The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: tomstar on October 03, 2013, 01:12:16 AM
-
So going along with FET, the earth is flat and other objects in our solar system are round.
What makes earth so special? Apart from the fact it is a habitable planet we live on its in no way special from other planets or objects in the solar system or universe that are round. Even any that may have been habitable in the past so why is ours the only flat planet?
-
Welcome to TFES. I am not an FEer but I can tell you that FEers don't consider Earth as a planet.
-
Hey thanks.
Well what is it then?
Are there any flat 'objects' out there apart from Earth?
Why is every other object in the known universe either round or made up of circular objects?
-
I am afraid I cannot tell more than this. You need one of FEers to explain in detail, but you must be ready to hear many different views.
-
Any FEers out there wishing to explain?
-
So going along with FET, the earth is flat and other objects in our solar system are round.
What makes earth so special? Apart from the fact it is a habitable planet we live on its in no way special from other planets or objects in the solar system or universe that are round. Even any that may have been habitable in the past so why is ours the only flat planet?
Of course there are a diversitey of views here in FES but I am an FEr so I can give you my hipothesis: I beleive Earth to be the very base of the universe created from cooling after the Big Bang. General relativitey teaches how gravitey is not a magnetic force but a dent in the universe so I see Earth as the ultimate "dent" in the universe. And since it is the base of the universe it is being pulled on by its sides by our expanding universe which causes it to stay flat. But of course I still got alot of work to do on it though
And Cartesian is right Earth is not a planet. A planet would have to move in its most basic defanition and Earth does not move. I beleive in the Tychonic system which puts the sun revolving around the earth and the planets revolving around the sun
Hey thanks.
Well what is it then?
Are there any flat 'objects' out there apart from Earth?
Why is every other object in the known universe either round or made up of circular objects?
I dont know exacley what Earth would be called
Probeley not as gravitey teaches how things round up
Explained above
-
Any FEers out there wishing to explain?
It's not flat. It's like this...
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8576/8pm9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/8pm9.jpg/)
-
So going along with FET, the earth is flat and other objects in our solar system are round.
What makes earth so special? Apart from the fact it is a habitable planet we live on its in no way special from other planets or objects in the solar system or universe that are round. Even any that may have been habitable in the past so why is ours the only flat planet?
I beleive in the Tychonic system which puts the sun revolving around the earth and the planets revolving around the sun
So if the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth then when the sunrises the whole of earth is in daylight?
Why do other planets have gravity then? We know they do as they have moons in orbit.
-
Any FEers out there wishing to explain?
It's not flat. It's like this...
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8576/8pm9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/8pm9.jpg/)
So, a sphere.
-
Any FEers out there wishing to explain?
It's not flat. It's like this...
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8576/8pm9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/8pm9.jpg/)
So, a sphere.
Nope, not quite. Think of looking at it from a dome point of view and seeing earth as the coloured eye part with outer being the ice rim from inner to outer rim.
-
What I am given to understand is that Earth is re: as the center of the universe. It is not a planet as you would ordinarily define the word. Rather, Earth is something wholly unique. Everything circles round us. Excelsior's explanation is the best I've seen so far.
-
Any FEers out there wishing to explain?
It's not flat. It's like this...
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8576/8pm9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/8pm9.jpg/)
It looks very spherical to me. Thanks scepti
-
What I am given to understand is that Earth is re: as the center of the universe. It is not a planet as you would ordinarily define the word. Rather, Earth is something wholly unique. Everything circles round us. Excelsior's explanation is the best I've seen so far.
Nothing can exist in a vacuum, unless it's equipped to seal itself against the zero psi of it, which earth does excellently, because it sorts out it's elements from heaviest to lightest.
Earth like cells can exist in suspended animation which is what the vacuum would render all cells, but we could never see them as we can not see through something that does not exist. We only see it as darkness or blackness.
Think of it like this. Imagine you had a fish bowl on your head and your friend had one on his head. Now imagine that inside this fish bowl, you have everything that earth has and it's all lit up inside the fish bowl and you can look around it. BUT, someone covers your fish bowl with dense black cloth and also does the same to your friend.
You can still see around your fish bowl environment, but you cannot see your friend who is maybe a few feet or even inches away from you.
You exist in that fish bowl and everything you see is inside that fish bowl and like wise for your friend.
You know he/she is there, only because you saw each other before the experiment.
If that was you inside earth, you can guess there could be other cells but you will never ever know, yet it doesn't stop your conscious thought from telling you there is another earth, just as your conscious thought tells you (with help from TPTB) that you can see into space, because you can see the sun/moon/stars/galaxies, yet they are all inside the fish bowl. Can you see what I'm getting at?
What we see, or think we see, is not what's really happening. It's far too hard for many people to grasp, because their heads have been crammed with numbers and fictional calculations of star distances and what not, to the point that they cannot rationally think of something like this being what earth is.
Space does not exist. All that exists is us as earth and what is within it and MAYBE other earth like cells, not necessarily the same as ours, as we see it.
-
Any FEers out there wishing to explain?
It's not flat. It's like this...
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8576/8pm9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/208/8pm9.jpg/)
It looks very spherical to me. Thanks scepti
Looking at it like that, I suppose it does. If you could see it at the sides, it would appear more like a hamburger bun with a sort of fish eye dome covering.
-
Ahem... Before its worldwide show, your dome concept needs some polishing. You haven't yet adressed the reflection issue. Care to look at it?
-
Ahem... Before its worldwide show, your dome concept needs some polishing. You haven't yet adressed the reflection issue. Care to look at it?
What reflection issue is this?
-
You are still unable to give at least a drawing of how the reflection works. Remember ? the source, the reflection point, the destination surface, everything in fact. Illustrations are welcome there as asked previously.
-
So the Earth is a round disk in the centre of the universe and everything else in the universe is a sphere circling around that disk. Why must people belive that the Earth is a disk?
Surely its far more likely that the Earth is a sphere like 99% of ober objects in the universe?
The jump to believing that the Earth is so different from every other body in the universe just seems so absured! Let alone the fact that were in the centre of the universe!
The Earth is only unique in that its the planet we live on and the only habitiable world we know.
Imagine if in the distant universe there is another planet where a small minority of the population believed their planet was flat and was at the centre of the universe? By the FE theroy you'd had to say they were wrong and they'd same the same about FEers here!
Surely it far more probable that Earth is just like all the other planets out there?
-
You are still unable to give at least a drawing of how the reflection works. Remember ? the source, the reflection point, the destination surface, everything in fact. Illustrations are welcome there as asked previously.
Guys, remember that this is the questions forum, not the debate forum. If you have something you wish to debate you should do it in the proper forum, particularly if it has nothing to do with the OP.
Anyway, @ the OP: It is my firm opinion that every planet, the sun, and the moon are also likely flat. If NASA is to be trusted (and I understand that that's a big "if", given how corrupt they have been shown to be on this very forum) then we have photographic evidence that at least the moon and Mars are also flat. If this is true then I believe the fact that they appear spherical to us from Earth is due to the same effect that causes the Earth to appear spherical from very high up.
Surely its far more likely that the Earth is a sphere like 99% of ober objects in the universe?
This is a huge misstep in logic. According to conventional FET the Earth is a very different sort of body from what we observe in the visible universe above us. It would be fallacious to just assume that it shares the same shape as those objects.
