How do stars stay together/form on a flat earth?

If gravity doesn't work like it normally does and is much weaker or doesn't exist at all, how do stars stay together or form at all? Inisde of a star is a very compact core that uses the energy the star produces to stay in it's shape. Gravity makes sure that the dangerous emissions of the star stay within it's own field. Also, how could stars form at all without gravity? The process begins when one object of mass becomes larger than its dust cloud neighbors. It then pulls then into itself and gains mass getting larger and larger. How could this process happen?

It is a simple fact that on a FE, stars are not what they tell us they are.

It is a simple fact that on a FE, stars are not what they tell us they are.

Then please do enlighten me on how the formation of a star happens within the FE model. I would also like to know why they stay in the shape they are in. (Jadynn since you're the astronomer i think you can help me with this thread)

Quote from: BJ1234 on November 09, 2015, 06:40:27 AM

It is a simple fact that on a FE, stars are not what they tell us they are.

Then please do enlighten me on how the formation of a star happens within the FE model. I would also like to know why they stay in the shape they are in. (Jadynn since you're the astronomer i think you can help me with this thread)

If the shape of the earth were not what we are told, would it not reason that star formation also wouldn't be what we are told?

Quote from: BJ1234 on November 09, 2015, 06:40:27 AM

It is a simple fact that on a FE, stars are not what they tell us they are.

Then please do enlighten me on how the formation of a star happens within the FE model. I would also like to know why they stay in the shape they are in. (Jadynn since you're the astronomer i think you can help me with this thread)

Sorry, star formation isn't really an amateur astronomer issue (viewing, photographing and the movement of the heavens is). Furthermore, I can't help you with the formation of stars either, as I believe in the Bible and that God created the entire heavens (i.e. Sun, Moon, planets, stars, nebulas and galaxies) in a single day with his word. You will need someone who believes in the Big Bang theory and geological evolution for that. I don't (one major disproof are "Polonium Halos" - Robert Gentry). Sorry.

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 09, 2015, 07:43:02 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on November 09, 2015, 06:40:27 AM

It is a simple fact that on a FE, stars are not what they tell us they are.

Then please do enlighten me on how the formation of a star happens within the FE model. I would also like to know why they stay in the shape they are in. (Jadynn since you're the astronomer i think you can help me with this thread)

If the shape of the earth were not what we are told, would it not reason that star formation also wouldn't be what we are told?

Alright. Let us assume that we are within the FE world. How then do you explain the way stars are formed. I would also like to know how they manage to stay together in whatever shape you decide they are.

Quote from: BJ1234 on November 09, 2015, 06:40:27 AM

It is a simple fact that on a FE, stars are not what they tell us they are.

Then please do enlighten me on how the formation of a star happens within the FE model. I would also like to know why they stay in the shape they are in. (Jadynn since you're the astronomer i think you can help me with this thread)

Your scientists have never seen a star form and only make logical guesses.  Why are we held to a different standard? 

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 09, 2015, 07:43:02 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on November 09, 2015, 06:40:27 AM

It is a simple fact that on a FE, stars are not what they tell us they are.

Then please do enlighten me on how the formation of a star happens within the FE model. I would also like to know why they stay in the shape they are in. (Jadynn since you're the astronomer i think you can help me with this thread)

Your scientists have never seen a star form and only make logical guesses.  Why are we held to a different standard?

Who are they?  Where are yours?

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 09, 2015, 07:43:02 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on November 09, 2015, 06:40:27 AM

It is a simple fact that on a FE, stars are not what they tell us they are.

Then please do enlighten me on how the formation of a star happens within the FE model. I would also like to know why they stay in the shape they are in. (Jadynn since you're the astronomer i think you can help me with this thread)

Your scientists have never seen a star form and only make logical guesses.  Why are we held to a different standard?

Fair enough, we have just created a theory based on what we have seen happening all around our universe with various probes and telescopes. But what is your theory then? How did the sun magically appear above the earth and how do stars maintain their formation within the flat earth theory?

I honestly hope that the FEer's are coming up with their theories instead of completely ignoring this thread because they don't know the answer.

