The Big Bang was at LEAST 14 billion years ago. Gravity and other forces would allow for comets and other objects to move around in other directions.
Well, this is how it happened. About 380000 years after the "singularity", the first atoms formed, and about a million years all the universe was was hydrogen, forming into clouds. About 200-600 million years after the big bang, galaxies have already formed. Now at a smaller scale, when stars form, they start out as nebulas, with the force of gravity compressing enough to begin nuclear reaction. The "leftover" material turns into planets and asteroids orbeting the star, in some cases stars form binary star systers, sometimes with 4 or 5 stars in one system. That is the natural way that the universe came to existence, and made everything that we see. I cant even think of how the FE universe has to work to create a flat planet that surprisingly does not collapse into itself due to gravity, and the sun, moon, stars, shadow object, conspiracy, OWW i think i have a migrane!
I am asking for a FE explanation.Too bad there isn't one.
I am asking for a FE explanation.Too bad there isn't one.
Just backing up RE ;D Who wants to bet that this thread will be buried away soon?
Depends on if Tom Bishop is "busy" or not.
QuoteDepends on if Tom Bishop is "busy" or not.
I had a few moments of spare time, and so I've created a comparable FE diagram.
(http://i13.tinypic.com/3z71e9t.gif)
No offense to Tom, but please ignore what he said. It isn't at all compatible with FE consensus. In FE, there was no Big Bang, or at least it was very different from the one in the traditional model.
History of the flat earth: it was proven wrong hundreds of years ago, yet people can't accept that because they are too "free-thinking" to take an see past "the earth looks pretty flat to me."No offense to Tom, but please ignore what he said. It isn't at all compatible with FE consensus. In FE, there was no Big Bang, or at least it was very different from the one in the traditional model.
Are you sure you're an FE? Your posting history reveals you as an RE.
If you knew anything you'd realize that there are multiple FE models. The Earth as a Coin model, the Robotham model, and the Non-Euclidean model are a few. I highly suggest that you do a little research (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=10995.msg135339#msg135339) on the the history and literature of the Flat Earth.
No offense to Tom, but please ignore what he said. It isn't at all compatible with FE consensus. In FE, there was no Big Bang, or at least it was very different from the one in the traditional model.
Are you sure you're an FE? Your posting history reveals you as an RE.
If you knew anything you'd realize that there are multiple FE models. The Earth as a Coin model, the Robotham model, and the Non-Euclidean model are a few. I highly suggest that you do a little research (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=10995.msg135339#msg135339) on the the history and literature of the Flat Earth.
No offense to Tom, but please ignore what he said. It isn't at all compatible with FE consensus. In FE, there was no Big Bang, or at least it was very different from the one in the traditional model.
Are you sure you're an FE? Your posting history reveals you as an RE.
If you knew anything you'd realize that there are multiple FE models. The Earth as a Coin model, the Robotham model, and the Non-Euclidean model are a few. I highly suggest that you do a little research (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=10995.msg135339#msg135339) on the the history and literature of the Flat Earth.
Does anyone have a solid FE Theory?
I kind of get what youre saying, but for that to happen you would have to break every single law of physics and then grind up the pieces. The true flawless theory is the round earth theory. No need to make up mysterious shadow objects and ice walls, just the universe following the natural laws.QuoteDoes anyone have a solid FE Theory?
The non-euclidean FE model is perhaps the most flawless model. It is so flawless that is does not even invoke the need for a world-wide conspiracy. Just a misunderstanding about hyperbolic space-time.
I'll be writing more about it in a future thread.
No need to make up mysterious shadow objects and ice walls, just the universe following the natural laws.Just the need for a mysterious force that can't be seen, effects everything, and has only one polarity.
Yes, a mysterious force that without the stars would not form, so no nuclear reaction to make elements more complex than hydrogen (remind me how many elements are there now?) , planets would not form, and the universe would just be a cloud of stray atoms floating off ino nowhere... so yea the existence of gravity is hard to believe.No need to make up mysterious shadow objects and ice walls, just the universe following the natural laws.Just the need for a mysterious force that can't be seen, effects everything, and has only one polarity.
