FEconcept prevents itself from existing.Irrefutable evidence

Look, it's obvious that something special has to be going on near the rim of the Earth, something not covered by conventional understandings of "northern" plate tectonics.  I suggest that this rigid plate (plate is probably a bad name for it but I'm just using the term to refer to a single continguous piece of rock) is strong enough to withstand the outward pressure of the weight above it.  Magma formed from molten subducting plates would have nowhere to go except back north, forcing its way through small spaces in the rock until it is released upward through the crust.

The only extra thing that's needed is a strong, stationary, cylindrical "plate" wrapped around the Earth.

I do not see how it is obvious erasmus. NO evidence points to it. The only things that are obvious to me right now are the facts.

If you read the statment you just made, you'll see that it doesn't make sense. If someone claimed that RE thoery was true by giving the same statment you did, you would no doubt dismiss it immediately, as that person would be making up a "special" something happening in order to fill the gap of an impossibility.

"Northern" plates are the same as any other plates, simply because plates move and shift, and those northern plates were not always there, they might have been a few hundred kilometers farther, or they could have come from the middle or farther. You already showed that you understood how subduction worked, so I'm sure you understand this concept. And I point out again that whole plates do not spontanously melt due to subduction (and why would subduction melt them at the edge and not anywhere else?). If you insist  that they do, you'll have to rearange the whole planet (probably minus life on it). And of course explain how it happens.

I suggest that this rigid plate (plate is probably a bad name for it but I'm just using the term to refer to a single continguous piece of rock) is strong enough to withstand the outward pressure of the weight above it

I've already explained how this would not be possible because the temperatures as you go lower under the earth does not allow for a tall object to form a wall that would stop plate tectonics, let alone magma. But let me also add that, if flat earth was surrounded by a "rigid" "plate", then that would not allow for the shifts of plate tectonics, and we would have no earthquakes (though a lot of volcanic activity, as "up" would be the only way that all the stress within the planet could escape). Again, on RE, the plates have no boundaries and are free to shift as long and as far as they want.

Magma formed from molten subducting plates would have nowhere to go except back north, forcing its way through small spaces in the rock until it is released upward through the crust.

If you say that, then you would have to change the map so that every continent close to the edge have mountains and volcanoes on each of those respective side(being constant locations of subductions and volcanic eruptions). And again, you are weakening FE theory by asuming that the most of earth's volcanic activity would be at the edge, where the ice wall is supposed to be.

Also, pockets of magma are pockets because there is noroom for them to flow outward, so there would be equally no room for them to go "north" instead of taking the path of leas tresistance towards the edge.

No matter how thick you decide the 'plate" edge is, it could still not stop a plate from breaking through, because it cannot be as thick as the rest of the earth, which is what offers resistance on the other side.

It would be more rational to just come to the logical conclusion, rather than make up a special extraordinary phenomenon that defy phisics and logic.

How about replying to me?

So basically, there is no real answer and only assumptions and ideas. Phaseshifter has just completely proven that the flat earth doesn't work because then it would be destroying itself.

As for throwing away assumptions, you can't say that without throwing away assumptions for everything. Which means assuming the world is flat should be thrown away.

or in another situation, let's say you have a daughter and she has been assumed to be kidnapped or dead, but throw the assumption away and the problem is gone.

In your mind the problem is gone, but not reality.

Here's to ripping you to shreds:

Before you even think of anything, you assume that the information your senses provide you with is intelligible.

Assumption creates the frameworks of our arguments.  Without an assumption, there is hardly an argument.  It's like watching, say, the 2nd Lord of the Rings without any backstory.  Assumptions are your backstory, your background information.

Well, basically, we don't know what's outside the Earth, and we don't know what the rim is like.  It's perfectly logical (as in, it's consistent with what we know so far) to suppose that there might be a rigid cylindrical "plate" enclosing the Earth.  It doesn't defy physics or logic; it just defies geology textbooks.