Seriously? You think that even the mainstream explanation of stellar and planetary formation are 100% accurate?
Scientists look at the things they can look at, and make educated guesses based on that.
Again, though, jroa had a good question.
Why are we held to a different standard?

And if it is indeed the tendency of gravity to pull massive things together into a spheroid, why are many galaxies flattish?

Seriously? You think that even the mainstream explanation of stellar and planetary formation are 100% accurate?
Scientists look at the things they can look at, and make educated guesses based on that.
Again, though, jroa had a good question.
Why are we held to a different standard?

And if it is indeed the tendency of gravity to pull massive things together into a spheroid, why are many galaxies flattish?

If you looked back and read what I replied you would see that I changed my wording because I realized that it wasn't a fair question. I just asked what is your theory on how stars and planets formed/stay together. Our educated guesses could be just as good as yours, but all of our math works and shows that stars could form in this way. I just want to know how the FEer's think the stars were formed and how they stayed together. For example how did the sun form within the dome on the flat earth?

The flat (e.g., spiral) galaxies tend do be rotating, whereas the less flat ones (e.g., ellipticals) tend not to be. Conservation of angular momentum lets the rotating ones collapse along the direction of the rotation axis but not the other directions.

I would really appreciate an actual discussion on your theories instead of trying to deflect it back onto me and my "round earth" theory. I explained that I changed the wording to say that I would like to see the FEer's theory compared to the REer's theory about star formation and many other things I asked earlier in the thread.

I would really appreciate an actual discussion on your theories instead of trying to deflect it back onto me and my "round earth" theory. I explained that I changed the wording to say that I would like to see the FEer's theory compared to the REer's theory about star formation and many other things I asked earlier in the thread.

That's a common fallacy they (FET) use to try to sound cool. They invert the burden of proof so to make FET seem to be credible.

In other words they are utterly clueless and must use gibberish to continue the "debate"

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 10, 2015, 10:32:46 PM

Seriously? You think that even the mainstream explanation of stellar and planetary formation are 100% accurate?
Scientists look at the things they can look at, and make educated guesses based on that.
Again, though, jroa had a good question.
Why are we held to a different standard?

And if it is indeed the tendency of gravity to pull massive things together into a spheroid, why are many galaxies flattish?

If you looked back and read what I replied you would see that I changed my wording because I realized that it wasn't a fair question. I just asked what is your theory on how stars and planets formed/stay together. Our educated guesses could be just as good as yours, but all of our math works and shows that stars could form in this way. I just want to know how the FEer's think the stars were formed and how they stayed together. For example how did the sun form within the dome on the flat earth?

The flat (e.g., spiral) galaxies tend do be rotating, whereas the less flat ones (e.g., ellipticals) tend not to be. Conservation of angular momentum lets the rotating ones collapse along the direction of the rotation axis but not the other directions.

I'm sure I could just fabricate a formula and make math work as well, but I haven't the time right now.
So, if the Earth allegedly rotates, how is it a ball? The Earth is much less massive than the galaxy.
I thought gravity was based on mass.

There are problems with even the RE model of how everything happened.
Come up with an answer to Carl Sagan's faint young Sun paradox.

Also, the Earth is not a dome. Not sure where you people keep getting that.

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 11, 2015, 04:24:47 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 10, 2015, 10:32:46 PM

Seriously? You think that even the mainstream explanation of stellar and planetary formation are 100% accurate?
Scientists look at the things they can look at, and make educated guesses based on that.
Again, though, jroa had a good question.
Why are we held to a different standard?

And if it is indeed the tendency of gravity to pull massive things together into a spheroid, why are many galaxies flattish?

If you looked back and read what I replied you would see that I changed my wording because I realized that it wasn't a fair question. I just asked what is your theory on how stars and planets formed/stay together. Our educated guesses could be just as good as yours, but all of our math works and shows that stars could form in this way. I just want to know how the FEer's think the stars were formed and how they stayed together. For example how did the sun form within the dome on the flat earth?

The flat (e.g., spiral) galaxies tend do be rotating, whereas the less flat ones (e.g., ellipticals) tend not to be. Conservation of angular momentum lets the rotating ones collapse along the direction of the rotation axis but not the other directions.

