How would a flat earth form naturally

  • 30 Replies
  • 2909 Views
?

004forever

How would a flat earth form naturally
« on: April 05, 2010, 08:06:41 PM »
with a round Earth, scientists can explain the shape of the Earth using gravity and the geological history of the planet. 

I don't understand how a round Earth would form

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8759
  • Semper vigilans
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2010, 08:07:29 PM »
with a round Earth, scientists can explain the shape of the Earth using gravity and the geological history of the planet. 

I don't understand how a round Earth would form
I'm not sure how a round Earth could form either!
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

2fst4u

  • 2498
  • High and Tighty
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2010, 08:20:54 PM »
with a round Earth, scientists can explain the shape of the Earth using gravity and the geological history of the planet. 

I don't understand how a round Earth would form
I'm not sure how a round Earth could form either!
The round earth universe is far easier to understand than the infinite column that is the FE universe.

?

004forever

Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2010, 08:25:35 PM »
with a round Earth, scientists can explain the shape of the Earth using gravity and the geological history of the planet. 

I don't understand how a round Earth would form
I'm not sure how a round Earth could form either!

There are a few theories.  One idea is that bits of particles in space were attracted together by gravity.  As the ball got bigger, more particles were attracted and the Earth was formed in this way.  The Earth formed a globe because that is the equilibrium for the settling dust(the idea is similar to why when you blow bubbles, they form spheres, it's the most stable shape). 

Another theory suggests that the Earth was molten and spun off from the sun, once again settling as a sphere in equilibrium

?

EarthISroundISproven

  • 382
  • There is no ice wall
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2010, 08:27:36 PM »
Well God created the flat earth on one of his days off didn't he?  ;D



  

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2010, 08:27:48 PM »
Condensing solar nebula is pretty straightforward.

Even explains why the planets become become less dense as you move away from the Sun, in addition to depletion of volatiles as you move closer to the sun.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16330
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2010, 12:25:15 AM »
with a round Earth, scientists can explain the shape of the Earth using gravity and the geological history of the planet. 

I don't understand how a round Earth would form
I'm not sure how a round Earth could form either!

There are a few theories.  One idea is that bits of particles in space were attracted together by gravity.  As the ball got bigger, more particles were attracted and the Earth was formed in this way.  The Earth formed a globe because that is the equilibrium for the settling dust(the idea is similar to why when you blow bubbles, they form spheres, it's the most stable shape). 

Another theory suggests that the Earth was molten and spun off from the sun, once again settling as a sphere in equilibrium
Dang.  If only you guys could get it down to 1 theory instead of a million different ones to fit each explanation.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Lorddave

  • 15510
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2010, 03:19:44 AM »
with a round Earth, scientists can explain the shape of the Earth using gravity and the geological history of the planet. 

I don't understand how a round Earth would form
I'm not sure how a round Earth could form either!

There are a few theories.  One idea is that bits of particles in space were attracted together by gravity.  As the ball got bigger, more particles were attracted and the Earth was formed in this way.  The Earth formed a globe because that is the equilibrium for the settling dust(the idea is similar to why when you blow bubbles, they form spheres, it's the most stable shape). 

Another theory suggests that the Earth was molten and spun off from the sun, once again settling as a sphere in equilibrium
Dang.  If only you guys could get it down to 1 theory instead of a million different ones to fit each explanation.

You first.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16330
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2010, 03:52:10 AM »
with a round Earth, scientists can explain the shape of the Earth using gravity and the geological history of the planet. 

I don't understand how a round Earth would form
I'm not sure how a round Earth could form either!

There are a few theories.  One idea is that bits of particles in space were attracted together by gravity.  As the ball got bigger, more particles were attracted and the Earth was formed in this way.  The Earth formed a globe because that is the equilibrium for the settling dust(the idea is similar to why when you blow bubbles, they form spheres, it's the most stable shape). 

Another theory suggests that the Earth was molten and spun off from the sun, once again settling as a sphere in equilibrium
Dang.  If only you guys could get it down to 1 theory instead of a million different ones to fit each explanation.

You first.
Heh.  That was fairly tongue in cheek =-).

Anyways, seriously,  some flat earth models hold that the earth didn't form and always existed.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2010, 07:18:03 AM »
There is only one theory for how the earth formed that is accepted by earth scientists and astronomers.