There's also no particular reason to believe that such a plate might be too weak to resist the expansive pressure of the rest of the Earth.  It could be made of a different material -- a stronger one with a lower melting point.  The ceramic of a coffee cup is certainly not thicker than the entire cup, yet it resists the pressure of the coffee and doesn't melt.

As usual, if you insist that everything RE scientists say about the Earth is true, then yes, obviously, the Earth must be round.  But if you consider the possibility that some of those things must be false -- that we really don't know, for example, what's beneath Antarctica -- then there's nothing illogical about the proposition that beneath Antarctica is a thousand-mile-thick, thousand-mile deep ring of superhard superconducting carbon crystal with a superhigh melting point.

Quote from: "link222"

So basically, there is no real answer and only assumptions and ideas. Phaseshifter has just completely proven that the flat earth doesn't work because then it would be destroying itself.

As for throwing away assumptions, you can't say that without throwing away assumptions for everything. Which means assuming the world is flat should be thrown away.

or in another situation, let's say you have a daughter and she has been assumed to be kidnapped or dead, but throw the assumption away and the problem is gone.

In your mind the problem is gone, but not reality.

Here's to ripping you to shreds:

Before you even think of anything, you assume that the information your senses provide you with is intelligible.

Assumption creates the frameworks of our arguments.  Without an assumption, there is hardly an argument.  It's like watching, say, the 2nd Lord of the Rings without any backstory.  Assumptions are your backstory, your background information.

how is that tearing me to shred? I said dont throw away assumptions lol.

Well, basically, we don't know what's outside the Earth, and we don't know what the rim is like. It's perfectly logical (as in, it's consistent with what we know so far) to suppose that there might be a rigid cylindrical "plate" enclosing the Earth. It doesn't defy physics or logic; it just defies geology textbooks.

Erasmus, the fact that you don't know about something doesn't make any assumption about it "logical" And I would have you notice that, until now, you were speaking as if you did knew what it was like.

It does defy logic Erasmus, and i'm sure you can see that, since you could not refute any of my points. There is nothing that points to the existence of that newly discovered cylindrical plate on FE, there has been no observations that this plate exists, there is no logical reason to assume that it does, simply because you need it to be there.
Why would it be harder than everything else on the planet? One one side you tell me you don't know what's out there, but then you say you're certain that there is an ice wall. Conflicting information.

It doesn't defy physics or logic; it just defies geology textbooks

This is a very hypocritical statment erasmus, considering you were just now using geology to justify the existence of a phenomenon that defied physics, and now geology is suddently invalid.

There's also no particular reason to believe that such a plate might be too weak to resist the expansive pressure of the rest of the Earth.

Yes Erasmus, there is logic. Your own FE theory demands it. FE has a core,  and it it being pushed at the bottom by that force of yours and at the top by the pressure of atmosphere. The densest material of the planet is therefore at the center, NOT at the edges. Even if all the material originally had the same density(which it proably did) the pressure would have forced matter to compress at the center and form the densest part anyway. And since that force isn't going to stop anytime soon according to you, the dense material will never be given a chance to go around the planet, and stay there for an arbitrary reason. The height of plate tectonics is prety far from that level of density.

It could be made of a different material -- a stronger one with a lower melting point. The ceramic of a coffee cup is certainly not thicker than the entire cup, yet it resists the pressure of the coffee and doesn't melt.

Why would it be made of a different material?
Pressure of the coffe? Are you kidding me? How does that relate to a whole planet? The cup itself is hollow.  Flat earth does not have sides holding a center made of 100% liquid material. The interior of the planet is very dense, coffe is not a very dense material. The pressure of coffe on the edges of a cup are almost null. The pressures of whole plate tectonics on the edge of your FE would be anything but insignificant. The plates are solid, coffee is not. They are heavy solids under constant movement, coffee is not. In the case of the planet, there are enourmous pressures involved, not so in the case of a cup of coffee. FE is under constant pressure from up and bottom ect. That anaolgy doesn't even make sense.

