Flat Mars. Flat Jupiter....

Do Flat Earthers believe that the other planets in our solar system are flat as well? I can't see how this can be denied since using a telescope you can see for yourself that these planets are both round and spinning. Furthermore since loose rocks aren't falling off of the bottom side of Mars wouldn't that force you to accept that Newtonian gravity exists elsewhere in the universe? So if Flat Earthers can see for themselves the existence of round planets with gravity why do they insist they live on a flat planet with no gravity?

Check the FAQ, according to them the earth is special, that's why.

Planets are round.

And I don't see why the Earth should be any exception.

And I don't see why the Earth should be any exception.

It's not a planet.

Well no duh, but if everything else out there is round, I don't see why the Earth should be any exception.

Well no duh, but if everything else out there is round, I don't see why the Earth should be any exception.

We are not "out there".

Okay, but we're still part of the universe.  If all other bodies are spherical, what logic is there for the Earth being flat?

Quote from: Supertails on September 16, 2009, 04:58:16 PM

And I don't see why the Earth should be any exception.

It's not a planet.

Actually yes it is a planet, but that's besides the point, what causes the gravity that the planets have if not their mass?

Okay, but we're still part of the universe.  If all other bodies are spherical, what logic is there for the Earth being flat?

Okay, you tell me: what logic is there in assuming that the Earth is the same shape as the other bodies in the universe?  And if everything is spherical, why aren't most asteroids?  Why aren't galaxies (which, by the way, are more or less flat according to RE theory, so a flat system developing naturally in the universe is certainly not without precedent)?

Because those bodies are formed into spheres by gravity, asteroids aren't because for one, they're chunks of rock, two, they aren't nearly big enough to have enough gravity to make them into spheres, and three, even if there was one big enough, there aren't any that have been around long enough to be formed into spheres.  And, since they're not at an orbit, they never exactly get the chance.  And galaxies aren't made of rocks or matter such as that.  They're collections of planets.

Actually yes it is a planet, but that's besides the point,

No it's not, planets are round.

what causes the gravity that the planets have if not their mass?

There is no known cause for gravitation.

Gravitation is caused by mass making dents in the space-time-continuum or whatever it's called, similar to putting a ball on a trampoline and watching things go toward it.

Or at least that's a theory.

Gravitation is caused by mass making dents in the space-time-continuum or whatever it's called, similar to putting a ball on a trampoline and watching things go toward it.

Or at least that's a theory.

Your point?

Because those bodies are formed into spheres by gravity

What question is this supposed to answer?

asteroids aren't because for one, they're chunks of rock, two, they aren't nearly big enough to have enough gravity to make them into spheres, and three, even if there was one big enough, there aren't any that have been around long enough to be formed into spheres.

So you agree that it's possible for a rocky body to come out in some shape other than a sphere?

And, since they're not at an orbit

lolwut?

And galaxies aren't made of rocks or matter such as that.  They're collections of planets.

REer statement of the year.  I'm feeling compelled to sig it.

Your point?

All you've ever argued here is theories.  I don't see why I can't offer one up.

What question is this supposed to answer?

I actually don't know.  It just seemed like it should be there.  >.>

So you agree that it's possible for a rocky body to come out in some shape other than a sphere?

I guess, yeah, if you feel like taking my quote out of context and twisting it to fit to what you're arguing.

lolwut?

Yeah, I know where I was going with that one, but nevermind, it doesn't make much sense.

REer statement of the year.  I'm feeling compelled to sig it.

Thanks.  It feels so much more rewarding knowing you're debating with an asshole.  Also makes me so much more compelled to debate with you.

That aside, I phrased it really badly.  I can't listen to music and debate at the same time very well, especially not both when I'm tired.  What I meant was something more along the lines of a galaxy is just a collection of stars, planets, gas, and dust.  And theoretically may have a black hole in the middle of it, which I'm sure would affect the shaping of it somewhat.  Not to mention many are shaped oddly due to gravitation from other galaxy malforming them a bit.  Which also ends up with galaxies "eating" each other.

Quote

What question is this supposed to answer?

I actually don't know.  It just seemed like it should be there.

Okay, because you still haven't adequately explained the logic behind assuming the Earth is the same shape as what we see above us.

