FET is creationism, nothing more.

Abiogenesis.

Hehehe, nice.

How do you think your flat earth was created?
(that was the question I meant to ask)

The big bang which is attested by background radiation did occur, but marked the inception of Universal Acceleration rather than the expansion of globularist Solar Systems (which do not exist). As far as THE Earth (there is no "my" Earth, there is only one Earth) is concerned, matter over time coagulated atop the Universal Accelerator until it reached the fairly stable state we find it in today. Three giant natural massice discs, the Sun, Moon and Antimoon, detatched from the surface of the then frozen Earth thanks to background radiation ionising the Earth's iron core and the other bodies such that their charges were equivalent, causing the latter to repel from the core and become suspended above the Earth. Regular fluctuations in Electromagnetic radiation set the bodies into a rotational pattern, and the heat of the brightest, hottest body, the Sun, melted ice directly under its path, forming the world's oceans but leaving raised promontories of ice both at the centre of its rotational locus and far enough outside that it no longer provided enough heat for melting (i.e., at the North Pole and on the Ice Wall).

The big bang is a theory based on radiation from other galaxies that dont exist in your view?

Also surely a load of matter would for the most basic shape which is a sphere?
(water droplets etc are spheres due to surface tention creating their basic shape)

The big bang is a theory based on radiation from other galaxies that dont exist in your view?

No.

Also surely a load of matter would for the most basic shape which is a sphere?
(water droplets etc are spheres due to surface tention creating their basic shape)

On what possible basis are you claiming that a sphere is "the most basic shape"? That is literally nothing more than opinion, is it? There are plenty of things in nature which are not spherical, in fact, I'm hard pressed to think of very many spherical things in nature at all. Pseudo-science at its worst, anyway: we can't extrapolate anything about the shape of the Earth from the shape of a rain drop. Scientists, Flat Earth or Round, would laugh in your face if you tried to offer that kind of ridiculous mysticism as a scientific theory.

The big bang cannot be used to start a flat earth. It just doesnt state that.
It relies on the fact that extrapolating what we know about the universe backwards using Einsteins theory of relativity that all galaxies once originated from a single finite point.
This is impossible without the universe.

Please stop stealing our theories and make your own.

A sphere is the most basic shape, atoms and molecules are always modeled using spheres.
Single cell organisms are spheroids, planets are spheroid due to their gravity, the sun is a spheroid due to its own gravity. etc etc.
Any liquid matter in space with no gravity would form a sphere due to surface tension and possibly its own gravity.

Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 04:52:59 AM

Also surely a load of matter would for the most basic shape which is a sphere?
(water droplets etc are spheres due to surface tention creating their basic shape)

On what possible basis are you claiming that a sphere is "the most basic shape"? That is literally nothing more than opinion, is it? There are plenty of things in nature which are not spherical, in fact, I'm hard pressed to think of very many spherical things in nature at all. Pseudo-science at its worst, anyway: we can't extrapolate anything about the shape of the Earth from the shape of a rain drop. Scientists, Flat Earth or Round, would laugh in your face if you tried to offer that kind of ridiculous mysticism as a scientific theory.

A sphere offers the maximum volume with the minimum surface area.  Bubbles are a good example of this phenomenon.

The big bang which is attested by background radiation did occur, but marked the inception of Universal Acceleration rather than the expansion of globularist Solar Systems (which do not exist). As far as THE Earth (there is no "my" Earth, there is only one Earth) is concerned, matter over time coagulated atop the Universal Accelerator until it reached the fairly stable state we find it in today. Three giant natural massice discs, the Sun, Moon and Antimoon, detatched from the surface of the then frozen Earth thanks to background radiation ionising the Earth's iron core and the other bodies such that their charges were equivalent, causing the latter to repel from the core and become suspended above the Earth. Regular fluctuations in Electromagnetic radiation set the bodies into a rotational pattern, and the heat of the brightest, hottest body, the Sun, melted ice directly under its path, forming the world's oceans but leaving raised promontories of ice both at the centre of its rotational locus and far enough outside that it no longer provided enough heat for melting (i.e., at the North Pole and on the Ice Wall).

OK, that gives us a nice flat earth. Where did all of the various life forms come from?

Dogsplatter would you care to elaborate on your adoption of the big bang theory even though it was created by round earth scientists observing the universe and other galaxies.

Which is more likely - everything moving in one direction or everything moving away from the earth - Copernicus you have failed us again!

