A Bit Of Logic For You To Ponder.

It occurred to me that using logic you can almost  disprove the flat Earth theory (at least if you choose to view from a logical standpoint and not from a factual standpoint, in which case the flat Earth theory has already been proven wrong more times than necessary). My point is this; if you were to acquire a telescope which has enough magnification to view other planets from our solar system clearly, you would see that without a doubt the other planets in our solar system are round and spherical. Using logic you can also deduce that the moon and the Earth should be (and, in my factually supported opinion, are) flat. So then, flat Earth society, why would the Earth and the moon be flat? What makes the Earth and the moon different than the rest of the planets in the solar system? And why should you put your faith in a theory that negates logic and says that the Earth is different from every other planet in the solar system, or arguably, the universe? I don't wish to hear why I am wrong, or why Nasa is conspiring against us and that is why all telescopes have been made to show other planets as round, I wish to hear the answers to the questions I asked. Also, this is not the time to blatantly throw out statements with no basis in fact, such as "because you're wrong" and other statements. Happy debating.
 

Read the FAQ.

The fact that you suggested I read the FAQ leads me to believe that you yourself either have not read the FAQ or did not read my post.

Q: "Why are other planets 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.

This is exactly the kind of response I definitely mentioned that I didn't want. Saying that the planet we live on is "special" without any scientific basis is childish.

The fact that you suggested I read the FAQ leads me to believe that you yourself either have not read the FAQ or did not read my post.

Quote

Q: "Why are other planets 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.

This is exactly the kind of response I definitely mentioned that I didn't want. Saying that the planet we live on is "special" without any scientific basis is childish.

You have it quite backwards, though.  The argument that the Earth must be a round planet whirling through space because we observe round planets whirling through space is the one whose logic is flawed.

This is exactly the kind of response I definitely mentioned that I didn't want.

I don't think anyone cares what kind of answer you "want".

So how were the planets formed a spheres and which specific phenomenon occured for the creation of a FE?

(And let's put aside this ridiculous idea that the Moon could be flat).

Dunno.
So how do you know that there can only be one flat celestial body in the universe? I doubt even RE scientists are so bold as to claim they've explored the entire universe.

Well, so far... no flat planet.

Finding plat planets or stars would be a good indication that it is possible. So, just one? Ours?

And the question remains: how could Earth have been created flat, and furthermore almost completely flat (not even as slight "Pringle" effect)?

I already said I don't know.
I also don't know how the chair I'm sitting in has been manufactured or if anyone has an identical chair, and yet I can confirm that my chair exists. I would assume that someone has a chair like mine, but I haven't seen one yet.

Also, no one is saying that the Earth is completely flat. The Ferguson model, in fact, makes it very clear that it's not entirely flat.

The chair example is, of course totally irrelevant, and let's please discard the Ferguson model as completely irrealistic.

The chair example is, of course totally irrelevant

This claim is, of course, absolutely baseless and incorrect. Using one object to draw conclusions about all other objects in a set or vice versa is a logical fallacy.

and let's please discard the Ferguson model as completely irrealistic.

I doubt anyone cares whether or not you consider any models here unrealistic. The point you're trying to miss is that the terms "round"/"spherical" and "flat" are used here loosely.

If you can't see why your example of the chair is totally irrelevant, its togh for you.

And if you knew a little something about physics, you'll new instantly that the Ferguson map is laughable.

Please, more science and logic, les personal attacks.

If you can't see why your example of the chair is totally irrelevant, its togh for you.

And if you knew a little something about physics, you'll new instantly that the Ferguson map is laughable.

Please, more science and logic, les personal attacks.

I didn't use any personal attacks. You, on the other hand, made two in this very post. I emboldened them for you.

And still no science nor logic in your posts.

What makes the Earth and the moon different than the rest of the planets in the solar system?

(Emphasis by me)

Although I am a fervent defender of Round Earth Theory, I must say that this is actually not an argument against FET. By comparing the Earth with the "other" planets, you implicitely suppose that earth itself is a planet - which is the very thing you intend to prove. Calling the earth a planet is natural for round-earthers like you and me, but this is based on the (heliocentric) round earth model.

Originaly, "planētēs astēr" means nothing else than "wandering star", it was a word for certain small wandering objects of the night sky and didn't include earth. Even in the geocentric model, Earth is not considered a planet. It's only the heliocentric RE model that gives you the idea that earth is a planet and should thus to a certain point be similar to "other" planets.

On a forum where the roundness of the earth is discussed, your argument makes no more sense that asking why earth isn't made of steam, like the other clouds.^^

(Btw, the moon isn't a planet in either theory. ^^)

Quote from: TheLogicKing on October 21, 2011, 07:36:36 PM

What makes the Earth and the moon different than the rest of the planets in the solar system?