Solar nebula condenses. Planetesimals form, late into this evolution another large object roughly the size of mars collides into earth spinning off debris into orbit which coalesced into the moon that we see above us today. Again, using chemical analysis, we can verify that the moon is a direct product of earth materials. The only driving force is gravity -- no other phenomenon are necessary to explain collisions, orbits, chemistry differences among the planets, moon and ring systems, etc.

I don't see any problems with this model. Care to enlighten?

***

Even when we claim that gravity is some false, made up force, that does not detract from the matter that 99.99pct of all observable phenomenon involving moving objects obeys some law that has to do with mass. There are as yet, no examples of an inverse relationship between mass and [gravitational] attraction (ignoring the obvious electromagnetic properties of small magnets).

Not only is the UA contrary to what we observe immediately outside the earthen disk, it also fails to account why objects independent of the earth (that is, not in direct contact) fail to move with it as well. Afterall, the sun and moon seem to all accelerate with the earth. In addition, saying that these bodies are all unique in composition (when we can clearly demonstrate what makes up these things) thus they accelerate at this magic constant of 9.8m/s is truly far worse than the dark matter/energy that is proposed by physicists currently. The only difference is that physicists are trying to work out the dark matter/energy problem... no tests are even possible with the UA -- it's practically unfalsifiable according to FE standards!
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 08:01:45 AM by Deceiver »

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8759
  • Semper vigilans
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2010, 07:50:53 AM »
There is only one theory for how the earth formed that is accepted by earth scientists and astronomers.

Solar nebula condenses. Planetesimals form, late into this evolution another large object roughly the size of mars collides into earth spinning off debris into orbit which coalesced into the moon that we see above us today. Again, using chemical analysis, we can verify that the moon is a direct product of earth materials. The only driving force is gravity -- no other phenomenon are necessary to explain collisions, orbits, chemistry differences among the planets, moon and ring systems, etc.

I don't see any problems with this model. Care to enlighten?
I'm curious as to how they would take a chemical analysis and how the results would indicate the moon is directly from Earth.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2010, 08:09:06 AM »
Well, we could physically take samples from the moon and compare it with igneous rocks from the earth (has been done by NASA). This involves taking the two samples, crushing them into a fine powder, and analyzing the dust. Or you can slice the rock into very thin sections and look at it under a microscope and examine the structure and properties of the crystals. Or, the more painful way is to analyse the electromagnetic wavelengths it emits/absorbs when radiating and compare it with samples here on earth in a lab. We do this all the time with other bodies, such as the sun, the moons of jupiter, extra solar bodies, etc. EDIT: For the purpose of clarity, this process is similar to taking a ball of some sort (say, a tennis ball) and throwing or dropping it at some target. Based on the sound it makes, and how much it bounces back, you can tell quite a bit about the surface (such as hard or soft, hollow or solid, rough or smooth), without physically touching it yourself. Sometimes differentiating between different surfaces can be tricky, and many times recreating the 'wall' takes years to figure out, especially when the materials get exotic like the various types of sulfur deposits we've seen from volcanic activity on the moon Io.

For the record, the moon is composed primarily of what was once the earth's mantle. When earth was struck by some massive object billions of years ago, it incorporated most of it's iron-nickel core with Earth's, flinging the outermost (upper mantle and very young crustal materials) into space. Eventually it accreted together and became locked in orbit, tidal forces slowed the rotation (of both the earth and the moon -- earth had well over 400 days a year in the distant past and is still slowing down today) such that the same face of the moon faces the earth at all times. Back to the topic at hand though... looking at volcanic products that come up from basaltic volcanoes verifies the similiar origin of the moon and earth. In fact, they even have the very similar isotope ratios, indicating that is nearly the same age of the earth.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 09:15:02 AM by Deceiver »

?

004forever

Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2010, 09:26:12 AM »
with a round Earth, scientists can explain the shape of the Earth using gravity and the geological history of the planet. 

I don't understand how a round Earth would form
I'm not sure how a round Earth could form either!

There are a few theories.  One idea is that bits of particles in space were attracted together by gravity.  As the ball got bigger, more particles were attracted and the Earth was formed in this way.  The Earth formed a globe because that is the equilibrium for the settling dust(the idea is similar to why when you blow bubbles, they form spheres, it's the most stable shape). 

