The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: smith2031 on September 29, 2009, 12:49:59 PM
-
Just as the title says. I would like an answer from reasonable FE'ers, not RE'ers. I am new here, so if this has been brought up before, please let me know where, or, better yet, provide a link. Thanks.
-
Yes.
-
Are these other planets round or flat? Explain.
-
Are these other planets round or flat? Explain.
Could be either, or something else entirely, as we don't even know whether or not they exist.
-
Yes.
No. Please read ENaG. The planets and stars are very close and very tiny.
-
Yes.
No. Please read ENaG. The planets and stars are very close and very tiny.
Please use basic common sense. The observable universe is not the entire universe.
-
Please use basic common sense. The observable universe is not the entire universe.
Who said anything about common sense? I said "Read ENaG".
-
Who said anything about common sense? I said "Read ENaG".
Earth: Not a Globe is not the complete documentation of everything that has ever existed, nor is it followed by all denominations of FET.
-
Earth: Not a Globe is not the complete documentation of everything that has ever existed
Where did I say it was?
nor is it followed by all denominations of FET.
Where did I say it was?
-
Earth: Not a Globe is not the complete documentation of everything that has ever existed
Where did I say it was?
nor is it followed by all denominations of FET.
Where did I say it was?
You implied it was when you cited it as a reference for your statement that FET does not allow for the existence of aliens or other habitable worlds.
-
You implied it was when you cited it as a reference for your statement that FET does not allow for the existence of aliens or other habitable worlds.
Not at all. Please do not put words into my mouth.
-
Not at all. Please do not put words into my mouth.
Okay, then FET allows for the existence of aliens or other habitable worlds. Glad we agree.
-
Yes, it does.
-
If these worlds are, indeed, possibly round, as parsifal has stated they may be, then how are they held together if there is no gravity. The FAQ states that gravity is a property of some matter, but how would this work?
-
If these worlds are, indeed, possibly round, as parsifal has stated they may be, then how are they held together if there is no gravity. The FAQ states that gravity is a property of some matter, but how would this work?
Different FEers have differing views on gravity. Personally, I believe that gravitation as described by general relativity is a universal interaction between matter - or, more precisely, between mass-energy and spacetime.
-
Then, if gravity is a universal property of all matter, wouldn't a flat earth crumple in on itself and eventually become spherical?
s
-
Then, if gravity is a universal property of all matter, wouldn't a flat earth crumple in on itself and eventually become spherical?
s
Yes, if the FE were finite and not under the influence of the dark energy field that accelerates it upwards at 1g - again, this is a matter of some debate amongst FEers.
-
Ah, okay. Thanks. ;D
-
There is a long and highly educational stickied thread called 'Gravity' which covers this subject, often punctuated by amusing trolling by ignorant REers - if you want to learn about the subject in FET and have a laugh along the way, I suggest checking it out.
-
Thank you this information has helped me greatly understand the "reasoning" of the universe.
-
Wait, so do FE'ers believe that there are no planets of significant size in the visible sky?
-
Wait, so do FE'ers believe that there are no planets of significant size in the visible sky?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets
-
Wait, so do FE'ers believe that there are no planets of significant size in the visible sky?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets
That's cleared that up then... no wait...
Okay, then FET allows for the existence of aliens or other habitable worlds.
What's going on?! Does not compute! Does not compute!
-
What's going on?! Does not compute! Does not compute!
Does RET allow for the existence of aliens or other habitable worlds?
I think you'll find there is some disagreement in your own camp on this subject.
-
Does RET allow for the existence of aliens or other habitable worlds?
Yes.
-
Does RET allow for the existence of aliens or other habitable worlds?
Yes.
O RLY?!
-
Does RET allow for the existence of aliens or other habitable worlds?
Yes.
O RLY?!
RLY! Just because we haven't found any, that doesn't mean that they can't exist.
-
RLY! Just because we haven't found any, that doesn't mean that they can't exist.
I put it to you, sir, that there are flavours of FET that support exactly the same argument, just as there are firm believers of RET who would strongly disagree that alien life can exist at all.
-
I put it to you, sir, that there are flavours of FET that support exactly the same argument, just as there are firm believers of RET who would strongly disagree that alien life can exist at all.
Fair enough. Although if you have tiny little planets (as FET does) then the aliens won't be that big.
As for habitable worlds? FET doesn't allow for them.
-
I put it to you, sir, that there are flavours of FET that support exactly the same argument, just as there are firm believers of RET who would strongly disagree that alien life can exist at all.
