formation of Earth

Convince me? lol

again , thanks for the constructive debate

Err, wouldn't 'proofs' of a FE let us 'know' the earth is flat?

Instead of arguing by being pandatic and so avoiding the issue. Why not just answer. I mean...what's the point in flat earth society? You've not got anywhere have you?

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on December 02, 2007, 10:12:54 AM

Err, wouldn't 'proofs' of a FE let us 'know' the earth is flat?

Instead of arguing by being pandatic and so avoiding the issue. Why not just answer. I mean...what's the point in flat earth society? You've not got anywhere have you?

Bold is important.

Quote from: edlloyd on December 02, 2007, 10:17:51 AM

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on December 02, 2007, 10:12:54 AM

Err, wouldn't 'proofs' of a FE let us 'know' the earth is flat?

Instead of arguing by being pandatic and so avoiding the issue. Why not just answer. I mean...what's the point in flat earth society? You've not got anywhere have you?

Bold is important.

Thanks very much...so explain why a massive budget is needed? All the great men of physics had none, yet they came up with theories. Why do you need a budget to theorize. A budget would only be needed to conduct tests.

If you believe that nasa has lied about everything, then that would mean that they obviously haven't spent any money on space exploration.  So if they have come up with their theories on our a round earth could form, and about the solar system without spending any money on it, then how come FE's can't do the same?

Now, we're talking about explaining how a FE was formed.  There's the ol' 'spinning and shearing' quote, but there really isn't anything behind it.  I guess if all you want is a 'theory' (which is still going to require evidence...), then there's the spinning and shearing idea which would have happened in its early life causing it to come out flat - but it'd be nice to have something behind that which would cost quite a bit of money.

If you believe that nasa has lied about everything, then that would mean that they obviously haven't spent any money on space exploration.  So if they have come up with their theories on our a round earth could form, and about the solar system without spending any money on it, then how come FE's can't do the same?

The conspiracy spends money on fabricating lies.  Look at all the photographs they produce, it would cost money to make those.  They could do the same with the creation of our solar system and planet.

The theories about how our solar system work and the Earth formed don't require lots of money though.  It's not like they can claim to have taken photographs of the early years of the solar system, so that part doesn't require faking photographs.  It's not just Nasa anyway who have space programs - Russia, China, Japan...

Now, we're talking about explaining how a FE was formed.  There's the ol' 'spinning and shearing' quote, but there really isn't anything behind it.  I guess if all you want is a 'theory' (which is still going to require evidence...), then there's the spinning and shearing idea which would have happened in its early life causing it to come out flat - but it'd be nice to have something behind that which would cost quite a bit of money.

Sorry...now we're talking about it? Is that not the title of this thread? A theory does not require evidence to be theorized at least. Only to be proven. But since there is not even a theory how is it meant to be proved?

Sorry...now we're talking about it? Is that not the title of this thread? A theory does not require evidence to be theorized at least. Only to be proven. But since there is not even a theory how is it meant to be proved?

Theory: A possible explanation for repeatedly observed patterns in nature supported by observations and results from many investigations

Quote from: edlloyd on December 02, 2007, 10:41:09 AM

Sorry...now we're talking about it? Is that not the title of this thread? A theory does not require evidence to be theorized at least. Only to be proven. But since there is not even a theory how is it meant to be proved?

Theory: A possible explanation for repeatedly observed patterns in nature supported by observations and results from many investigations

Yeah...first bit. Possible explanation. Do you have that? No...Do that, then worry about your so called budget.

It all comes as one, not just the 'first bit'.  And I did give you a possibility.  Spinning and shearing in the earth's early life caused it to come out flat.

It all comes as one, not just the 'first bit'.  And I did give you a possibility.  Spinning and shearing in the earth's early life caused it to come out flat.

It does all come to one. You're quite right. But I'm asking for the theory at the moment, at least so that you won't need worry about your budget.

Earth's early life? Suggesting it was already slightly formed anyway. An idea as to how they might have happened then?

It does all come to one. You're quite right. But I'm asking for the theory idea at the moment, at least so that you won't need worry about your budget.

Earth's early life? Suggesting it was already slightly formed anyway. An idea as to how they might have happened then?

Not already slightly formed.  A big mass of molten rock could have simply undergone spinning and sheering causing it to come out flat and solid once it cooled.  I don't know why you're asking for stuff that has nothing behind it.

Quote from: edlloyd on December 02, 2007, 11:08:44 AM

It does all come to one. You're quite right. But I'm asking for the theory idea at the moment, at least so that you won't need worry about your budget.

Earth's early life? Suggesting it was already slightly formed anyway. An idea as to how they might have happened then?

Not already slightly formed.  A big mass of molten rock could have simply undergone spinning and sheering causing it to come out flat and solid once it cooled.  I don't know why you're asking for stuff that has nothing behind it.

So as you have no theory for it...don't moan about not having a budget by which to test it.

We need a budget to get something behind it to make it a theory and not simply an idea.

We need a budget to get something behind it to make it a theory and not simply an idea.

As I explained before. The great men of physics just sat and thought about it. No great budget, which you suggest is needed, was involved mate.

So if I were to just sit around and think 'God stepping on Earth made it flat', would you say it's a theory?

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on December 02, 2007, 10:19:56 AM

Quote from: edlloyd on December 02, 2007, 10:17:51 AM

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on December 02, 2007, 10:12:54 AM

Err, wouldn't 'proofs' of a FE let us 'know' the earth is flat?

