Flat Pizza Model

I assume they would probably mention the reactionary forces via sun, moon, and celestial bodies.  FET FTL!

If you're asking how the FE became flat, then I'd argue that there's no reason for it to have been spherical in the first place. Why would it have to be spun like a pizza? It started the shape it is.

Did it ever form?  Or, was it always there?

EDIT:  How do the force (or forces?) that cause gravitation, experienced by other celestial bodies, not affect the FE form?

Quote from: Geordi la Forge on June 15, 2007, 07:26:56 AM

EDIT:  How do the force (or forces?) that cause gravitation, experienced by other celestial bodies, not affect the FE form?

But the force does affect the FE form! It's universal acceleration, and you should read about it.

I thought it was a FE consensus that the celestial bodies possess their own gravitation, separate from the UA force.

Dogplatter maintains that all celestial bodies are flat. While this may seem absurd, observation of the stars shows them to be completely 2D.

Quote

I thought it was a FE consensus that the celestial bodies possess their own gravitation, separate from the UA force.

Dogplatter maintains that all celestial bodies are flat. While this may seem absurd, observation of the stars shows them to be completely 2D.

Q: "Why are other celestial bodies round but not the Earth?"

A: The Earth is not one of the other planets.  The Earth is special and unlike the other bodies in numerous ways.

If you're asking how the FE became flat, then I'd argue that there's no reason for it to have been spherical in the first place. Why would it have to be spun like a pizza? It started the shape it is.

Quote

I thought it was a FE consensus that the celestial bodies possess their own gravitation, separate from the UA force.

Dogplatter maintains that all celestial bodies are flat. While this may seem absurd, observation of the stars shows them to be completely two dimensional.

Quote

I thought it was a FE consensus that the celestial bodies possess their own gravitation, separate from the UA force.

Dogplatter maintains that all celestial bodies are flat. While this may seem absurd, observation of the stars shows them to be completely two dimensional.

Wrong. Observation shows them to be rotating spheres, without exception.

Looking through a telescope may show then to be flat but data collected from them proves otherwise.

Yes, so I assume this includes planets?  That giant storm on Jupiter is just so very special.

That's odd.  My observation of one celestial body, the moon, results in a 3-Dimensional Image.  This thus shows observation to be unreliable proof.

Observation of stars through a telescope shows them to be completely two dimensional, without exception.

Quote

Because they are so far away. 

Quote

What evidence shows stars to be spherical?

The fact that they release energy.  People can use thsi data to figure out how big the star is.  Since you like to read maybe you should read up on it.   

Quote

Jupiter also appears entirely two dimensional through a home telescope.

Maybe your cheap ass $40 telescope.  Last time I looked through one at Saturn(which is further away and smaller), I saw a sphere.     

Quote

The face of the moon points in one direction only: down.

Their are maps of the whole surface.  Its round. 

Quote

Wrong. Observation shows them to be rotating spheres, without exception.

Observation of stars through a telescope shows them to be completely two dimensional, without exception.

Quote

Looking through a telescope may show then to be flat but data collected from them proves otherwise.

What evidence shows stars to be spherical?

Quote

Yes, so I assume this includes planets?  That giant storm on Jupiter is just so very special.

Jupiter also appears entirely two dimensional through a home telescope.

Quote

That's odd.  My observation of one celestial body, the moon, results in a 3-Dimensional Image.  This thus shows observation to be unreliable proof.

The face of the moon points in one direction only: down.

Quote

That's odd.  My observation of one celestial body, the moon, results in a 3-Dimensional Image.  This thus shows observation to be unreliable proof.

The face of the moon points in one direction only: down.

Hey, I dunno if you knew this, but if you take a picture of a ball, it seems to be 2 dimensional. you have to look at things from ALL angles before you say things like that. the ball is still a sphere, even if it looks 2 dimensional on paper. looking through a telescope, almost nothing will look exactly how it is. try a different technique

That's odd.  My observation of one celestial body, the moon, results in a 3-Dimensional Image.  This thus shows observation to be unreliable proof.

Quote from: Jenova Cell on June 15, 2007, 11:14:08 AM

Hey, I dunno if you knew this, but if you take a picture of a ball, it seems to be 2 dimensional. you have to look at things from ALL angles before you say things like that. the ball is still a sphere, even if it looks 2 dimensional on paper. looking through a telescope, almost nothing will look exactly how it is. try a different technique

Exactly. Well done. Accuracy is music to my ears.

Quote

That's odd.  My observation of one celestial body, the moon, results in a 3-Dimensional Image.  This thus shows observation to be unreliable proof.

To "prove" anything to be of 3 dimensions, you need to view it in all 3 dimensions. Since you're unable to view the Moon in anymore than 2 dimensions first-hand, it doesn't hold up.

However SparteX, what the one antagonizing all of this is saying  is that by looking into a telescope, a planet/moon/star looks flat. He cant seem to comprehend that things are not always as they appear, which is why I gave my ball example

Quote from: Jenova Cell on June 15, 2007, 11:14:08 AM

Hey, I dunno if you knew this, but if you take a picture of a ball, it seems to be 2 dimensional. you have to look at things from ALL angles before you say things like that. the ball is still a sphere, even if it looks 2 dimensional on paper. looking through a telescope, almost nothing will look exactly how it is. try a different technique

Exactly. Well done. Accuracy is music to my ears.

Quote

That's odd.  My observation of one celestial body, the moon, results in a 3-Dimensional Image.  This thus shows observation to be unreliable proof.

To "prove" anything to be of 3 dimensions, you need to view it in all 3 dimensions. Since you're unable to view the Moon in anymore than 2 dimensions first-hand, it doesn't hold up.