I'm sure I could just fabricate a formula and make math work as well, but I haven't the time right now.
So, if the Earth allegedly rotates, how is it a ball? The Earth is much less massive than the galaxy.
I thought gravity was based on mass.

There are problems with even the RE model of how everything happened.
Come up with an answer to Carl Sagan's faint young Sun paradox.

Also, the Earth is not a dome. Not sure where you people keep getting that.

This is just pure deflection. I ask questions on the debate forum and hope to find an answer and discuss what you and I have found. Instead you brush off my questions and act as if you "don't have the time" or completely ignore the question altogether. You then proceed to turn around and question me on topics that have nothing to do with the original topic of discussion (which I answered anyways). I'm assuming you will keep on asking me questions until I get sick of answering them, while you act like you have answered my questions and won the debate.

The faint young sun paradox cannot be fully answered at the moment due to not having enough information of the world at previous times. However at the university of Colorado a doctoral student has gone through a computer simulation saying that life at the time could be possible with the data that we have. I highly suggest you read on it for answers.

The earth is caught in the gravity of the sun which constantly pulls the earth Into the sun. But the earth moves too fast for it to be pulled all the way into the sun, thus it constantly orbits the sun. It also rotates, this can be proven with a perfect pendulum, because the perfect pendulum is on a rotating planet it shows the characteristics such as a rotation you would expect to see on a rotating planet.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/10/science/la-sci-sn-faint-young-sun-paradox-20130710

The simplest way to do it is to build a long pendulum with a heavy mass, and tie it off at a small but significant (5-10 degree) angle. Leave it overnight. In the morning, come in and mark its position, and then burn the string you used to tie it off.
Why burn it? Because this way, you won’t accidentally introduce any angular momentum; the pendulum will simply swing back-and-forth in a straight line.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/17/but-it-moves-how-we-know-the-e/

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 11, 2015, 09:18:05 AM

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 11, 2015, 04:24:47 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 10, 2015, 10:32:46 PM

Seriously? You think that even the mainstream explanation of stellar and planetary formation are 100% accurate?
Scientists look at the things they can look at, and make educated guesses based on that.
Again, though, jroa had a good question.
Why are we held to a different standard?

And if it is indeed the tendency of gravity to pull massive things together into a spheroid, why are many galaxies flattish?

If you looked back and read what I replied you would see that I changed my wording because I realized that it wasn't a fair question. I just asked what is your theory on how stars and planets formed/stay together. Our educated guesses could be just as good as yours, but all of our math works and shows that stars could form in this way. I just want to know how the FEer's think the stars were formed and how they stayed together. For example how did the sun form within the dome on the flat earth?

The flat (e.g., spiral) galaxies tend do be rotating, whereas the less flat ones (e.g., ellipticals) tend not to be. Conservation of angular momentum lets the rotating ones collapse along the direction of the rotation axis but not the other directions.

I'm sure I could just fabricate a formula and make math work as well, but I haven't the time right now.
So, if the Earth allegedly rotates, how is it a ball? The Earth is much less massive than the galaxy.
I thought gravity was based on mass.

There are problems with even the RE model of how everything happened.
Come up with an answer to Carl Sagan's faint young Sun paradox.

Also, the Earth is not a dome. Not sure where you people keep getting that.

This is just pure deflection. I ask questions on the debate forum and hope to find an answer and discuss what you and I have found. Instead you brush off my questions and act as if you "don't have the time" or completely ignore the question altogether. You then proceed to turn around and question me on topics that have nothing to do with the original topic of discussion (which I answered anyways). I'm assuming you will keep on asking me questions until I get sick of answering them, while you act like you have answered my questions and won the debate.

The faint young sun paradox cannot be fully answered at the moment due to not having enough information of the world at previous times. However at the university of Colorado a doctoral student has gone through a computer simulation saying that life at the time could be possible with the data that we have. I highly suggest you read on it for answers.

