The Bishop Challenge

  • 376 Replies
  • 15693 Views
*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #360 on: February 28, 2020, 01:17:56 PM »
Where in the challenge did it say that I was supposed to do anything with moon calculations or say anything about FE?

The challenge was solely about RE justifying itself, to which it did not sufficiently do so.

That's not what the challenge was, go back to the original post.
Your reply just indicates to the world at large you have no credible data to support your own beliefs as to the size of the moon if you did you would have provided them. If the challenge calls for comparison then we need something to use to compare. You provided nothing, which is why you lost the challenge. The score is still:-

Timeisup 1 Tom Bishop 0

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #361 on: February 28, 2020, 01:23:16 PM »
Oh, what a game to play where the contenders are the judges!

I'm pretty sure the guy who issued the challenge knows better what the challenge entails.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #362 on: February 28, 2020, 01:35:33 PM »
Oh, what a game to play where the contenders are the judges!

I'm pretty sure the guy who issued the challenge knows better what the challenge entails.

I was the person who issued the challenge. I'm a bit surprised the challenge has become a pretty pointless discussion of what the challenge was. It's there for all to see at the beginning of the thread. As Mr. Bishop is reluctant to present his figures, as the pre-eminent flat earth scientist, from a flat earth perspective what do you consider the size of the moon to be and its distance from the earth? As this is a pretty basic point in astronomy I would be surprised if you don't have the figures at your fingertips.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #363 on: February 28, 2020, 01:36:50 PM »
Oh, what a game to play where the contenders are the judges!

I'm pretty sure the guy who issued the challenge knows better what the challenge entails.

I was the person who issued the challenge.

Tom Bishop in another discussion laid down this challenge

Quote
I'm a bit surprised the challenge has become a pretty pointless discussion of what the challenge was.
I imagine it wouldn't have degraded to discussing what the challenge is if you had simply met the challenge as stated.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #364 on: February 28, 2020, 01:48:18 PM »
Oh, what a game to play where the contenders are the judges!

I'm pretty sure the guy who issued the challenge knows better what the challenge entails.

I was the person who issued the challenge.

Tom Bishop in another discussion laid down this challenge

Quote
I'm a bit surprised the challenge has become a pretty pointless discussion of what the challenge was.
I imagine it wouldn't have degraded to discussing what the challenge is if you had simply met the challenge as stated.

Am I to understand that the FE moon size and distance a flat earth secret? As neither Mr. Bishop or your good self appear to want to divulge it.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #365 on: February 28, 2020, 01:52:41 PM »
As far as I can tell, he made no claim of distance. You are supposed to be telling us how RE provides a better explanation than FE for something dealing with astronomy. Again, as far as I can tell, you have yet to do so.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #366 on: February 28, 2020, 02:21:47 PM »
And to be clear, my distance to said bodies - and my beliefs - differ from Tom's. This is Tom's challenge. If you'd like to try this again, I'd be happy to wipe the floor with you on any topic you think round earth explains better than the non-euclidean flat earth.

Of course given your performance in the whole infinite flat earth thread, I'm not sure you are up to meet this challenge.

To avoid the meta discussion I'll state the challenge clearly:

Present one aspect of the round earth model that fits empirical data better than the non-euclidean flat earth. Pick one, and stick to it in your first post on that thread.

If you can't show it fits the data BETTER than the non-euclidean flat earth, you lose.
If you change topics, you lose.


On my part:
I will provide adequate reasoning to show that it is reasonable to expect this model fits the data equally or better than the round earth counterpart.


We will both provide closing arguments at ten pages or when we both agree it is reasonable to do so.

After ten pages or said event, the results will be judged by a panel of three neutral outside observers of my choice. I can make said choice at any time, or times, and will post my choices as I wish. It is stipulated at least one of these must be a round earther. I will tend towards choosing two round earthers out of interest for fairness, should they be available.

Only posts by yourself or myself will be considered; it will be requested that other users respectfully decline posting in said thread.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

rabinoz

  • 26326
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #367 on: February 28, 2020, 05:07:30 PM »
As far as I can tell, he made no claim of distance. You are supposed to be telling us how RE provides a better explanation than FE for something dealing with astronomy. Again, as far as I can tell, you have yet to do so.
Tom Bishop certainly makes claims as to the shape, size and distance of the Moon in:
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Moon
The Moon is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
And if you examine the Revision history of "Moon" you will find that it is almost all the work of Tom Bishop and as recently as 18:02, 11 December 2019‎ Tom Bishop (contribs).

Is Tom Bishop now unwilling to support his own Wiki entry?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #368 on: February 28, 2020, 05:18:31 PM »
The point is and has been he has not been called to do such. The parameters of this discussion are clearly defined. I will duck out again for a bit and let Tom fight his own battles; I tend to muddy up his good work.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

rabinoz

  • 26326
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #369 on: February 28, 2020, 06:29:23 PM »
The point is and has been he has not been called to do such.
I assume that you've read the OP?
Tom Bishop in another discussion laid down this challenge:

Start a thread on any topic on astronomy that you think that RE beats FE on and I'll be happy to rip you a new one.

