Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
.
In the FE model, why do the stars (and possibly the moon) need to exist? Obviously they are not there specifically for our amusement, so why then do they exist?I don't want to put words in Robosteve's mouth, but I believe his responses are related to the fact that you asked a ludicrous question. Why does something NEED to exist? It exists because we can see it. Exactly the same is in the RE model. Why does it NEED to exist? I don't think you thought enough about your question before you tried to put it into words.
I'm not asking why the universe exists. I'm asking why stars are orbiting and accellerating with the Earth. There is no known possible way for them to emit light and no explanation of what they are in FE. They do not create any relevant contribution to overall illumination either. In either theory, phenomena do not come into existance for no reason what-so-ever.
They exist because people opened their windows and looked up at the sky at night. Saw a bunch of points of light and had to explain them.
They must exist in FET because they are observable directly. The explanation fits the naked eye observations and thus is their correct model, subject to change.
Not all FET proponents consider them to be starts and just the same, not all FET proponents consider them to be tiny points of light on a fixed sphere 5000km away. Tom for example seems to think Start are pretty close to us and are actually fractal bits of energy (his explanation for telescope-observable galaxies IIRC, I don't want to put words in his mouth inaccurately) and others (cannot recall screen names now) consider the bulk of our universe outside our solar system to be more or less the way RET explains it...its just our solar system thats different.
.
(Not really).but if that is the case then the apple will be accelerating at 10m/s^2 until it drops, so correct me if I'm wrong but that is a lot of acceleratin that it would undergo in its lifetime.
Also, if a plane takes off from the earth, then (on this model) it would stop accelerating at the speed of the earth and the earth would crash into it. I know this is in the faq but it was quite a vague answer. On this principle the apple would not hit the ground (as the plane does not) and the plane does not create 10m/s^2 acc^n upwards lift. Ask any aeronautical engineer.
).There's no doubt about that, but when they landed the rover on the surface of mars and discovered the sky to be mostly blue, they realised that rivals in Russia would think they'ed faked the landing so they adjusted thr RGB to make it appear redder, there's more information on the main Flat Mars Society page
.The planets and the moon all illuminate themselves, just like stars.
I've certainly never heard that one before... Evidence please?
The fact that they shine.
The planets and the moon all illuminate themselves, just like stars.
..
Uhm, no I'm not. The explanation of 4 elephants and a turtle can't be supported by ANY scientific theory, its also against the laws of physics (which have been proven).
Er, that had nothing to do with it.
I guess I'll explain for the sake of no one. Saying that because you see curvature, there is curvature and therefore the Earth is round, is poor logic. With that logic, as I pointed out and you seemed to miss, seeing Criss Angel levitate would mean that he is really levitating. Therefore, I said that we had another Criss Angel believer.
I'm not saying that because I can see curvature that the Earth is spherical, I'm using that one piece of evidence, which is backed up by many other pieces of evidence to form a reasonable argument.
Actually you could still say the same about Criss Angel. For He has performed many miracles, so His levitating is backed up by many other pieces of evidence confirming that He is divine.
), an object that small CANNOT generate enough light to brighten such an area at any one time. A very important factor which I haven't seen discussed is where it gets its energy from? A giant spotlight hovering over the surface of the planet, providing enough energy to light the surface must have incalculable energy requirements, which in FE theory, are not fulfilled. The rotation of the Earth and other planets has been proven by several forum members and photographed (looks like other planets are moons are spherical, so why not Earth?). When confronted with this evidence, main "FE'ers" simply change the facts of their theory to fit it, and there you go, no more gaping hole in the theory . I could continue to point out even more holes and impossibilities, but I don't want to go too far off topic ..Uhm, no I'm not. The explanation of 4 elephants and a turtle can't be supported by ANY scientific theory, its also against the laws of physics (which have been proven).
Er, that had nothing to do with it.
I guess I'll explain for the sake of no one. Saying that because you see curvature, there is curvature and therefore the Earth is round, is poor logic. With that logic, as I pointed out and you seemed to miss, seeing Criss Angel levitate would mean that he is really levitating. Therefore, I said that we had another Criss Angel believer.
I'm not sure what you're talking about
You're using the logic that what you see is what actually is.
. Maybe it would be accepted (though not by many people) if you tried to prove your case? There is already proof for a spherical Earth and some for a flat Earth, but as far as 4 elephants and a turtle...
.
. Well worth the hour in the freezing cold . BTW: I'm sorry to tell u that it's virtually impossible to get a good image of the eclipse with a digital camera, or any other camera for that matter. Pictures taken through a telescope lens will usually produce excellent results . Because of the moon's distance from earth, a regular camera will capture no other detail than a large white-and-red blob, lol.
. thx.