The earth is caught in the gravity of the sun which constantly pulls the earth Into the sun. But the earth moves too fast for it to be pulled all the way into the sun, thus it constantly orbits the sun. It also rotates, this can be proven with a perfect pendulum, because the perfect pendulum is on a rotating planet it shows the characteristics such as a rotation you would expect to see on a rotating planet.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/10/science/la-sci-sn-faint-young-sun-paradox-20130710

The simplest way to do it is to build a long pendulum with a heavy mass, and tie it off at a small but significant (5-10 degree) angle. Leave it overnight. In the morning, come in and mark its position, and then burn the string you used to tie it off.
Why burn it? Because this way, you won’t accidentally introduce any angular momentum; the pendulum will simply swing back-and-forth in a straight line.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/17/but-it-moves-how-we-know-the-e/

So we don't know enough about the early earth to answer the faint young sun paradox, but we know enough to describe how the earth formed originally? It's odd, that.
If you'd like to compare my findings to yours, you first need findings of your own.
Or do you just accept everything you're spoon fed as fact without checking into it?

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 11, 2015, 10:28:55 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 11, 2015, 09:18:05 AM

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 11, 2015, 04:24:47 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 10, 2015, 10:32:46 PM

Seriously? You think that even the mainstream explanation of stellar and planetary formation are 100% accurate?
Scientists look at the things they can look at, and make educated guesses based on that.
Again, though, jroa had a good question.
Why are we held to a different standard?

And if it is indeed the tendency of gravity to pull massive things together into a spheroid, why are many galaxies flattish?

If you looked back and read what I replied you would see that I changed my wording because I realized that it wasn't a fair question. I just asked what is your theory on how stars and planets formed/stay together. Our educated guesses could be just as good as yours, but all of our math works and shows that stars could form in this way. I just want to know how the FEer's think the stars were formed and how they stayed together. For example how did the sun form within the dome on the flat earth?

The flat (e.g., spiral) galaxies tend do be rotating, whereas the less flat ones (e.g., ellipticals) tend not to be. Conservation of angular momentum lets the rotating ones collapse along the direction of the rotation axis but not the other directions.

I'm sure I could just fabricate a formula and make math work as well, but I haven't the time right now.
So, if the Earth allegedly rotates, how is it a ball? The Earth is much less massive than the galaxy.
I thought gravity was based on mass.

There are problems with even the RE model of how everything happened.
Come up with an answer to Carl Sagan's faint young Sun paradox.

Also, the Earth is not a dome. Not sure where you people keep getting that.

This is just pure deflection. I ask questions on the debate forum and hope to find an answer and discuss what you and I have found. Instead you brush off my questions and act as if you "don't have the time" or completely ignore the question altogether. You then proceed to turn around and question me on topics that have nothing to do with the original topic of discussion (which I answered anyways). I'm assuming you will keep on asking me questions until I get sick of answering them, while you act like you have answered my questions and won the debate.

The faint young sun paradox cannot be fully answered at the moment due to not having enough information of the world at previous times. However at the university of Colorado a doctoral student has gone through a computer simulation saying that life at the time could be possible with the data that we have. I highly suggest you read on it for answers.

The earth is caught in the gravity of the sun which constantly pulls the earth Into the sun. But the earth moves too fast for it to be pulled all the way into the sun, thus it constantly orbits the sun. It also rotates, this can be proven with a perfect pendulum, because the perfect pendulum is on a rotating planet it shows the characteristics such as a rotation you would expect to see on a rotating planet.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/10/science/la-sci-sn-faint-young-sun-paradox-20130710

The simplest way to do it is to build a long pendulum with a heavy mass, and tie it off at a small but significant (5-10 degree) angle. Leave it overnight. In the morning, come in and mark its position, and then burn the string you used to tie it off.
Why burn it? Because this way, you won’t accidentally introduce any angular momentum; the pendulum will simply swing back-and-forth in a straight line.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/17/but-it-moves-how-we-know-the-e/

So we don't know enough about the early earth to answer the faint young sun paradox, but we know enough to describe how the earth formed originally? It's odd, that.
If you'd like to compare my findings to yours, you first need findings of your own.
Or do you just accept everything you're spoon fed as fact without checking into it?

