Other planets in our solar system...?

Why are all the other planets/moons round when the only flat one is the earth?

You better give me a good and logical explanation on this, because some of the posts I've seen on this site... Well they almost made me cry

Those planets are not the earth.

An answer that can convince me please

An answer that can convince me please

You're not convinced that those planets are not the earth?

Quote from: Brisi[NOR] on February 26, 2009, 01:20:42 PM

An answer that can convince me please

You're not convinced that those planets are not the earth?

The earth is a planet. So is pluto, the moons, venus etc. How could I be convinced?

So how did the Earth manage to get this way? Also could anybody give me a picture of the solar system with a flat Earth? Do the planets rotate around their axis and revolve around the Sun?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 26, 2009, 01:33:18 PM

Quote from: Brisi[NOR] on February 26, 2009, 01:20:42 PM

An answer that can convince me please

You're not convinced that those planets are not the earth?

The earth is a planet. So is pluto, the moons, venus etc. How could I be convinced?

If moons are planets, then why are they called moons?

Quote from: Brisi[NOR] on February 26, 2009, 01:39:30 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 26, 2009, 01:33:18 PM

Quote from: Brisi[NOR] on February 26, 2009, 01:20:42 PM

An answer that can convince me please

You're not convinced that those planets are not the earth?

The earth is a planet. So is pluto, the moons, venus etc. How could I be convinced?

If moons are planets, then why are they called moons?

Moons are basicaly the same as a planet but they tend to be smaller and circulate around planets. I'm not saying they are planets, if I did that was a mistake

You are asking why dogs are not cats. Even in RET, the sun is a pretty different beast to the earth.

You are asking why dogs are not cats. Even in RET, the sun is a pretty different beast to the earth.

However it is still a sphere like all relatively large celestial bodies in the entire known universe.

However it is still a sphere like all relatively large celestial bodies in the entire known universe.

The earth is not a celestial body. It's an unfathomable plane which bisects the universe.

Quote from: brutsi on February 26, 2009, 10:41:51 PM

However it is still a sphere like all relatively large celestial bodies in the entire known universe.

The earth is not a celestial body. It's an unfathomable plane which bisects the universe.

So you admit that the Earth is literally cutting the Universe in half?

So you admit that the Earth is literally cutting the Universe in half?

That's what I said, wasn't it?

Quote from: reyo on February 26, 2009, 10:46:43 PM

So you admit that the Earth is literally cutting the Universe in half?

That's what I said, wasn't it?

So you then admit that the Universe, being literally cut in half, which is everything in space and time, is split completely in two riping both time AND space? 

So you then admit that the Universe, being literally cut in half, which is everything in space and time, is split completely in two riping both time AND space? 

How would the earth cut time in half? 

Is the acceleration parallel on all locations of Flat Earth?

Quote from: reyo on February 26, 2009, 10:51:03 PM

So you then admit that the Universe, being literally cut in half, which is everything in space and time, is split completely in two riping both time AND space? 

How would the earth cut time in half? 

The universe is defined as everything in space and time.  The Earth is apart of space and time is it not?  And since the Universe (now being completely cut in half) is split in two, everything that is associated with it (which is anything defined as space and time) is then disrupted in one way or another.  

I just don't understand how the Earth and the life that it suports can come off completely unscaved while space and time is completely split in two.  Can you explain how this works?

PS, you're the one claiming that the Earth is cutting the Universe in half, which is defined as everything associated with space and time, not me.  I'm just trying to make sense of what you're saying.

PPS, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universe Here's a source (that ISN'T Wikipedia) showing the definition of the Universe...and look...it talks about the Earth being included as apart of the Universe...weird.

Reyo, your doing it again.  It's the same thing you do at home.  Make a point and get on with it!  Hahaha.

Reyo, your doing it again.  It's the same thing you do at home.  Make a point and get on with it!  Hahaha.

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm trying to make sense of what Bishop is trying to say.

Let me do it.

The most common theory seems to be they believe the Earth is in constant acceleration of a plane with unknown and possibly infinite depth accelerating at 9.8m/s² In an "upward" direction by dark energy.  (Acceleration is in fact indistinguishable from gravity for the purpose of that argument.)  An infinite plane is just as incomprehensible as infinite space so that's not really an issue.  The Earth has no "mass" so it therefore requires no actual force to accelerate, making dark energy more than powerful enough to push the Earth and also making E=MC² irrelevant in this case.  The angle of the Sun and Moon is a matter of perspective, not position of the Earth per se.  All celestial objects actually exist "above" the Earth.  That's it in a nutshell.

Let me do it.