As usual, if you insist that everything RE scientists say about the Earth is true, then yes, obviously, the Earth must be round. But if you consider the possibility that some of those things must be false -- that we really don't know, for example, what's beneath Antarctica -- then there's nothing illogical about the proposition that beneath Antarctica is a thousand-mile-thick, thousand-mile deep ring of superhard superconducting carbon crystal with a superhigh melting point.

That getaway statment again.  My points and statments do not rely on anything that is not true on FE. Like I said, FE already accepts the existence of earthquakes and plate tectonics, and phenomenons associated with it. So even If I assume that  scientists are wrong about eveything, FE theory still makes it's existence impossible.

And if you want to know if there is an object that big and that dense under antartica (illogically away from where dense matter should be) then blast antartica with x-rays and find out.  Not knowing about something doesn't make any assumptions about it valid. There is still logic and common sense.

I don't kow where my brother is:

Assumption: He is on the moon playing cards.= Invalid, because what I know about his nature tells me that it is illogical to expect him to travel unaided through the void of space and survive. The fact that I have no idea where he is doesn't make my illogical assmption more valid.

I think you're confusing what's logical with what's easy to believe given certain assumptions.  Logic is based strictly on a well-known set of rules.  Logic tells you whether a certain statement is just nonsense, or a certain argument's conclusion simply does not follow from it's premises.  Logic doesn't say anything about what sort of crystal formations are possible, for instance.  Also, logic does not say that you ought not believe something just because you haven't observed it.  Logic only tells you when you ought believe or refuse to believe something based on other things you've already claimed to believe or refuse to believe.

There's nothing illogical about any of the suggestions we've made.  They are not inconsistent with any made by the FE canon.  They're only inconsistent with conventional scientific canon.  However, we are willing to allow that conventional scientific canon is false, thus resolving the inconsistency.

As such there's nothing hypocritical about the statement that our suggestions don't defy logic.  As far as we know there's no reason to think the suggestions are physically unrealizable (their existence doesn't break any laws of physics).

As for the material of the rim: you are conflating density with strength, and density with pressure.  Just because the material at the Earth's core is under great pressure does not imply it is any denser at all.  In general liquids and solids are incompressible -- they do not shrink when placed under pressure.  Furthermore, even if the core were denser, it would not imply that the core material is stronger than the rim material.

In other words, based on the meanings of the terms "dense", "pressurized", and "strong", your arguments are illogical.

Logic means not to expect the 100 000 000th observation to be red, when the previous 999 999 999 were blue. Logic demands that, between a plausible situation and an implausible one, you pick the plausible one.
They are not inconsistent with any made by the FE canon. They're only inconsistent with conventional scientific canon

Since when is a rigid wall that melts tecnonic plates FE canon?

Like I said, it is based on things that have already been accepted by FE theory. Plate tectonics behavior and earthquakes. I am using no theory that lies outsied of accepted FE phenomenons.

As such there's nothing hypocritical about the statement that our suggestions don't defy logic

You know very well that's not what  I said. What IS hypocritical, is you using geology to back up your claims and then say

we are willing to allow that conventional scientific canon is false

. So far you are only willing when it proves you wrong. When it helps you, it's fine.

Just because the material at the Earth's core is under great pressure does not imply it is any denser at all.

Any smart person knows that it does.
Why don't you try compressing ANY material without making it denser? Even when you fold paper, the mass per cubic centimiter goes up.

Density is a measure of mass per volume. When you compress something, you reduce the volume but the mass stays the same which means mass/volume goes UP. 10/2 is higher than 10/25.

Show me a way you can raise the denominator while keeping the numerator the same, and get a higher value and I wil beleive you. Go ahead, show me if you're so sure you're right.

In general liquids and solids are incompressible

Can you tell me where you got that from? And give me an example?