Neither is likely?

The Big Bang theory doesnt state everything is moving away from earth as such, more that everything in the universe is moving away from a central point as every part of the universe has a specific velocity moving away from the singularity.

If I'm correct, which I may not be, everything is moving away from everything else - space is expanding in the big bang model.  In which case, everything is moving away from Earth in the false model. 

"everything is moving away from earth"
is a little bit of a flat earth view on universal (meaning the universe) expansion. (Big Bang Theory)

The earth is not the centre of anything.

The big bang cannot be used to start a flat earth. It just doesnt state that.
It relies on the fact that extrapolating what we know about the universe backwards using Einsteins theory of relativity that all galaxies once originated from a single finite point.
This is impossible without the universe.

Well no, the background radiation which is evidence for it can be construed as attesting to a number of different possible origins. you are wrong.

Please stop stealing our theories and make your own.

Don't be so stupid. If something appears to be true, I have no reason not to believe it. And theories about the universe aren't polemically divided by ownership. You have a very na?ve conception about how science operates.

A sphere is the most basic shape, atoms and molecules are always modeled using spheres.

They're modelled using spheres, they are not spheres in the real world, as you well know, hence your careful use of words here.

Single cell organisms are spheroids

Please. They're no more spheres than cubes, they're shapeless blobs.

planets are spheroid due to their gravity, the sun is a spheroid due to its own gravity. etc etc.

A recap so far then -
Danwood: The Earth is a sphere, because other things in nature are spheres!
DP: Like what?
Danwood: The Earth!

It's called a circular argument, also known as 'begging the question', and it's a really dumb logical fallacy.

Any liquid matter in space with no gravity would form a sphere due to surface tension and possibly its own gravity.

You don't seem to have gathered that we don't believe in gravity. Oh dear.

OK, that gives us a nice flat earth. Where did all of the various life forms come from?

As I said further up this very page, they formed by abiogenesis.

"everything is moving away from earth"
is a little bit of a flat earth view on universal (meaning the universe) expansion. (Big Bang Theory)

Well suck it up, because it's what your globularist science-priests believe is attested by background radiation. If you're ready to challenge the scientific establishment on this one, then I commend you, but I have the feeling that isn't quite what you're going for.

As I said further up this very page, they formed by abiogenesis.

My apologies, I missed that.

"everything is moving away from earth"
is a little bit of a flat earth view on universal (meaning the universe) expansion. (Big Bang Theory)

The earth is not the centre of anything.

Just because the earth is not the centre, doesn't mean big bang theory (expansion etc) doesn't say everything is "moving" away from it.

Though, again, its silly to use induction to apply the observed facts of our small area to the rest of the universe.  Really, a logical and mathematical flaw.

Quote from: danwood on July 04, 2009, 03:19:35 AM

"everything is moving away from earth"
is a little bit of a flat earth view on universal (meaning the universe) expansion. (Big Bang Theory)

The earth is not the centre of anything.

Just because the earth is not the centre, doesn't mean big bang theory (expansion etc) doesn't say everything is "moving" away from it.

Though, again, its silly to use induction to apply the observed facts of our small area to the rest of the universe.  Really, a logical and mathematical flaw.

everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale. local galactic clusters will remain bound but outside these groups, the rest will keep moving. well with current theory anyway. lots of isolated islands

everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale. local galactic clusters will remain bound but outside these groups, the rest will keep moving. well with current theory anyway. lots of isolated islands

What is your evidence that "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale"?

Quote from: dyno on July 05, 2009, 03:07:11 AM

everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale. local galactic clusters will remain bound but outside these groups, the rest will keep moving. well with current theory anyway. lots of isolated islands

What is your evidence that "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale"?

Red shift.  Look it up.

Quote from: trident2000 on July 05, 2009, 05:48:55 AM

Quote from: dyno on July 05, 2009, 03:07:11 AM

everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale. local galactic clusters will remain bound but outside these groups, the rest will keep moving. well with current theory anyway. lots of isolated islands

What is your evidence that "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale"?

Red shift.  Look it up.

Why should I do your research for you? When you have some evidence you can show us then I will listen to what you have to say.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 05, 2009, 09:38:10 AM

Quote from: trident2000 on July 05, 2009, 05:48:55 AM

Quote from: dyno on July 05, 2009, 03:07:11 AM

everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale. local galactic clusters will remain bound but outside these groups, the rest will keep moving. well with current theory anyway. lots of isolated islands

What is your evidence that "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale"?

