FEconcept prevents itself from existing.Irrefutable evidence

That actually links to a picture I've been meaning to ask about. Do you think that picture taken by Hubble is a fake? I don't think it's possible to take that clear a picture from earth, due to the atmosphere...

That actually links to a picture I've been meaning to ask about. Do you think that picture taken by Hubble is a fake? I don't think it's possible to take that clear a picture from earth, due to the atmosphere...

Allegedly Hubble is in space where there is no atmosphere.

Do you believe we launched a telescope up there though? I'm gonna guess no?

Do you believe we launched a telescope up there though? I'm gonna guess no?

People seem to rarely ask what I believe, being much more comfortable presuming it.  In any case, I hardly see how what I believe is relevant to a discussion of what is true, or even to one of what other people believe.

Gotcha  

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

The spherical model is not unlikely, seing as every other planet is also spherical.

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.

That would be true IF our universe did not exist and we were somehow sentient to ponder about the possibility of its existence. But since our universe is the only one we know of, and those constants and fundamental laws are the same everywhere in it, then we can't say that it's unlikely, it's all over the place. it IS the place actually.

But this is completely off topic. I'll assume that you are ot going to give any explanations and wait for another FE'er to adress this issue, as I'm sure they must have a different point of view.

The spherical model is not unlikely, seing as every other planet is also spherical.

The Earth isn't a planet.

Also, every "other" planet doesn't support life.  There's still that's plenty different about Earth.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

The spherical model is not unlikely, seing as every other planet is also spherical.

The Earth isn't a planet.

Also, every "other" planet doesn't support life.  There's still that's plenty different about Earth.

How is earth not a planet? The presence of life on earth does not make it a different entity from other celestial bodies. A table with food on it isn't any less a table then if there was nothing on it.

Saturn has rings wich Jupiter doesn't, one of them isn't a planet? Mars has a red surface and neptune doesn't, one of them isn't a planet?

And that is still beside the point, wether WE choose to call earth  a planet or not, every other celestial body is still spherical, so spherical objects are not unlikely in the universe .

I think the point is probably that planets are round and the Earth is flat.

Also logically I think saying that because 8 objects are round the 9th must be is a little presumptious.  There are plenty of times in nature where there are exceptions like that.  For example all mammels give birth to live young - apart from the Echidna and the Platypus- which lays eggs.

I think the point is probably that planets are round and the Earth is flat.

Also logically I think saying that because 8 objects are round the 9th must be is a little presumptious.  There are plenty of times in nature where there are exceptions like that.  For example all mammels give birth to live young - apart from the Echidna and the Platypus- which lays eggs.

Also logically I think saying that because 8 objects are round the 9th must be is a little presumptious.

Not it's just common sense. What reason would you have NOT to beleive the 9th object would be spherical after witnessing the first 8 occurances?

For example all mammels give birth to live young - apart from the Echidna and the Platypus- which lays eggs

So from this, YOU would see a mammal and assume that it would lay eggs because TWO species out of thousands does?

No that's not what I'm saying.  Obviously if the other 8 planets are round it makes it likely that the Earth is round but it doesn't make it a fact.  It's pretty meaningless evidence.

If I just said that saying the Earth is round because 8 other objects are round is presumptious than do you really think I would assume anything about seeing an unknown mammal?  Wouldn't that contradict myself?

Planet:


(a) is in orbit around the Sun;
(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape; and
c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit;


(Jupiter has rings btw)

So clearly a flat Earth does not fit that definition of a planet

yes, if the earth was flat, it certainly would not.

edit- a rant, ignore if you wish, not much in it anyway. i love astronomy so.

Earth, not too unique, again this is using evidence that FE's would probably deny being true, which is fine.

There are oceans. What other planets have oceans? Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. They are not oceans made of water, but they are oceans nonetheless, Jupiter having the deepest obviously.

Europa, a moon of Jupiter, has a crust made of ice, it is theorized there is an ocean of water underneath, hence a possibility of supporting life.

What other bodies in the solar system have an atmosphere alike earth?

Not many, the only observable object that is theorized to have a similar atmosphere is Titan, the largest moon of Saturn.

I largely dislike the idea of the earth being anything special. I mean yes it is because it can support life.

imo it goes back to the self-centered view that Christianity believed in the middle ages, and since it's us, we ARE in fact the center of everything.

Volcanic activity... Venus, Io, moon of Jupiter.

There's a theory the Earth is simply a young Venus, before global warming completely destroyed the atmosphere, this of course is just a theory.

Again, all of this can be simply denied by FE's, which is fine.