And there are some FET models where the stars are tiny motes of energy, incapable of supporting planets (Tom Bishop's model comes to mind).
It seems to me that if the stars only 3100 or so miles above the FE, then powerful ground based telescopes should easily be able to find planets large enough to support life orbiting stars.
As for RE'ers who believe that extra-terrestrial life can't exist at all... Well, I'm not sure if there are very many in the scientific community who share that opinion. However, many would say that due to the vast distances to even near by stars, the odds of us ever meeting aliens is pretty slim.
-
Fair enough. Although if you have tiny little planets (as FET does) then the aliens won't be that big.
As for habitable worlds? FET doesn't allow for them.
My flavour of FET does, as do others. As to whether we will ever be able to travel to or contact those worlds - that's another question entirely.
-
My flavour of FET does, as do others.
That's nice.
Of course the accepted qualifiers for life are, among other things, suns (our size) and planets (our size, flat or otherwise).
It's hard for these things to exist when the planets and stars are so tiny.
-
Does RET allow for the existence of aliens or other habitable worlds?
Yes.
O RLY?!
RLY! Just because we haven't found any, that doesn't mean that they can't exist.
Like ghosts?
-
Like ghosts?
Yes. You're learning fast Tom.
There's no evidence that ghosts do exist, but one cannot assume that they don't.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
However, remember that the ghost debate, along with the God debate, the alien debate and the teapot in space debate are existential questions and do not apply to the flat earth debate.
-
Like ghosts?
Yes. You're learning fast Tom.
There's no evidence that ghosts do exist, but one cannot assume that they don't.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
However, remember that the ghost debate, along with the God debate, the alien debate and the teapot in space debate are existential questions and do not apply to the flat earth debate.
Well if you're claiming that ghosts (alien worlds/space flight/skycars) exist, then the burden is on you to prove it.
-
Well if you're claiming that ghosts (alien worlds/space flight/skycars) exist, then the burden is on you to prove it.
But I'm not claiming ghosts exist Tom. ???
Space flight... you've been presented plenty of evidence.
If you now claim that space flight is not possible, then you need to present your evidence.
Y'see?
-
But I'm not claiming ghosts exist Tom. ???
Space flight... you've been presented plenty of evidence.
What evidence did you present that space travel is possible?
If you now claim that space flight is not possible, then you need to present your evidence.
The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove a positive. It's impossible for a skeptic to prove a negative.
-
What evidence did you present that space travel is possible?
You've been here long enough to have received several tons worth of evidence Tom.
If you're still in doubt I suggest you try google.
The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove a positive. It's impossible for a skeptic to prove a negative.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative.
I'm asking you to prove the positive statement that "Space flight is impossible".
-
Although if you have tiny little planets (as FET does) then the aliens won't be that big.
Please justify this statement.
-
Although if you have tiny little planets (as FET does) then the aliens won't be that big.
Please justify this statement.
Do you really want me to explain big and small to you?
-
Although if you have tiny little planets (as FET does) then the aliens won't be that big.
Please justify this statement.
Do you really want me to explain big and small to you?
No, I want you to justify your statement.
-
I'm asking you to prove the positive statement that "Space flight is impossible".
I didn't say it was impossible.
But you guys have been saying that it is possible. I'm skeptical of your claim until you've demonstrated some evidence.
-
Do you really want me to explain big and small to you?
No, I want you to justify your statement.
Big and small is justification enough. Let me know if you get stuck.
I'm asking you to prove the positive statement that "Space flight is impossible".
I didn't say it was impossible.
orly?
It's just impossible to stay in space.
Sustained spaceflight is not possible in the Accelerating Coin model because the Earth is perpetually accelerating upwards at 9.8 m\s2.
NASA's claims are false because the Apollo Missions were filmed on a Hollywood set.
etc etc
-
Big and small is justification enough. Let me know if you get stuck.
"Big and small" does not justify anything. If you do not justify your statement, then you will understand if I do not take it seriously.
-
Well this is all very interesting but can we please stay on topic? I am a FE'er not a RE'er but I am new and im wondering if FTE allows for the existence of aliens or other planets that we could inhabit. I am not asking if RE'ers believe in this or not so please stay on subject and do not go on tangents to support or tear down something that is unrelated. You two seem to be arguing about the existence of ghosts and I cannot help but be confused as I see no relation between FET allowing or disallowing aliens and ghosts. :) :) :)
-
Big and small is justification enough. Let me know if you get stuck.