The most common theory seems to be they believe the Earth is in constant acceleration of a plane with unknown and possibly infinite depth accelerating at 9.8m/s² In an "upward" direction by dark energy.  (Acceleration is in fact indistinguishable from gravity for the purpose of that argument.)  An infinite plane is just as incomprehensible as infinite space so that's not really an issue.  The Earth has no "mass" so it therefore requires no actual force to accelerate, making dark energy more than powerful enough to push the Earth and also making E=MC² irrelevant in this case.  The angle of the Sun and Moon is a matter of perspective, not position of the Earth per se.  All celestial objects actually exist "above" the Earth.  That's it in a nutshell.

how can an object so physically present to us have no "mass"?

Let me do it.

The most common theory seems to be they believe the Earth is in constant acceleration of a plane with unknown and possibly infinite depth accelerating at 9.8m/s² In an "upward" direction by dark energy.  (Acceleration is in fact indistinguishable from gravity for the purpose of that argument.)  An infinite plane is just as incomprehensible as infinite space so that's not really an issue.  The Earth has no "mass" so it therefore requires no actual force to accelerate, making dark energy more than powerful enough to push the Earth and also making E=MC² irrelevant in this case.  The angle of the Sun and Moon is a matter of perspective, not position of the Earth per se.  All celestial objects actually exist "above" the Earth.  That's it in a nutshell.

So how does this explain how the Earth is able to literally cut the Universe in half and not recieve and detrimental effects due to the fact that space and time is literally cut in half.

I could prove it has mass, as I showed Reyo a few days ago.  There's an experiment you can do in your garage that separates gravity from inertia.  It's easy.

And Reyo, be more specific.  What laws of physics would be broken?

I could prove it has mass, as I showed Reyo a few days ago.  There's an experiment you can do in your garage that separates gravity from inertia.  It's easy.

And Reyo, be more specific.  What laws of physics would be broken?

He's saying that the Earth is bisecting the Universe in two...literally.  Tell me which laws of physics AREN'T broken.

Apparently Earth has no mass.... So....  If an object is without physical mass, physics don't matter.

The terminology "splitting the universe in half" seems to be causing confusion. An infinite Earth extends throughout the universe occupying space and occupying time. "Bisecting" is just describe the division of two separate areas of the universe. Think of a  graph and how it has four quadrants: negative and positive for both x and y values. The x and y axis extend from the origin on forever, but the graph is still continuous. It is a marker defining boundaries, not a rip in the graph.

The terminology "splitting the universe in half" seems to be causing confusion. An infinite Earth extends throughout the universe occupying space and occupying time. "Bisecting" is just describe the division of two separate areas of the universe. Think of a  graph and how it has four quadrants: negative and positive for both x and y values. The x and y axis extend from the origin on forever, but the graph is still continuous. It is a marker defining boundaries, not a rip in the graph.

If you were to look up the definition of the word "bisect" you'd see that it refers to the split of a single...thing completely in half, not the seperation of two distinct parts.  And besides, you're assuming that the Earth is able to be in 2 different universes at the same time. 

So if the Earth is infinite why does it have an edge and an ice wall one can jump over ? It is stated as such in the FAQ

If you were to look up the definition of the word "bisect" you'd see that it refers to the split of a single...thing completely in half, not the seperation of two distinct parts.  And besides, you're assuming that the Earth is able to be in 2 different universes at the same time. 

I know the definition of "bisect" though obviously I cannot clearly convey my point to you.

Imagine if you divide an apartment with your roommate so that one half is 'his', and the other half is 'yours', there is no real damage to the apartment. You may stretch tape across it to signify the different halves but still the apartment is fine. An infinite earth is analogous to the tape across the carpet. Spacetime corresponds to the completely fine apartment.

So if the Earth is infinite why does it have an edge and an ice wall one can jump over ? It is stated as such in the FAQ

Infinite Earth and the standard FE model are two separate models. I myself tend to lean in favor of the infinite Earth model for its elegance, but on the flip side, this also means it can never be proven because collecting evidence would take an infinite amount of time.

Quote from: reyo on February 27, 2009, 01:13:33 AM

If you were to look up the definition of the word "bisect" you'd see that it refers to the split of a single...thing completely in half, not the seperation of two distinct parts.  And besides, you're assuming that the Earth is able to be in 2 different universes at the same time. 

I know the definition of "bisect" though obviously I cannot clearly convey my point to you.

Imagine if you divide an apartment with your roommate so that one half is 'his', and the other half is 'yours', there is no real damage to the apartment. You may stretch tape across it to signify the different halves but still the apartment is fine. An infinite earth is analogous to the tape across the carpet. Spacetime corresponds to the completely fine apartment.

A better analogy might be the erection of a partition wall, in that you wouldn't be able to access one half from the other without a destructive means of going through.  The apartment would still be unaffected (apart from some potential damage to the walls, floor and ceiling that the landlord might object to - the theological implications of this for FET I leave to others to debate), but I agree that the apartment itself would still be one apartment, not two.