Four vs. Hundreds!

Well... i guess that wasnt a very good example
how about...
Well, your 4 points dont cover anythign about stars.

Well... i guess that wasnt a very good example
how about...
Well, your 4 points dont cover anythign about stars.

You're really stretching now, aren't you?

no not realy.
Serioulsy though.
Fit stars into your 4 points.

He doesn't have to. Stars (besides the sun) aren't relevant to the solar system.

dysfunction is acting like a FEer  :shock:

If you dont know what i mean, read your posts again.

I like where this is going.  Btw, anybody interested in doing a forum search for "earthquake" to see whether it's been discussed here?

Well, I ran a search for earthquakes Erasmus, and all of the topics I looked at talked about how seismic waves give us a model of what the earth looks like. Since these show that the earth is round, seismic waves travelling around the earth fall under the category of:
1. The earth is round

The_Earth_Does_Not_Exist:
Stars are not really part of the FE model of the earth. They are part of the universe, which I was not talking about in my initial post. So, stars aren'te really that relevant to the earth, and is really only mentioned in the FAQ. If there's any thread in here that actually debates how far away the stars are, there's probably not too many. I've certainly never run across them. But once again, stars don't have anything to do with the shape of the earth.

Erasmus, you are invited to come onto infidelguy radio. You never replied to my PM's or emails, and my pm box says I have not even sent anything even though I have, twice. So here, I will ask you on the boards, do you want to come on to share your views?

Okay, I've got the ultimate Occam's Razor for you FE'ers. Here is premise one, what the RE'ers profess.

1. The earth is round
2. The earth is at a 23.5 degree axis
3. Gravity exists
4. The moon orbits Earth, and Earth orbits the sun

Guess what, that's all we need to explain every naturally occuring phenomana that is argued in this forum. And I mean everyone of them. If anybody can show me a natural phenomanon that RE'ers claim is not caused by one of these four things that is talked about here, please bring it forward.

The Coriolis effect.

What do I win?

Quote from: "Aralith"

Okay, I've got the ultimate Occam's Razor for you FE'ers. Here is premise one, what the RE'ers profess.

1. The earth is round
2. The earth is at a 23.5 degree axis
3. Gravity exists
4. The moon orbits Earth, and Earth orbits the sun

Guess what, that's all we need to explain every naturally occuring phenomana that is argued in this forum. And I mean everyone of them. If anybody can show me a natural phenomanon that RE'ers claim is not caused by one of these four things that is talked about here, please bring it forward.

The Coriolis effect.

What do I win?

No, that's caused by the Earth's rotation. Oops, seems Aralith forgot to explicitly mention rotation, but it's implied by statement #2- if it doesn't spin, how does it have an axis? Perhaps #2 should be rephrased: "The Earth rotates about a 23.5 degree inclined axis."

Quote from: "qwerty789"

Quote from: "Aralith"

Okay, I've got the ultimate Occam's Razor for you FE'ers. Here is premise one, what the RE'ers profess.

1. The earth is round
2. The earth is at a 23.5 degree axis
3. Gravity exists
4. The moon orbits Earth, and Earth orbits the sun

Guess what, that's all we need to explain every naturally occuring phenomana that is argued in this forum. And I mean everyone of them. If anybody can show me a natural phenomanon that RE'ers claim is not caused by one of these four things that is talked about here, please bring it forward.

The Coriolis effect.

What do I win?

No, that's caused by the Earth's rotation. Oops, seems Aralith forgot to explicitly mention rotation, but it's implied by statement #2- if it doesn't spin, how does it have an axis? Perhaps #2 should be rephrased: "The Earth rotates about a 23.5 degree inclined axis."

Well, I can define an axis as anything on a stationary object. Having an axis doesn't imply rotation. Even on a rotating object, you can define any axis you want, but it'll make your life more complicated with any math you do. What you're thinking of is specifically an axis of rotation. So now we're either adding things to this 'simple' theory or just outright bending to rules to not be wrong?  :twisted:

I'll have more, don't worry, but that one was really obvious.

The entire idea of an axis is arbitrary unless it is the line about which an object rotates, so saying the Earth has an axis pretty much implies that it rotates.

The entire idea of an axis is arbitrary unless it is the line about which an object rotates, so saying the Earth has an axis pretty much implies that it rotates.

No, it actually doesn't. Given that the Earth isn't perfectly spherical, you could define the 23 degree tilt as a line through the 2 points farthest away from the center of the earth, like the major axis of an ellipse, but 3d.  Find me a mathematical definition that says that an axis is only an imaginary line about which an object symetrically rotates.

Okay, I've got the ultimate Occam's Razor for you FE'ers. Here is premise one, what the RE'ers profess.

1. The earth is round
2. The earth is at a 23.5 degree axis
3. Gravity exists
4. The moon orbits Earth, and Earth orbits the sun

Guess what, that's all we need to explain every naturally occuring phenomana that is argued in this forum. And I mean everyone of them. If anybody can show me a natural phenomanon that RE'ers claim is not caused by one of these four things that is talked about here, please bring it forward.

The earth's magnetic field.

What do I win again?

The existence of the magnetic field is covered by Araliths four points.

The Earth's magnetic field exists because of the earth's rotation.  A movement of any body with an associated electric charge produces a magnetic field.

BTW, I haven't seen any adequate explination of the magnetic field in a FE model.

The Earth's magnetic field exists because of the earth's rotation.  A movement of any body with an associated electric charge produces a magnetic field.

None of his points gurantee that the earth is rotating. Too bad that isn't the theory behind the field anyway. Are you implying the Earth is not neutral?

BTW, I haven't seen any adequate explination of the magnetic field in a FE model.

God, I don't care. The guy is asking what you can't explain with these 4 simple assumptions.

Actually rotation of the Earth is not a problem, it exists by either model, as shown by the existence of the Corilois force (however you spell it)

Well, qwerty, if an axis is, as you say, something that can be found on any object, stationary or not, then I must admit that my second premise can be somewhat misleading. However, when I posted that, I was under the impression that an axis is specific only to rotating objects. If you wish, I'll make premise two:
2. The earth rotates about a 23.5 degree axis

Better? I'll edit the first post so no one else makes the same assumption. Once again, I apologize if I didn't make it clear that the earth rotated with premise 2, but I really did mean for it to be there.

Let's change the rules when we're losing at the game.  :lol:

Anyway, yah, an axis isn't real. It's just a useful definition, such as the major axis of an ellipsoid. The ellipsoid doesn't have to be rotating, but it still has a major axis. It's as arbitrary as the borders of nations. The earth doesn't have any black squiggles run around it defining where one starts and another ends. On the other hand, if you said the earth's 'axis of rotation' tilts at whatever degree in reference to the plane of the solar system, then, well... it has to be rotating. Though that's all it means, because you can redefine the axis of rotation however you want, but you'll have to do some crazy modeling to have everything else still work, but since you said the earth orbits the sun, that might be impossible for all arbitrary axes of rotation.


Also, magnetic force still can't be explained by any of the 4. Earth's composition and internal structure are important.

Yes, but IIRC the magnetic field has the same cause in both models.