You know very well that's not what  I said. What IS hypocritical, is you using geology to back up your claims and then say

Quote

we are willing to allow that conventional scientific canon is false

. So far you are only willing when it proves you wrong. When it helps you, it's fine.

Agreed.

Quote

Just because the material at the Earth's core is under great pressure does not imply it is any denser at all.

Any smart person knows that it does.
Why don't you try compressing ANY material without making it denser? Even when you fold paper, the mass per cubic centimiter goes up.

Density is a measure of mass per volume. When you compress something, you reduce the volume but the mass stays the same which means mass/volume goes UP. 10/2 is higher than 10/25.

Show me a way you can raise the denominator while keeping the numerator the same, and get a higher value and I wil beleive you. Go ahead, show me if you're so sure you're right.

Pressure and compression are two very different things. For example, the water at the bottom of the ocean is under very very high pressure, but it's density is not much larger than that at the surface. Pressure does not require things to change in volume, the change in volume actually depends on Young's modulus.

Oh yeah, and the paper folding is wrong: folding paper does not increase density. Folding paper does not change the volume of the paper, it only changes the shape.

Quote

In general liquids and solids are incompressible

Can you tell me where you got that from? And give me an example?

[/quote]
Try compressing steel: I bet you'll have a very hard time. Even under enormous amounts of pressure, the density doesn't go up by very much.

Oh yeah, and the paper folding is wrong: folding paper does not increase density. Folding paper does not change the volume of the paper, it only changes the shape.

I'm talking about taking papaer and making into a small ball. The paper now fills a smaller volume but has the same mass.

Try compressing steel: I bet you'll have a very hard time. Even under enormous amounts of pressure, the density doesn't go up by very much.

It will take more force, but it can still be done. Otherwise, it would also be impossible to make steel sheets. Incidentally, steel has a fairly high density, and is harder to compress then most materials that have lower density.

You're wrong on both points.

Quote

Oh yeah, and the paper folding is wrong: folding paper does not increase density. Folding paper does not change the volume of the paper, it only changes the shape.

I'm talking about taking papaer and making into a small ball. The paper now fills a smaller volume but has the same mass.

The density doesn't increase. It falls faster because air resistance decreases. A flat piece of paper is very thin, so it's volume is small. Heck, you could even say that a paper increases in volume when you "compress" it into a ball.

Quote

Try compressing steel: I bet you'll have a very hard time. Even under enormous amounts of pressure, the density doesn't go up by very much.

It will take more force, but it can still be done. Otherwise, it would also be impossible to make steel sheets. Incidentally, steel has a fairly high density, and is harder to compress then most materials that have lower density.

Wrong. Making a steel sheet is not compressing the steel; it is changing the steel's shape. Think about "compressing" a ball of clay--it's the same concept.

I agree with skeptic dude although I think sometimes "compress" doesn't have to refer so much to the actual solid.  For example a car can definitely be compressed and becomes a denser object - however the steal (or whatever metal cars are made out of) doesn't become compressed and remains at the same density.  I don't think that typically you can compress solids or liquids although sometimes they are built into a shape where you can in one defintion compress them (like the car) - that's really irrelevent to the discussion though.

The density doesn't increase. It falls faster because air resistance decreases. A flat piece of paper is very thin, so it's volume is small. Heck, you could even say that a paper increases in volume when you "compress" it into a ball.

It doesn't matter wether it falls faster or not. The point is that you make it occupy less space but it's mass is the same.

Wrong. Making a steel sheet is not compressing the steel; it is changing the steel's shape. Think about "compressing" a ball of clay--it's the same concept

.

And how, pray tell do they make it take the shape of a sheet? Are you saying that coins are NOT pressed into coins from their previous forms which is more of a cylinder than a disc? Are they not made of metal?

And there I was thinking you had some idea you knew what you were talking about...

