Creation of the earth in FET

i was wondering how was the earth made in FET? has it always existed as a Cylinder, or how was it made?

Have you read the FAQ?

Of course, go read the FAQ.  I mean, ignore that it doesn't say anything about how it was created, but go read it anyway.  I don't think most FE'ers even know what's in the FAQ and just kinda shout it as an instinctual response, but still, go read the FAQ.  Go on.  Don't just say you read it, either, actually read it, they'll know.  Well, even if you do read it you'll be accused of not reading it, but still.  Run along now.  FAQ-reading time.

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;  since the earth was still "soft" at some point, the acceleration upwards by the ua flattened it, much like a pizza.

However, those who hold I am correct would be far more likely to say the Earth has always existed in some form.

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.

Uhh, what?!

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;  since the earth was still "soft" at some point, the acceleration upwards by the ua flattened it, much like a pizza.

However, those who hold I am correct would be far more likely to say the Earth has always existed in some form.

I am not aware of any model that says the Big Bang was unidirectional, and this does not support observed galactic expansion.

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;

then why is earth the only thing that is flat...

Quote from: John Davis on July 26, 2011, 05:44:40 AM

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;

then why is earth the only thing that is flat...

It's not.

Quote from: Roundy on July 26, 2011, 01:58:26 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 26, 2011, 05:44:40 AM

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;

then why is earth the only thing that is flat...

It's not.

Great rebuttal, i like the supporting evidence.

Quote from: Verrine on July 26, 2011, 02:33:34 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 26, 2011, 01:58:26 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 26, 2011, 05:44:40 AM

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;

then why is earth the only thing that is flat...

It's not.

Great rebuttal, i like the supporting evidence.

Your screen is flat, your desk is flat, your windows are flat, CDs are flat. Do you want more evidence or is it enough?

Quote from: Roundy on July 26, 2011, 02:43:49 PM

Quote from: Verrine on July 26, 2011, 02:33:34 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 26, 2011, 01:58:26 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 26, 2011, 05:44:40 AM

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;

then why is earth the only thing that is flat...

It's not.

Great rebuttal, i like the supporting evidence.

Your screen is flat, your desk is flat, your windows are flat, CDs are flat. Do you want more evidence or is it enough?

successful troll is successful.

The sad thing is, he might actually think he's the first, or even hundredth person to ask this.
Can a mod lock this, and write READ THE FAQ?

The sad thing is, he might actually think he's the first, or even hundredth person to ask this.
Can a mod lock this, and write READ THE FAQ?

Why don't you try, and tell me where in the FAQ the creation of the Earth is described.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1324.0

^ People like Thevoiceofreason irk me.  RE'ers make plenty of jokes about how the first response to everything is "READ THE FAQ", even if it's not in the FAQ...and then people like Thevoiceofreason come along and actually do that.

Quote from: Roundy on July 26, 2011, 02:43:49 PM

Quote from: Verrine on July 26, 2011, 02:33:34 PM

Quote from: Roundy on July 26, 2011, 01:58:26 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 26, 2011, 05:44:40 AM

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;

then why is earth the only thing that is flat...

It's not.

Great rebuttal, i like the supporting evidence.

Your screen is flat, your desk is flat, your windows are flat, CDs are flat. Do you want more evidence or is it enough?

The majority of all celestial objects are sphere-like objects (stars, other planets, some galaxies), or irregular blotches (asteroids, most galaxies,  nebulas). Name one that is completely flat.

IMO the "explanation" in the FAQ is a cop-out.

Quote from: Verrine on July 26, 2011, 03:09:23 PM

Your screen is flat, your desk is flat, your windows are flat, CDs are flat. Do you want more evidence or is it enough?

The majority of all celestial objects are sphere-like objects (stars, other planets, some galaxies), or irregular blotches (asteroids, most galaxies,  nebulas). Name one that is completely flat.

IMO the "explanation" in the FAQ is a cop-out.

Don't feed the troll. The only way to drive Verrine insane is by ignoring his ridiculously obvious troll comments.
Actually, just ignore him even if he's being serious.

Quote from: thefireproofmatch on August 04, 2011, 04:42:01 PM

Quote from: Verrine on July 26, 2011, 03:09:23 PM

Your screen is flat, your desk is flat, your windows are flat, CDs are flat. Do you want more evidence or is it enough?

The majority of all celestial objects are sphere-like objects (stars, other planets, some galaxies), or irregular blotches (asteroids, most galaxies,  nebulas). Name one that is completely flat.

IMO the "explanation" in the FAQ is a cop-out.

Don't feed the troll. The only way to drive Verrine insane is by ignoring his ridiculously obvious troll comments.
Actually, just ignore him even if he's being serious.

verrine is no troll, he is a moonshramp scholar. You should not insult people for no reason, he is a brave man.

verrine is no troll, he is a moonshramp scholar. You should not insult people for no reason, he is a brave man.

Oh please, go away. Quit perpetuating this ridiculous troll-fest.

Nobody has answered the question at hand yet, except for John, whose explanation has some rather large holes in it.

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;  since the earth was still "soft" at some point, the acceleration upwards by the ua flattened it, much like a pizza.

However, those who hold I am correct would be far more likely to say the Earth has always existed in some form.

One thing you have to get used to, if you are going to frequent this forum:  they use the term model instead of unresearched hypothesis

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;  since the earth was still "soft" at some point, the acceleration upwards by the ua flattened it, much like a pizza.