"Big and small" does not justify anything.
It does. *sigh*
You're beyond help now I'm afraid.
-
There are no extraterrestrials. Read the book of Enoch to see where those mysterous visitors described by all ancient myths/legends came from...
-
It does. *sigh*
You're beyond help now I'm afraid.
If you do not justify your statement, then you will understand if I do not take it seriously.
-
If you do not justify your statement, then you will understand if I do not take it seriously.
If you cannot understand things such as big and small, then you not taking me seriously isn't something that bothers me.
-
As with most things, since the unknowns in FET are much larger than those of the carefully crafted false logic of RET, the possibilities still allow for people to follow flavours such as those that support tiny planets rolling/sliding around a few thousand miles away (I don't buy that), as well as ones that embrace physics such as GR (which I prefer).
Let's try to keep this discussion objective, shall we?
-
As with most things, since the unknowns in FET are much larger than those of the carefully crafted false logic of RET, the possibilities still allow for people to follow flavours such as those that support tiny planets rolling/sliding around a few thousand miles away (I don't buy that), as well as ones that embrace physics such as GR (which I prefer).
Let's try to keep this discussion objective, shall we?
If you embrace the phyiscs of GR (and there are many reasons why you shouldn't) what effect does that have on planet size?
Ie, what size are the planets, and where are they under a GR measured flat earth?
-
If you embrace the phyiscs of GR (and there are many reasons why you shouldn't) what effect does that have on planet size?
Ie, what size are the planets, and where are they under a GR measured flat earth?
I'll do the maths once I've finished my thesis.
-
If you cannot understand things such as big and small, then you not taking me seriously isn't something that bothers me.
I'll take a wild guess as to your logical error, and point out to you that there is no reason why the planets need be the homes of extraterrestrial life.
-
I'll take a wild guess as to your logical error, and point out to you that there is no reason why the planets need be the homes of extraterrestrial life.
That's not the generally accepted analysis.
-
That's not the generally accepted analysis.
Argumentum ad populum. Give me one good reason why other beings in FET would need to live on the planets that we can see in the sky.
-
Well since the multiverse is infinite doesnt this mean that if something has occured once, than it has occured in every single shape or form with a slight twist to it? Thus wouldn't there not only be one alien civilization but an infinite amount if alien civilizations?
-
Well since the multiverse is infinite
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Please justify this claim before proceeding any further.
-
Well do you agree that the Universe is infinite?(actually its not because of a certain curvature caused to it but...) The multiverse is how we express the infinite amount of parrallel universes.
-
Well do you agree that the Universe is infinite?(actually its not because of a certain curvature caused to it but...)
No.
The multiverse is how we express the infinite amount of parrallel universes.
I know what it is, but there's no evidence that it exists.
-
Well do you agree that the Universe is infinite?(actually its not because of a certain curvature caused to it but...) The multiverse is how we express the infinite amount of parrallel universes.
I don't think the universe is infinite, mostly problems with the idea of infinte smallness.
And I prefer the Theory of Coincident Stuff over your multiverse.
-
Argumentum ad populum. Give me one good reason why other beings in FET would need to live on the planets that we can see in the sky.
No my argument is not "most people believe it, therefore it's true" FFS.
I'm saying other scientists have studied the problem and have suggested that planets are required for life.
The reason is to do with the elements that are required for life, which are produced after a star goes supernova. As planets form in the debris they create a concentration of these elements, and so create a concentration of the known building blocks of life.
-
No my argument is not "most people believe it, therefore it's true" FFS.
I'm saying other scientists have studied the problem and have suggested that planets are required for life.
The reason is to do with the elements that are required for life, which are produced after a star goes supernova. As planets form in the debris they create a concentration of these elements, and so create a concentration of the known building blocks of life.
Yes, assuming RET is true. In FET, the planets are very different and probably could not sustain life. Please stop applying RE science to FET.
-
Please stop applying RE science to FET.
Why, are the laws of physics for FET different than the ones for RET?
-
Why, are the laws of physics for FET different than the ones for RET?
No, but the nature of the planets is.
-
Why, are the laws of physics for FET different than the ones for RET?
No, but the nature of the planets is.
Wouldn't the laws of physics determine the nature of the planets?
-
Wouldn't the laws of physics determine the nature of the planets?
No.
-
Wouldn't the laws of physics determine the nature of the planets?
No.