-
Tomstar, Greeting:
As I indicated, you don't miss a beat. Your questions are entirely legitimate. I find myself leaning toward FET based on my understanding of Scripture (I am a traditional Jew). But, from a purely non-religious perspective, it does seem unusual that Earth should be the only body that is flat. I would encourage you, however, to get hold of "Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe" by Samuel B. Rowbotham, alias "Parallax". Another good read is "Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea", by Christine Garwood. Although she is a conventional Rounder, her book is an excellent history of the belief in Flat Earth Theory. I am reading both books now, actually, and they are tasty reads, I assure you.
-
Surely the logical answer is that Earth follows the same shape as the other nearby planets?
Say you have a bag filled with 100 objects. You pull out 99 spheres and then the 10th is a disk, it goes against the laws of probability.
Every over obserable object in our solar system and galaxy is a sphere, we have never encounted a disk shaped obect through several hundred years of observing the skys.
So why us? why is our planet the freak of the universe? Its so un probable its literally impossible
-
Tomstar, Greeting:
I think that you are perhaps missing one relevant point. I am not sure about FEers (Flat Earthers) today. But Parallax, Voliva, Lady Blount (all of whom you will learn about in the second book I recommended to you; both books, by the way, are available on the Nook E-reader), were all very devout Christians. Part of the reason they believed in FET is because they had a literalist interpretation of Scripture.
You might be interested in looking at the second book I mentioned, as it has in it a picture of how the ancient Hebrews viewed the world. Also, someone (I forget who) posted a picture to that affect here in the Forums (I forget which thread). But if you go through some of the more recent threads in this Forum, you will find it. Can anyone else help Tom find that picture?
-
Surely the logical answer is that Earth follows the same shape as the other nearby planets?
Say you have a bag filled with 100 objects. You pull out 99 spheres and then the 10th is a disk, it goes against the laws of probability.
Every over obserable object in our solar system and galaxy is a sphere, we have never encounted a disk shaped obect through several hundred years of observing the skys.
So why us? why is our planet the freak of the universe? Its so un probable its literally impossible
Again, you are assuming that the Earth is the same sort of body as the planets, and according to conventional FET it's not.
-
Space does not exist.
Seems super highly unlikely. Because.........well..........we can see space. We can measure space. We can see things happening in space far away.
And by we I mean anyone. You don't need NASA to feed you calculations and tell you what is happening. You can see and do the calculations on your own.
-
You are still unable to give at least a drawing of how the reflection works. Remember ? the source, the reflection point, the destination surface, everything in fact. Illustrations are welcome there as asked previously.
That's right and I'm working on them and in time you'll get to see them.
-
Space does not exist.
Seems super highly unlikely. Because.........well..........we can see space. We can measure space. We can see things happening in space far away.
And by we I mean anyone. You don't need NASA to feed you calculations and tell you what is happening. You can see and do the calculations on your own.
Ok, leaving out mainstream help and using your own tools. You tell me how you can calculate and verify what is in that sky.
-
Ok, leaving out mainstream help and using your own tools. You tell me how you can calculate and verify what is in that sky.
My eyes. A high powered telescope. Math.
I can see the stars. I can see planets. The moon and other celestial bodies.
How come FEers say using your eyes you can see the world is flat but that same logic doesn't apply to looking to the sky and seeing stuff is there?
-
My observation is that FEers do indeed see that things are up there. They simply believe that those things circle the Earth.
-
You are still unable to give at least a drawing of how the reflection works. Remember ? the source, the reflection point, the destination surface, everything in fact. Illustrations are welcome there as asked previously.
Guys, remember that this is the questions forum, not the debate forum. If you have something you wish to debate you should do it in the proper forum, particularly if it has nothing to do with the OP.
I Apologize, Wilco
-
First of all, what motivation would all the governments and media of the world have to maintain such a curtain of deceit over everyone else in the world? It would be a massive, multi-billion dollar ongoing nightmare for governments and media to keep the lie going year after year. It just doesn't make sense that they'd want to expend such incredible resources for a conspiracy that really doesn't have much purpose.
Also, of all the people who have ever worked for a government or media and have retired, quit or been fired, it would just take a very small handful of these ex-employees to 'spill-the-beans' and tell all. Yet this has never happened. I find it hard to believe every government has been 100% successful at silencing 100% of these ex-employees over the decades.
For these two reasons alone, I opt to believe space is real.
However, there is a much larger question scepti touches upon ..
How do we know *anything* exists??? I've never been to the Antarctic, and I'm not convinced it exists. The Great Pyramids - I've not seen those either. What about history? How do I know Hitler really existed at all? Or the Roman Empire? Or all the Yankees World Series victories? Please tell me those were all faked!
What about *you*?? Do you exist?? As far as I'm concerned, you might just be part of some dream I'm having.
Unfortunately, none of this can be proven beyond a doubt to truly exist. We have to accept these things without proof.
The only thing you will ever be able to truly know without question is this: *something* exists. The exact nature of that something you can never be 100% sure - but, since you are having thoughts, then something exists.
Rene Descarte wrote about this so much more eloquently than I could possibly hope for. He wrote the famous line, "I am thinking, therefore I exist". The Latin phrase for this is well known: "Cogito ergo sum"
From the Wikipedia article about his philosophical proposition: "The simple meaning of the phrase is that someone wondering whether or not he exists is, in and of itself, proof that he does exist – at the very least, there must be an "I" who does the thinking"
What scepti touches upon is not whether this specific thing (space) exists. This is philosophical stuff about the nature of existence.
-
They simply believe that those things circle the Earth.
Even the ones that are, quite obviously, extremely far away?
-
Surely the logical answer is that Earth follows the same shape as the other nearby planets?
Say you have a bag filled with 100 objects. You pull out 99 spheres and then the 10th is a disk, it goes against the laws of probability.
Every over obserable object in our solar system and galaxy is a sphere, we have never encounted a disk shaped obect through several hundred years of observing the skys.
So why us? why is our planet the freak of the universe? Its so un probable its literally impossible
Again, you are assuming that the Earth is the same sort of body as the planets, and according to conventional FET it's not.
Yeah but thats the whole point. FET is so obviously wrong because of what Ive mentioned above.
-
tomstar, why would you assume that the Earth is the same as the observable planets? No planet has the same magnetic field, amount of liquid water, or even the same composition of atmosphere. Life has never been found on any of the observable planets. Why should I assume that the Earth should not be special?
-
Jroa, greeting! Of course, the Rounder response would be that we have only observed a very few planets.
-
Jroa, greeting! Of course, the Rounder response would be that we have only observed a very few planets.
Yaakov, can we agree that the few planets that we have observed are very different from the land we see around us? If so, then I don't think we can really compare them. The are just different. Am I right?
-
tomstar, why would you assume that the Earth is the same as the observable planets? No planet has the same magnetic field, amount of liquid water, or even the same composition of atmosphere. Life has never been found on any of the observable planets. Why should I assume that the Earth should not be special?
jroa, the things you have mentioned (composition, water and life) are items that dictate what a planet is made of. There is good reason to believe this is irrelevant to the shape of a planet. The question of "which assumption is better" is dependent on shape making attributes. So far we have no criteria besides mass to make this inference. Since Earth has mass just like other planets do then it follows that it should also become a sphere.
Earth is certainly special but not necessarily unique, especially in terms of the only attribute we've ever seen that determines shape, MASS.