No, the non-euclidean model will do without breaking any laws of physics. I've already floated it on the "Why ships' hulls disappear, photos from space and other mysteries" thread - I've started with simple examples of the curvature of light, as hyperbolic space-time is a big topic without differential geometry but that's where it's going. Ultimately, it will require a singularity, but if we can let RE get away with one for the big bang, why can't FE have one of its own?I kind of get what you're saying, but for that to happen you would have to break every single law of physics and then grind up the pieces. The true flawless theory is the round earth theory. No need to make up mysterious shadow objects and ice walls, just the universe following the natural laws.QuoteDoes anyone have a solid FE Theory?
The non-euclidean FE model is perhaps the most flawless model. It is so flawless that is does not even invoke the need for a world-wide conspiracy. Just a misunderstanding about hyperbolic space-time.
I'll be writing more about it in a future thread.
"if we can let RE get away with one for the big bang"?No, the non-euclidean model will do without breaking any laws of physics. I've already floated it on the "Why ships' hulls disappear, photos from space and other mysteries" thread - I've started with simple examples of the curvature of light, as hyperbolic space-time is a big topic without differential geometry but that's where it's going. Ultimately, it will require a singularity, but if we can let RE get away with one for the big bang, why can't FE have one of its own?I kind of get what you're saying, but for that to happen you would have to break every single law of physics and then grind up the pieces. The true flawless theory is the round earth theory. No need to make up mysterious shadow objects and ice walls, just the universe following the natural laws.QuoteDoes anyone have a solid FE Theory?
The non-euclidean FE model is perhaps the most flawless model. It is so flawless that is does not even invoke the need for a world-wide conspiracy. Just a misunderstanding about hyperbolic space-time.
I'll be writing more about it in a future thread.
Personally, I'm all in favour of the big-bang theory and its singularity. I'm just saying, if its acceptable in your physics, why can't I have just one more singularity at the South Pole.Well, I admit that it is possible, but I think it would have to be extremley stabelized for it to work. It would have to be in the exact right place, bend light exactly like that, give off constant whatever, just to make the illusion of a round earth? That sounds a lot loke intelligent design, along with the shadow object, and the like, it's as if someone or something has made all this just to study us? Heh, imagine being a little alien kid's diorama ;D. Hope we get a good grade ;D!
Personally, I'm all in favour of the big-bang theory and its singularity. I'm just saying, if its acceptable in your physics, why can't I have just one more singularity at the South Pole.
Tom's model does not take into account acceleration.
ANd after thinking about Tom's model, it doesn't seem possible because some objects would have to be moving faster than others or have a higher rate of acceleration which I don't believe is possible, correct me if I am wrong.
Tom's model does not take into account acceleration.
ANd after thinking about Tom's model, it doesn't seem possible because some objects would have to be moving faster than others or have a higher rate of acceleration which I don't believe is possible, correct me if I am wrong.
The one that has acceleration.
So the big bang happens and stars form. How did all the material accumulate together to form the big rocky mass that is Earth? Or did it magically form a flat disk then lose all it's gravity. Too much magic, not enough science. FE fails again.
So the big bang happens and stars form. How did all the material accumulate together to form the big rocky mass that is Earth? Or did it magically form a flat disk then lose all it's gravity. Too much magic, not enough science. FE fails again.
Acceleration = gravity
Gravity and acceleration are equal. Gravity is an acceleration, and every acceleration is gravity.So the big bang happens and stars form. How did all the material accumulate together to form the big rocky mass that is Earth? Or did it magically form a flat disk then lose all it's gravity. Too much magic, not enough science. FE fails again.
Acceleration = gravity
soooo wrong
acceleration is a constant increase in speed
motion is a causation of gravity but neither ARE gravity
Gravity and acceleration are equal. Gravity is an acceleration, and every acceleration is gravity.So the big bang happens and stars form. How did all the material accumulate together to form the big rocky mass that is Earth? Or did it magically form a flat disk then lose all it's gravity. Too much magic, not enough science. FE fails again.
Acceleration = gravity
soooo wrong
acceleration is a constant increase in speed
motion is a causation of gravity but neither ARE gravity
Gravity and acceleration are equal. Gravity is an acceleration, and every acceleration is gravity.So the big bang happens and stars form. How did all the material accumulate together to form the big rocky mass that is Earth? Or did it magically form a flat disk then lose all it's gravity. Too much magic, not enough science. FE fails again.
Acceleration = gravity
soooo wrong
acceleration is a constant increase in speed
motion is a causation of gravity but neither ARE gravity
Yes it is.