Because the other planets are round since they're big enough to have gravitation, which forms them into that sphere shape they have.  There is no reason the Earth should randomly be an exception from this rule.

Because the other planets are round since they're big enough to have gravitation, which forms them into that sphere shape they have.  There is no reason the Earth should randomly be an exception from this rule.

What rule are you talking about?

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 05:16:27 PM

Actually yes it is a planet, but that's besides the point,

No it's not, planets are round.

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 05:16:27 PM

what causes the gravity that the planets have if not their mass?

There is no known cause for gravitation.

Actually the earth is a planet because it's round, or rather there is a lot of strong evidence for a round earth, rather than a few experiments done by one man over the course of a few years that have not been repeated since 1904.  Also, in a round earth there is an explanation for gravitation, so you admit that in that respect the FET makes less sense.  The theory for what causes gravitation, mass making a curve in space-time has strong evidence behind it (which also has to do with the sun being massive, millions of times larger than the FET's 32 mile diameter sun).

Galaxies are a lot like the belts of uranus and neptune, they are made up of loose materials spinning around an object with a very large mass and therefore higher gravity.  For the FET theory it says that the earth is compacted, is not spinning, and therefore it being flat does not make sense.  Galaxies and rings around planets make perfect sense as to why they're flat, although they cannot be compared to a flat earth since they are entirely different.

Actually the earth is a planet because it's round, or rather there is a lot of strong evidence for a round earth, rather than a few experiments done by one man over the course of a few years that have not been repeated since 1904.  Also, in a round earth there is an explanation for gravitation, so you admit that in that respect the FET makes less sense.  The theory for what causes gravitation, mass making a curve in space-time has strong evidence behind it (which also has to do with the sun being massive, millions of times larger than the FET's 32 mile diameter sun).

The Earth is not round. In fact, I have seen no evidence for a round earth. Also, can I see some proof that gravitation works how you say?

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 06:51:40 PM

Actually the earth is a planet because it's round, or rather there is a lot of strong evidence for a round earth, rather than a few experiments done by one man over the course of a few years that have not been repeated since 1904.  Also, in a round earth there is an explanation for gravitation, so you admit that in that respect the FET makes less sense.  The theory for what causes gravitation, mass making a curve in space-time has strong evidence behind it (which also has to do with the sun being massive, millions of times larger than the FET's 32 mile diameter sun).

The Earth is not round. In fact, I have seen no evidence for a round earth. Also, can I see some proof that gravitation works how you say?

I have given you examples in the past few days, you have ignored them.  Like W you pick and choose what you want to respond to.

As for proof of gravitation, i have said this before as well.  Einstein became famous overnight for his theory of relativity when during a solar eclipse we were able to observe stars behind the sun.  For this to happen the sun would have to be massive and would actually have to make a curve in space time, which also shows that light can be affected by gravity but, but the force of gravity has to be immense for this to happen, the massive sun accounts for this.  That alone would make the FET not work since the sun can't be 32 miles in diameter.

Quote from: Waste of Mind on September 16, 2009, 06:57:00 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 06:51:40 PM

Actually the earth is a planet because it's round, or rather there is a lot of strong evidence for a round earth, rather than a few experiments done by one man over the course of a few years that have not been repeated since 1904.  Also, in a round earth there is an explanation for gravitation, so you admit that in that respect the FET makes less sense.  The theory for what causes gravitation, mass making a curve in space-time has strong evidence behind it (which also has to do with the sun being massive, millions of times larger than the FET's 32 mile diameter sun).

The Earth is not round. In fact, I have seen no evidence for a round earth. Also, can I see some proof that gravitation works how you say?

I have given you examples in the past few days, you have ignored them.  Like W you pick and choose what you want to respond to.

As for proof of gravitation, i have said this before as well.  Einstein became famous overnight for his theory of relativity when during a solar eclipse we were able to observe stars behind the sun.  For this to happen the sun would have to be massive and would actually have to make a curve in space time, which also shows that light can be affected by gravity but, but the force of gravity has to be immense for this to happen, the massive sun accounts for this.  That alone would make the FET not work since the sun can't be 32 miles in diameter.

How do you know the stars are behind the Sun?