-
Earth is certainly special but not necessarily unique, especially in terms of the only attribute we've ever seen that determines shape, MASS.
I am not arguing that there is no other Earth like object anywhere in the Universe. I am simply saying that we can not observe one celestial object and expect all to be the same.
-
Earth is certainly special but not necessarily unique, especially in terms of the only attribute we've ever seen that determines shape, MASS.
I am not arguing that there is no other Earth like object anywhere in the Universe. I am simply saying that we can not observe one celestial object and expect all to be the same.
Of course we can't and that's a fine deduction when speculating the composition of any celestial body. A deduction that nobody disagrees with you about. We can however speculate with some degree of confidence that shape does indeed depend on mass and that of the 1000's of planets we've observed, they all become sphere's.
-
Ok, leaving out mainstream help and using your own tools. You tell me how you can calculate and verify what is in that sky.
My eyes. A high powered telescope. Math.
I can see the stars. I can see planets. The moon and other celestial bodies.
How come FEers say using your eyes you can see the world is flat but that same logic doesn't apply to looking to the sky and seeing stuff is there?
Great that your eyes can see this stuff. Now answer me a few questions if you will.
1. Is your mirror reflection a real physical body of you or just an image?
2. What does your high powered telescope verify about the things you see that you can absolutely guarantee what you see is a physical thing and not a reflection.
3. How can you use maths to determine the distance and size of what you see as the sun using just your own mind and your own tools at hand, with no mainstream help. How do you calculate this?
-
1. Is your mirror reflection a real physical body of you or just an image?
An image, of course.
2. What does your high powered telescope verify about the things you see that you can absolutely guarantee what you see is a physical thing and not a reflection.
Because when I am looking through the telescope..........I'm not looking into a mirror.
3. How can you use maths to determine the distance and size of what you see as the sun using just your own mind and your own tools at hand, with no mainstream help. How do you calculate this?
Good question. FEers say the sun is smaller and closer than "mainstream" science does. How did they come to this conclusion?
Me personally, I use the same calculations as mainstream science because they've been verified time and time again. I first learned them in college and I see no reason not to trust them.
-
Jroa, I agree that other planets are different than Earth. But that is the whole point. A Rounder would say that there are some things every planet has in common (like sphericity). Earth is a planet. Ergo, Earth is round. If you are going to argue that Earth is NOT a planet, you'd best be ready to explain why. My response is to appeal to Scripture, as did the Zetetics. Now, some will tell me that they don't agree with my estimation of Scripture. That's fine. But religion is just one of those things. It's not an arguable matter. I can't prove God exists, nor you thathe doesn't. But, if you do NOT appeal to Scripture, it seems to me you're left arguing science. Good luck with that, is all I've got on that.
-
Earth is certainly special but not necessarily unique, especially in terms of the only attribute we've ever seen that determines shape, MASS.
I am not arguing that there is no other Earth like object anywhere in the Universe. I am simply saying that we can not observe one celestial object and expect all to be the same.
Of course we can't and that's a fine deduction when speculating the composition of any celestial body. A deduction that nobody disagrees with you about. We can however speculate with some degree of confidence that shape does indeed depend on mass and that of the 1000's of planets we've observed, they all become sphere's.
Almost all of the 1000s of other planets that we have observed are not due to direct observation. They are observed due to the Newtonian effects that these bodies have on other bodies. The frequency and gravitational pull of one non-observable body acting on one that can be seen, but is not a planet.
Astrophysicists do their best, based on the knowledge that they posses. However, they make an awful lot of assumptions in the process.
-
The definition of planet set in 2006 by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that, in the Solar System, a planet is a celestial body which:
1. is in orbit around the Sun,
2. has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
3. has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit.
#2 is important here.
Meaning to have sufficient gravity to overcome their own rigidity and assume hydrostatic equilibrium. The unit g is determined by the amount of Mass. Don't be foolish and think that earth doesn't have a lot of mass. Even your zeteticism should tell you it does.
Almost all of the 1000s of other planets that we have observed are not due to direct observation. They are observed due to the Newtonian effects that these bodies have on other bodies. The frequency and gravitational pull of one non-observable body acting on one that can be seen, but is not a planet.
Astrophysicists do their best, based on the knowledge that they posses. However, they make an awful lot of assumptions in the process.
We don't have to resort to planets to talk about how mass has shape making properties. We can see this with stars too. There is no example in any observation ever of a celestial object with sufficient hydrostatic equilibrium creating any shape other than a sphere. Earth has great mass, you cannot disagree with the bolded statement.
-
The definition of planet set in 2006 by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that, in the Solar System, a planet is a celestial body which:
1. is in orbit around the Sun,
2. has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
3. has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit.
#2 is important here.
Meaning to have sufficient gravity to overcome their own rigidity and assume hydrostatic equilibrium. The unit g is determined by the amount of Mass. Don't be foolish and think that earth doesn't have a lot of mass. Even your zeteticism should tell you it does.
Almost all of the 1000s of other planets that we have observed are not due to direct observation. They are observed due to the Newtonian effects that these bodies have on other bodies. The frequency and gravitational pull of one non-observable body acting on one that can be seen, but is not a planet.
Astrophysicists do their best, based on the knowledge that they posses. However, they make an awful lot of assumptions in the process.
We don't have to resort to planets to talk about how mass has shape making properties. We can see this with stars too. There is no example in any observation ever of a celestial object with sufficient hydrostatic equilibrium creating any shape other than a sphere. Earth has great mass, you cannot disagree with the bolded statement.
Gravity is a very week force. Are you saying that UA, although it can supposedly accelerate the Earth at a constant rate, can not deform the Earth and give it a different shape than the other celestial bodies?
-
The definition of planet set in 2006 by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that, in the Solar System, a planet is a celestial body which:
1. is in orbit around the Sun,
2. has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
3. has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit.
#2 is important here.
Meaning to have sufficient gravity to overcome their own rigidity and assume hydrostatic equilibrium. The unit g is determined by the amount of Mass. Don't be foolish and think that earth doesn't have a lot of mass. Even your zeteticism should tell you it does.
Almost all of the 1000s of other planets that we have observed are not due to direct observation. They are observed due to the Newtonian effects that these bodies have on other bodies. The frequency and gravitational pull of one non-observable body acting on one that can be seen, but is not a planet.
Astrophysicists do their best, based on the knowledge that they posses. However, they make an awful lot of assumptions in the process.
We don't have to resort to planets to talk about how mass has shape making properties. We can see this with stars too. There is no example in any observation ever of a celestial object with sufficient hydrostatic equilibrium creating any shape other than a sphere. Earth has great mass, you cannot disagree with the bolded statement.
Gravity is a very week force. Are you saying that UA, although it can supposedly accelerate the Earth at a constant rate, can not deform the Earth and give it a different shape than the other celestial bodies?
Gravity is not a force. Gravitation is an effect regressively caused by mass.
UA, doesn't even need to be brought up here. I'm talking about mass and gravitation. UA, doesn't even use the equivalence principle correctly so get it off of science's shoulders as well. It belongs in the category of magic.
-
Kind of like how the magical gravitrons reach up and pull me down onto my chair. I see.
-
Kind of like how the magical gravitrons reach up and pull me down onto my chair. I see.
Who said anything about gravitons? I'm with Einstein.