Another theory suggests that the Earth was molten and spun off from the sun, once again settling as a sphere in equilibrium
Dang.  If only you guys could get it down to 1 theory instead of a million different ones to fit each explanation.

You first.
Heh.  That was fairly tongue in cheek =-).

Anyways, seriously,  some flat earth models hold that the earth didn't form and always existed.

If the Earth had always existed, then it would be infinitely old.  If the Earth were infinitely old, evolution would have given us perfect organisms.  It's based on an idea in probability that if have a roomful of monkeys bang away at keyboards for an infinite amount of time, they would eventually produce Hamlet.  But so far, evolution has only given us a rough draft of the first couple acts. 

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8759
  • Semper vigilans
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2010, 09:29:22 AM »
Sorry for asking again but I'm still not getting it.
I'll ignore the physical samples portion since NASA likes to give away fake space rocks.

As for the tennis ball analogy
Quote
Based on the sound it makes, and how much it bounces back, you can tell quite a bit about the surface
How do we test how bouncy and loud the Earth and Moon are?

For the record, the moon is composed primarily of what was once the earth's mantle. When earth was struck by some massive object billions of years ago, it incorporated most of it's iron-nickel core with Earth's, flinging the outermost (upper mantle and very young crustal materials) into space. Eventually it accreted together and became locked in orbit, tidal forces slowed the rotation (of both the earth and the moon -- earth had well over 400 days a year in the distant past and is still slowing down today) such that the same face of the moon faces the earth at all times. Back to the topic at hand though... looking at volcanic products that come up from basaltic volcanoes verifies the similiar origin of the moon and earth. In fact, they even have the very similar isotope ratios, indicating that is nearly the same age of the earth.
I still don't see how the jump is made from the Earth and Moon have some of the same chemicals to knowing that the Moon was formed from the Earth.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8759
  • Semper vigilans
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2010, 09:30:34 AM »
with a round Earth, scientists can explain the shape of the Earth using gravity and the geological history of the planet. 

I don't understand how a round Earth would form
I'm not sure how a round Earth could form either!

There are a few theories.  One idea is that bits of particles in space were attracted together by gravity.  As the ball got bigger, more particles were attracted and the Earth was formed in this way.  The Earth formed a globe because that is the equilibrium for the settling dust(the idea is similar to why when you blow bubbles, they form spheres, it's the most stable shape). 

Another theory suggests that the Earth was molten and spun off from the sun, once again settling as a sphere in equilibrium
Dang.  If only you guys could get it down to 1 theory instead of a million different ones to fit each explanation.

You first.
Heh.  That was fairly tongue in cheek =-).

Anyways, seriously,  some flat earth models hold that the earth didn't form and always existed.

If the Earth had always existed, then it would be infinitely old.  If the Earth were infinitely old, evolution would have given us perfect organisms.  It's based on an idea in probability that if have a roomful of monkeys bang away at keyboards for an infinite amount of time, they would eventually produce Hamlet.  But so far, evolution has only given us a rough draft of the first couple acts. 
A perfect organism will never exist.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

004forever

Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2010, 09:41:55 AM »
with a round Earth, scientists can explain the shape of the Earth using gravity and the geological history of the planet. 

I don't understand how a round Earth would form
I'm not sure how a round Earth could form either!

There are a few theories.  One idea is that bits of particles in space were attracted together by gravity.  As the ball got bigger, more particles were attracted and the Earth was formed in this way.  The Earth formed a globe because that is the equilibrium for the settling dust(the idea is similar to why when you blow bubbles, they form spheres, it's the most stable shape). 

Another theory suggests that the Earth was molten and spun off from the sun, once again settling as a sphere in equilibrium
Dang.  If only you guys could get it down to 1 theory instead of a million different ones to fit each explanation.

You first.
Heh.  That was fairly tongue in cheek =-).

Anyways, seriously,  some flat earth models hold that the earth didn't form and always existed.

If the Earth had always existed, then it would be infinitely old.  If the Earth were infinitely old, evolution would have given us perfect organisms.  It's based on an idea in probability that if have a roomful of monkeys bang away at keyboards for an infinite amount of time, they would eventually produce Hamlet.  But so far, evolution has only given us a rough draft of the first couple acts. 
A perfect organism will never exist.