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:06:17 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on September 16, 2009, 06:57:00 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 06:51:40 PM

Actually the earth is a planet because it's round, or rather there is a lot of strong evidence for a round earth, rather than a few experiments done by one man over the course of a few years that have not been repeated since 1904.  Also, in a round earth there is an explanation for gravitation, so you admit that in that respect the FET makes less sense.  The theory for what causes gravitation, mass making a curve in space-time has strong evidence behind it (which also has to do with the sun being massive, millions of times larger than the FET's 32 mile diameter sun).

The Earth is not round. In fact, I have seen no evidence for a round earth. Also, can I see some proof that gravitation works how you say?

I have given you examples in the past few days, you have ignored them.  Like W you pick and choose what you want to respond to.

As for proof of gravitation, i have said this before as well.  Einstein became famous overnight for his theory of relativity when during a solar eclipse we were able to observe stars behind the sun.  For this to happen the sun would have to be massive and would actually have to make a curve in space time, which also shows that light can be affected by gravity but, but the force of gravity has to be immense for this to happen, the massive sun accounts for this.  That alone would make the FET not work since the sun can't be 32 miles in diameter.

How do you know the stars are behind the Sun?

Star maps, they didn't just see stars around the sun and think "oh they must be behind!" they knew the coordinates of the stars they were looking at should be behind the sun, and also the fact that they weren't spaced out like they normally are.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:08:18 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:06:17 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on September 16, 2009, 06:57:00 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 06:51:40 PM

Actually the earth is a planet because it's round, or rather there is a lot of strong evidence for a round earth, rather than a few experiments done by one man over the course of a few years that have not been repeated since 1904.  Also, in a round earth there is an explanation for gravitation, so you admit that in that respect the FET makes less sense.  The theory for what causes gravitation, mass making a curve in space-time has strong evidence behind it (which also has to do with the sun being massive, millions of times larger than the FET's 32 mile diameter sun).

The Earth is not round. In fact, I have seen no evidence for a round earth. Also, can I see some proof that gravitation works how you say?

I have given you examples in the past few days, you have ignored them.  Like W you pick and choose what you want to respond to.

As for proof of gravitation, i have said this before as well.  Einstein became famous overnight for his theory of relativity when during a solar eclipse we were able to observe stars behind the sun.  For this to happen the sun would have to be massive and would actually have to make a curve in space time, which also shows that light can be affected by gravity but, but the force of gravity has to be immense for this to happen, the massive sun accounts for this.  That alone would make the FET not work since the sun can't be 32 miles in diameter.

How do you know the stars are behind the Sun?

Star maps, they didn't just see stars around the sun and think "oh they must be behind!" they knew the coordinates of the stars they were looking at should be behind the sun, and also the fact that they weren't spaced out like they normally are.

Stars do not stay in the same spot in the sky so how would a map prove it?

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:15:02 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:08:18 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:06:17 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on September 16, 2009, 06:57:00 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 06:51:40 PM

Actually the earth is a planet because it's round, or rather there is a lot of strong evidence for a round earth, rather than a few experiments done by one man over the course of a few years that have not been repeated since 1904.  Also, in a round earth there is an explanation for gravitation, so you admit that in that respect the FET makes less sense.  The theory for what causes gravitation, mass making a curve in space-time has strong evidence behind it (which also has to do with the sun being massive, millions of times larger than the FET's 32 mile diameter sun).

The Earth is not round. In fact, I have seen no evidence for a round earth. Also, can I see some proof that gravitation works how you say?

I have given you examples in the past few days, you have ignored them.  Like W you pick and choose what you want to respond to.

As for proof of gravitation, i have said this before as well.  Einstein became famous overnight for his theory of relativity when during a solar eclipse we were able to observe stars behind the sun.  For this to happen the sun would have to be massive and would actually have to make a curve in space time, which also shows that light can be affected by gravity but, but the force of gravity has to be immense for this to happen, the massive sun accounts for this.  That alone would make the FET not work since the sun can't be 32 miles in diameter.

How do you know the stars are behind the Sun?

Star maps, they didn't just see stars around the sun and think "oh they must be behind!" they knew the coordinates of the stars they were looking at should be behind the sun, and also the fact that they weren't spaced out like they normally are.

