There are many problems with this theory!

Could someone please answer these questions:

1. How does the conservation of angular momentum fit into the flat earth model?

2. How does Newton's law of universal gravitation fit into the flat earth model?

3. Other planets and moons in our solar system are obviously round, so surely the same processes the formed those celestial bodies would have the same effect when forming the earth. Why is earth different to other celestial bodies?

4. Universal acceleration is responsible for 'gravity' in the flat earth theory. The energy for this acceleration is said to come from 'dark energy'. 'Dark energy' seems to be an excuse to exlpain the spontaneous generation of energy pushing the earth infinitely upwards. How is the energy pushing against the earth generated?

5. If the earth is constantly being pushed upwards then what is it being pushed into? Where is the earth going?

6. If the sun and the moon are 3000 miles above the earth then how does flat earth theory explain an eclipse? Surely if they are at the same hieght above the earth they would crash into each other?

7. How does flat earth theory explain the magnetic poles? A flat earth would not generate it's own magnetic field because it would not spin, but there are clearly magnetic north and south.

Those are very good questions. May I direct you to the http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11211.0

Beorn is learning!

<3

1. It is the same
2. It doesn't
3. There is no life on other planets either. The earth is special.
4. In the RE big bang all matter is being flung out from the centre of the universe. Why can you accept this and not UA?
5. What is beyond the universe? As much a question for RE as FE but falls into the realms of philosophy.
6. Eclipses are caused by the anti-moon
7. What causes poles in a permanent magnet? They don't spin either.

And Welcome to FES.

7. What causes poles in a permanent magnet? They don't spin either.

They do. The electrons generating the magnetic moment have a spin.

Beorn is learning!

<3

And I thank you and the others for showing me the (bending) light.

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 11:25:42 AM

7. What causes poles in a permanent magnet? They don't spin either.

They do. The electrons generating the magnetic moment have a spin.

lrn2context

1. It is the same
2. It doesn't
3. There is no life on other planets either. The earth is special.
4. In the RE big bang all matter is being flung out from the centre of the universe. Why can you accept this and not UA?
5. What is beyond the universe? As much a question for RE as FE but falls into the realms of philosophy.
6. Eclipses are caused by the anti-moon
7. What causes poles in a permanent magnet? They don't spin either.

And Welcome to FES.

For your answer to question 1, if the conservation of angular momentum was applied to flat earth theory then the earth would be round. Also what is an anti-moon? Furthermore, for your answer to question 3; the laws of physics are universal and apply to all matter, therefore, why would the earth differ? What makes the earth special?

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 11:25:42 AM

1. It is the same
2. It doesn't
3. There is no life on other planets either. The earth is special.
4. In the RE big bang all matter is being flung out from the centre of the universe. Why can you accept this and not UA?
5. What is beyond the universe? As much a question for RE as FE but falls into the realms of philosophy.
6. Eclipses are caused by the anti-moon
7. What causes poles in a permanent magnet? They don't spin either.

And Welcome to FES.

For your answer to question 1, if the conservation of angular momentum was applied to flat earth theory then the earth would be round.

Why?

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 11:25:42 AM

1. It is the same
2. It doesn't
3. There is no life on other planets either. The earth is special.
4. In the RE big bang all matter is being flung out from the centre of the universe. Why can you accept this and not UA?
5. What is beyond the universe? As much a question for RE as FE but falls into the realms of philosophy.
6. Eclipses are caused by the anti-moon
7. What causes poles in a permanent magnet? They don't spin either.

And Welcome to FES.

For your answer to question 1, if the conservation of angular momentum was applied to flat earth theory then the earth would be round. Also what is an anti-moon?

Momentum? This is FET. The earth does not spin, it does not orbit the sun. From whence would it have angular momentum? We do not subscribe to the galactic plain that you are used to. The problem is RET is lies upon lies. You need to start from the beginning again.