I don't understand how everything can have gravity but the earth doesn't. And I'm never going to understand that concept.

I think that everything about FE falls apart when it goes to explain the other planet's relationships to the earth. I looked at the moon for three hours tonight. Why is the moon important? Our month is based on the moon's synodic period around the earth. How did we figure that out? When a moon goes from new to new, that's it's synodic period. It goes through phases, I just don't understand how that's explained by FE.

Lunar eclipes is basically one of the most obvious ways to say, hey the earth is round, the moon is within the umbra/penumbra/both of the earth, and it got darker. how would this happen otherwise? it is said that a random object passes in front of it. What object passes in front of the moon so often? A lunar eclipse can occur no times in a year, and up to two or three I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lunareclipses2003.jpg

What can produce a shadow on the moon like that? What is big enough besides the earth. As far as I know there's not another big object up there that goes in front of the moon every so often. You can't deny that's not very convincing.

what about solar eclipses? although I think i alrdy know the answer to that one in FE so forget that.

I'm sorry, there's just too much not explained for this to be an aceptable theory in my opinion, which is, just my own opinion.

/end rant you can just ignore this.

No that's not what I'm saying.  Obviously if the other 8 planets are round it makes it likely that the Earth is round but it doesn't make it a fact.  It's pretty meaningless evidence.

If I just said that saying the Earth is round because 8 other objects are round is presumptious than do you really think I would assume anything about seeing an unknown mammal?  Wouldn't that contradict myself?

If it's evidence, then it's not meaningless. The concept of evidence means that the object or information serves a purpose.

So what was your statment about mammals for? We are not talking about 8 other objects, we are talking about ALL other planets. There are more than 8 celestial bodies in our solar system if you hadn't noticed.

There are 9 planets (or 8 if you don't count pluto, but I do).  You said and I quote:

The spherical model is not unlikely, seing as every other planet is also spherical.

And I'm simply saying that 8 models is not a lot to go on.  When you brought up this issue you were only talking about planets.  If you were talking about moons and the Sun as well, why did you use the word "planet"?  Do you know what a planet is?

That definition of planet is made by your friendly neighborhood super-government-conspiracy dudes.  The ancient definition of planet is a star that wanders across the sky, instead of being "fixed" in relation to the other stars.

The Earth is not a planet because it's the Earth; planets are things that are in the Earth's sky.

In that case there are too many planets to count then, but they got smart and changed the definition from that. every asteroid can't be a planet!

In that case there are too many planets to count then, but they got smart and changed the definition from that. every asteroid can't be a planet!

Hmm.. no I think there's just the five.

There are 9 planets (or 8 if you don't count pluto, but I do).  You said and I quote:

If you don't include earth why did you say 9? Or did you just mistype.

Quote from: "Jveritas8"

In that case there are too many planets to count then, but they got smart and changed the definition from that. every asteroid can't be a planet!

Hmm.. no I think there's just the five.

Only five planets?

Only five planets?

Classically, yes.  They are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.  With the advent of the conspiracy, astronomers felt a need to make a name for themselves by adding more :)

Well classically yes. So Uranus is not a planet?

I'm not gonna argue but if Uranus isn't a planet then Saturn isn't because Uranus is Saturn's daddy. And Neptune is Saturn's grandson.

Or some mixed marriage going on!

I'm not gonna argue but if Uranus isn't a planet then Saturn isn't because Uranus is Saturn's daddy. And Neptune is Saturn's grandson.

So planethood is inherited along the male line?

Hmm who knows. I'll ask Chaos.

Well actually Uranus produced Saturn with Gaiea, the earth, his mommy. So if Uranus isn't a planet and neither is the earth, how is Saturn a planet?

Bam, some Roman/Greek logic right there... :shock:

Must've been a mutation, like x-men.


lol um.


-_-

Well actually Uranus produced Saturn with Gaiea, the earth, his mommy. So if Uranus isn't a planet and neither is the earth, how is Saturn a planet?

I really don't see any justification for this assertion that one's parents must be planets in order for one to be a planet.  I can be a cobbler even if both of my parents were tailors, for example.

Well is being a planet a profession? Or is it an identity.

Hehe this is a funny topic , considering it makes no sense

Well is being a planet a profession? Or is it an identity.

I think planethood is membership in the set { Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn }, as those terms refer to bright dots in the sky.

Hmm.

Well I suppose there must have been a tough screening process, so I'm sure Saturn is a planet then.

Well I suppose there must have been a tough screening process, so I'm sure Saturn is a planet then.

Definitely.  We're talking hundreds of generations of dudes in robes and tall hats looking up into the sky and telling which blips of light move.