Wiki.  So what chance does a round earther have?

Being unable to agree on the numerical value of Bishop's Constant makes the entire entry headed Electromagnetic Accelerator—which proposes a formula for the "large-scale bending of light"—totally irrelevant and worthless as any sort of theoretical proof.  And yet time and again, flat earthers claim the bending of light as a major—if not sole—reason for so many visual astronomical phenomena.

Quote

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or was that not very clear from my previous post?

This response seems to be a common fallback whenever flat earthers are backed into a corner without any appropriate answers LOL.  I can assure you that I have not the slightest problem with reading the usual high-school level syntax posted in these forums. 

I do thank you though for at least attempting to address my questions.  Sadly, your flat earth peers don't seem to have that ability.

To be fair to Duck Dodgers you were berating him for something he did claim.

If experimental data approximates the form of the formula in the Wiki then calulating Bishop's constant should be a piece of cake.

Edited for spelling.

If experimental data approximates the form of the formula in the Wiki then calculating Bishop's Constant should be a piece of cake.

Just to refresh peoples' memory, this is the Electromagnetic Accelerator equation we're talking about (from the Flat Earth Wiki):




The β symbol represents "Bishop's Constant".

Thus far, no flat earther has been able to provide a numerical value for this alleged "constant", and in fact, most have claimed that this "constant" varies according to the specific circumstances (whatever they may be?) under which it's applied.  When questioned about how a "constant" could vary, their only response was the usual flat earth obfuscation and thinly-veiled personal insults etc etc.

When I then suggested that this lack of a numerical value for a vital formulaic constant negated the Electromagnetic Accelerator and bending of light notions, I was met by the invariable wall of silence as is so often used on these forums when a logical explanation of a flat earth proposal can't be provided.

So... I'll patiently await for any flat earther who'd care to address this scenario.  But in reality expect the usual character assassinations LOL.