Rings on Planets. Round 2.

  • 20 Replies
  • 2711 Views
Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« on: July 08, 2009, 01:29:21 AM »
It took me a while to get around to posting this again because I was not sure if I would have time to debate on a new topic.

Quote
1610 - Galileo Galilei becomes the first to observe Saturn's rings with his 20-power telescope.

Please do explain how these spinning rings are remotely possible if there is no such thing as gravity and everything is simply accelerating.

P.S
Using Galileo as an example because you would question NASA's Cassini photos.

P.S.S
In the original topic people tried to disprove the existence of the rings altogether... Don't go down this route of argument. It is deterring and a dead end. You can see the rings yourself with any decent telescope.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2009, 02:00:45 AM »
Why can't Saturn have rings?

*

spanner34.5

  • 4642
  • feck arse drink
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2009, 02:23:29 AM »
It took me a while to get around to posting this again because I was not sure if I would have time to debate on a new topic.

Quote
1610 - Galileo Galilei becomes the first to observe Saturn's rings with his 20-power telescope.

Please do explain how these spinning rings are remotely possible if there is no such thing as gravity and everything is simply accelerating.

P.S
Using Galileo as an example because you would question NASA's Cassini photos.

P.S.S
In the original topic people tried to disprove the existence of the rings altogether... Don't go down this route of argument. It is deterring and a dead end. You can see the rings yourself with any decent telescope.

The planets have gravity, hence the possibility of rings. Please read the faq.
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?

Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2009, 02:38:33 AM »
I have read it.

So you say that other planets have gravity but earth does not?
How do you suppose this gravity exists? Where does it come from?
Of course, you cannot use RE models here because they have been made void numerous times on these forums.

Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2009, 05:50:07 AM »
I have read it.

So you say that other planets have gravity but earth does not?
How do you suppose this gravity exists? Where does it come from?
Of course, you cannot use RE models here because they have been made void numerous times on these forums.
If it's gravitation, then all masses produce a gravitational pull. If any mass does not (earth), then the effect is not gravitation. If FET has a gravitation alternative in addition to the UA, then they should name it something different to avoid confusion.

*

spanner34.5

  • 4642
  • feck arse drink
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2009, 10:54:18 AM »

Please do explain how these spinning rings are remotely possible if there is no such thing as gravity and everything is simply accelerating.


The planets do have gravity, had you read the faq you would know this.

The Earth has no gravity so no rings.
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42250
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2009, 02:43:33 PM »

Please do explain how these spinning rings are remotely possible if there is no such thing as gravity and everything is simply accelerating.


The planets do have gravity, had you read the faq you would know this.

The Earth has no gravity so no rings.

And what is the cause of the gravity of the planets?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Squat

Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2009, 10:39:04 PM »

Please do explain how these spinning rings are remotely possible if there is no such thing as gravity and everything is simply accelerating.


The planets do have gravity, had you read the faq you would know this.

The Earth has no gravity so no rings.

How do you know? FE'ers aren't too sure what causes an eclipse of the moon although they say it's the antimoon (which can't be seen). Maybe there's a ring that can't be seen.

*

spanner34.5

  • 4642
  • feck arse drink
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2009, 12:55:55 AM »

Please do explain how these spinning rings are remotely possible if there is no such thing as gravity and everything is simply accelerating.


The planets do have gravity, had you read the faq you would know this.

The Earth has no gravity so no rings.

And what is the cause of the gravity of the planets?
When spacecraft finally find their way into space, not for a long time yet, we may find out.
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?

?

grogberries

  • 3495
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2009, 07:47:15 PM »

Please do explain how these spinning rings are remotely possible if there is no such thing as gravity and everything is simply accelerating.


The planets do have gravity, had you read the faq you would know this.

The Earth has no gravity so no rings.

It probably has something to do with their spherical nature, unlike that of the flat nature of the earth.

And what is the cause of the gravity of the planets?
Think hard. Think Flat.

?

Abysmal

  • 168
  • now with more tentacles
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2009, 01:49:35 PM »
why isn't gravity possible on earth? "because it's flat" is not an answer. Is it because earth is the only "special" celestial body and therefore doesn't need to be explained scientifically?
Former Satanic Conspirator-now i've seen the bendy light.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2009, 05:52:26 PM »
It's not a given that every body in the universe has the same physical properties and no more.

Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2009, 05:24:26 AM »
Please Tom, be a little more specific.
What exactly makes earth different from Saturn? In regards to gravity of course.

Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2009, 07:39:15 AM »
It's not a given that every body in the universe has the same physical properties and no more.

And its not a given that every body doesnt have the same phsyical properties.  It appears to me that your entire arguement is the good old 'why not' argument.  Why cant the earth be flat, why does one need to travel over antartica, why not have ice walls etc.  Not a good way of making a point one would think.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2009, 07:47:20 AM »
It's not a given that every body in the universe has the same physical properties and no more.
it is a given that the same laws apply throughout the universe to all bodies. singularities excepted.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2009, 08:55:51 PM »
And its not a given that every body doesnt have the same phsyical properties.

You think that every body in the universe has the same physical properties?  ???

What about magnets? Does a refrigerator magnet have the same properties as an apple?

Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2009, 03:22:05 PM »
And its not a given that every body doesnt have the same phsyical properties.

You think that every body in the universe has the same physical properties?  ???

What about magnets? Does a refrigerator magnet have the same properties as an apple?

So we have to assume that every single celestial object in space is effected by its own separate and unique physical properties which have no relation to our Earth except that it exists and all these properties are caused by unknowns which all require explanations separately which leaves us with a huge list of forces which we have no explanation for and no reason to believe in other than the assumption that the original assumption was true?

I heard a strange proposition the other day which consisted of a theory which not only explains the physical properties of our world, everything on it and all celestial objects that we can observe, how they formed, why we can see them and all the explanation I could possibly need in order to look up into the sky with a telescope and conclude that I knew what I was looking at and why but it also only consisted of only one unexplained force! Not only that but when concerning technology and travelling around the world I don't have to assume that everything I'm told is a lie.


I love you EiZ <3

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2009, 05:16:39 PM »
So we have to assume that every single celestial object in space is effected by its own separate and unique physical properties which have no relation to our Earth except that it exists and all these properties are caused by unknowns which all require explanations separately which leaves us with a huge list of forces which we have no explanation for and no reason to believe in other than the assumption that the original assumption was true?

Celestial bodies are not the earth. What's so hard to believe about that?

Just like apples are not refrigerator magnets.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42250
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2009, 07:10:56 PM »
So we have to assume that every single celestial object in space is effected by its own separate and unique physical properties which have no relation to our Earth except that it exists and all these properties are caused by unknowns which all require explanations separately which leaves us with a huge list of forces which we have no explanation for and no reason to believe in other than the assumption that the original assumption was true?

Celestial bodies are not the earth. What's so hard to believe about that?

Just like apples are not refrigerator magnets.

Except when it's an apple refrigerator magnet.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Abysmal

  • 168
  • now with more tentacles
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2009, 12:48:12 PM »
apple-refrigerator magnet theory debunked right there.
Former Satanic Conspirator-now i've seen the bendy light.

?

Anorthosite

  • 109
  • Riding the crest of the awesomeness of the Hoff
Re: Rings on Planets. Round 2.
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2009, 01:19:46 PM »
What about magnets? Does a refrigerator magnet have the same properties as an apple?

They are governed by the same laws of physics.