Tom Bishop & Dark Matter

Thank you, ausGeoff, for once again recapping the conversation.  It is always so nice for you to do that and give us your commentary on the threads. 

Also, when Tom comes back, you can ask him to explain.  In the mean time, why do you feel that every flat Earther should be able to explain Tom's theories? 

Also, when Tom comes back, you can ask him to explain.  In the mean time, why do you feel that every flat Earther should be able to explain Tom's theories?

As I had mentioned before, the formula to describe EA and the Bishop constant are not Tom Bishop's theory.  EA and the resulting formula were developed by Parsifal (then known as RoboSteve), however he has long since abandoned his research into that field.

Why are you such a permanoob?

Maybe markjo could get in the freaking spirit of the Flat Earth Society for a change?

Why are you such a permanoob?

Why do you think that Tom Bishop is responsible for the Bishop constant?

Maybe markjo could get in the freaking spirit of the Flat Earth Society for a change?

How many times have we asked you not to post while you're drunk?

Thank you, ausGeoff, for once again recapping the conversation.  It is always so nice for you to do that and give us your commentary on the threads.

No problems jroa.  I often do it simply because most flat earthers seem to have short concentration spans, and the original question(s) disappear from their consciousness after a few days.  As you'll have noticed, no flat earther has yet addressed my questions posted a week ago.

In the mean time, why do you feel that every flat earther should be able to explain Tom's theories?

Simply because they appear in your own Flat Earth Wiki—which is presumably the flat earthers' "bible".  Is it not reasonable to expect any/all flat earthers to have the ability to explain—at least at a basic level—terms used in its entries?  After all. this forum is intended as a Q&A portal wherein questions about the flat earth can be asked—and with the expectation of an answer.

It's obvious by now that you're unable to answer my questions jroa, but it's also painfully obvious that no other flat earther can do so either.  Doesn't that strike you as rather incongruous on a forum promoting the notion of a flat earth?

All you flat earthers repeatedly reference your Flat Earth Wiki throughout these forums, but then are apparently unable to understand its contents any more than we round earthers can.  Starts to make your Wiki look a bit suspect as a source of information doesn't it?

No one cares to answer you. Whether or not they can is a different question.

No one cares to answer you. Whether or not they can is a different question.

It's becoming increasingly obvious—reinforced by your own inability to answer a simple question—that NO flat earther CAN answer my questions about the Electromagnetic Accelerator equation.

Which really makes the Flat Earth Wiki a bit of a joke doesn't it?  Like as scientifically meaningful as a Superman comic book LOL.

Quote from: jroa on August 16, 2014, 10:36:15 AM

Thank you, ausGeoff, for once again recapping the conversation.  It is always so nice for you to do that and give us your commentary on the threads.

No problems jroa.  I often do it simply because most flat earthers seem to have short concentration spans, and the original question(s) disappear from their consciousness after a few days.  As you'll have noticed, no flat earther has yet addressed my questions posted a week ago.

Quote

In the mean time, why do you feel that every flat earther should be able to explain Tom's theories?

Simply because they appear in your own Flat Earth Wiki—which is presumably the flat earthers' "bible".  Is it not reasonable to expect any/all flat earthers to have the ability to explain—at least at a basic level—terms used in its entries?  After all. this forum is intended as a Q&A portal wherein questions about the flat earth can be asked—and with the expectation of an answer.

It's obvious by now that you're unable to answer my questions jroa, but it's also painfully obvious that no other flat earther can do so either.  Doesn't that strike you as rather incongruous on a forum promoting the notion of a flat earth?

All you flat earthers repeatedly reference your Flat Earth Wiki throughout these forums, but then are apparently unable to understand its contents any more than we round earthers can.  Starts to make your Wiki look a bit suspect as a source of information doesn't it?

Tom Bishop was one of the leading contributors to the wiki.  In fact, out of all of the wiki editors, I can only think of a couple who still ever post here.  What do you expect? 

Tom Bishop was one of the leading contributors to the wiki.  In fact, out of all of the wiki editors, I can only think of a couple who still ever post here.  What do you expect?