Stars do not stay in the same spot in the sky so how would a map prove it?

They do not stay at the same point, but they do stay in the same spot relative to each other, orion's belt shows this clearly, as do the dippers, and other constellations.  Looking at the stars around the sun they could figure out where the other stars should be, and when they realized those stars should have been behind the sun it showed the theory very well.  I wish i could find a picture of it.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:18:32 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:15:02 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:08:18 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:06:17 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on September 16, 2009, 06:57:00 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 06:51:40 PM

Actually the earth is a planet because it's round, or rather there is a lot of strong evidence for a round earth, rather than a few experiments done by one man over the course of a few years that have not been repeated since 1904.  Also, in a round earth there is an explanation for gravitation, so you admit that in that respect the FET makes less sense.  The theory for what causes gravitation, mass making a curve in space-time has strong evidence behind it (which also has to do with the sun being massive, millions of times larger than the FET's 32 mile diameter sun).

The Earth is not round. In fact, I have seen no evidence for a round earth. Also, can I see some proof that gravitation works how you say?

I have given you examples in the past few days, you have ignored them.  Like W you pick and choose what you want to respond to.

As for proof of gravitation, i have said this before as well.  Einstein became famous overnight for his theory of relativity when during a solar eclipse we were able to observe stars behind the sun.  For this to happen the sun would have to be massive and would actually have to make a curve in space time, which also shows that light can be affected by gravity but, but the force of gravity has to be immense for this to happen, the massive sun accounts for this.  That alone would make the FET not work since the sun can't be 32 miles in diameter.

How do you know the stars are behind the Sun?

Star maps, they didn't just see stars around the sun and think "oh they must be behind!" they knew the coordinates of the stars they were looking at should be behind the sun, and also the fact that they weren't spaced out like they normally are.

Stars do not stay in the same spot in the sky so how would a map prove it?

They do not stay at the same point, but they do stay in the same spot relative to each other, orion's belt shows this clearly, as do the dippers, and other constellations.  Looking at the stars around the sun they could figure out where the other stars should be, and when they realized those stars should have been behind the sun it showed the theory very well.  I wish i could find a picture of it.

Sounds just like guessing. If Stars really did bend space-time as claimed, then each star's light would be so distorted/bent by every other star it encounters on it's way to Earth, that the observed locations of specific stars on Earth would become so random and jumbled that tracking of stars would be extremely difficult.

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:23:22 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:18:32 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:15:02 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:08:18 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:06:17 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on September 16, 2009, 06:57:00 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 06:51:40 PM

Actually the earth is a planet because it's round, or rather there is a lot of strong evidence for a round earth, rather than a few experiments done by one man over the course of a few years that have not been repeated since 1904.  Also, in a round earth there is an explanation for gravitation, so you admit that in that respect the FET makes less sense.  The theory for what causes gravitation, mass making a curve in space-time has strong evidence behind it (which also has to do with the sun being massive, millions of times larger than the FET's 32 mile diameter sun).

The Earth is not round. In fact, I have seen no evidence for a round earth. Also, can I see some proof that gravitation works how you say?

I have given you examples in the past few days, you have ignored them.  Like W you pick and choose what you want to respond to.

As for proof of gravitation, i have said this before as well.  Einstein became famous overnight for his theory of relativity when during a solar eclipse we were able to observe stars behind the sun.  For this to happen the sun would have to be massive and would actually have to make a curve in space time, which also shows that light can be affected by gravity but, but the force of gravity has to be immense for this to happen, the massive sun accounts for this.  That alone would make the FET not work since the sun can't be 32 miles in diameter.

How do you know the stars are behind the Sun?

Star maps, they didn't just see stars around the sun and think "oh they must be behind!" they knew the coordinates of the stars they were looking at should be behind the sun, and also the fact that they weren't spaced out like they normally are.

Stars do not stay in the same spot in the sky so how would a map prove it?

They do not stay at the same point, but they do stay in the same spot relative to each other, orion's belt shows this clearly, as do the dippers, and other constellations.  Looking at the stars around the sun they could figure out where the other stars should be, and when they realized those stars should have been behind the sun it showed the theory very well.  I wish i could find a picture of it.