(Emphasis by me)

Although I am a fervent defender of Round Earth Theory, I must say that this is actually not an argument against FET. By comparing the Earth with the "other" planets, you implicitely suppose that earth itself is a planet - which is the very thing you intend to prove. Calling the earth a planet is natural for round-earthers like you and me, but this is based on the (heliocentric) round earth model.

Originaly, "planētēs astēr" means nothing else than "wandering star", it was a word for certain small wandering objects of the night sky and didn't include earth. Even in the geocentric model, Earth is not considered a planet. It's only the heliocentric RE model that gives you the idea that earth is a planet and should thus to a certain point be similar to "other" planets.

On a forum where the roundness of the earth is discussed, your argument makes no more sense that asking why earth isn't made of steam, like the other clouds.^^

(Btw, the moon isn't a planet in either theory. ^^)

I tried telling them that, but apparently there's no science nor logic in this reasoning.
Granted, what you said is absolutely true.

Still, trajectories of the planets indicate strongly that the planets of our solar system (including the Earth) revolve around the sun.

694 extrasolar planets have been observed. and around 100 billion stars. The probability that the earth is the only flat planet would be 0.144% and out of all celestial bodies we have observed none are flat so the probability of the earth being the only flat celestial body is 0.000000001%. If you want to count all the celestial bodies we estimate there are there is a 0.00000000001% chance that the earth is the only thing in the universe that is flat.

694 extrasolar planets have been observed. and around 100 billion stars. The probability that the earth is the only flat planet would be 0.144% and out of all celestial bodies we have observed none are flat so the probability of the earth being the only flat celestial body is 0.000000001%. If you want to count all the celestial bodies we estimate there are there is a 0.00000000001% chance that the earth is the only thing in the universe that is flat.

Meh, exactly the same could be said for life on earth. From a Zetetic standpoint, I am alive. Life must be possible. Earth is flat, flat celestial bodies must be possible.

Pure syllogism!

Yes but we have absolute proof of life on Earth. Besides, just from looking through a telescope at other planets we cannot be completely sure if there is or isn't life on other planets. Also conditions have to be right for life on other planets, so the comparison between life on Earth and the probability of Earth being the only flat celestial body in the universe observed thus far is completely obsolete.

I would like to point out that my question has yet to be answered. And, to once again ask a question that EmperorZhark asked, if the other planets (and all observed celestial bodies) are round and ours just happens to be flat, what makes other bodies round in the absence of gravity? And what makes ours round? If you are going to blindly assert facts to be true without searching why these facts are true, then you are not helping prove the flat Earth theory. Remember, even if you are to believe that the round Earth theory is false, round Earthers have at least sought to prove why celestial bodies are round and, until proved wrong, succeeded.

It is likely that a flat celestial body is a prerequisite for life. Life does not exist on any of the round ones we have observed. When we find another flat celestial body, that would likely be a place with a better chance of finding life.

It is likely that a flat celestial body is a prerequisite for life.

Says who ?

And you're witing for this: evidence?

It is logical. The only life yet found has been on a flat celestial body. Therefore that would seem a good place to look.

Thork, if you are going to get mad when we state a scientific fact that the Earth is round, you cannot say with absoluteness that the Earth is flat. Also, why would flat bodies be more suited for life than spherical?


On a different note, not one person has answered any of the questions posed in the first post. As usual, you have been dodging them. So here they are again.

Why would the Earth and the moon be flat? What makes the Earth different than the rest of the planets in the solar system?
Why should you put your faith in a theory that negates logic and says that the Earth is different from every other planet in the solar system, or arguably, the universe?

...that the Earth is different from every other planet in the solar system...?

From Round-Earther to Round-Earther: Could you please stop using the claim "earth is one of the planets" as premisse? Your argumentation is based on the assumption that earth is a planet - but that's what you are trying to prove. Like it or not, Flat-Earthers do not consider earth a planet, so an argument based on earth being one of the planets doesn't contribute anything to this discussion.
 
There are a lot of arguments against FE - but by using fallacies against FE you're not helping. Thank you.

It is logical. The only life yet found has been on a flat celestial body. Therefore that would seem a good place to look.

Again a syllogism (but even weaker that the previous one).

It is logical. The only life yet found has been on a flat celestial body.

Read the FAQ.  The flat earth is not a celestial body.

I think that the earth is ontop of a dog and that is why the people on earth are in love with dogs and hate cats. Oh and the dog is flat and thats why dogs have bones so they can give the flat dog a 3D structure but it never happens. See, it makes more sense than that stupid earth is round. Why do we love dogs, because the world is a dog, not some stupid calculations and fake satelite imagery by the fbi suggesting the earth is round.

Quote from: Thork on October 22, 2011, 01:26:25 PM

It is logical. The only life yet found has been on a flat celestial body.

Read the FAQ.  The flat earth is not a celestial body.

Do not pigeon hole my beliefs. I am allowed to draw whichever conclusions seem most suitable to my understanding of the universe. As you well know, the FAQ needs some major work done. I will stick with my reasoned statement thank you.