-
Kind of like how the magical gravitrons reach up and pull me down onto my chair. I see.
Who said anything about gravitons?
I was referring to the magical mass attraction that defies explanation. The one that RE'ers can not even agree on what causes this force, or even what the force is. It is just there, right?
-
Kind of like how the magical gravitrons reach up and pull me down onto my chair. I see.
Who said anything about gravitons?
I was referring to the magical mass attraction that defies explanation. The one that RE'ers can not even agree on what causes this force, or even what the force is. It is just there, right?
The graviton is a proposed elementary particle that is pursued as an insurance policy in the name of science. I don't personally believe it exists. As I said, I'm with Einstein since his theories about spacetime's curvature have been observed.
-
Kind of like how the magical gravitrons reach up and pull me down onto my chair. I see.
Who said anything about gravitons?
I was referring to the magical mass attraction that defies explanation. The one that RE'ers can not even agree on what causes this force, or even what the force is. It is just there, right?
The graviton is a proposed elementary particle that is pursued as an insurance policy in the name of science. I don't personally believe it exists. As I said, I'm with Einstein since his theories about spacetime's curvature have been observed.
Space time curvature may sound well and good on a large scale, but it does not work for the microverse. Actually, space /time curvature still relies on made up Dark Matter and Dark Energy, does it not?
-
1. Is your mirror reflection a real physical body of you or just an image?
An image, of course. Ok.
2. What does your high powered telescope verify about the things you see that you can absolutely guarantee what you see is a physical thing and not a reflection.
Because when I am looking through the telescope..........I'm not looking into a mirror. How can you be sure that you are not looking at reflections?
3. How can you use maths to determine the distance and size of what you see as the sun using just your own mind and your own tools at hand, with no mainstream help. How do you calculate this?
Good question. FEers say the sun is smaller and closer than "mainstream" science does. How did they come to this conclusion? I don't follow that model of the flat earth, I follow my own model, but their model relies on their sun being 32 miles is diameter and 3000 miles up, (not all flat earth theorists), so they based their calculations on that, plus the earths size.
Me personally, I use the same calculations as mainstream science because they've been verified time and time again. I first learned them in college and I see no reason not to trust them.
You say you use mainstream science calculations and yes, it's go with the flow time, I suppose, so I can't knock you for that, because let's face it. We can only grasp what they feed us and it takes a certain person to actually bother to question it.
That being said...and I want you to think about this.
93 million miles.
1 million PLUS km, diameter.
Ok, calculations get spewed out for this, but how. Seriously, how?
How can something like that be calculated?
It's fine saying the earth is roughly 24,000 miles in circumference and seeing shadows on a stick and seeing the sun 24 hours later and deciding that the earth has to spin at 1000 mph to cater for this, but how was the sun determined to be 93 million miles away and over 1 million km in diameter and yet in December, they somehow have it 5 million km closer to earth and yet it's fu...it's fu...it's flipping freezing, lol.
If mainstream space science was an oven, the pupils that are under it are the oven ready chickens.
-
Kind of like how the magical gravitrons reach up and pull me down onto my chair. I see.
Who said anything about gravitons?
I was referring to the magical mass attraction that defies explanation. The one that RE'ers can not even agree on what causes this force, or even what the force is. It is just there, right?
The graviton is a proposed elementary particle that is pursued as an insurance policy in the name of science. I don't personally believe it exists. As I said, I'm with Einstein since his theories about spacetime's curvature have been observed.
Space time curvature may sound well and good on a large scale, but it does not work for the microverse. Actually, space /time curvature still relies on made up Dark Matter and Dark Energy, does it not?
It is not necessarily true that spacetime curvature does not work on the microscale. There just isn't any quantum relativity theory yet.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are responsible for a load of confusion. Neither of these imply that Einstein's theories are incorrect. Suggesting that it disproves curved spacetime when knowledge of it is simply not known on any level other than the gravitational effects we observe is fallacious. This is a fork in the road for you, not for me. I may have beliefs about what dark matter and energy are but in absolution I am agnostic about it while you seem to be inferring that it 'must' mean gravity is false, thereby making it your claim.
-
Kind of like how the magical gravitrons reach up and pull me down onto my chair. I see.
Who said anything about gravitons?
I was referring to the magical mass attraction that defies explanation. The one that RE'ers can not even agree on what causes this force, or even what the force is. It is just there, right?
The graviton is a proposed elementary particle that is pursued as an insurance policy in the name of science. I don't personally believe it exists. As I said, I'm with Einstein since his theories about spacetime's curvature have been observed.
Space time curvature may sound well and good on a large scale, but it does not work for the microverse. Actually, space /time curvature still relies on made up Dark Matter and Dark Energy, does it not?
It is not necessarily true that spacetime curvature does not work on the microscale. There just isn't any quantum relativity theory yet.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are responsible for a load of confusion. Neither of these imply that Einstein's theories are incorrect. Suggesting that it disproves curved spacetime when knowledge of it is simply not known on any level other than the gravitational effects we observe is fallacious. This is a fork in the road for you, not for me. I may have beliefs about what dark matter and energy are but in absolution I am agnostic about it while you seem to be inferring that it 'must' mean gravity is false, thereby making it your claim.
I was not making a claim. I was only repeating "facts" that can not be proven using main stream science. I am sorry that you do not believe in this junk, but your scientists force it down our throats constantly.
-
Kind of like how the magical gravitrons reach up and pull me down onto my chair. I see.
Who said anything about gravitons?
I was referring to the magical mass attraction that defies explanation. The one that RE'ers can not even agree on what causes this force, or even what the force is. It is just there, right?
The graviton is a proposed elementary particle that is pursued as an insurance policy in the name of science. I don't personally believe it exists. As I said, I'm with Einstein since his theories about spacetime's curvature have been observed.
Space time curvature may sound well and good on a large scale, but it does not work for the microverse. Actually, space /time curvature still relies on made up Dark Matter and Dark Energy, does it not?
It is not necessarily true that spacetime curvature does not work on the microscale. There just isn't any quantum relativity theory yet.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are responsible for a load of confusion. Neither of these imply that Einstein's theories are incorrect. Suggesting that it disproves curved spacetime when knowledge of it is simply not known on any level other than the gravitational effects we observe is fallacious. This is a fork in the road for you, not for me. I may have beliefs about what dark matter and energy are but in absolution I am agnostic about it while you seem to be inferring that it 'must' mean gravity is false, thereby making it your claim.
I was not making a claim. I was only repeating "facts" that can not be proven using main stream science. I am sorry that you do not believe in this junk, but your scientists force it down our throats constantly.
They don't force it down your throat. There is sufficient reasons to pursue the graviton. There is also sufficient reasons to think there is Dark Matter and Dark Energy. They don't present it as anything other than theory. Gravitons are always introduced as a theoretical particle while Dark Matter and Dark Energy are always stated as not known but at least known to exist, whatever they are.
-
Kind of like how the magical gravitrons reach up and pull me down onto my chair. I see.
Who said anything about gravitons?
I was referring to the magical mass attraction that defies explanation. The one that RE'ers can not even agree on what causes this force, or even what the force is. It is just there, right?
The graviton is a proposed elementary particle that is pursued as an insurance policy in the name of science. I don't personally believe it exists. As I said, I'm with Einstein since his theories about spacetime's curvature have been observed.