Good job engineer.
in RE, gravity is a constant force, it can be fluctuated but still remains constant unless variable will initiate a large changeCongratulations, that made no sense.
acceleration is a variable increase in speed increase is speed. the increase can be constant but it does not remain the same speed at any point else it wouldn't be acceleration
think of a car getting faster, thats acceleration. think of a car on the motorway at a steady 70 miles per hour. this is not acceleration as it has already risen to its desired speed
gravity is a pulling force
it brings object closer to it's core
the faster it gets, the more pulling force it will give
therefore crushing once it accelerates over a constant speed
acceleration is speed increasingThat's one definition.
more acceleration means higher gravityYep, that's what I implied when I said that gravity=acceleration.
therefore the strength increases if acceleration does not stopIf the acceleration is constant, why would the force increase?
Quoteacceleration is speed increasingThat's one definition.Quotemore acceleration means higher gravityYep, that's what I implied when I said that gravity=acceleration.Quotetherefore the strength increases if acceleration does not stopIf the acceleration is constant, why would the force increase?
We don't feel velocity. Only acceleration.
That seems like what you are talking about.
im not talking about velocity
...
get on a bus, sit at the back, let the bus reach 30 miles per hour. then walk to the front
world moves "upwards" as it moves upwards so quickly, things are forced to the ground. for this to work, something must push down on them to counteract the move upwards (otherwise we would go same speed as the world therefore negating effect to keep us on it, so we'd float off)Again, the earth is ACCELERATING. We are forced to go the same velocity as the earth.
get on a bus, sit at the back, let the bus reach 30 miles per hour. then walk to the frontThat you can walk on a bus? ???
what does this prove??
well if we jumped on a world that pushes us up, there is nothin to make us come back.You are right, we don't come back to the earth, it comes to us.
if we constantly accelerate, this pressure would continue to get more and moreIf the acceleration was increasing, then yes, however, the acceleration is constant.
That seems like what you are talking about.
im not talking about velocity
...
get on a bus, sit at the back, let the bus reach 30 miles per hour. then walk to the frontQuoteworld moves "upwards" as it moves upwards so quickly, things are forced to the ground. for this to work, something must push down on them to counteract the move upwards (otherwise we would go same speed as the world therefore negating effect to keep us on it, so we'd float off)Again, the earth is ACCELERATING. We are forced to go the same velocity as the earth.Quoteget on a bus, sit at the back, let the bus reach 30 miles per hour. then walk to the frontThat you can walk on a bus? ???
what does this prove??Quotewell if we jumped on a world that pushes us up, there is nothin to make us come back.You are right, we don't come back to the earth, it comes to us.Quoteif we constantly accelerate, this pressure would continue to get more and moreIf the acceleration was increasing, then yes, however, the acceleration is constant.
So what? WE CAN'T FEEL VELOCITY, ONLY ACCELERATION. If our instantaneous velocity is 20m/s, and we continue to accelerate at 9.81m/s^2, and our instantaneous velocity at some point in the future is 3*10^7m/s, we would still only feel the 9.81m/s^2 acceleration. The velocity does not matter.
and acceleration is the constant increase in speed
So what? WE CAN'T FEEL VELOCITY, ONLY ACCELERATION. If our instantaneous velocity is 20m/s, and we continue to accelerate at 9.81m/s^2, and our instantaneous velocity at some point in the future is 3*10^7m/s, we would still only feel the 9.81m/s^2 acceleration. The velocity does not matter.
and acceleration is the constant increase in speed
You would move at the same VELOCITY that the earth had when you walked off. You would not continue to accelerate, and you would see the earth accelerating away from you.
i've read a few posts that state if we walk off the edge of the earth, we would move at the same rate as the earth because of the "upwards" push
so if everything is being pushed up, it describes that jumping will increase our acceleration. and since there is no friction is nothingness space, would would continue to move faster than the upwards pushWhen you jump, you increase your velocity relative to the earth. Once your feet leave the ground, you are no longer accelerating, just moving at that constant velocity. It will take a small amount of time for the earth to accelerate past your velocity in order to catch up to you.
using FE "logic" it don't make senseUsing your brand of logic, I'm surprised anything makes sense to you.