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

Quote

The density doesn't increase. It falls faster because air resistance decreases. A flat piece of paper is very thin, so it's volume is small. Heck, you could even say that a paper increases in volume when you "compress" it into a ball.

It doesn't matter wether it falls faster or not. The point is that you make it occupy less space but it's mass is the same.

You know "space" isn't two dimensional, right?

Quote

Wrong. Making a steel sheet is not compressing the steel; it is changing the steel's shape. Think about "compressing" a ball of clay--it's the same concept

.

And how, pray tell do they make it take the shape of a sheet? Are you saying that coins are NOT pressed into coins from their previous forms which is more of a cylinder than a disc? Are they not made of metal?

Show me how you know coins look like cylinders and not discs. Anyways, even when you do push a coin into shape, it doesn't "compress", but it changes shape; some of the metal moves into the indentations in the presser-thing, so parts of the coin are lower than others. You know, it really is kind of difficult to get atoms in a solid closer to each other than they already are.

Okay, I'm just about through with trying to de-ignorant you, since I can see I'm getting nowhere.

Logic means not to expect the 100 000 000th observation to be red, when the previous 999 999 999 were blue.

Why don't you try compressing ANY material without making it denser? Even when you fold paper, the mass per cubic centimiter goes up.

Interestingly, it's not being compressed what that happens.  I'd go into more depth on this (pun not intended) but Skeptic Listener has already done it for me: the water at the bottom of the ocean is indeed under pressure, but it isn't noticeably denser.

Can you tell me where you got that from? And give me an example?

Above.  And, I don't remember where I originally got it, but I most recently got it from (1) a course in fluid dynamics and (2) going under the ocean and looking.

Feel free to educate yourself on "incompressible fluids" at your leisure.

Okay, I'm just about through with trying to de-ignorant you, since I can see I'm getting nowhere.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Logic means not to expect the 100 000 000th observation to be red, when the previous 999 999 999 were blue.

Quote

Why don't you try compressing ANY material without making it denser? Even when you fold paper, the mass per cubic centimiter goes up.

Interestingly, it's not being compressed what that happens.  I'd go into more depth on this (pun not intended) but Skeptic Listener has already done it for me: the water at the bottom of the ocean is indeed under pressure, but it isn't noticeably denser.

Quote

Can you tell me where you got that from? And give me an example?

Above.  And, I don't remember where I originally got it, but I most recently got it from (1) a course in fluid dynamics and (2) going under the ocean and looking.

Feel free to educate yourself on "incompressible fluids" at your leisure.

the water at the bottom of the ocean is indeed under pressure, but it isn't noticeably denser.

I don't think I really need to refute this.

Fluids cannot be compressed..ok, so neutron stars and black holes do not exist?

Also, I really would like that example of compressed mass not becoming more dense. And also for you to Show me a way you can raise the denominator while keeping the numerator the same, and get a higher value.

If you are correct, and denser matter is not at the bottom with less dense material on top, by all means show me how you make oil sink at the bottom of water instead of floating on top.

Show me a way you can raise the denominator while keeping the numerator the same, and get a higher value.

...negative numbers


oh and if you were compressing something wouldnt it be amount per area, thus if you are compressing, you would make the denominator smaller... thus getting a larger value.

Solids and liquids are basically incompressible.  This means that there is no appreciable change in specific volume for an increase in pressure.  Solids are already in their most dense form.  They are formed in a crystalline structure and any extra energy goes to decreasing the bond length, which takes ever increasing energy with no perceptible change in length.  Liquid water at 210 atm (3100 psi) undergoes a density change of 1%.  GASSES are extremely compressible as a pressure change of just 0.01 atm (0.147 psi) changes the density by 1%.

Fluids cannot be compressed..ok, so neutron stars and black holes do not exist?