Instead of arguing by being pandatic and so avoiding the issue. Why not just answer. I mean...what's the point in flat earth society? You've not got anywhere have you?

Bold is important.

Thanks very much...so explain why a massive budget is needed? All the great men of physics had none, yet they came up with theories. Why do you need a budget to theorize. A budget would only be needed to conduct tests.

Yup, NASA get next to nothing for maintaining the world is round. They do it for charity, really.

The problem is, you criticize Rowbotham's cheap, no budget experiments, then ask why you would need funding?

So if I were to just sit around and think 'God stepping on Earth made it flat', would you say it's a theory?

No, it's an idea, or at the very best, a hypothesis.

ok cool. is the spinning and shearing your personal theory? not critisising it, just wondering. Can you elabortate a bit on it, i.e where the big lump of molten rock came from and what made it spin/what forces sheared it into shape, and where the earth got it's atmosphere and water.  thanks 

So if I were to just sit around and think 'God stepping on Earth made it flat', would you say it's a theory?

Do you like to argue or something?

Did Einstein have a massive budget to formulate his ideas? Did Newton? No yet they came up with theories.

So a theory of how the earth was formed in FE could be done without a massive budget or indeed even a budget.

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on December 02, 2007, 11:22:21 AM

So if I were to just sit around and think 'God stepping on Earth made it flat', would you say it's a theory?

Do you like to argue or something?

Did Einstein have a massive budget to formulate his ideas? Did Newton? No yet they came up with theories.

So a theory of how the earth was formed in FE could be done without a massive budget or indeed even a budget.

A hypothesis could. but measurement equipment, geotechnical analysis and astronomical data would be hard to acquire for free. do you honestly believe that you could put together a near-accurate model of the Round Earth's formation, on your own, without the benefit of already knowing it without a sizeable research fund?

alright. lets stop arguing. I'm interested in hearing more about this theory Mr Ireland mentions.

alright. lets stop arguing. I'm interested in hearing more about this theory Mr Ireland mentions.

NO! it's how the FES survives!!!!

Quote from: edlloyd on December 02, 2007, 11:39:30 AM

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on December 02, 2007, 11:22:21 AM

So if I were to just sit around and think 'God stepping on Earth made it flat', would you say it's a theory?

Do you like to argue or something?

Did Einstein have a massive budget to formulate his ideas? Did Newton? No yet they came up with theories.

So a theory of how the earth was formed in FE could be done without a massive budget or indeed even a budget.

A hypothesis could. but measurement equipment, geotechnical analysis and astronomical data would be hard to acquire for free. do you honestly believe that you could put together a near-accurate model of the Round Earth's formation, on your own, without the benefit of already knowing it without a sizeable research fund?

Not asking for near accurate...just asking does anyone have an idea as to how a FE could form? an Idea does not require money. To test it, yes. The Greeks knew the earth was round though? Sizeable reseach fund they had? No. But an idea at least. Point being..you would an idea of something before you went off and tested for it. But you have none.

 

Once again....

Fair enough, can we do both then? Can you elaborate on this theory Chris? Or do you know of another?

'can we do both' was in response to chris, not edlloyd by the way

Quote from: GazMcB on December 02, 2007, 01:42:41 AM

I'm surprised I'm not getting any real input on this. I would have thought it would be an obvious topic for discussion. 

Yes, but it's been discussed to death and there ARE NO answers for you!

Ah right..sorry, just remembered your post from earlier. That answers my question to you then...

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on December 02, 2007, 11:51:42 AM

Quote from: edlloyd on December 02, 2007, 11:39:30 AM

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on December 02, 2007, 11:22:21 AM

So if I were to just sit around and think 'God stepping on Earth made it flat', would you say it's a theory?

Do you like to argue or something?

Did Einstein have a massive budget to formulate his ideas? Did Newton? No yet they came up with theories.

So a theory of how the earth was formed in FE could be done without a massive budget or indeed even a budget.

A hypothesis could. but measurement equipment, geotechnical analysis and astronomical data would be hard to acquire for free. do you honestly believe that you could put together a near-accurate model of the Round Earth's formation, on your own, without the benefit of already knowing it without a sizeable research fund?

Not asking for near accurate...just asking does anyone have an idea as to how a FE could form? an Idea does not require money. To test it, yes. The Greeks knew the earth was round though? Sizeable reseach fund they had? No. But an idea at least. Point being..you would an idea of something before you went off and tested for it. But you have none.

 

Once again....

So we've gone from theory to idea I see.  You should have something to base your idea on before making it.  If you have an idea that 'all flowers in bloom will be pink' before actually observing some flowers in bloom, then your idea is meaningless.  Kind of like the FE theory of how the earth formed.  We haven't gone out and made observations that could lead us to conclusions as to how the earth formed, so simply 'making something up', or, having an idea, is almost meaningless.  It would cost money to make an educated guess, even, as to how the earth formed.

I think edlloyd probably meant 'theory' as aposed to a rough idea, he probably just used the wrong word.  Yeah, it may take a bit of cash to test the model of the birth of the solar system on a computer. You can't prove it like that anyway, you can only test whether or not it's possible.  It's not like you can build a time machine and go back and observe it.  You have to construct a theory about the past based on what you know about the present. Anyway, can you elaborate a bit more on the theory you mentioned. No worries if you can't...