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

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?

I don't want you to be an astrophysicist. I just want to know how you believe they were formed.

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

Look at that, another thread I haven't posted in, and in which Jadyyn whines about my model. He failed to refute it and he's been mad ever since. It'd be comical if it wasn't just irritating.

On the OP, don't assume stars are as RET teaches. For example, under DET (which is testable and falsifiable, and matches observations giving it the evidence required to be a theory, as has been explained to Jadyyn multiple times, and as he has never once responded to), the stars are formed of metal heated white-hot by friction. It's comparatively simple for solid objects like that to form: dust being forced together.
The force in question is explained and is well defined under DET, but that would takes ages to go into.

I'm not a believer or a non-believer, I'm a seeker of the Truth. But one thing is for sure I give so much credit to this theory as I give to "Scientific"/Astronomy theories about how the Universe is made, about the solar system, etc. why?! Because both of them lack of evidence, in fact, what we call science nowadays and their explanations about the universe contradicts in almost cases the physic's laws that we know, so we should be open minded and look into different perspectives, because, this science that they teach is basically some kind of religion who doesn't have a God...

I'm not a believer or a non-believer, I'm a seeker of the Truth. But one thing is for sure I give so much credit to this theory as I give to "Scientific"/Astronomy theories about how the Universe is made, about the solar system, etc. why?! Because both of them lack of evidence, in fact, what we call science nowadays and their explanations about the universe contradicts in almost cases the physic's laws that we know, so we should be open minded and look into different perspectives, because, this science that they teach is basically some kind of religion who doesn't have a God...

Not really relevant to the current discussion at hand but ok.

Quote from: oeN on November 16, 2015, 12:38:27 PM

I'm not a believer or a non-believer, I'm a seeker of the Truth. But one thing is for sure I give so much credit to this theory as I give to "Scientific"/Astronomy theories about how the Universe is made, about the solar system, etc. why?! Because both of them lack of evidence, in fact, what we call science nowadays and their explanations about the universe contradicts in almost cases the physic's laws that we know, so we should be open minded and look into different perspectives, because, this science that they teach is basically some kind of religion who doesn't have a God...

Not really relevant to the current discussion at hand but ok.

Yes, sorry, it was not a direct responde to this topic's subject, but to the the answers that start to come out.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 11, 2015, 03:13:36 PM

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

Look at that, another thread I haven't posted in, and in which Jadyyn whines about my model. He failed to refute it and he's been mad ever since. It'd be comical if it wasn't just irritating.

On the OP, don't assume stars are as RET teaches. For example, under DET (which is testable and falsifiable, and matches observations giving it the evidence required to be a theory, as has been explained to Jadyyn multiple times, and as he has never once responded to), the stars are formed of metal heated white-hot by friction. It's comparatively simple for solid objects like that to form: dust being forced together.
The force in question is explained and is well defined under DET, but that would takes ages to go into.

Thank you for your logical response,(the first I've gotten). You and Jadynn seem to have a pretty big rivalry from what i have seen off of other threads. I am a round earthier but if there is substantial evidence and proof of FE or your DE I would most likely accept it as fact. From what I have seen you seem to like this "aether" explanation for everything. How does it work? If your belief on how stars form is correct, why does there appear to be many different types of stars along with black holes and pulsars?

I am a round earthier but if there is substantial evidence and proof of FE or your DE I would most likely accept it as fact. From what I have seen you seem to like this "aether" explanation for everything. How does it work? If your belief on how stars form is correct, why does there appear to be many different types of stars along with black holes and pulsars?

It depends how you define evidence. There's fundamentally only one kind, but when you accept a model, you automatically expect some higher standard from an alternative.
Atther is fundamental to DET. Please note my sig, though: I'm happy to explain the model, but it will take a while to go into detail for much. The definition of aether is the first step, but to explain that completely in terms of properties alone, is simple, but long: and then to explain how it relates to reality...

Alternative star types are primarily hypothetical. If space travel isn't accepted, images from the likes of Hubble are immediately discounted: and the rest is typically vague at best. The primary reason things such as pulsars are accepted to exist is because the theory behind them, accepting the RE model, holds: but this theory doesn't work under DET. There's multiple explanations for, for example, radiation bursts.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 11, 2015, 03:13:36 PM

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

Look at that, another thread I haven't posted in, and in which Jadyyn whines about my model. He failed to refute it and he's been mad ever since. It'd be comical if it wasn't just irritating.