That's only because you're not thinking in terms of infinity.   Let's assume that a perfect organism cannot exist, but a better one always can.  If there is a better organism than humans, longer evolution would have given us that.  Now consider that new organism.  If there is a better organism than that, longer evolution would have given us that.  Since the Earth is infinitely old, we can keep adding time to evolution and creating better and better organisms indefinitely.  This is the nature of infinity.  This is why it almost never crops up in nature.  It creates too many logical paradoxes when something is considered infinite in size or age.  That's why we have a hard time understanding black holes.  We aren't sure what it actually means to have an object with infinite density like the singularity in a blackhole.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8759
  • Semper vigilans
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2010, 09:46:49 AM »
Are you being serious?  ::)
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

EarthISroundISproven

  • 382
  • There is no ice wall
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2010, 10:58:54 AM »
I should really get into this being a geologist after all. Hmm where shall I start. 'FE believes the earth to be infinitely old'. Does FE accept that the earth was in the past a lot hotter than than it is today, and that it cooled over millions of years?....If not then I'd roll out all the geomorphic evidence that shows it was hotter. But if they do accept it was a lot hotter, then they have to accept the Universe has evolved in some form. Again, don't need to go into space to prove the earth isn't what FE'ers say it is.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2010, 11:09:20 AM »
Despite what you believe, your perception of reality does not grant the privilege of deciding what is evidence and what isn't if it fails to fit your theory. You simply cannot call everyone that disagrees with you either a liar or fraud, while praising work that supports your theory. Visit a university sometime and see how the scientific method actually works. Observation and data must precede interpretation, always.

The tennis ball analogy is the closest thing I can give you that explains how we detect the composition of other materials... in that scenario, the tennis ball is a photon, and the wall is some compound we want to examine.

For example, the reason that most grass appears green is because the chlorophyll which makes up most of the non-transparent tissues are all green too. By something having color and being seen, it must reflect something back that our eyes can percieve (visible electromagnetic spectrum!). So, that green grass absorbs pretty much every visible wavelength except green, so it bounces back and we see it. When less light is available to bounce, the shade appears darker etc. We can extend this well beyond the visible spectrum, for example, back to Io, using the infrared spectrum is generally more helpful when making determinations. Point of all this is, since the sun shoots light onto the moon and is reflected back to us, we can analyse the specific wavelength of the absorbed radiation. The more wavelengths you shoot at an object or have reflected, the better idea you get for what is absorbed and what isn't. You could argue that the moon is it's own independent light source, but in that case it would emit blackbody radiation... which it doesn't. If it was a spotlight like the sun, it would also emit all wavelengths -- but it doesnt, the moon shoots back the EXACT same light as a sample of basalt or gabbro would if you reflected the sun's radiation at it. Those giant blobs of black stuff you see on the moon.. those are massive flood basalts from what was once a molten ball of mafic rock. The grayer stuff, is the exact same thing but with slightly less iron and magnesium in the rock.

If you want to really understand the procedures and workings behind it, by all means, visit an academic library. There are entire books devoted to the many, many methods we use to ascertain chemical compositions and the physics behind the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS).

As to your last point, each of the planets has a very unique surface composition. The terrestial planets are similiar generally, but they each have unique chemistries independent of the other when you start analyzing chemistry and atmospheric properties. The moon is not merely similar to earth's rocks, it is an exact copy of the stuff found in our lava samples where oceanic crust is found. No other planet comes close to the ratios of elements and mineral content.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 11:20:37 AM by Deceiver »

?

EarthISroundISproven

  • 382
  • There is no ice wall
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2010, 11:13:15 AM »
I second all of that.

Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2010, 11:26:14 AM »
with a round Earth, scientists can explain the shape of the Earth using gravity and the geological history of the planet. 

I don't understand how a round Earth would form
I'm not sure how a round Earth could form either!

There are a few theories.  One idea is that bits of particles in space were attracted together by gravity.  As the ball got bigger, more particles were attracted and the Earth was formed in this way.  The Earth formed a globe because that is the equilibrium for the settling dust(the idea is similar to why when you blow bubbles, they form spheres, it's the most stable shape). 

Another theory suggests that the Earth was molten and spun off from the sun, once again settling as a sphere in equilibrium
Dang.  If only you guys could get it down to 1 theory instead of a million different ones to fit each explanation.

You first.
Heh.  That was fairly tongue in cheek =-).