If flat earthers here (and you) can't accept that Bishop's entry in the allegedly authoritative Flat Earth Wiki is legitimate or soundly based on evidence, then the best thing to do is to delete it in its entirety.

Its inclusion inevitably throws some doubt on the veracity of any/all of the other claims contained in the Wiki does it not?  Are you prepared to arrange for its deletion by one of the administrators?  Or would you guess that they wouldn't be likely to go along with that suggestion?

Quote from: Rama Set on August 17, 2014, 11:13:04 AM

No one cares to answer you. Whether or not they can is a different question.

It's becoming increasingly obvious—reinforced by your own inability to answer a simple question—that NO flat earther CAN answer my questions about the Electromagnetic Accelerator equation.

Which really makes the Flat Earth Wiki a bit of a joke doesn't it?  Like as scientifically meaningful as a Superman comic book LOL.

I'm not a FEer.

Lets' go back on topic. My FE model with the farting turtle can explain everything. The farting gases after expansion and cooling become the source of the dark energy. So we can easily calculate Bishop's constant if we know the diameter of the turtle's anus.

So... after more than 500 views and 40 responses, no flat earther has been able to address my questions?

As it may have got lost in the sea of inconsequential comments on this forum, I'll repost my last comments, and see if any flat earthers can answer the call:

"Just to refresh peoples' memory, this is the Electromagnetic Accelerator equation we're talking about (as per 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".

—I now await a genuine response addressing these questions.  If I fail to get one, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the entire Flat Earth Wiki is a bogus document, populated with factoids that cannot be explained and/or proved as legitimate.  We should therefore discount any references made to the Wiki as unreliable in any of the forums.

The answer is 42.

The answer is 42.

Well then, what can I say?  So long, and thanks for all the fish!

So... after more than 500 views and 40 responses, no flat earther has been able to address my questions?

How many times do you have to be told that Parsifal, the person who came up with that equation and would therefore be best qualified to answer your Bishop constant question, doesn't post here any more?  Tom Bishop doesn't post here (or very much on the other site) either, so I don't really know why you would expect us to answer for them.

Tom Bishop doesn't post here (or very much on the other site) either, so I don't really know why you would expect us to answer for them.

Uh... maybe because you refer to the Flat Earth Wiki, and the Bishop constant for electromagnetic acceleration is included in your Wiki?

Or are you now saying that you—or any other flat earthers—don't and/or can't actually understand or interpret what's in their own Wiki?

Oh dear...

Umm...  First of all, I'm not an FE'er.  Secondly, I think that you're taking this way too seriously.

Quote from: markjo on August 19, 2014, 10:18:51 AM

Tom Bishop doesn't post here (or very much on the other site) either, so I don't really know why you would expect us to answer for them.

Uh... maybe because you refer to the Flat Earth Wiki, and the Bishop constant for electromagnetic acceleration is included in your Wiki?

Or are you now saying that you—or any other flat earthers—don't and/or can't actually understand or interpret what's in their own Wiki?

Oh dear...

Do you actually pay attention to who authors a post or do you just look at the content and decide on a case by case basis what the poster believes?

Umm...  First of all, I'm not an FE'er.  Secondly, I think that you're taking this way too seriously.

Thanks markjo. That is what I have been saying all along . If you don't take this website seriously - anything that a flat earther posts, that is - you can just enjoy the foolishness, gibberish and all the rest of anything a flat earther posts and just sit back and LOL. Borrowing a line from another poster...."Some of the funnier ones do brighten an otherwise dull and boring day."

So... after more than 500 views and 40 responses, no flat earther has been able to address my questions?

As it may have got lost in the sea of inconsequential comments on this forum, I'll repost my last comments, and see if any flat earthers can answer the call:

"Just to refresh peoples' memory, this is the Electromagnetic Accelerator equation we're talking about (as per 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".

—I now await a genuine response addressing these questions.  If I fail to get one, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the entire Flat Earth Wiki is a bogus document, populated with factoids that cannot be explained and/or proved as legitimate.  We should therefore discount any references made to the Wiki as unreliable in any of the forums.