Space time curvature may sound well and good on a large scale, but it does not work for the microverse. Actually, space /time curvature still relies on made up Dark Matter and Dark Energy, does it not?
It is not necessarily true that spacetime curvature does not work on the microscale. There just isn't any quantum relativity theory yet.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are responsible for a load of confusion. Neither of these imply that Einstein's theories are incorrect. Suggesting that it disproves curved spacetime when knowledge of it is simply not known on any level other than the gravitational effects we observe is fallacious. This is a fork in the road for you, not for me. I may have beliefs about what dark matter and energy are but in absolution I am agnostic about it while you seem to be inferring that it 'must' mean gravity is false, thereby making it your claim.
I was not making a claim. I was only repeating "facts" that can not be proven using main stream science. I am sorry that you do not believe in this junk, but your scientists force it down our throats constantly.
They don't force it down your throat. There is sufficient reasons to pursue the graviton. There is also sufficient reasons to think there is Dark Matter and Dark Energy. They don't present it as anything other than theory. Gravitons are always introduced as a theoretical particle while Dark Matter and Dark Energy are always stated as not known but at least known to exist, whatever they are.
Many physicists think that Dark Matter and Energy are some kind of antimatter, or work in the same way. If matter and antimatter collide, bad things happen.
-
Kind of like how the magical gravitrons reach up and pull me down onto my chair. I see.
Who said anything about gravitons?
I was referring to the magical mass attraction that defies explanation. The one that RE'ers can not even agree on what causes this force, or even what the force is. It is just there, right?
The graviton is a proposed elementary particle that is pursued as an insurance policy in the name of science. I don't personally believe it exists. As I said, I'm with Einstein since his theories about spacetime's curvature have been observed.
Space time curvature may sound well and good on a large scale, but it does not work for the microverse. Actually, space /time curvature still relies on made up Dark Matter and Dark Energy, does it not?
It is not necessarily true that spacetime curvature does not work on the microscale. There just isn't any quantum relativity theory yet.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are responsible for a load of confusion. Neither of these imply that Einstein's theories are incorrect. Suggesting that it disproves curved spacetime when knowledge of it is simply not known on any level other than the gravitational effects we observe is fallacious. This is a fork in the road for you, not for me. I may have beliefs about what dark matter and energy are but in absolution I am agnostic about it while you seem to be inferring that it 'must' mean gravity is false, thereby making it your claim.
I was not making a claim. I was only repeating "facts" that can not be proven using main stream science. I am sorry that you do not believe in this junk, but your scientists force it down our throats constantly.
They don't force it down your throat. There is sufficient reasons to pursue the graviton. There is also sufficient reasons to think there is Dark Matter and Dark Energy. They don't present it as anything other than theory. Gravitons are always introduced as a theoretical particle while Dark Matter and Dark Energy are always stated as not known but at least known to exist, whatever they are.
Many physicists think that Dark Matter and Energy are some kind of antimatter, or work in the same way. If matter and antimatter collide, bad things happen.
Maybe.
The main reason for the theory of Dark Matter is because galaxies seem to keep their structure. The stars get faster the farther from a galactic center. The dark matter seems to act like a galactic scaffolding.
Dark Energy is postulated because of Universal expansion. Galaxies seem to be accelerating away from each other faster than expected. I wonder if it has to do with matter though. As matter displaces space time then maybe the displacement propagates away from there. Sort of like how a ball can displace the surface of water and results in a wave of energy in all directions.
-
How can you be sure that you are not looking at reflections?
Scientific conclusion. Based on what I see I assume an answer and use the evidence I've found to back it up.
I don't follow that model of the flat earth, I follow my own model, but their model relies on their sun being 32 miles is diameter and 3000 miles up, (not all flat earth theorists), so they based their calculations on that, plus the earths size.
And how do they come to these numbers?
They won't accept what you call mainstream calculations but seem perfectly fine substituting thier own, without basis. It's odd to me.
You say you use mainstream science calculations and yes, it's go with the flow time, I suppose, so I can't knock you for that, because let's face it. We can only grasp what they feed us and it takes a certain person to actually bother to question it.
But it's not like they give you an answer and just tell you to accept it. Scientist actually show their work. Their calculations can be verified or debunked. The best scientist in history are who they are because they questioned the world around them.
93 million miles.
1 million PLUS km, diameter.
Ok, calculations get spewed out for this, but how. Seriously, how?
How can something like that be calculated?
but how was the sun determined to be 93 million miles away and over 1 million km in diameter and yet in December, they somehow have it 5 million km closer to earth and yet it's fu...it's fu...it's flipping freezing, lol.
The sun is measured by angles. Angular sizes and distances. So is the moon.
You realize it isn't cold in December in every part of the globe, right? December in Sydney, Australia is Summer. And they have their lowest temps in July..........when you're sweating.
-
For scept...http://earthsky.org/earth/you-can-measure-the-sun (http://earthsky.org/earth/you-can-measure-the-sun)
-
So going along with FET, the earth is flat and other objects in our solar system are round.
What makes earth so special? Apart from the fact it is a habitable planet we live on its in no way special from other planets or objects in the solar system or universe that are round. Even any that may have been habitable in the past so why is ours the only flat planet?
I beleive in the Tychonic system which puts the sun revolving around the earth and the planets revolving around the sun
So if the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth then when the sunrises the whole of earth is in daylight?
Why do other planets have gravity then? We know they do as they have moons in orbit.
Well the sun only lights up roughley half of the earth and moves above it and lights up its respective area and causes phenomina like morning and evening. And the sun doesnt literaley rise and set. They are an ilusion as the sun rides its orbit
Why wouldnt they have gravitey? Gravitey is still distributed its just that Earth has the highest concatration of gravitey. And thats how general relativitey works: there is a dent and objects roll around it (exactley how Einstein discovered it)
-
And the sun doesnt literaley rise and set.
Of course it doesn't. Don't be silly.
The Earth revolves on it's axis while orbiting the sun..........which is what causes the sun to appear to rise and set on our horizons.
-
Well the sun only lights up roughley half of the earth and moves above it and lights up its respective area and causes phenomina like morning and evening. And the sun doesnt literaley rise and set. They are an ilusion as the sun rides its orbit
Why wouldnt they have gravitey? Gravitey is still distributed its just that Earth has the highest concatration of gravitey. And thats how general relativitey works: there is a dent and objects roll around it (exactley how Einstein discovered it)
[/quote]
How can it light up only half the earth? The sun does not have a focus point on it. It is a ball of light illuminating 360 degrees
Think light bulb not torch.
Why does Earth have the highest concentration of gravity? Its mass is nowhere near the mass of the sun or jupiter? The gravity on Jupiter would cause you to be crushed under your own weight.
Im not going to get into a stupid argument about wether gravity exsists or not or wether it works perectly. There is a force directly related to mass that has a effect on other objects drawing them to the centre of the mass. End of.
-
tomstar, why would you assume that the Earth is the same as the observable planets? No planet has the same magnetic field, amount of liquid water, or even the same composition of atmosphere. Life has never been found on any of the observable planets. Why should I assume that the Earth should not be special?
Because of the rules of proberbility. It would be a self indugent and ignorant assumption of mankind that our planet is special. We got lucky with the many varibles to support carbon based life forms.