Quote from: physics rules on February 10, 2011, 11:34:40 AM

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 11:25:42 AM

1. It is the same
2. It doesn't
3. There is no life on other planets either. The earth is special.
4. In the RE big bang all matter is being flung out from the centre of the universe. Why can you accept this and not UA?
5. What is beyond the universe? As much a question for RE as FE but falls into the realms of philosophy.
6. Eclipses are caused by the anti-moon
7. What causes poles in a permanent magnet? They don't spin either.

And Welcome to FES.

For your answer to question 1, if the conservation of angular momentum was applied to flat earth theory then the earth would be round. Also what is an anti-moon?

Momentum? This is FET. The earth does not spin, it does not orbit the sun. From whence would it have angular momentum? We do not subscribe to the galactic plain that you are used to. The problem is RET is lies upon lies. You need to start from the beginning again.

So if you are saying the RET is lies upon lies then surely FET is a creationist view. Therefore, how would you describe how a flat earth formed?

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 11:39:22 AM

Quote from: physics rules on February 10, 2011, 11:34:40 AM

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 11:25:42 AM

1. It is the same
2. It doesn't
3. There is no life on other planets either. The earth is special.
4. In the RE big bang all matter is being flung out from the centre of the universe. Why can you accept this and not UA?
5. What is beyond the universe? As much a question for RE as FE but falls into the realms of philosophy.
6. Eclipses are caused by the anti-moon
7. What causes poles in a permanent magnet? They don't spin either.

And Welcome to FES.

For your answer to question 1, if the conservation of angular momentum was applied to flat earth theory then the earth would be round. Also what is an anti-moon?

Momentum? This is FET. The earth does not spin, it does not orbit the sun. From whence would it have angular momentum? We do not subscribe to the galactic plain that you are used to. The problem is RET is lies upon lies. You need to start from the beginning again.

So if you are saying the RET is lies upon lies then surely FET is a creationist view. Therefore, how would you describe how a flat earth formed?

No. FET is not based on religious dogma. Most FErs are atheists but it is neither here nor there. Science is at the heart of the modern flat earth movement.
Angular momentum in RET is generated at the moment a star ignites. The resulting shockwave throughout the solar system is what generates your angular momentum. In FET the sun is very small. Only 32 miles across. Its ignition therefore is not expected to have generated a huge shockwave, and hence we do not think all the planets orbit the sun.

Quote from: physics rules on February 10, 2011, 11:43:50 AM

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 11:39:22 AM

Quote from: physics rules on February 10, 2011, 11:34:40 AM

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 11:25:42 AM

1. It is the same
2. It doesn't
3. There is no life on other planets either. The earth is special.
4. In the RE big bang all matter is being flung out from the centre of the universe. Why can you accept this and not UA?
5. What is beyond the universe? As much a question for RE as FE but falls into the realms of philosophy.
6. Eclipses are caused by the anti-moon
7. What causes poles in a permanent magnet? They don't spin either.

And Welcome to FES.

For your answer to question 1, if the conservation of angular momentum was applied to flat earth theory then the earth would be round. Also what is an anti-moon?

Momentum? This is FET. The earth does not spin, it does not orbit the sun. From whence would it have angular momentum? We do not subscribe to the galactic plain that you are used to. The problem is RET is lies upon lies. You need to start from the beginning again.

So if you are saying the RET is lies upon lies then surely FET is a creationist view. Therefore, how would you describe how a flat earth formed?

No. FET is not based on religious dogma. Most FErs are atheists but it is neither here nor there. Science is at the heart of the modern flat earth movement.
Angular momentum in RET is generated at the moment a star ignites. The resulting shockwave throughout the solar system is what generates your angular momentum. In FET the sun is very small. Only 32 miles across. Its ignition therefore is not expected to have generated a huge shockwave, and hence we do not think all the planets orbit the sun.