However, those who hold I am correct would be far more likely to say the Earth has always existed in some form.

Firstly, if you will forgive me, I have been absent for a while, and as such am unclear as to what the "Cambridge Model" refers to?  Would you be so kind as to clarify?


Right, now onto an actual reply...

First Point:  I am unaware of any research indicating a unidirectional "Big Bang".  Could you supply a source for this information?

Second Point:  With regard to the earth having always existed.  This runs onto problems with data, primarily from ²³⁸U -  ²⁰⁷Pb dating, suggesting the earth was created around 4.6Ga, and data suggesting the universe itself came into being, via the big bang, around 13.9Ga.

Do you have a rebuttal?

Quote from: John Davis on July 26, 2011, 05:44:40 AM

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;  since the earth was still "soft" at some point, the acceleration upwards by the ua flattened it, much like a pizza.

However, those who hold I am correct would be far more likely to say the Earth has always existed in some form.

Firstly, if you will forgive me, I have been absent for a while, and as such am unclear as to what the "Cambridge Model" refers to?  Would you be so kind as to clarify?

The "Cambridge Model" is the model that most flattists adhere to, the one with the north pole in the middle and earth as a disc being pushed upwards. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it is referred to as the Cambridge model other than to make it sound scientific, as if some scientist at Cambridge came up with it. It has no connection with Cambridge as far as I am aware. The hardcore trolls like Davis and James like to use this term. It has been disproved, as it requires the use of UA, which has been shown not to exist by variations in gravity strength across the surface of the earth.

Quote from: Joeval on August 07, 2011, 02:16:33 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 26, 2011, 05:44:40 AM

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;  since the earth was still "soft" at some point, the acceleration upwards by the ua flattened it, much like a pizza.

However, those who hold I am correct would be far more likely to say the Earth has always existed in some form.

Firstly, if you will forgive me, I have been absent for a while, and as such am unclear as to what the "Cambridge Model" refers to?  Would you be so kind as to clarify?

The "Cambridge Model" is the model that most flattists adhere to, the one with the north pole in the middle and earth as a disc being pushed upwards. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it is referred to as the Cambridge model other than to make it sound scientific, as if some scientist at Cambridge came up with it. It has no connection with Cambridge as far as I am aware. The hardcore trolls like Davis and James like to use this term. It has been disproved, as it requires the use of UA, which has been shown not to exist by variations in gravity strength across the surface of the earth.

UA also doesnt explain the orbits of the earth, moon and other planets

UA also doesnt explain the orbits of the earth, moon and other planets

UA doesnt explain anything at all. If it is the force holding us to the earth then why does it vary when the whole slab of the earth is required to move at a constant speed? What will they counter this with, bendy speed?

Quote from: Joeval on August 07, 2011, 02:16:33 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 26, 2011, 05:44:40 AM

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;  since the earth was still "soft" at some point, the acceleration upwards by the ua flattened it, much like a pizza.

However, those who hold I am correct would be far more likely to say the Earth has always existed in some form.

Firstly, if you will forgive me, I have been absent for a while, and as such am unclear as to what the "Cambridge Model" refers to?  Would you be so kind as to clarify?

The "Cambridge Model" is the model that most flattists adhere to, the one with the north pole in the middle and earth as a disc being pushed upwards. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that it is referred to as the Cambridge model other than to make it sound scientific, as if some scientist at Cambridge came up with it. It has no connection with Cambridge as far as I am aware. The hardcore trolls like Davis and James like to use this term. It has been disproved, as it requires the use of UA, which has been shown not to exist by variations in gravity strength across the surface of the earth.

Its called the cambridge model much like the big bang is called the big bang.  Its not to sound more scientific, it was named in jest by one of the round earth trolls that used to visit this site to torment us.  Unfortunately, the name stuck.

Its called the cambridge model much like the big bang is called the big bang.  Its not to sound more scientific, it was named in jest by one of the round earth trolls that used to visit this site to torment us.  Unfortunately, the name stuck.

No, you can't say "unfortunately, the name stuck", because the reason it's stuck is because YOU (among others) are using it to refer to the model. And if you think that is unfortunate, use a different term in order to stop propagation of the name Cambridge Model. You can't both lament about something and then help it to happen. See yesterday's comment about both writing a book and not wanting to convince people.

i was wondering how was the earth made in FET? has it always existed as a Cylinder, or how was it made?

The answer is in the Holy Bible, not on a forum.

The answer is in my sig, baby.

Quote from: Trollin-R-Us on July 25, 2011, 09:10:52 AM

i was wondering how was the earth made in FET? has it always existed as a Cylinder, or how was it made?

The answer is in the Holy Bible, not on a forum.

Which holy bible? I don't recognize the symbol in your avatar.

Quote from: John Davis on July 26, 2011, 05:44:40 AM

If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;  since the earth was still "soft" at some point, the acceleration upwards by the ua flattened it, much like a pizza.

However, those who hold I am correct would be far more likely to say the Earth has always existed in some form.

One thing you have to get used to, if you are going to frequent this forum:  they use the term model instead of unresearched hypothesis

Exactly this. I laughed upon reading this pseudo-science garbage he calls "The Cambridge Model"

The whole Flat Earth Theory is just a massive unsearched hypothesis and any research that proves it wrong (read: almost all research up to today) is "a conspiracy".