Sounds just like guessing. If Stars really did bend space-time as claimed, then each star's light would be so distorted/bent by every other star it encounters on it's way to Earth, that the observed locations of specific stars on Earth would become so random and jumbled that tracking of stars would be extremely difficult.

Due to different intensities of the light of stars they could figure out which stars were which, as well as the fact that around the sun they saw stars that should not be there.  The whole experiment showed that gravity can effect light, and that is how it made einstein famous because his theory talks about that.  It wouldn't be bent at all however, due to the velocity it would only alter the path of the light, we could still see the light just as easily.

Still looking for an exact picture but this diagram explains the idea behind it fairly well: http://plus.maths.org/issue29/features/barnes/LightBending.jpg

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:32:48 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:23:22 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:18:32 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:15:02 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 16, 2009, 07:08:18 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 07:06:17 PM

Quote from: Waste of Mind on September 16, 2009, 06:57:00 PM

Quote from: loki700 on September 16, 2009, 06:51:40 PM

Actually the earth is a planet because it's round, or rather there is a lot of strong evidence for a round earth, rather than a few experiments done by one man over the course of a few years that have not been repeated since 1904.  Also, in a round earth there is an explanation for gravitation, so you admit that in that respect the FET makes less sense.  The theory for what causes gravitation, mass making a curve in space-time has strong evidence behind it (which also has to do with the sun being massive, millions of times larger than the FET's 32 mile diameter sun).

The Earth is not round. In fact, I have seen no evidence for a round earth. Also, can I see some proof that gravitation works how you say?

I have given you examples in the past few days, you have ignored them.  Like W you pick and choose what you want to respond to.

As for proof of gravitation, i have said this before as well.  Einstein became famous overnight for his theory of relativity when during a solar eclipse we were able to observe stars behind the sun.  For this to happen the sun would have to be massive and would actually have to make a curve in space time, which also shows that light can be affected by gravity but, but the force of gravity has to be immense for this to happen, the massive sun accounts for this.  That alone would make the FET not work since the sun can't be 32 miles in diameter.

How do you know the stars are behind the Sun?

Star maps, they didn't just see stars around the sun and think "oh they must be behind!" they knew the coordinates of the stars they were looking at should be behind the sun, and also the fact that they weren't spaced out like they normally are.

Stars do not stay in the same spot in the sky so how would a map prove it?

They do not stay at the same point, but they do stay in the same spot relative to each other, orion's belt shows this clearly, as do the dippers, and other constellations.  Looking at the stars around the sun they could figure out where the other stars should be, and when they realized those stars should have been behind the sun it showed the theory very well.  I wish i could find a picture of it.

Sounds just like guessing. If Stars really did bend space-time as claimed, then each star's light would be so distorted/bent by every other star it encounters on it's way to Earth, that the observed locations of specific stars on Earth would become so random and jumbled that tracking of stars would be extremely difficult.

Due to different intensities of the light of stars they could figure out which stars were which, as well as the fact that around the sun they saw stars that should not be there.  The whole experiment showed that gravity can effect light, and that is how it made einstein famous because his theory talks about that.  It wouldn't be bent at all however, due to the velocity it would only alter the path of the light, we could still see the light just as easily.

Still looking for an exact picture but this diagram explains the idea behind it fairly well: http://plus.maths.org/issue29/features/barnes/LightBending.jpg

this is all assuming gravity to be true. What would cause them to determine a star shouldn't be there? I thought stars moved about the center of a galaxy in RET and since they move, wouldn't that mean different stars would affect the light from a specific other star depending on their movement? Thus a different path of light from the star source?

Well even if that were the case, the fact that the light hits earth in the same spots relative to other stars shows that it doesn't matter when the light enters our solar system since there are no nearby stars other than the sun to bend the light.  The light rays have to be heading at the sun already or very near the sun for the sun to actually be able to change the light's path.  Besides, if you saw stars around the sun that shouldn't be there relative to the other stars, even if you didn't know that they should be behind the sun the sudden appearance of new stars in new places should clue you in that something odd is going on, however if you know that the stars shouldn't be there because of the neighboring stars then you should know that the stars should be behind the sun.  However knowing that you see stars around the sun that shouldn't be there, so do stars just suddenly appear during a solar eclipse?  That doesn't make sense.