Red shift.  Look it up.

Why should I do your research for you? When you have some evidence you can show us then I will listen to what you have to say.

I haven't invested enough in this thread to care whether you believe it or not.  That "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale" is a well-established and very basic principle of modern cosmology based on our observation of the red shift of distant stars.

I haven't invested enough in this thread to care whether you believe it or not.  That "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale" is a well-established and very basic principle of modern cosmology based on our observation of the red shift of distant stars.

No it is not. Many scientists disagree over many things. Are you so arrogant as to assume that you know the opinion of every scientist on the planet?

Thought not.

You have not brought one signle piece of evidence of the so called "red shift".

Well... From what I know, from high school physics, the  universe is moving away from a single point. But if you subscribe to theory of gravity then it sort-of explains why solar systems formed. Planets formed in round shape, due to gravity, and a photostar as the core, but, there is uncertainty in scientify community about this.

I'm not big on the FET because it seems to do what "God" is still doing now by filling in gaps of the scientific understanding, hence the term "God of the Gaps". FET also underminds alot of scientific theory as well, for instance, the FAQ seems against much scientific research and theory.

Also conspiracies never win my vote, unless minor and to believe in FET you have to belive that every alot of scientists and researchers are lying to you.

But i guess we will never know whos right until we are flying space cars.

I'm not big on the FET because it seems to do what "God" is still doing now by filling in gaps of the scientific understanding, hence the term "God of the Gaps".

How? How does it do this in any way? I can't help but consider you completely wrong by stating this. There are areas of unexplained phenomena in both scientific models, and as I keep reiterating, Flat Earth Theory has zero to do with God or religion, either by association of content or similarity of argument.

FET also underminds alot of scientific theory as well, for instance, the FAQ seems against much scientific research and theory.

It is in heavy disagreement with a lot of existing theories. However, you're mistaken if you think that the existing body of contemporary science is some impregnable fortress of pure truth. Science is a constantly shifting body of knowledge which adapts and changes according to evidence, popular acceptance and other influential forces. FET is part of that process.

Also conspiracies never win my vote, unless minor and to believe in FET you have to belive that every alot of scientists and researchers are lying to you.

Or are, on the whole just earnestly wrong. It's not so hard to believe that many (not all) scientists are mistaken, just as they were about other now debunked theories.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 05, 2009, 02:35:55 PM

I haven't invested enough in this thread to care whether you believe it or not.  That "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale" is a well-established and very basic principle of modern cosmology based on our observation of the red shift of distant stars.

No it is not. Many scientists disagree over many things. Are you so arrogant as to assume that you know the opinion of every scientist on the planet?

Thought not.

You have not brought one signle piece of evidence of the so called "red shift".

   HI imaging the low red-shift cosmic web
New Astronomy Reviews, Volume 48, Issues 11-12, December 2004, Pages 1271-1274
Robert Braun

The MAGIC telescope project for gamma ray astronomy in the 15 to 300 GeV energy range
Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements, Volume 48, Issues 1-3, May 1996, Pages 494-496
E. Lorenz

The low-frequency array (LOFAR): opening a new window on the universe
Planetary and Space Science, Volume 52, Issue 15, December 2004, Pages 1343-1349
N.E. Kassim, T.J.W. Lazio, P.S. Ray, P.C. Crane, B.C. Hicks, K.P. Stewart, A.S. Cohen, W.M. Lane

Gamma-Ray Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 397-432
J. Gregory Stacy, W. Thomas Vestrand

Low-temperature detectors in X-ray astronomy
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, Volume 520, Issues 1-3, 11 March 2004, Pages 354-358
F. Scott Porter

Radio Astronomy, Planetary
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 687-712
Samuel Gulkis, Imke de Pater

Millimeter Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 853-871
Jeffrey G. Mangum

Quote from: trident2000 on July 05, 2009, 02:38:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 05, 2009, 02:35:55 PM

I haven't invested enough in this thread to care whether you believe it or not.  That "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale" is a well-established and very basic principle of modern cosmology based on our observation of the red shift of distant stars.

No it is not. Many scientists disagree over many things. Are you so arrogant as to assume that you know the opinion of every scientist on the planet?

Thought not.

You have not brought one signle piece of evidence of the so called "red shift".