Its ture that no KNOWN planet has the same properties as ours does. But what about the infinate amount of other unknown planets and the 13 odd billion years since the big bang and the possible billions and trillions of time left in our universe that again by the laws of proberbilities there are other planets which can support some sort of life, carbon, silicone or any other unknown element.
Which brings me back to the point. The Earth is not special in the grand scheme of things. So why the only flat planet?
-
Well the sun only lights up roughley half of the earth and moves above it and lights up its respective area and causes phenomina like morning and evening. And the sun doesnt literaley rise and set. They are an ilusion as the sun rides its orbit
Why wouldnt they have gravitey? Gravitey is still distributed its just that Earth has the highest concatration of gravitey. And thats how general relativitey works: there is a dent and objects roll around it (exactley how Einstein discovered it)
How can it light up only half the earth? The sun does not have a focus point on it. It is a ball of light illuminating 360 degrees
Think light bulb not torch.
Why does Earth have the highest concentration of gravity? Its mass is nowhere near the mass of the sun or jupiter? The gravity on Jupiter would cause you to be crushed under your own weight.
Im not going to get into a stupid argument about wether gravity exsists or not or wether it works perectly. There is a force directly related to mass that has a effect on other objects drawing them to the centre of the mass. End of.
[/quote]
Im not saying it has a focus point im saying its light only shines up roughley half the earth
Because the Earth is almost as if its "stuck" to the universe in my hipothesis. The universe is literaley pulling on it by its edges causing it to be the heavyest dent. The earth is the base of the universe
When did I ever question gravitey? It is cleareley implied above that I beleive in gravitey
And the sun doesnt literaley rise and set.
Of course it doesn't. Don't be silly.
The Earth revolves on it's axis while orbiting the sun..........which is what causes the sun to appear to rise and set on our horizons.
Um no. The earth is flat and doesnt move as the sun orbits above the earth
-
Um no. The earth is flat and doesnt move as the sun orbits above the earth
There is about as good a chance of that being true as there is you being capable of spelling gravity correctly. Or any word over two syllables, apparently.
-
Um no. The earth is flat and doesnt move as the sun orbits above the earth
There is about as good a chance of that being true as there is you being capable of spelling gravity correctly. Or any word over two syllables, apparently.
Yeah. EJ is a troll so don't take what he says to seriously.
-
tomstar, why would you assume that the Earth is the same as the observable planets? No planet has the same magnetic field, amount of liquid water, or even the same composition of atmosphere. Life has never been found on any of the observable planets. Why should I assume that the Earth should not be special?
Because of the rules of proberbility. It would be a self indugent and ignorant assumption of mankind that our planet is special. We got lucky with the many varibles to support carbon based life forms.
Its ture that no KNOWN planet has the same properties as ours does. But what about the infinate amount of other unknown planets and the 13 odd billion years since the big bang and the possible billions and trillions of time left in our universe that again by the laws of proberbilities there are other planets which can support some sort of life, carbon, silicone or any other unknown element.
Which brings me back to the point. The Earth is not special in the grand scheme of things. So why the only flat planet?
You haven't been paying attention. The Earth is NOT a planet according to conventional FET. And furthermore, the rules of probability suggest it is a different kind of body, for exactly the reasons jroa gives.
-
Roundy if you had read the whole thread then you would know that I pointed out that jroa's reasons for assuming the earth is different completely disregards the only attribute that is known to affect a planets shape.
-
Roundy if you had read the whole thread then you would know that I pointed out that jroa's reasons for assuming the earth is different completely disregards the only attribute that is known to affect a planets shape.
Irrelevant. You're basing that observation on a blind assumption.
-
Roundy if you had read the whole thread then you would know that I pointed out that jroa's reasons for assuming the earth is different completely disregards the only attribute that is known to affect a planets shape.
Irrelevant. You're basing that observation on a blind assumption.
Please tell me how liquid water, magnetic fields and atmospheric composition are relevant to a planets shape and how mass isn't.
-
Roundy if you had read the whole thread then you would know that I pointed out that jroa's reasons for assuming the earth is different completely disregards the only attribute that is known to affect a planets shape.
Irrelevant. You're basing that observation on a blind assumption.
Please tell me how liquid water, magnetic fields and atmospheric composition are relevant to a planets shape and how mass isn't.
You are blindly assuming a body's mass is relevant to a body's shape. Furthermore, you are still assuming that the Earth is a planet.
-
Please look at Jupiters Moons and notice how the more the mass they have the more round they appear. This is just one small example. I can find you more if you'd like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Jupiter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Jupiter)
For what reasons should I not assume Earth is a planet?
plan·et
ˈplanit/
noun
1.
a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star
We are going to use the same words right? We can get into this if you want and I can show you why the earth meets all this criteria. I hope you have better things to do than spend a few hours making skeptic excuses.
-
Please look at Jupiters Moons and notice how the more the mass they have the more round they appear. This is just one small example. I can find you more if you'd like.
So now you're forgetting that the planets are much smaller in FET than they are in RET. Do you think that the mere specks that Jupiter's moons represent are affected enough by your RE theory of gravity that this would make any kind of difference? Also, it must be noted that according to conventional FET, we have never observed any body the size of the Earth except for the Earth. So yeah, it's a blind assumption that such a body should be pulled into a sphere.
For what reasons should I not assume Earth is a planet?
plan·et
ˈplanit/
noun
1.
a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star
Well, that definition is a good place to start.
-
So now you're forgetting that the planets are much smaller in FET than they are in RET. Do you think that the mere specks that Jupiter's moons represent are affected enough by your RE theory of gravity that this would make any kind of difference? Also, it must be noted that according to conventional FET, we have never observed any body the size of the Earth except for the Earth. So yeah, it's a blind assumption that such a body should be pulled into a sphere.
You shouldn't assume that I've forgotten anything. I've been here long enough to both know the different consequences that result in observation if the earth is plane and to know the skeptic tactics that FE'rs like to use with their typical responses that usually contain a question to answer a question.
You seem to use the term assumption loosely. Here is a definition:
as·sump·tion
əˈsəm(p)SHən
noun
1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
You gave your improper use of the word even more resonance by supplying the adjective "blind". A blind assumption would be something that is blindly accepted as true, without proof.
You should know that there are 1000's of empirical truths that lend credence to idea of this planet being a sphere. A reasonable man with an appetite for understanding celestial objects might want to learn its details by making hypotheses based on observations intertwined with mathematical affirmations. When those two are used to together a striking thing happens and the ability to predict their motions give more credit to hypotheses and they move up the chain in the scientific method.
This is the realm of scientific realism which entails that the claims the theory makes are either true or false, depending on whether the entities talked about by the theory exist and are correctly described by the theory, the entities described by the scientific theory exist objectively and mind-independently and that there are reasons to believe some significant portion of what the theory says.
Do you not agree that a man that uses this method can make at least some partial claim to knowledge by going through all this effort? It certainly couldn't be a coincidence that science is such a success.
On the other hand, skepticism is something else. I am a skeptic but my fence sitting is an introductory space that I occupy until I observe and/or verify reliable information. When you aren't able to do that last part I consider you to be a denialist.
Denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. If some part or parts of the empirical observations are giving you information that lead syllogistically toward a conclusion using plainly true premises and there isn't an alternative explanation that also stands up to the same scrutiny of the premises then you are exhibiting denialism.