They're called theories and simulations for a reason. The differences is that scientist have observed the happening of our universe and built our theories off of what they saw. I am still waiting for you to actually present some kind of theory or at least an observation instead of trying to berate me. It would also do you some good to not say "spoon fed lies" because I came to the forums to discuss what we believe. I want to hear how you believe the stars were formed and came to stay in their formation. The sun also needs to be explained. I have presented what I believe to be true, I am only waiting on you.

Keep in mind the following definitions:

Fantasy:

• imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained
• imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings
• the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.
• imagination unrestricted by reality

Fiction:

• a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so.
• something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story
• Fiction is defined as something that is not true
• is a deliberately fabricated account of something

Hypothesis:

• A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. A hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.
• In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation.
• A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory.

Theory:

• Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
• In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence;
• In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations

For example, this is why Dual Earth THEORY (DET) is not remotely a theory. This is why I refer to it as DEF.

Hope this helps in your discussion of theories.

Keep in mind the following definitions:

Fantasy:

• imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained
• imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings
• the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.
• imagination unrestricted by reality

Fiction:

• a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so.
• something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story
• Fiction is defined as something that is not true
• is a deliberately fabricated account of something

Hypothesis:

• A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. A hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.
• In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation.
• A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory.

Theory:

• Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
• In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence;
• In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations

For example, this is why Dual Earth THEORY (DET) is not remotely a theory. This is why I refer to it as DEF.

Hope this helps in your discussion of theories.

You still managed to help in your own way jadynn. Thanks.

Keep in mind the following definitions:

Fantasy:

• imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained
• imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings
• the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.
• imagination unrestricted by reality

Fiction:

• a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so.
• something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story
• Fiction is defined as something that is not true
• is a deliberately fabricated account of something

Hypothesis:

• A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. A hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.
• In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation.
• A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory.

Theory:

• Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step — known as a theory — in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
• In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence;
• In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations

For example, this is why Dual Earth THEORY (DET) is not remotely a theory. This is why I refer to it as DEF.

Hope this helps in your discussion of theories.

Good presentation. I was being nice to call that trash "theory" even knowing it has 0 scientific support (JR please don't take this the wrong way, but you just SUCK at science). I think "imagination unrestricted by reality" quite qualifies for the Dual earth gibberish. 

Once again FE remains silent after not being able to properly explain anything. All they managed to accomplish was deflect every question i asked them or brush the question off entirely. Not too mention they then turn around and asked me questions (which i answered) not about the original topic. Not providing much reason for me to take you guys seriously. Now i am expecting Jroa to comment something back about being held to different standards or trying to insult me.

275 views and no logical reply.

275 views and no logical reply.

Quite frankly, I wasn't satisfied with your answer to my questions.

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 12, 2015, 11:45:00 AM

275 views and no logical reply.

Quite frankly, I wasn't satisfied with your answer to my questions.

If you aren't satisfied with my answers I honestly cannot believe you are satisfied with any of the FE answers. Not to mention you didn't even answer one of my questions. Let's not play the blame game here.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 12, 2015, 12:36:10 PM

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 12, 2015, 11:45:00 AM

275 views and no logical reply.

Quite frankly, I wasn't satisfied with your answer to my questions.

If you aren't satisfied with my answers I honestly cannot believe you are satisfied with any of the FE answers. Not to mention you didn't even answer one of my questions. Let's not play the blame game here.

You haven't properly answered my questions, and your questions aren't necessarily "fair".
What question would you like me to answer?

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 12, 2015, 01:10:37 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 12, 2015, 12:36:10 PM

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 12, 2015, 11:45:00 AM

275 views and no logical reply.

Quite frankly, I wasn't satisfied with your answer to my questions.

If you aren't satisfied with my answers I honestly cannot believe you are satisfied with any of the FE answers. Not to mention you didn't even answer one of my questions. Let's not play the blame game here.

You haven't properly answered my questions, and your questions aren't necessarily "fair".
What question would you like me to answer?

I haven't answered you questions adequately? What is mathematics, credible sources, and actual scientific terms with explanation? Just because I didn't get down on my knees and conform to your beliefs means it wasn't adequate?