   HI imaging the low red-shift cosmic web
New Astronomy Reviews, Volume 48, Issues 11-12, December 2004, Pages 1271-1274
Robert Braun

The MAGIC telescope project for gamma ray astronomy in the 15 to 300 GeV energy range
Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements, Volume 48, Issues 1-3, May 1996, Pages 494-496
E. Lorenz

The low-frequency array (LOFAR): opening a new window on the universe
Planetary and Space Science, Volume 52, Issue 15, December 2004, Pages 1343-1349
N.E. Kassim, T.J.W. Lazio, P.S. Ray, P.C. Crane, B.C. Hicks, K.P. Stewart, A.S. Cohen, W.M. Lane

Gamma-Ray Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 397-432
J. Gregory Stacy, W. Thomas Vestrand

Low-temperature detectors in X-ray astronomy
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, Volume 520, Issues 1-3, 11 March 2004, Pages 354-358
F. Scott Porter

Radio Astronomy, Planetary
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 687-712
Samuel Gulkis, Imke de Pater

Millimeter Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 853-871
Jeffrey G. Mangum

I'm sorry all you have done is provided a list of some books. Anyone can do that.

http://www.amazon.com/Da-Vinci-Code-Dan-Brown/dp/1400079179/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246893296&sr=8-4

The Da Vinci Code (Paperback)
by Dan Brown
(pages 96-104)

Quote from: dyno on July 06, 2009, 05:18:13 AM

Quote from: trident2000 on July 05, 2009, 02:38:06 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 05, 2009, 02:35:55 PM

I haven't invested enough in this thread to care whether you believe it or not.  That "everything is moving away from everything else on a massive scale" is a well-established and very basic principle of modern cosmology based on our observation of the red shift of distant stars.

No it is not. Many scientists disagree over many things. Are you so arrogant as to assume that you know the opinion of every scientist on the planet?

Thought not.

You have not brought one signle piece of evidence of the so called "red shift".

   HI imaging the low red-shift cosmic web
New Astronomy Reviews, Volume 48, Issues 11-12, December 2004, Pages 1271-1274
Robert Braun

The MAGIC telescope project for gamma ray astronomy in the 15 to 300 GeV energy range
Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements, Volume 48, Issues 1-3, May 1996, Pages 494-496
E. Lorenz

The low-frequency array (LOFAR): opening a new window on the universe
Planetary and Space Science, Volume 52, Issue 15, December 2004, Pages 1343-1349
N.E. Kassim, T.J.W. Lazio, P.S. Ray, P.C. Crane, B.C. Hicks, K.P. Stewart, A.S. Cohen, W.M. Lane

Gamma-Ray Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 397-432
J. Gregory Stacy, W. Thomas Vestrand

Low-temperature detectors in X-ray astronomy
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, Volume 520, Issues 1-3, 11 March 2004, Pages 354-358
F. Scott Porter

Radio Astronomy, Planetary
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 687-712
Samuel Gulkis, Imke de Pater

Millimeter Astronomy
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 2004, Pages 853-871
Jeffrey G. Mangum

I'm sorry all you have done is provided a list of some books. Anyone can do that.

http://www.amazon.com/Da-Vinci-Code-Dan-Brown/dp/1400079179/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246893296&sr=8-4

The Da Vinci Code (Paperback)
by Dan Brown
(pages 96-104)

What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?

What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?

Exactly my point. All we are doing is listing book titles.

Quote from: svenanders on July 06, 2009, 08:51:18 AM

What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?

Exactly my point. All we are doing is listing book titles.

Gee, and here I thought that dyno was citing references in scientific journals.  Silly me.

Quote from: trident2000 on July 06, 2009, 09:01:15 AM

Quote from: svenanders on July 06, 2009, 08:51:18 AM

What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?

Exactly my point. All we are doing is listing book titles.

Gee, and here I thought that dyno was citing references in scientific journals.  Silly me.

Didn't look like it to me.

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2009, 09:11:56 AM

Quote from: trident2000 on July 06, 2009, 09:01:15 AM

Quote from: svenanders on July 06, 2009, 08:51:18 AM

What's that book got to do with the books dyno listed?

Exactly my point. All we are doing is listing book titles.

Gee, and here I thought that dyno was citing references in scientific journals.  Silly me.

Didn't look like it to me.

Maybe you should get a parent or older friend to read his post for you and explain it in words you can understand.