observations and explanations

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy link=topic=18204.msg325887#msg325887

You weren't talking about the earth's shape, you were talking about its creation (and in actuality, it was the origin of the universe you were describing, as the creation of the earth itself didn't occur until billions of years after the Big Bang).

i was talking about the earth's shape, being directly related to the big bang theory in that the big bang theory explains the earth's shape.
 

In what way?  I don't see where you made any such connection... 

im no astrophysicist but the big bang theory seems to  explain a RE by gravity between the earth and the sun making planets round , but a flat disk ? how is that possible ?

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation.

I can't see anything.

Here's a quote from Wiki to explain my confusion about your theory that the Big Bang leads somehow to the shape of the earth:

Quote

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation.

If all we can do is speculate about the early stages of the universe, and the evidence we have for a Big Bang has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, how do you postulate that the theory explains a round earth? 

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 30, 2007, 12:20:34 PM

I can't see anything.

what do u mean you cant see anything , stage 1 is big bang, stage 7 of the big bang theory elements from dead stars clusters together to form planets and stars. these grouped elements orbit large stars (our sun) this orbit causes a rounded shape with a bulge around the equator(the earth). i left that last sentence out because i assumed you knew science told to 10yr olds

also the fact that the round earth is pictured on a theory of big bang diagram links them.
also speculation (RE) is better than what FE can offer which is "we don't know" who am i going to believe ? RE with "proof" and "evidence" of creation of earth or FE with "we don' know" , also could u direct any more replys to my thread on the subject in matter rather than continue in this thread

I haven't read the Wiki entry in its entirety, but that bit you do realize refers to the first "poofteenths " of a second.The next few billion years has a wide consensus of opinion.

But there was no diagram there.

Glad you see my problem.  The link between the Big Bang and the few billion years that we have a wide consensus of opinion for is what I'm looking for.

I can't imagine mankind having the technology to re create the first moments for sometime if ever.But that does not negate theoretical predictions based on what we can observe and currently understand.
Planet and Sun formation theory is based on precepts that we are currantly rather confident of.

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 30, 2007, 01:11:22 PM

Glad you see my problem.  The link between the Big Bang and the few billion years that we have a wide consensus of opinion for is what I'm looking for.

I can't imagine mankind having the technology to re create the first moments for sometime if ever.But that does not negate theoretical predictions based on what we can observe and currently understand.
Planet and Sun formation theory is based on precepts that we are currantly rather confident of.

Your diagram still isn't showing up btw, tommo.  Maybe you should try just linking it.

And I'm curious about what they have to do with the Big Bang.  I didn't argue with tommo's contention that gravity or the rotation of the earth had an effect on its shape because that's not what we were talking about.

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 30, 2007, 01:28:28 PM

And I'm curious about what they have to do with the Big Bang.  I didn't argue with tommo's contention that gravity or the rotation of the earth had an effect on its shape because that's not what we were talking about.

Oh, I see.
The current models are important to explain elements above Fe found in the Earths make up.

I still couldn't see the image (I'm being blocked for some reason I guess) but I read the article and I still don't see where a link is made between the Big Bang and the shape of the earth.

Quote from: Thus Spake Roundy on November 30, 2007, 01:40:53 PM

I still couldn't see the image (I'm being blocked for some reason I guess) but I read the article and I still don't see where a link is made between the Big Bang and the shape of the earth.

well big bang explains how world is created and the theory about the orbiting earth causes the curvature

So there is no direct link between the Big Bang and the shape of the earth?  That's what I've been saying all along!

Well, sure, Big Bang Theory explains the elements and their groupings... I would think that applies as much to FET as to RET.

Well, sure, Big Bang Theory explains the elements and their groupings... I would think that applies as much to FET as to RET.

Well, of course, because the earth is not orbiting the sun in FET.

But you cant pick bits that suit you and ignore everything else.
Infinite planes, UA's, small Suns and moons, refraction and speed of light, selective gravity the list goes on that flies in the face of how mainstream science see how the Laws of Physics operate.

I didn't argue with tommo's contention that gravity or the rotation of the earth had an effect on its shape because that's not what we were talking about.

[So there is no direct link between the Big Bang and the shape of the earth?  That's what I've been saying all along!