I will syllogistically give you all the premises that should lead you to think that mass is a shape making property and also do the same to show you why there is no sufficient reason to think that a body with enough mass to sustain hydrostatic equilibrium should make a plane if you'd like. After you can defend your denialist behavior.
-
You should know that there are 1000's of empirical truths that lend credence to idea of this planet being a sphere.
So why is it that you choose to make blind assumptions that the Earth is a sphere (and a planet) in this thread if you are able to prove that the Earth is a sphere? Please, don't be shy.
-
You should know that there are 1000's of empirical truths that lend credence to idea of this planet being a sphere.
So why is it that you choose to make blind assumptions that the Earth is a sphere (and a planet) in this thread if you are able to prove that the Earth is a sphere? Please, don't be shy.
QED. Answering skeptically to an aggressive argument with a meaningless question that ignores the meat of my post.
And again with the incorrect assumption (I'm using the word correctly) that I'm "blindly assuming" anything. Please tell me how you are so sure that I am blindly assuming anything and while you are it...
Take a second to notice that we both have positions on the earths shape that are opposite of each other. I am happy to share my reasons with you while you make no attempt to defend your position but only attempt to discredit mine with your questions that suggest I "blindly assume". It's a bit ironic that from this conversation so far it is only absolutely certain that nobody has assumed anything except for you.
-
Um no. The earth is flat and doesnt move as the sun orbits above the earth
There is about as good a chance of that being true as there is you being capable of spelling gravity correctly. Or any word over two syllables, apparently.
Hey hey no need to get personel here umurweird. One must learn to acept dafeet
Um no. The earth is flat and doesnt move as the sun orbits above the earth
There is about as good a chance of that being true as there is you being capable of spelling gravity correctly. Or any word over two syllables, apparently.
Yeah. EJ is a troll so don't take what he says to seriously.
How am I troll? Im simpeley providing explanations prove that im a troll
-
Trick question - there are no flat planets.
-
Trick question - there are no flat planets.
True
-
Trick question - there are no flat planets.
Standard FET certainly agrees with you there.
-
Trick question - there are no flat planets.
Standard FET certainly agrees with you there.
Er.. how?
-
Please read the FAQ and the wiki. Thanks.
-
Trick question - there are no flat planets.
Standard FET certainly agrees with you there.
Er.. how?
The IAU (Internationel Astronomicel Union) defines a planet by three charachteristics:
1) In orbit around the sun (flat Earth is stationarey)
2) Is round (Earth of corse in our beleif is flat)
3) Has cleared the neiborhood around its orbit (flat Earth has no orbit. Its stationarey)
As you can see the flat Earth is not a planet
Please read the FAQ and the wiki. Thanks.
Even if I heviley disagre with both of them
-
tomstar, why would you assume that the Earth is the same as the observable planets? No planet has the same magnetic field, amount of liquid water, or even the same composition of atmosphere. Life has never been found on any of the observable planets. Why should I assume that the Earth should not be special?
Because of the rules of proberbility. It would be a self indugent and ignorant assumption of mankind that our planet is special. We got lucky with the many varibles to support carbon based life forms.
Its ture that no KNOWN planet has the same properties as ours does. But what about the infinate amount of other unknown planets and the 13 odd billion years since the big bang and the possible billions and trillions of time left in our universe that again by the laws of proberbilities there are other planets which can support some sort of life, carbon, silicone or any other unknown element.
Which brings me back to the point. The Earth is not special in the grand scheme of things. So why the only flat planet?
You haven't been paying attention. The Earth is NOT a planet according to conventional FET. And furthermore, the rules of probability suggest it is a different kind of body, for exactly the reasons jroa gives.
I have been paying attention. You have changed the definition of a know object to fit in with a flawed theory.
For example. Im telling you i can lick my own elbow, except for this statement to work what everyone else says is an elbow isnt what i call an elbow in my elbow licking theory. Im calling my wrist an elbow. Now I can lick my 'elbow' and my theory works.
There is no reason to suggest that the Earth is different to the other planets. I.e. ROUND!
-
tomstar, why would you assume that the Earth is the same as the observable planets? No planet has the same magnetic field, amount of liquid water, or even the same composition of atmosphere. Life has never been found on any of the observable planets. Why should I assume that the Earth should not be special?
Because of the rules of proberbility. It would be a self indugent and ignorant assumption of mankind that our planet is special. We got lucky with the many varibles to support carbon based life forms.
Its ture that no KNOWN planet has the same properties as ours does. But what about the infinate amount of other unknown planets and the 13 odd billion years since the big bang and the possible billions and trillions of time left in our universe that again by the laws of proberbilities there are other planets which can support some sort of life, carbon, silicone or any other unknown element.
Which brings me back to the point. The Earth is not special in the grand scheme of things. So why the only flat planet?
You haven't been paying attention. The Earth is NOT a planet according to conventional FET. And furthermore, the rules of probability suggest it is a different kind of body, for exactly the reasons jroa gives.
I have been paying attention. You have changed the definition of a know object to fit in with a flawed theory.
For example. Im telling you i can lick my own elbow, except for this statement to work what everyone else says is an elbow isnt what i call an elbow in my elbow licking theory. Im calling my wrist an elbow. Now I can lick my 'elbow' and my theory works.
Im sorry. I couldnt just help but weep at the nieve and utter ignorence of your statement. We did not in anyway posible change the defanition of planet. I had explained to you above the OFFICIAL IAU rules to define a planet and the earth in our thoery does not fit even ONE of them. So we are not changing the defanition were stating what earth rely is rather than living in ignorence. Afterall planet comes from the Greek word meaning "wandering star" and our thoery puts the earth stationarey
There is no reason to suggest that the Earth is different to the other planets. I.e. ROUND!
Again earth is not a planet and I beleive I alredy explained my hipothesis to you
-
tomstar, why would you assume that the Earth is the same as the observable planets? No planet has the same magnetic field, amount of liquid water, or even the same composition of atmosphere. Life has never been found on any of the observable planets. Why should I assume that the Earth should not be special?
Because of the rules of proberbility. It would be a self indugent and ignorant assumption of mankind that our planet is special. We got lucky with the many varibles to support carbon based life forms.
Its ture that no KNOWN planet has the same properties as ours does. But what about the infinate amount of other unknown planets and the 13 odd billion years since the big bang and the possible billions and trillions of time left in our universe that again by the laws of proberbilities there are other planets which can support some sort of life, carbon, silicone or any other unknown element.
Which brings me back to the point. The Earth is not special in the grand scheme of things. So why the only flat planet?
You haven't been paying attention. The Earth is NOT a planet according to conventional FET. And furthermore, the rules of probability suggest it is a different kind of body, for exactly the reasons jroa gives.
I have been paying attention. You have changed the definition of a know object to fit in with a flawed theory.
Call it what you want, but if we don't consider the Earth a planet, obviously we can't answer why it's the only flat planet. Your question is a non sequitur as far as our beliefs are concerned and therefore not even worth taking seriously.
-
I have to agree with the FEers here. While it is extremely unlikely that the earth is unique, it could be different from the planets.
-
I think the question should be rephrased. Perhaps he means 'why is Earth the only non-round celestial object in the cosmos?' I mean, granted, smaller objects like asteroids may not be round, but larger, planet sized or bigger generally are.
-
I don't think Earth is also considered as a celestial object by FEers. For them Earth is .... Earth.