The rule will be that when you change topics,
you lose.  ;)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83875.msg2222694#msg2222694

I accept the challenge and ask him to justify and prove his assertion that the Moon is 32 miles in diameter at a distance of 3000 miles (aprox)
I chose this as the FE belief about the moon is a rather easy one to check unlike the existence of Dark Energy which no member of this site has the means to study or ratify.
I also ask him why the simple moon bounce experiment that any keen radio ham can carry out gives a bounce time of 2.5 seconds? That would mean according to you, Tom Bishop, radio waves travel at 1931KM/sec rather than the globally accepted figure of 299,750KM/sec. Quite a difference. I wonder how Tom Bishop accounts for this. According to the rules as set by Tom Bishop himself the topic can not be changed.
I cant wait to see his reply laid out according to the scientific method.

Quote from: John Davis
The parameters of this discussion are clearly defined. I will duck out again for a bit and let Tom fight his own battles; I tend to muddy up his good work.
[/quote

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #370 on: February 28, 2020, 06:33:56 PM »
Have you read it?! Start a thread on any topic. I'm not sure this thread has even been started. He simply asked for you to present your evidence for your view. Where is it? I've seen a lot of hand waving, and playing the game of 'its not me its you' or what I call burden of proof, and a lot of meta discussion. I have not seen ONE reason that meets mettle for why round earth astronomy is more valid than flat. The burden is clearly on your side of the line.

Meet it or accept defeat. Because fuck, we all have better things to do.

Well, most of us.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 1086
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #371 on: February 29, 2020, 04:06:58 AM »
Have you read it?! Start a thread on any topic. I'm not sure this thread has even been started. He simply asked for you to present your evidence for your view. Where is it? I've seen a lot of hand waving, and playing the game of 'its not me its you' or what I call burden of proof, and a lot of meta discussion. I have not seen ONE reason that meets mettle for why round earth astronomy is more valid than flat. The burden is clearly on your side of the line.

Meet it or accept defeat. Because fuck, we all have better things to do.

Well, most of us.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84980.0

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #372 on: February 29, 2020, 09:39:37 AM »
So given that the distance of the Moon has been measured very accurately by RE using a variety of methods including lasers radar ranging from a variety of sources, could you run it by me again as to how FE reaches a figure of 3000 miles please.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #373 on: February 29, 2020, 11:05:35 AM »
So given that the distance of the Moon has been measured very accurately by RE using a variety of methods including lasers radar ranging from a variety of sources, could you run it by me again as to how FE reaches a figure of 3000 miles please.
Measured by RE?  Surely just measured by engineers and scientists.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #374 on: February 29, 2020, 11:33:18 AM »
Yes let me be more specific than just 'RE'. Over many years astronomers and 'scientists' and 'engineers' have made accurate measurements of the Moons distance. From their measurements we have identified that the Moon is receding from Earth at an average rate of about 2cm per year. That is entirely supportive of the model we have of the early solar system formation where a large body collided with the Earth and the Moon formed from the resulting debris.

Where is the description of your own measurements which tell you that the Moon is only 3000 miles away?


*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18488
  • Thread Janitor
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #375 on: February 29, 2020, 12:28:40 PM »

Where is the description of your own measurements which tell you that the Moon is only 3000 miles away?

Where is the description of your own measurements?

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #376 on: February 29, 2020, 01:21:58 PM »
Measurements of what?  Showing that the Moon is just 3000 miles away?  I don't have any because everyone (well the vast majority of people) knows that the Moon is a lot further away than 3000 miles.   Even you know that I'm sure secretly!

You cannot go through life only being willing to believe things you can prove to yourself. There are some things in life where you have to rely on others with the right equipment to do the measuring for you and accept as valid the results they get. Measuring the distance to the Moon is one of those. I am not someone who refuses to accept anything that I cannot prove or verify myself as you appear to be.

I suppose I (or indeed you) could try this

https://www.universetoday.com/91120/do-it-yourself-guide-to-measuring-the-moons-distance/

The problem with the first method for FE believers is that the FE version of how lunar eclipses happen is different to the 'mainstream' view so you probably won't accept it.

The other method uses lunar parallax.  But that also relies on established what you could call 'RE' figures that you won't accept either.  Plus I (or you) would need a friend on the other side of the world to take some measurements as well.

One thing is for sure. If you had two people standing 3,200km apart or a little less than 2000 miles and the Moon is (as FE claim) just 3000 miles away then you would see a much, much bigger parallax than I predict you actually will when you do the experiment.  So my hypothesis is that the Moon is a lot further away than just 3000 miles!

« Last Edit: March 01, 2020, 08:20:57 AM by Solarwind »