Does FET allow for the existence of aliens or other habitable worlds?

Fair enough. Although if you have tiny little planets (as FET does) then the aliens won't be that big.

As for habitable worlds? FET doesn't allow for them.

My flavour of FET does, as do others.

Quote from: Matrix on September 30, 2009, 09:34:42 AM

Quote from: Crustinator on September 30, 2009, 09:31:20 AM

Quote from: Matrix on September 30, 2009, 09:26:11 AM

Does RET allow for the existence of aliens or other habitable worlds?

Yes.

O RLY?!

RLY!  Just because we haven't found any, that doesn't mean that they can't exist.

Like ghosts?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2009, 04:43:17 PM

Like ghosts?

Yes. You're learning fast Tom.

There's no evidence that ghosts do exist, but one cannot assume that they don't.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However, remember that the ghost debate, along with the God debate, the alien debate and the teapot in space debate are existential questions and do not apply to the flat earth debate.

Well if you're claiming that ghosts (alien worlds/space flight/skycars) exist, then the burden is on you to prove it.

But I'm not claiming ghosts exist Tom.

Space flight... you've been presented plenty of evidence.

If you now claim that space flight is not possible, then you need to present your evidence.

What evidence did you present that space travel is possible?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove a positive. It's impossible for a skeptic to prove a negative.

Although if you have tiny little planets (as FET does) then the aliens won't be that big.

Quote from: Crustinator on September 30, 2009, 10:29:19 AM

Although if you have tiny little planets (as FET does) then the aliens won't be that big.

Please justify this statement.

Quote from: Parsifal on September 30, 2009, 05:26:43 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on September 30, 2009, 10:29:19 AM

Although if you have tiny little planets (as FET does) then the aliens won't be that big.

Please justify this statement.

Do you really want me to explain big and small to you?

I'm asking you to prove the positive statement that "Space flight is impossible".

Quote from: Crustinator on September 30, 2009, 05:31:38 PM

Do you really want me to explain big and small to you?

No, I want you to justify your statement.

Quote from: Crustinator on September 30, 2009, 05:19:36 PM

I'm asking you to prove the positive statement that "Space flight is impossible".

I didn't say it was impossible.

It's just impossible to stay in space.

Sustained spaceflight is not possible in the Accelerating Coin model because the Earth is perpetually accelerating upwards at 9.8 m\s².

NASA's claims are false because the Apollo Missions were filmed on a Hollywood set.

Big and small is justification enough. Let me know if you get stuck.

Quote from: Crustinator on September 30, 2009, 06:23:30 PM

Big and small is justification enough. Let me know if you get stuck.

"Big and small" does not justify anything.

It does. *sigh*

You're beyond help now I'm afraid.

If you do not justify your statement, then you will understand if I do not take it seriously.

Quote from: Parsifal on September 30, 2009, 06:40:16 PM

If you do not justify your statement, then you will understand if I do not take it seriously.

As with most things, since the unknowns in FET are much larger than those of the carefully crafted false logic of RET, the possibilities still allow for people to follow flavours such as those that support tiny planets rolling/sliding around a few thousand miles away (I don't buy that), as well as ones that embrace physics such as GR (which I prefer).

Let's try to keep this discussion objective, shall we?

If you embrace the phyiscs of GR (and there are many reasons why you shouldn't) what effect does that have on planet size?

Ie, what size are the planets, and where are they under a GR measured flat earth?

If you cannot understand things such as big and small, then you not taking me seriously isn't something that bothers me.

I'll take a wild guess as to your logical error, and point out to you that there is no reason why the planets need be the homes of extraterrestrial life.

That's not the generally accepted analysis.

Well since the multiverse is infinite

Well do you agree that the Universe is infinite?(actually its not because of a certain curvature caused to it but...)

The multiverse is how we express the infinite amount of parrallel universes.

Well do you agree that the Universe is infinite?(actually its not because of a certain curvature caused to it but...) The multiverse is how we express the infinite amount of parrallel universes.