Earth is flat, but why are all other planets in the solar system globes?

Hi,

I am new to FE theory.


I was wondering: Why is only Earth flat, but all other planets in the solar system are not?

Are all those pictures/videos of them fake as well?


Are all planets in the universe in fact flat?

All stars, including our own sun?

No one?

Anything?

Like I keep saying, all the other planets are fake. Have you ever seen them with your own eyes? They're just fake CGI so that NASA has more missions to do and get more of that sweet taxpayer's money.

If you continue to spam in Q&A I will be forced to fight you with my fists.

The Earth is not "all other planets".

Some pictures and videos are fake, some are real, but most flat earthers do not think the planets are flat.

No one knows what all the planets in the universe look like.

No one knows what all the stars look like.

All of the planets/stars are disk-shaped.

See here:

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946 (two consecutive messages)

However, the comets are the most interesting heavenly objects:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2066035#msg2066035

If you continue to spam in Q&A I will be forced to fight you with my fists.

The Earth is not "all other planets".

Some pictures and videos are fake, some are real, but most flat earthers do not think the planets are flat.

No one knows what all the planets in the universe look like.

No one knows what all the stars look like.

What do you mean 'some' are fake and 'some' are real.


What kind of footage are you talking about?

Satellite footage? Footage from deep space probes?



And if other planets are not flat, how come that Earth is the only one that is flat in an entire solar system/galaxy?

And if other planets are not flat, how come that Earth is the only one that is flat in an entire solar system/galaxy?

Exactly.

That is why all other objects seen in the sky must be discoidal.

There are no other galaxies.

Take a look at how the Andromeda galaxy pictures were faked:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1824970#msg1824970

To answer your inquiry, it is the atmosphere of the Sun which is rotating. Same as that of Jupiter.

Here is the scientific demonstration that the shape of the Sun could not spherical at all:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.

Halley's comet, for example, could not exist as a comet for more than 120 revolutions.

120 x 75 = 9000 years

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735

To answer your inquiry, it is the atmosphere of the Sun which is rotating. Same as that of Jupiter.

Here is the scientific demonstration that the shape of the Sun could not spherical at all:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.

Halley's comet, for example, could not exist as a comet for more than 120 revolutions.

120 x 75 = 9000 years

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735

Round atmosphere rotating around still flat disc is impossible. You see it become more elongated towards the edges. Just like craters on Moon do and Moon doesnt have atmosphere at all.





your link did not demonstrate that at all.

Second one is common creationist talking point and better left for another time

I said discoidal not "flat disk".

https://o.quizlet.com/mzjMpHztwZkFUMg0a-WWIg_b.jpg

If you are not happy with FET then you can take your business elsewhere.

If you have questions, they will be answered, this is not the debate section.

You should be more humble in your appraisals. Listen to Dr. Farouk El Baz, the key member of the Apollo missions at NASA:

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

So, you have a question regarding the atmosphere of the flat earth.

Fine.

The FE atmosphere is contained by the first dome. The stellar/planetary orbits are bounded by the second dome.

On the origin of the winds, atmospheric jets:

https://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_74 (see also chapter 75)

Clouds are sustained by the Biefeld-Brown effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759968#msg759968

Hi,

I am new to FE theory.


I was wondering: Why is only Earth flat, but all other planets in the solar system are not?

Are all those pictures/videos of them fake as well?



Are all planets in the universe in fact flat?

All stars, including our own sun?

Take a look at amateur footage of these supposed planets. You will see something completely different to what NASA likes to present us with. Your reality has been determined by those who—for whatever reason—wish to make the globe model the one you accept.

I think that NASA really believes that what they are showing us is real, but like earth, the light surrounding those planets are warped by the planet's impact on the space time continuem. This is comparable to a glass cylinder, the circular surface of the glass will bend the light warping objects on the other side. It's also fits into their rudementary doctrine of "gravity" which is obviously false. Objects seem to fall downward but in fact earth is orbiting the sun on a set path in a way that it is rising towards us at the same rate in which we seem to "fall" towards it.

I think that NASA really believes that what they are showing us is real, but like earth, the light surrounding those planets are warped by the planet's impact on the space time continuem. This is comparable to a glass cylinder, the circular surface of the glass will bend the light warping objects on the other side. It's also fits into their rudementary doctrine of "gravity" which is obviously false. Objects seem to fall downward but in fact earth is orbiting the sun on a set path in a way that it is rising towards us at the same rate in which we seem to "fall" towards it.

Soo... Earth is accelerating upwards with constant acceleration?

Quote from: Thorin on April 02, 2024, 08:10:41 PM

I think that NASA really believes that what they are showing us is real, but like earth, the light surrounding those planets are warped by the planet's impact on the space time continuem. This is comparable to a glass cylinder, the circular surface of the glass will bend the light warping objects on the other side. It's also fits into their rudementary doctrine of "gravity" which is obviously false. Objects seem to fall downward but in fact earth is orbiting the sun on a set path in a way that it is rising towards us at the same rate in which we seem to "fall" towards it.

Soo... Earth is accelerating upwards with constant acceleration?

Constant acceleration would mean that it would eventually exceed the speed of light, that is supposed to require infinite energy.
However, constant velocity, like being pushed continuously through the ether, seems to be more logical.
(think it's ok to reply, despite red text)

Quote from: EarthIsRotund on April 02, 2024, 08:14:51 PM

Quote from: Thorin on April 02, 2024, 08:10:41 PM

I think that NASA really believes that what they are showing us is real, but like earth, the light surrounding those planets are warped by the planet's impact on the space time continuem. This is comparable to a glass cylinder, the circular surface of the glass will bend the light warping objects on the other side. It's also fits into their rudementary doctrine of "gravity" which is obviously false. Objects seem to fall downward but in fact earth is orbiting the sun on a set path in a way that it is rising towards us at the same rate in which we seem to "fall" towards it.

Soo... Earth is accelerating upwards with constant acceleration?

Constant acceleration would mean that it would eventually exceed the speed of light, that is supposed to require infinite energy.
However, constant velocity, like being pushed continuously through the ether, seems to be more logical.
(think it's ok to reply, despite red text)

No it wouldn't exceed the speed of light. Please learn about special relativity.

Also, this is not the debate forum. If you reply in this forum, you need to reply with answers from FET.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on March 27, 2024, 10:18:23 AM

If you continue to spam in Q&A I will be forced to fight you with my fists.

The Earth is not "all other planets".

Some pictures and videos are fake, some are real, but most flat earthers do not think the planets are flat.

No one knows what all the planets in the universe look like.

No one knows what all the stars look like.

What do you mean 'some' are fake and 'some' are real.


What kind of footage are you talking about?

Satellite footage? Footage from deep space probes?



And if other planets are not flat, how come that Earth is the only one that is flat in an entire solar system/galaxy?

Planets likely only exist in our imagination. Having us believe there are planets out there is probably just another part of the psyop to cement the idea that we live on one.

This is an interesting question.

Asking why is earth the only flat planet betrays a logical fallacy. Karl Popper talks about this in Logic of Scientific Discovery, and its a well covered topic in philosophy of science, presenting one of the largest issues with empiricism.

As it turns out, each planet we view that is round actually makes it more probable that the earth is flat - this is one of the issues behind the problem of induction. Since the earth being flat has a non-zero probability, each time we observe a round object it reduces the solution space, thus making the non-zero probability have a higher likelihood.

More than this, the idea is logically faulty. I may see a grey goose out my window each day. Does this mean all geese are grey?  In other words, since I can say Object A and Object B are both blue, does that make Object C blue? or Object D? Or all other objects?!

Have you even thought about this at all? Even at a passing?