We're talking a slightly different scale of pressures here.  A teaspoonful of material from the surface of a neutron star weighs as much as the largest mountains on Earth... and there's a lot more than a teaspoonful of it.  Nowhere on the Earth -- flat or round -- do pressures come anywhere near that.  If they did... well, probably the Earth would become a neutron star.  Pressure inside a neutron star is high enough to force more than one particle to be in the same quantum state (i.e. forces them to violate the Pauli exclusion principle) and pressure inside a black hole essentially crushes matter out of existence -- or at least into a region of zero volume.  I don't see you how can seriously make the comparison.  Really, it's beyond silly.

Also, I really would like that example of compressed mass not becoming more dense.

I'm telling you.  Liquids, under pressures reproducible naturally on the Earth, do not become significantly denser.

If you are correct, and denser matter is not at the bottom with less dense material on top, by all means show me how you make oil sink at the bottom of water instead of floating on top.

Oil and water -- fluids.  The rigid thingy surrounding the flat Earth?  Rocks in general?  Not fluid.  Yes, I know that even rock, especially rock under pressure, is somewhat fluid, but not over time scales short enough for them to "mix" accidentally.

We're talking a slightly different scale of pressures here

The scale doesn't matter. We're talking about whether or not it is possible, if it's possible at a higher scale, then it is possible.  You say that it is impossible to compress liquids, then you say that then can be compressed on a higher scale, that is NOT an impossibility.

I don't see you how can seriously make the comparison.

When did I make a comparison?

If you know about Neutron stars and black holes then you know about electronic fluid, and you know fluids can be compressed.

I'm telling you. Liquids, under pressures reproducible naturally on the Earth, do not become

Quote

significantly

denser.

Not significantly is not the same as not at all. Why would we make the precision if there was an abscence of the phenomenon?  It's either possible or it's not.

Oil and water -- fluids. The rigid thingy surrounding the flat Earth? Rocks in general? Not fluid. Yes, I know that even rock, especially rock under pressure, is somewhat fluid, but not over time scales short enough for them to "mix" accidentally

Fluids are still matter.  And it behaves as I said it would.

The scale doesn't matter. We're talking about whether or not it is possible, if it's possible at a higher scale, then it is possible.  You say that it is impossible to compress liquids, then you say that then can be compressed on a higher scale, that it NOT an impossibility.

Don't be asinine.  The whole point of this misguided discussion is to consider the possibility of a material which you said was too dense to be in the position it was in.  In order for that to make sense, its density would have to differ signifcantly from that of the material around it.  The pressure inside a neutron star or black hole is obviously enough to compress the material to the required density; the pressures available on Earth not not enough.

On the Earth's, the compressibility of rock is zero to within as many decimal places as you are capable of measuring.

Not significantly is not the same as not at all. Why would we make the precision if there was an abscence of the phenomenon?  It's either possible or it's not.

Do you have a point?  If all you want to say is that fluids can be compressed, then fine, you're right.  If you want to actually disagree with something that's been brought up elsewhere in this thread -- for example, my assertion that liquids are incompressible under conditions naturally attainable on Earth -- then please stop talking about black holes and neutron stars.

Phaseshifter has just completely proven that the flat earth doesn't work because then it would be destroying itself.

Many people have, but flat earth believers usually will ignore it, or throw out random solutions for how it could be on a flat earth. I could say that maybe the plates are thrown back to the middle of the earth by superman when they get near the edge, and he uses his breath to keep the ice wall from melting. That theory is just as retarded as Erasmus'.

Phaseshifter has done such only in his delusional mind.  Same with other RE'ers who have claimed to have 'won'.

The whole point of this misguided discussion is to consider the possibility of a material which you said was too dense to be in the position it was in

And you have yet to show how it is possible and why it would just be there, and more improtantly, why it didn't exists up to this point. If you are going to mention a phenomnon that has plate tectonics suddently luquify whole, then you had better have an explanation for it. Like I said, subduction is not known to liquify plates, and that super dense edge plus that liquification contradicts a lot of FE theory.