On the OP, don't assume stars are as RET teaches. For example, under DET (which is testable and falsifiable, and matches observations giving it the evidence required to be a theory, as has been explained to Jadyyn multiple times, and as he has never once responded to), the stars are formed of metal heated white-hot by friction. It's comparatively simple for solid objects like that to form: dust being forced together.
The force in question is explained and is well defined under DET, but that would takes ages to go into.

And your evidence stars are metal heated white-hot is?
How can Aether, which changes perception (SUBJECTIVE ONLY), do anything physical to objects like friction?
If it also produces physical effects like friction and "gravity" as you claim, what test can we make that it OBJECTIVELY exists?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 16, 2015, 12:38:08 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 11, 2015, 03:13:36 PM

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

Look at that, another thread I haven't posted in, and in which Jadyyn whines about my model. He failed to refute it and he's been mad ever since. It'd be comical if it wasn't just irritating.

On the OP, don't assume stars are as RET teaches. For example, under DET (which is testable and falsifiable, and matches observations giving it the evidence required to be a theory, as has been explained to Jadyyn multiple times, and as he has never once responded to), the stars are formed of metal heated white-hot by friction. It's comparatively simple for solid objects like that to form: dust being forced together.
The force in question is explained and is well defined under DET, but that would takes ages to go into.

And your evidence stars are metal heated white-hot is?
How can Aether, which changes perception (SUBJECTIVE ONLY), do anything physical to objects like friction?
If it also produces physical effects like friction and "gravity" as you claim, what test can we make that it OBJECTIVELY exists?

Observation, deduction.
I have no idea what bullshit notion of aether you have but it affects far more than perception, it's most definitely not subjective, and we test it every time we observe something falling.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 17, 2015, 06:46:38 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 16, 2015, 12:38:08 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 11, 2015, 03:13:36 PM

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

Look at that, another thread I haven't posted in, and in which Jadyyn whines about my model. He failed to refute it and he's been mad ever since. It'd be comical if it wasn't just irritating.

On the OP, don't assume stars are as RET teaches. For example, under DET (which is testable and falsifiable, and matches observations giving it the evidence required to be a theory, as has been explained to Jadyyn multiple times, and as he has never once responded to), the stars are formed of metal heated white-hot by friction. It's comparatively simple for solid objects like that to form: dust being forced together.
The force in question is explained and is well defined under DET, but that would takes ages to go into.

And your evidence stars are metal heated white-hot is?
How can Aether, which changes perception (SUBJECTIVE ONLY), do anything physical to objects like friction?
If it also produces physical effects like friction and "gravity" as you claim, what test can we make that it OBJECTIVELY exists?

Observation, deduction.
I have no idea what bullshit notion of aether you have but it affects far more than perception, it's most definitely not subjective, and we test it every time we observe something falling.

How have you observed they are made of metal?

" If more aether is in a certain location, then the (subjective) distance in that location will be greater than a location with less aether: as such, the time taken to cross it will be decreased. This cannot be easily determined from a local perspective, for obvious reasons: you rely on aether (the fabric of space) to see anything." Are you changing your definition of Aether's properties?

So a person with one foot on one side of the Hemidisk and another foot on the other we should be able to TEST Aether's ACTUAL affects on the person/object? How?

"we test it every time we observe something falling." How do we TEST it?

How have you observed they are made of metal?

See: deduction. There are a finite number of possibilities, especially when context is taken into account.

" If more aether is in a certain location, then the (subjective) distance in that location will be greater than a location with less aether: as such, the time taken to cross it will be decreased. This cannot be easily determined from a local perspective, for obvious reasons: you rely on aether (the fabric of space) to see anything." Are you changing your definition of Aether's properties?

No. You weren't referring to those properties. You also seem to be complete ignoring the word 'local,' and have come up with some ridiculous notion of aether purely being something that affects perception. Again, you do not understand the model, stop pretending you do.

"we test it every time we observe something falling." How do we TEST it?

Do you take pleasure in just ignoring replies?

I am done with your non-answers.  When you start providing real answers instead of this BS, I will consider discussing further. Go ahead with your stupid debate tactics. There is nothing real in the DEF fantasy.

What is the shape of stars, according to FE/DE? Do they have the same round shape as scientific observation says?

I am done with your non-answers.  When you start providing real answers instead of this BS, I will consider discussing further. Go ahead with your stupid debate tactics. There is nothing real in the DEF fantasy.

And you accuse me of non-answers, hilarious. When you have any idea what you're talking about, a lack fo discussion with you would be a loss. until then, good riddance.

What is the shape of stars, according to FE/DE? Do they have the same round shape as scientific observation says?

You know how to learn the model, fuckwit.