You would move at the same VELOCITY that the earth had when you walked off. You would not continue to accelerate, and you would see the earth accelerating away from you.
i've read a few posts that state if we walk off the edge of the earth, we would move at the same rate as the earth because of the "upwards" pushQuoteso if everything is being pushed up, it describes that jumping will increase our acceleration. and since there is no friction is nothingness space, would would continue to move faster than the upwards pushWhen you jump, you increase your velocity relative to the earth. Once your feet leave the ground, you are no longer accelerating, just moving at that constant velocity. It will take a small amount of time for the earth to accelerate past your velocity in order to catch up to you.Quoteusing FE "logic" it don't make senseUsing your brand of logic, I'm surprised anything makes sense to you.
(http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h101/suburbpirate/BigBang.jpg)
In accordance with the above picture, I will try and prove that Asteroids and Comets probaly can't exist in a FE model.
If you view the first picture, labelled Big Bang, it is a very generalized picture of what the Big Bang would have looked like if somehow you could have seen it.
At the Big Bang, everything exploded outwards from the center of the Big Bang, which, in FE hypothesis is considered down. At this point, everything began accelerating.
Now, if one looks at the second picture, it shows how the universe, from what I believe the FEers say, would look. Since everything began accelerating, everything would be on that line. Nothing would be inside it and nothing would be outside of it. Everything would be on the line of the circle.
So, therefore, I can come to the conclusion that there should be nothing thnat far above us, such as observable comets and asteroids, according to the FE model.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Ahem
QuoteAhem
You're assuming that there is only one layer to the Big Bang. If we look up into the night sky we can quickly realize that there are many layers above us. Lightyears of layers above us. Otherwise, our sky would be quite starless.
By analogy, we can assume that the Big Bang was a continuous spout of matter and force, perhaps continuing to this very day. These multiple levels of the Big Bang would have run into each other as a direct result of the acceleration of mass, sending matter in all directions, creating potential asteroids and comets for matter further down to accelerate into.
Actually, I am telling you to look into the sky and see the many layers. According to FE, I do not believe there would be more than one layer. That is how I am trying to disprove your arguement.
In earlier arguements, and according to FE hypothesis, the stars aren't lightyears away.
So your answer is, since there is seemingly many layers of astronomical bodies, that means that there must be many layers and the Big Bang is still spouting matter? Wow
QuoteActually, I am telling you to look into the sky and see the many layers. According to FE, I do not believe there would be more than one layer. That is how I am trying to disprove your arguement.
Your argument is flawed. Flat Earth literature says nothing about there being only one layer of matter to the Big Bang.QuoteIn earlier arguements, and according to FE hypothesis, the stars aren't lightyears away.
I didn't say the closest stars were were light years away, I said that there was light years of layers above us.QuoteSo your answer is, since there is seemingly many layers of astronomical bodies, that means that there must be many layers and the Big Bang is still spouting matter? Wow
I don't see why a continuous Big Bang can't explain the expanding, accelerating universe. Certainly a much better explanation than Dark Energy. After all, the Big Bang is the entity which created the very fabric of space-time itself.
Explain the oribits of comets.
QuoteExplain the oribits of comets.
Byproduct of acceleration. Vis-a-vis the Equivalence Principle.
No Tom. Not a by-product of equivalnce principle. You fail again. What a surprise.
Okay Genius, what do you need for the acceleration to bend space time? Mass you complete fool. I take great offence at you of all people questioning my intelligence. Especially as you are a RE troll. A crap on at that.
Okay Genius, what do you need for the acceleration to bend space time? Mass you complete fool. I take great offence at you of all people questioning my intelligence. Especially as you are a RE troll. A crap on at that.
The acceleration of mass causes gravitation. That much is obvious to a two year old.
Unless you have something meaningful to add to the conversation, you can take your fundamentalist, poorly written, Round Earth rhetoric out of here. No one here gives two hoots about your petty little round earth beliefs. If you actually think we care enough about you to hold your hand through basic physical concepts you are sorely mistaken.
Okay Genius, what do you need for the acceleration to bend space time? Mass you complete fool. I take great offence at you of all people questioning my intelligence. Especially as you are a RE troll. A crap on at that.
The acceleration of mass causes gravitation. That much is obvious to a two year old.
Unless you have something meaningful to add to the conversation, you can take your fundamentalist, poorly written, Round Earth rhetoric out of here. No one here gives two hoots about your petty little round earth beliefs. If you actually think we care enough about you to hold your hand through basic physical concepts then you are sorely mistaken.
Here's an idea. Maybe you can do a little research for your own damn self and discover the reason acceleration bends space-time. I'm not your teacher. I'm not your father. Don't go looking for parental guidance on the internet.