Oh? Why not?
-
Oh? Why not?
Because the planets are as we observe them to be. The laws of physics need to fit our observations, not the other way around.
-
In FET, the planets are very different and probably could not sustain life.
How different are they exactly?
Please stop applying RE science to FET.
I've yet to read a paper on the possible nature of extraterrestrial life on the flat earth world. I'm not sure why that is. Until I can I'll just stick with what's available, which is written for RE. :(;'(:(
-
How different are they exactly?
They are far smaller than in the RE model, and probably mostly or entirely solid. I'd also imagine they are a lot colder.
I've yet to read a paper on the possible nature of extraterrestrial life on the flat earth world. I'm not sure why that is. Until I can I'll just stick with what's available, which is written for RE. :(;'(:(
Or you could stop answering questions you know nothing about. The question was "Does FET allow for the existence of aliens or other habitable worlds?", not "Does RET allow for the existence of aliens or other habitable worlds?"
-
They are far smaller than in the RE model, and probably mostly or entirely solid. I'd also imagine they are a lot colder.
Colder than what?
Or you could stop answering questions you know nothing about.
I know enough. I like the aggressive tone though. It makes me scared of you.
*ho hum*
My understanding of the planets comes from other scientists' observations
Nothing more. RE/FE doesn't really enter it.
*ho hum*
-
Colder than what?
Than they are in the RE model, if you'll look at my statement in context.
I know enough. I like the aggressive tone though. It makes me scared of you.
*ho hum*
My understanding of the planets comes from other scientists' observations
Nothing more. RE/FE doesn't really enter it.
*ho hum*
Actually, RE/FE is very important here. The observations have greatly different interpretations, depending on how far away you take the planets to be. Regardless, their nature has nothing to do with the question asked.
-
Colder than what?
Than they are in the RE model
You mean colder than as observed by astronomers and astrophysicists? This is getting interesting.
-
You mean colder than as observed by astronomers and astrophysicists? This is getting interesting.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that astronomers had taken a thermometer to Jupiter.
-
You mean colder than as observed by astronomers and astrophysicists? This is getting interesting.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that astronomers had taken a thermometer to Jupiter.
You've never heard of non-contact thermometers such as infra-red sensors? ???
-
You've never heard of non-contact thermometers such as infra-red sensors? ???
These rely heavily on indirect measurements, and as such are easily influenced by irrelevant variables.
-
You've never heard of non-contact thermometers such as infra-red sensors? ???
These rely heavily on indirect measurements
Sorry, how is it indirect?
-
Sorry, how is it indirect?
Well, you're hardly going and measuring the average kinetic energy of the object in question's constituent particles directly, are you?
-
Yes these do rely on indirect measures but the measurements made by various FE scientists to prove the Earth is flat are indirect. So why are indirect measurements bad?
-
Yes these do rely on indirect measures but the measurements made by various FE scientists to prove the Earth is flat are indirect. So why are indirect measurements bad?
I never claimed that indirect measurements were bad.
-
I never claimed that indirect measurements were bad.
You certainly implied it:
These rely heavily on indirect measurements, and as such are easily influenced by irrelevant variables.
So. Are (indirect) measurements of planets temperatures to be trusted or not?
-
I don't see any problem with the planets appearing to be the same temperature in FET and RET.
-
Robosteve does...
They are far smaller than in the RE model, and probably mostly or entirely solid. I'd also imagine they are a lot colder.
[/quote]
-
Matrix =/= Robosteve
-
Matrix =/= Robosteve
Which is why my conversation was with Robosteve.
-
Which is why my conversation was with Robosteve.
I don't see any problem with the planets appearing to be the same temperature in FET and RET.
Robosteve does...
So you just felt like restating Robo's own point to him? I clearly mistook your response to me as trying to involve me in the conversation. My bad.
-
So you just felt like restating Robo's own point to him? I clearly mistook your response to me as trying to involve me in the conversation. My bad.
No. You involved yourself by saying you didn't have a problem with planets having the same temperature in both models.
I'd love to hang around and talk about all the things you don't have a problem with, but I feel that they may be numerous.
-
No. You involved yourself by saying you didn't have a problem with planets having the same temperature in both models.
I was involving myself in the general discussion - when you replied to me specifically, I thought you would appreciate a response. Was I mistaken in that assumption?
I'd love to hang around and talk about all the things you don't have a problem with, but I feel that they may be numerous.
That's ok, I can't really be bothered anyway.