I understand how FET is isolated from common scientific understanding, but at the beginning there must have been nothing, so what forces would cause a flat celestial body to form? In RET the theory is that everything started with a big bang (with substantial evidence to support it) and stars formed along with that planets. So what is the theory for FET creation?

We just don't have our sun bursting into a supernova and sending a shock wave that starts everything spinning around everything else. Planets, stars all heavenly bodies are driven by celestial gears. Who or what created the universe? Well I am no better equipped to answer that than Stephen Hawking or anyone else.

We just don't have our sun bursting into a supernova and sending a shock wave that starts everything spinning around everything else. Planets, stars all heavenly bodies are driven by celestial gears. Who or what created the universe? Well I am no better equipped to answer that than Stephen Hawking or anyone else.

So you don't know and have no theory to support FET. Furthermore, there is no doubt that Stephen Hawking is an exceptionally clever person who without doubt is well within his rights to support or create scientific ideas. He is a respected scientist in modern science and his theories are well supported by observations of the universe. Observations such as pictures of a round earth sent back from countless space missions, but thats is very conviniently a conspiracy witheld by the world's space organisations. A conspiracy that has no purpose.

Why should we be expected to know how the universe was created?  

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 12:02:00 PM

We just don't have our sun bursting into a supernova and sending a shock wave that starts everything spinning around everything else. Planets, stars all heavenly bodies are driven by celestial gears. Who or what created the universe? Well I am no better equipped to answer that than Stephen Hawking or anyone else.

So you don't know and have no theory to support FET

So where do you think all the matter in the Universe came from then?

OR ARE YOU A CREATIONIST??!!

You are asking me something that no one knows the answer to, RET or FET. Rather than guess at big bangs or God or a universe that has always been or any other round earth wild stab in the dark, I am comfortable to say I don't know. No one does. Our science is based on Zetetic observation. Now being as I was not around at the conception of the universe, it is very difficult for me to say exactly what happened. And there is not enough hard evidence to suggest a firm answer. It is like me asking you ... What caused the big bang? How can everything come from nothing? Provide evidence that something can arise from nothing. Its a line of questioning I a happy to reply to, with an "I don't know". - And neither do you.

Quote from: physics rules on February 10, 2011, 12:04:05 PM

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 12:02:00 PM

We just don't have our sun bursting into a supernova and sending a shock wave that starts everything spinning around everything else. Planets, stars all heavenly bodies are driven by celestial gears. Who or what created the universe? Well I am no better equipped to answer that than Stephen Hawking or anyone else.

So you don't know and have no theory to support FET

So where do you think all the matter in the Universe came from then?

OR ARE YOU A CREATIONIST??!!

I believe the commonly supported theory of the big bang. Obviously there are things that we cannot be sure about. However, observable evidence suggests that the universe is expanding, therefore, it must have begun at some point at some time, and that point and time is described as the 'big bang'.

You are asking me something that no one knows the answer to, RET or FET. Rather than guess at big bangs or God or a universe that has always been or any other round earth wild stab in the dark, I am comfortable to say I don't know. No one does. Our science is based on Zetetic observation. Now being as I was not around at the conception of the universe, it is very difficult for me to say exactly what happened. And there is not enough hard evidence to suggest a firm answer. It is like me asking you ... What caused the big bang? How can everything come from nothing? Provide evidence that something can arise from nothing. Its a line of questioning I a happy to reply to, with an "I don't know". - And neither do you.

What else would you base science on? Observations and the process of elimination is the product of a curiosity and a lust for knowledge that makes us all human. To say "I don't know" to a seemingly difficult question will not get anyone anywhere. Science is there to satisfy that lust for knowledge and to extend our understanding of the universe that we live in.

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 12:10:51 PM

You are asking me something that no one knows the answer to, RET or FET. Rather than guess at big bangs or God or a universe that has always been or any other round earth wild stab in the dark, I am comfortable to say I don't know. No one does. Our science is based on Zetetic observation. Now being as I was not around at the conception of the universe, it is very difficult for me to say exactly what happened. And there is not enough hard evidence to suggest a firm answer. It is like me asking you ... What caused the big bang? How can everything come from nothing? Provide evidence that something can arise from nothing. Its a line of questioning I a happy to reply to, with an "I don't know". - And neither do you.