Just a simple explanation of the terms used in the equation and what the expected results are would be sufficient. I should think that...besides yourself... there at least a few persons who have come to the same conclusions as yours as regards the flat earth wiki.

Just a simple explanation of the terms used in the equation and what the expected results are would be sufficient. I should think that...besides yourself... there at least a few persons who have come to the same conclusions as yours as regards the flat earth Wiki.

You mean that the entire Flat Earth Wiki is a load of pseudo-scientific, conjectural, unproved drivel—with no basis whatsoever in any of the proven empirical sciences?

Or that despite citing it as some sort of flat earth "bible" time and time again, no flat earther really has any viable evidence supporting any of its bizarre claims, but just uses it as a fall-back whenever they're backed into a corner with no answers to round earth questions?

Or that no flat earther has been able to explain a relatively simple formula containing only two variables and one constant—which (apparently) is itself a variable.

This is when a thread should be locked.

This is when a thread should be locked.

And why is that exactly?  I've asked a fair question.  Shouldn't I have a fair expectation of a flat earther answering that question?

Or are you perhaps getting a little concerned that I may have exposed a flaw in your Flat Earth Wiki?  And rather than repeatedly attacking me, surely your time would be better spent giving me your interpretation of the electromagnetic accelerator equation.

Or is it that you don't understand it either?

Quote from: DuckDodgers on August 21, 2014, 10:27:08 AM

This is when a thread should be locked.

And why is that exactly?  I've asked a fair question.  Shouldn't I have a fair expectation of a flat earther answering that question?

Or are you perhaps getting a little concerned that I may have exposed a flaw in your Flat Earth Wiki?  And rather than repeatedly attacking me, surely your time would be better spent giving me your interpretation of the electromagnetic accelerator equation.

Or is it that you don't understand it either?

It is more your inability to see when a thread has run it's course.  Duck gave you an honest answer.  If you want to track down either Tom Bishop or Parsifal please head over to tfes.org or wait patiently here for reunification to happen.  In the meantime your tone and attitude, the likes of which I would expect from a someone 16, not 60, is getting you nowhere.

Ever heard the definition of insanity?  Trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on August 21, 2014, 10:27:08 AM

This is when a thread should be locked.

And why is that exactly?

Because this shit is getting very boring.

It is more your inability to see when a thread has run it's course.  Duck gave you an honest answer.

Uh... Do you truly consider his answer "honest"... "The answer is 42"?  Seriously?  If you do, then you're just as childish as some of the flat earthers on these forums.

I also have to ask you why you're stalking me, and repeatedly answering my comments and questions clearly directed at flat earthers?  Just can't resist putting your $0.02 worth in can you?   

I know that in the past you've claimed not to be a flat earther, but it's becoming more apparent with your every post defending that stance that you are in fact a flat earther.  Why not admit to it, and give up your pretense of being a round earther?

And if you're that pissed off with my "tone" and "attitude" then I suggest to you the option of adding my name to your IGNORE listing.  Or are you some sort of closet masochist?

Because this shit is getting very boring.

So this "shit"—my perfectly legitimate but as yet unanswered question—is getting boring?

Please read my lips:  Do not open this thread again.  Thank you.

Mow the lawn.  Wash your car.  Wallpaper the living room.  Catch a fish.  Ride a greased pig.

   

 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on August 21, 2014, 11:06:55 AM

Because this shit is getting very boring.

So this "shit"—my perfectly legitimate but as yet unanswered question—is getting boring?

Please read my lips:  Do not open this thread again.  Thank you.

Mow the lawn.  Wash your car.  Wallpaper the living room.  Catch a fish.  Ride a greased pig.

   

 

Again, it's not the content per we, but rather your supremely self-righteous tone. It reminds one of all the worst things in life.

Again, it's not the content per we, but rather your supremely self-righteous tone. It reminds one of all the worst things in life.

Oh dear...  You obviously missed my earlier posting, wherein I said:  "I suggest to you the option of adding my name to your IGNORE listing".

I am pleased nevertheless that you're continuing to read my comments.  Hopefully I've taught you a little bit more about the sciences of which you seem to be so ignorant?

—And you're welcome.