If you want to actually disagree with something that's been brought up elsewhere in this thread -- for example, my assertion that liquids are incompressible under conditions naturally attainable on Earth -- then please stop talking about black holes and neutron stars.

It was necessary to refute your statment  of the phenomenon being impossible. As for the added statment you made of it being impossible on earth specificly. Consider that the earth's core IS liquid, and has the weight of the planet on it. Pockets of magma, which  I mentioned earlier are also a good example of this.

You must understand that it's natural to be sceptical of a statment that explains a phenomenon by saying that "something special" is happening.

The FE model is unlikely even at first glance, because it has too many exceptions to it's own rules, exceptions that aren't exactly a minority.

Like I said, subduction is not known to liquify plates

Phaseshifter, your problem is that you do a lot of talking, but no research.
If you had actually bothered to look up what subduction is and how plates are recycled, you would have seen that you were wrong, yet again.

   The jerky movement, as well as the friction between the plates causes much heat, and together with the heat from the mantle and from radioactive decay, causes the subducted plate to melt.  Magma is produced by the melting plate.

http://library.thinkquest.org/17457/platetectonics/5.php

And you have yet to show how it is possible

As for the added statment you made of it being impossible on earth specificly. Consider that the earth's core IS liquid, and has the weight of the planet on it. Pockets of magma, which  I mentioned earlier are also a good example of this.

I seem to recall it being the case that I claimed that rock, deep underground, could become liquid.  What are you trying to prove here?

You must understand that it's natural to be sceptical of a statment that explains a phenomenon by saying that "something special" is happening.

The FE model is unlikely even at first glance, because it has too many exceptions to it's own rules, exceptions that aren't exactly a minority.

I understand that it's natural for you to be sceptical.  I also understand that statements about the "likelihood" form the core of anti-FE arguments, and really have no logical weight behind them at all.  It's unlikely that the fundamental constants of the universe would have the precise values that they do and that allow life as we know it to form; it doesn't mean that the Standard Model is wrong.

I seem to recall it being the case that I claimed that rock, deep underground, could become liquid. What are you trying to prove here?

We are talking about the plates that cause common earthquakes. What's with the attitude?

I also understand that statements about the "likelihood" form the core of anti-FE arguments, and really have no logical weight behind them at all

Most people will find it logical to expect likely events to happen, and unlikely events not to.

It's unlikely that the fundamental constants of the universe would have the precise values that they do and that allow life as we know it to form; it doesn't mean that the Standard Model is wrong.

The exsistence of earth does not contradict anything we know. The other planets of the solar system do not have the requirements to support life, (too hot, too cold, ect). So they don't. The earth does, so it does.

And I don't see how this qualifies as an explanation to the phenomenon.

phaseshifter unfortunately ur argument refferring to the compressability of liquids and solids to form black holes is irrelevant. when reverting to a black hole, the seperate pieces of atoms go their seperate ways, there is no longer a Li atom, or an Fe...they revert to single protons and neutrons and electrons, and theory has it that these in turn break down further into quarks.

Most people will find it logical to expect likely events to happen, and unlikely events not to.

Yes, but, whether you believe in RE or FE, you believe in something unlikely:

The other planets of the solar system do not have the requirements to support life, (too hot, too cold, ect). So they don't. The earth does, so it does.

I'm talking about more fundamental requirements.  If for example the nuclear force were a bit weaker, stable stars would not form.  There would be no processes that could create heavier elements.  If it were a bit stronger, all the hydrogen in the universe would be quickly converted into helium and there would be no water.  There's a very delicate balance that, if it were even slighly upset, would render the universe (not just one planet) inhospitable to life as we know it.

Point is, our universe is not one that you'd want to bet one.  Just because the FE universe is "unlikely", doesn't make it impossible.

*edit* For more information on the unlikelihood of the universe as we know it, see Wikipedia's article on the fine-tuned universe.