Is earth the only flat planet?

They simply believe that those things circle the Earth.

Quote from: tomstar on October 03, 2013, 08:02:57 AM

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.

Jroa, greeting! Of course, the Rounder response would be that we have only observed a very few planets.

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?

Earth is certainly special but not necessarily unique, especially in terms of the only attribute we've ever seen that determines shape, MASS.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 10:05:15 AM

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.

Quote

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?

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?

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 10:10:54 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 10:05:15 AM

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.

Quote from: jroa

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.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 10:41:14 AM

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.

Quote from: jroa

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?

Kind of like how the magical gravitrons reach up and pull me down onto my chair.  I see.

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:12:13 AM

Kind of like how the magical gravitrons reach up and pull me down onto my chair.  I see.

Who said anything about gravitons?

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:13:45 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:12:13 AM

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?

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:16:27 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:13:45 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:12:13 AM

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.

Quote

1. Is your mirror reflection a real physical body of you or just an image?

An image, of course. Ok.

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:20:12 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:16:27 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:13:45 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:12:13 AM

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?

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:25:35 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:20:12 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:16:27 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:13:45 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:12:13 AM

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.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:45:19 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:25:35 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:20:12 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:16:27 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:13:45 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:12:13 AM

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.

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:51:32 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:45:19 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:25:35 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:20:12 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:16:27 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:13:45 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:12:13 AM

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.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:57:50 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:51:32 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:45:19 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:25:35 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:20:12 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:16:27 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 03, 2013, 11:13:45 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 03, 2013, 11:12:13 AM

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.

How can you be sure that you are not looking at reflections?

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Excelsior John on October 03, 2013, 04:41:36 AM

Quote from: 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?

I beleive in the Tychonic system which puts the sun revolving around the earth and the planets revolving around the sun

Quote from: tomstar on October 03, 2013, 02:04:00 AM

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.