What makes my questions unfair that you can't answer them? "How did the sun form within the FE model?" What is so hard about that? "How do you believe that stars formed within the FE model with no or less strong gravity?" What is so hard about that. Please come back when you can actually debate for a change.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 12, 2015, 09:29:51 PM

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 12, 2015, 01:10:37 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 12, 2015, 12:36:10 PM

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 12, 2015, 11:45:00 AM

275 views and no logical reply.

Quite frankly, I wasn't satisfied with your answer to my questions.

If you aren't satisfied with my answers I honestly cannot believe you are satisfied with any of the FE answers. Not to mention you didn't even answer one of my questions. Let's not play the blame game here.

You haven't properly answered my questions, and your questions aren't necessarily "fair".
What question would you like me to answer?

I haven't answered you questions adequately? What is mathematics, credible sources, and actual scientific terms with explanation? Just because I didn't get down on my knees and conform to your beliefs means it wasn't adequate?

What makes my questions unfair that you can't answer them? "How did the sun form within the FE model?" What is so hard about that? "How do you believe that stars formed within the FE model with no or less strong gravity?" What is so hard about that. Please come back when you can actually debate for a change.

We are few, you are many.
Let me challenge you with an equally unfair question and see if you can answer it.
Show me the math of how your round Earth stars formed - without googling or anything.

...What? You can't? You're not an astrophysicist?
I mean, come on. What's so hard about that?

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 13, 2015, 07:19:57 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 12, 2015, 09:29:51 PM

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 12, 2015, 01:10:37 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 12, 2015, 12:36:10 PM

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 12, 2015, 11:45:00 AM

275 views and no logical reply.

Quite frankly, I wasn't satisfied with your answer to my questions.

If you aren't satisfied with my answers I honestly cannot believe you are satisfied with any of the FE answers. Not to mention you didn't even answer one of my questions. Let's not play the blame game here.

You haven't properly answered my questions, and your questions aren't necessarily "fair".
What question would you like me to answer?

I haven't answered you questions adequately? What is mathematics, credible sources, and actual scientific terms with explanation? Just because I didn't get down on my knees and conform to your beliefs means it wasn't adequate?

What makes my questions unfair that you can't answer them? "How did the sun form within the FE model?" What is so hard about that? "How do you believe that stars formed within the FE model with no or less strong gravity?" What is so hard about that. Please come back when you can actually debate for a change.

We are few, you are many.
Let me challenge you with an equally unfair question and see if you can answer it.
Show me the math of how your round Earth stars formed - without googling or anything.

...What? You can't? You're not an astrophysicist?
I mean, come on. What's so hard about that?

'Your'.  Please explain.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 13, 2015, 07:33:05 AM

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 13, 2015, 07:19:57 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 12, 2015, 09:29:51 PM

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 12, 2015, 01:10:37 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 12, 2015, 12:36:10 PM

Quote from: Roundearthisfalse on November 12, 2015, 11:45:00 AM

275 views and no logical reply.

Quite frankly, I wasn't satisfied with your answer to my questions.

If you aren't satisfied with my answers I honestly cannot believe you are satisfied with any of the FE answers. Not to mention you didn't even answer one of my questions. Let's not play the blame game here.

You haven't properly answered my questions, and your questions aren't necessarily "fair".
What question would you like me to answer?

I haven't answered you questions adequately? What is mathematics, credible sources, and actual scientific terms with explanation? Just because I didn't get down on my knees and conform to your beliefs means it wasn't adequate?

What makes my questions unfair that you can't answer them? "How did the sun form within the FE model?" What is so hard about that? "How do you believe that stars formed within the FE model with no or less strong gravity?" What is so hard about that. Please come back when you can actually debate for a change.

We are few, you are many.
Let me challenge you with an equally unfair question and see if you can answer it.
Show me the math of how your round Earth stars formed - without googling or anything.

...What? You can't? You're not an astrophysicist?
I mean, come on. What's so hard about that?

'Your'.  Please explain.

Another empty and content lacking post from inquisitive.
I meant that he holds the belief that the earth is round.
Quite obvious.