Anyways, seriously,  some flat earth models hold that the earth didn't form and always existed.

If the Earth had always existed, then it would be infinitely old.  If the Earth were infinitely old, evolution would have given us perfect organisms.  It's based on an idea in probability that if have a roomful of monkeys bang away at keyboards for an infinite amount of time, they would eventually produce Hamlet.  But so far, evolution has only given us a rough draft of the first couple acts. 
A perfect organism will never exist.

That's only because you're not thinking in terms of infinity.   Let's assume that a perfect organism cannot exist, but a better one always can.  If there is a better organism than humans, longer evolution would have given us that.  Now consider that new organism.  If there is a better organism than that, longer evolution would have given us that.  Since the Earth is infinitely old, we can keep adding time to evolution and creating better and better organisms indefinitely.  This is the nature of infinity.  This is why it almost never crops up in nature.  It creates too many logical paradoxes when something is considered infinite in size or age.  That's why we have a hard time understanding black holes.  We aren't sure what it actually means to have an object with infinite density like the singularity in a blackhole.

evolution doesnt make organisms better.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2010, 11:34:26 AM »
We're getting off topic...

but you are correct. Evolution does NOT make organisms better (better is pretty meaningless by way of definition anyway)

However, evolution does drive organisms into increasingly specialized niches. This is particularly evident in the fossil record. For example, when studying the evolution of ammonite species (similar to nautiloids) you find that as the strata get younger, they develop structures in their shells that allow them to survive at deeper, less hostile depths. Increased predation and the KT meteorite impact was a bit much for them though.

*

Lorddave

  • 15510
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2010, 01:02:06 PM »
with a round Earth, scientists can explain the shape of the Earth using gravity and the geological history of the planet. 

I don't understand how a round Earth would form
I'm not sure how a round Earth could form either!

There are a few theories.  One idea is that bits of particles in space were attracted together by gravity.  As the ball got bigger, more particles were attracted and the Earth was formed in this way.  The Earth formed a globe because that is the equilibrium for the settling dust(the idea is similar to why when you blow bubbles, they form spheres, it's the most stable shape). 

Another theory suggests that the Earth was molten and spun off from the sun, once again settling as a sphere in equilibrium
Dang.  If only you guys could get it down to 1 theory instead of a million different ones to fit each explanation.

You first.
Heh.  That was fairly tongue in cheek =-).

Anyways, seriously,  some flat earth models hold that the earth didn't form and always existed.

I know, but I've been hearing nothing but "Prove it" "show the raw data" ect... from FEers when presented with arguments against FE and yet never see them produce the same thing.  The hypocrisy get's a aggravating.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8759
  • Semper vigilans
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2010, 01:12:41 PM »
Despite what you believe, your perception of reality does not grant the privilege of deciding what is evidence and what isn't if it fails to fit your theory. You simply cannot call everyone that disagrees with you either a liar or fraud, while praising work that supports your theory. Visit a university sometime and see how the scientific method actually works. Observation and data must precede interpretation, always.
??? All I said was that Nasa gave away fake moon rocks. They aren't trustworhty so they are not valid sources of evidence.
I have citations in all of my experiments, perhaps you could follow suit one day.
Quote
As to your last point, each of the planets has a very unique surface composition. The terrestial planets are similiar generally, but they each have unique chemistries independent of the other when you start analyzing chemistry and atmospheric properties. The moon is not merely similar to earth's rocks, it is an exact copy of the stuff found in our lava samples where oceanic crust is found. No other planet comes close to the ratios of elements and mineral content.
How do you copy rocks? My neighbors acorss the street have a granite countertop that looks exactly like the granite countertop of my uncle. The granite must be from the same exact location right?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2010, 01:29:13 PM »
Gin, the reason you claim that NASA is a part of the conspiracy is because you claim them to be. I can probably cite that someone witnessed a dragon periodically eating the moon and creating phases. Unfortunately, just like the FE hypothesis, it doesn't hold any water or explain any other phenomena than the one which it immediately supports. I have not read a single sentence on this forum that shows how FE predicts even one testable, observable phenomenon that RE doesn't.

I use citations all the time. Now, can you tell me that you have been peer reviewed for scientific thoroughness? That Gin, is what separates my research and yours.