What else would you base science on? Observations and the process of elimination is the product of a curiosity and a lust for knowledge that makes us all human. To say "I don't know" to a seemingly difficult question will not get anyone anywhere. Science is there to satisfy that lust for knowledge and to extend our understanding of the universe that we live in.

I did not say I do not care. I said I do not know. It is the 'Big Bang Theory'. Not the 'Big Bang Fact'. It is a theory because there is not sufficient proof to call it fact. I can look at all the information and make up a theory but it is insulting to you as I can't be sure of it myself. However if pushed I will begin ... Once upon a time ...

Quote from: physics rules on February 10, 2011, 12:19:07 PM

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 12:10:51 PM

You are asking me something that no one knows the answer to, RET or FET. Rather than guess at big bangs or God or a universe that has always been or any other round earth wild stab in the dark, I am comfortable to say I don't know. No one does. Our science is based on Zetetic observation. Now being as I was not around at the conception of the universe, it is very difficult for me to say exactly what happened. And there is not enough hard evidence to suggest a firm answer. It is like me asking you ... What caused the big bang? How can everything come from nothing? Provide evidence that something can arise from nothing. Its a line of questioning I a happy to reply to, with an "I don't know". - And neither do you.

What else would you base science on? Observations and the process of elimination is the product of a curiosity and a lust for knowledge that makes us all human. To say "I don't know" to a seemingly difficult question will not get anyone anywhere. Science is there to satisfy that lust for knowledge and to extend our understanding of the universe that we live in.

I did not say I do not care. I said I do not know. It is the 'Big Bang Theory'. Not the 'Big Bang Fact'. It is a theory because there is not sufficient proof to call it fact. I can look at all the information and make up a theory but it is insulting to you as I can't be sure of it myself. However if pushed I will begin ... Once upon a time ...

ok.

To say "I don't know" to a seemingly difficult question will not get anyone anywhere.

Yes it does. Honesty in matters of science gets us closer to the truth.

Making up an unprovable hypothesis and challenging others to prove you wrong, does not.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on February 10, 2011, 11:24:51 AM

Beorn is learning!

<3

And I thank you and the others for showing me the (bending) light.

Please don't tell me you're a convert.

FET is ridiculous and very far fetched, the only thing FET proves is that some people will believe anything.

FET is ridiculous and very far fetched, the only thing FET proves is that some people will believe anything.

All we have shown is that FET won't just accept anything. It is not FET flinging wild theories of the universe's creation about. I am sorry if you came here looking for answers to love, life and the universe. Perhaps the answer is 42? And it will all seem ridiculous if you try to wrap your head around it all at once. As ridiculous as balls of gas millions of miles across burning for aeons, as ridiculous as us spinning around at over 1000 mph, whilst whistling round the sun at more than 60,000, as far fetched as invisible forces that hold you to the ground that no one can explain, and as insane as the entire Universe being once a singularity. Your time is up. Lurk Moar.

3. There is no life on other planets either. The earth is special.

Except for the moon shrimp.

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 11:25:42 AM

3. There is no life on other planets either. The earth is special.

Except for the moon shrimp.

The moon is a planet?

Quote from: markjo on February 10, 2011, 12:55:38 PM

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 11:25:42 AM

3. There is no life on other planets either. The earth is special.

Except for the moon shrimp.

The moon is a planet?

A very small one.

Quote from: markjo on February 10, 2011, 12:55:38 PM

Quote from: Thork on February 10, 2011, 11:25:42 AM

3. There is no life on other planets either. The earth is special.

Except for the moon shrimp.

The moon is a planet?

You're right.  The moon is far too big to be a planet.