Asteroids and Comets

I imagine that is what the Big Bang looked like. After the Big Bang happened, that means everything is moving up and away from each other. So my question is, how can there be asteroids and comets? Everything in the universe would be moving away from each other, not zig zag and other ways like asteroids and comets move. I guess the Oort Belt is fake.

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.

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.

Brah, I know. I am talkling about in FE hypothesis.

bump

Aren't asteroids (just like planets) caused by the formation of stars, just like our sun....which is a tiny 32 mile disk....hmmmm

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!

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.

I am asking for a FE explanation.

Too bad there isn't one.

Quote from: astronomy101 on March 02, 2007, 11:31:04 AM

I am asking for a FE explanation.

Too bad there isn't one.

Depends on if Tom Bishop is "busy" or not.

Just backing up RE  Who wants to bet that this thread will be buried away soon?

Maybe it's related to the random gravity fields that exist from stars but not from other matter, yet still affects the matter which doesn't have gravity, thats my guess.  Of course, a much better explanation would be the gravity from all matter.

Just backing up RE  Who wants to bet that this thread will be buried away soon?

It was almost buried.

Where is Tom Bishop?

Depends 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.

Quote

Depends 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.

Thank you. WHat do the comets and asteroids orbit around? Or do they?

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. Here's how asteroids and comets impact Earth:

Earth is, of course, moving 'upwards', constantly accelerating at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared. This creates the illusion of gravity. Meteors are simply objects in the Earth's path that are either moving at a constant velocity or accelerating more slowly than the Earth; either way, they are decelerating relative to us. Thus, Earth catches up to them and smashes into the meteors (from the meteor's perspective; from our frame of reference the meteor smashes into the Earth).

So how was the universe created...

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 on the the history and literature of the Flat Earth.

Quote from: dysfunction on March 02, 2007, 12:04:15 PM

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 on the the history and literature of the Flat Earth.

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."

Quote from: dysfunction on March 02, 2007, 12:04:15 PM

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 on the the history and literature of the Flat Earth.

Thank you Tom Bishop for those referances. I will make sure to read them.
How come we have seen Halley's Comet more than once.
Frankly, I imagine it as a conspiracy.

Quote from: dysfunction on March 02, 2007, 12:04:15 PM

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 on the the history and literature of the Flat Earth.

Dude, dysfunction is a moderator, in case you hadn't noticed.  I'm sure he's read it all.

Tom, Tom, Tom, what are we gonna do with you...

Does anyone have a solid FE Theory? It seems like all of the FE'ers have their own version of it, some more extreme than others. Tom's version includes the big bang, which doesnt exist in the FE theory right? how could something as big as the "big bang" be confused if it is there or not. The FE'ers need to get their shit straight, lol. No offense to any of them, its just everything is different from on FE'er to the other.

Does 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.

Quote

Does 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.

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.

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.

Big bang is just as disprovable as God

Quote from: TheDoctor on March 02, 2007, 04:35:02 PM

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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 02, 2007, 04:29:51 PM

Quote

Does 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.

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.

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?

Quote from: TheDoctor on March 02, 2007, 04:35:02 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 02, 2007, 04:29:51 PM

Quote

Does 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.

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.

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?

"if we can let RE get away with one for the big bang"?
How do we "get away" with it? You make it soud like a crime  . Big bang is one of the most widley accepted theorys of creation, and i think mentioning it isn't something to "get away" with if you mention it. Also, there is much proof for the big bang, and none for the singularity theory.

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.

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  . Hope we get a good grade  !