You can take a slab of rock (such as your granite) and assign it a locality based the proportions of minerals it contains. Aside from being a remarkable waste of hundreds if not thousands of hours of time spent researching this, plus the money and lab equipment costs.... for something that is not even remotely practical.

As an example, mid oceanic ridge basalits are different from island arc basalts, which are also different from continental arc basalts. Even granites from other planets are slightly different in bulk composition and trace elements when compared to similar rocks on earth. As someone completely untrained in the geological sciences, what you think you see has no bearing on WHAT IS. As a human with very limited exposure to this vast world and cosmos, we are all subject to bias and fallacy. This is why we do science and why we spend entire lifetimes studying a single facet of a subject -- because nothing can be taken for granted or overlooked in order for a theory to have basis.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 01:38:36 PM by Deceiver »

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8759
  • Semper vigilans
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2010, 01:30:53 PM »
because nothing can be taken for granted or overlooked in order for a theory to have basis.
Then please stop claiming the moon can from the Earth when you have done none of your own experimentation.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

The Question1

  • 390
  • Your logic is inferior to my logic.
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #26 on: April 06, 2010, 01:35:07 PM »
because nothing can be taken for granted or overlooked in order for a theory to have basis.
Then please stop claiming the moon can from the Earth when you have done none of your own experimentation.
So?
Whats wrong with *actual* scientists doing it?
What hurts thier credibility.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #27 on: April 06, 2010, 01:47:44 PM »
Surely you see the problem here? This statement is equivalent: Please stop saying the earth is flat until you can actually produce a map of the disk yourself. Difference though, is that people have actually proved that the moon came from the earth, on many grounds of evidence. On the contrary, I don't see a single accurate FE map. Or even an explanation as to why empirically, a flight from the UK to Australia takes longer than a flight from sydney to the southern tip of South America.

If I do the experiment, that is, fund my own space vessel and collect the rocks, then analyze them, you would likely accuse me of working for NASA too or even data mining or whatever else.  I can even recreate the same mineral assemblages in the lab, with the exact same optical and physical properties as those on the moon. I already explained how that is done. If you can find a flaw in the methodology I posted earlier, I am more than willing to bow out of this argument, even concede that you might have a point. I use similar methodology as NASA and every other university geochem lab. There are industry standards, afterall. So, I can tell you that they did exactly what I am doing and it was done correctly and the results were interpreted correctly. If you were to run the tests right now and look at the graphs you would reach the same conclusions that NASA and every other lunar scientist did decades ago.

The second remarkable fallacy -- you suggest that every single person on this earth do every experiment themselves if they are to demonstrate something. Sorry, we'd still be in the stone ages if civilization advanced that way. And I have done research. As I said earlier, all I do is geochemical analysis.  I can even tell you that I have been to Antarctica for the sole purpose of collecting meteorites for this type of analysis. No Ice wall! No guards! It's an island-continent! Even geophysics, a very related field, is hardly touchable by someone like me. The level of specialization required is simply too great to prove every geologic occurrence. So, I could choose to do experiments kids might do in high school that every person on the planet can verify from common experience, or I can actually do something worthwhile such as specialize and find out new, testable and verifiable things to advance our understanding of the universe's workings. Easy choice.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 04:33:54 PM by Deceiver »

Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #28 on: April 14, 2010, 11:41:45 AM »
because nothing can be taken for granted or overlooked in order for a theory to have basis.
Then please stop claiming the moon can from the Earth when you have done none of your own experimentation.

regardless of if the moon came from the earth or not, its made of similar materials, so of course you can find something like the moon on earth.

Re: How would a flat earth form naturally
« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2010, 01:35:09 PM »
One thing to note... it is uncommon for terrestrial planets to have moons (with reference to naturally being created through accreation in the beginning stages of the planetesimal).  Mercury and Venus do not harbor moons, and Mars' moons represent that of captured asteroids (nothing even close to the ratio of earth's size to the moon's size).

This itself is an indication that something other than or in addition too natural accreation is responsible for our moon's creation.  It is commonly theorized that a comet face-planeted itself onto the earth during the early stages of its life and as a result, tore a fat piece of the earth off.  The earth's gravity would have captured the comet and retained the debris while over billions of years accreating themselves into the size and shape that the moon currently represents.

I also think that is where our oceans came from.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2010, 01:38:36 PM by Pid^2 »