-
I think the question should be rephrased. Perhaps he means 'why is Earth the only non-round celestial object in the cosmos?' I mean, granted, smaller objects like asteroids may not be round, but larger, planet sized or bigger generally are.
I doubt it. He just doesnt seem to proces what were trying to tell him and is trying to atack us with false acusations
I don't think Earth is also considered as a celestial object by FEers. For them Earth is .... Earth.
Excacley. Earth indeed is earth. That is the best way to describe it
-
I think the question should be rephrased. Perhaps he means 'why is Earth the only non-round celestial object in the cosmos?' I mean, granted, smaller objects like asteroids may not be round, but larger, planet sized or bigger generally are.
I doubt it. He just doesnt seem to proces what were trying to tell him and is trying to atack us with false acusations
I don't think Earth is also considered as a celestial object by FEers. For them Earth is .... Earth.
Excacley. Earth indeed is earth. That is the best way to describe it
False acusations like the earth is round?
Ok, so (forgive me science for this sentence) the earth isnt a planet and is flat, can there be other disk shaped non planets?
-
I think the question should be rephrased. Perhaps he means 'why is Earth the only non-round celestial object in the cosmos?' I mean, granted, smaller objects like asteroids may not be round, but larger, planet sized or bigger generally are.
I doubt it. He just doesnt seem to proces what were trying to tell him and is trying to atack us with false acusations
I don't think Earth is also considered as a celestial object by FEers. For them Earth is .... Earth.
Excacley. Earth indeed is earth. That is the best way to describe it
False acusations like the earth is round?
Ok, so (forgive me science for this sentence) the earth isnt a planet and is flat, can there be other disk shaped non planets?
Perhaps but I truley doubt it. And this probaley wouldnt fit my hipothesis that I mentioned on the first page of this thred
-
Excelsior, what I am about to say, I mean in the most courteous way. It is not meant to be nasty, but must be said bluntly, as more subtle methods have failed. *COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE FOLLOWS* Dude, your orthography sucks! I mean, seriously, the website itself is equipped with a built-in spell-check device. Dude, if your computer is too primitive for that device to function, or if you're using phonernet, then for Heaven's sake, review your posts before sending them! How the Hell did you get to 12th Grade with orthography like that?! If I had written like that in my Senior year, my teachers would not have let me graduate! And you want to go to Harvard? Dude, orthography that poor makes you look like either a troll or an ass! Get yourself straightened out with a quickness! *COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE ENDS*
-
Excelsior, what I am about to say, I mean in the most courteous way. It is not meant to be nasty, but must be said bluntly, as more subtle methods have failed. *COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE FOLLOWS* Dude, your orthography sucks! I mean, seriously, the website itself is equipped with a built-in spell-check device. Dude, if your computer is too primitive for that device to function, or if you're using phonernet, then for Heaven's sake, review your posts before sending them! How the Hell did you get to 12th Grade with orthography like that?! If I had written like that in my Senior year, my teachers would not have let me graduate! And you want to go to Harvard? Dude, orthography that poor makes you look like either a troll or an ass! Get yourself straightened out with a quickness! *COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE ENDS*
*facepalm* Yaakov please stay on topic insted of this orthogorogathey crud or whatever its called. BIG DEALIO I had a couple spelling mistakes please stay on TOPIC
-
Orthography: the manner of writing a given language, both in terms of spelling and punctuation. *COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE FOLLOWS* Dude, you do realise that because you spell like a nine-year-old, no one takes you seriously? In a passage of two paragraphs, your spelling errors are generally in excess of 10 words. You are making yourself look like an idiot. *COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE ENDS*
-
Orthography: the manner of writing a given language, both in terms of spelling and punctuation. *COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE FOLLOWS* Dude, you do realise that because you spell like a nine-year-old, no one takes you seriously? In a passage of two paragraphs, your spelling errors are generally in excess of 10 words. You are making yourself look like an idiot. *COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE ENDS*
Look I dont have the time to look over evrey single one of these words. So if I mispell one flippin word just deal with it and stay on topic
-
Excelsior, what I am about to say, I mean in the most courteous way. It is not meant to be nasty, but must be said bluntly, as more subtle methods have failed. *COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE FOLLOWS* Dude, your orthography sucks! I mean, seriously, the website itself is equipped with a built-in spell-check device. Dude, if your computer is too primitive for that device to function, or if you're using phonernet, then for Heaven's sake, review your posts before sending them! How the Hell did you get to 12th Grade with orthography like that?! If I had written like that in my Senior year, my teachers would not have let me graduate! And you want to go to Harvard? Dude, orthography that poor makes you look like either a troll or an ass! Get yourself straightened out with a quickness! *COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE ENDS*
I for one am in complete agreement with everything in Yakov ben Avraham's post.
If I had written as Excelsior John writes, I wouldn't even have gotten to 12th grade until I learned how to spell . I make mistakes, too, but I try to correct them before I post. I'll be polite to Excelsior John. I'll just say "Orthography that poor makes you look like either a troll or an ass."
As far as getting back to the OP is concerned.:
I wonder how many true believers of the Flat Earth Society have ever been to sea and observed just how flat the flat earth is or is not or the flat earth planet or whatever shape the earth is ? That "recovering a ship which has gone over the horizon with a telescope" is just one more FE fallacy that is easily de-bunked if you have ever been to sea for just one example of how fallacious the so-called "FE Theory" really is for the most part .
-
Googleotomy, Greeting! To be honest, I've never been to sea. Is there a way to prove the Earth round by going to sea? If you've read my posts, you will have observed that my knowledge of Jewish Scripture is first rate, but my knowledge of science is nil. The Scripture SEEMS to support a FET, but I may be wrong about that. If science proves a round Earth, then, the Scripture, which I must accept as true, must be re-evaluated to see what it actually does say, since my current interpretation of it will have been proven wrong.
-
Excelsior, what I am about to say, I mean in the most courteous way. It is not meant to be nasty, but must be said bluntly, as more subtle methods have failed. *COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE FOLLOWS* Dude, your orthography sucks! I mean, seriously, the website itself is equipped with a built-in spell-check device. Dude, if your computer is too primitive for that device to function, or if you're using phonernet, then for Heaven's sake, review your posts before sending them! How the Hell did you get to 12th Grade with orthography like that?! If I had written like that in my Senior year, my teachers would not have let me graduate! And you want to go to Harvard? Dude, orthography that poor makes you look like either a troll or an ass! Get yourself straightened out with a quickness! *COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE ENDS*
I for one am in complete agreement with everything in Yakov ben Avraham's post.
If I had written as Excelsior John writes, I wouldn't even have gotten to 12th grade until I learned how to spell . I make mistakes, too, but I try to correct them before I post. I'll be polite to Excelsior John. I'll just say "Orthography that poor makes you look like either a troll or an ass."
As far as getting back to the OP is concerned.:
I wonder how many true believers of the Flat Earth Society have ever been to sea and observed just how flat the flat earth is or is not or the flat earth planet or whatever shape the earth is ? That "recovering a ship which has gone over the horizon with a telescope" is just one more FE fallacy that is easily de-bunked if you have ever been to sea for just one example of how fallacious the so-called "FE Theory" really is for the most part .
I have been to sea and the earth sure does seem darn flat to me. As for the telescope thing and as a Zetetcist would be vary intrested in doing this experiment next time I go to the sea