A uniform universe

After a quick think I realised that most of the evidence against this comes from the stars, sun, aka celestial objects. Here are the obvious facts everyone knows, (you can work this out by looking through a telescope):

• There are other planets in the solar system
• They all rotate about an axis
• Most of the planets have natural satellites
• These satellites seem to orbit the planet
• These bodies rotate themselves too
• Hence, they must be spherical
• Deduced from the fact that you can observe the surface of the planet, and when it rotates you see a different surface of the planet before it carries on rotating until you see the same pattern

So, concluded, all other celestial bodies are spherical (so far, in our solar system), leading to the fact that if the other planets in our solar system have satellites exactly as the Earth does with the Moon, then why think the Earth behaves in a different way? The Earth has the Moon (and just so happens we don't see it rotate due to the collision theory a few billion years ago).

To make my point clear, and my thread title clear. I have not touched on other aspects of the universe, e.g. Galaxies, exoplanets and other star systems (I don't want to start a debate on this, I want to stick to our solid evidence which cannot be argued. Since a lot cannot be observed directly from home). If the Solar System is uniform, every planet orbits the sun, with the planets having moons orbiting them. Then what drives people to believe that the Earth does not follow this rule of other planets, everything orbits the Earth which is totally counter-intuitive. Gravity is such a simple concept, which explains why certain things orbit other things. So how can an accelerating Earth be true if every object we see above follows the rule of Gravity?

I hope you can make sense of what I'm saying.

I think the general answers are:

The Earth is not the same kind of entity as the other planets (fair enough), gravity either exists on a smaller level or doesn't exist and planets are moved by other forces, or that the planets may not be spherical and we don't see them in enough detail to confirm we see several faces (or those photos are part of the conspiracy).

There are a lot of models. Plus FEers take issue with gravity sometimes.

The Earth is not the same kind of entity as the other planets

So why do FE'ers think the Earth is a different entity, when if we modelled the Earth like other planets with orbiting bodies then it would match up perfectly?

Quote from: Jane on January 26, 2016, 02:22:12 PM

The Earth is not the same kind of entity as the other planets

So why do FE'ers think the Earth is a different entity, when if we modelled the Earth like other planets with orbiting bodies then it would match up perfectly?

They don't think it works. There's usually not much more detail than that, the main (or at least most repeated) argument is that the world doesn't look flat, or it being flat doesn't make immediate sensory sense.

If the Solar System is uniform, every planet orbits the sun, with the planets having moons orbiting them. Then what drives people to believe that the Earth does not follow this rule of other planets

Using your logic:
Since every other planet in the Solar System is devoid of life (as far as we know), and the Solar System is uniform, then the Earth must also be devoid of life.

Seems to me that the Earth is not like the other planets.

Quote from: matty on January 26, 2016, 01:16:24 PM

If the Solar System is uniform, every planet orbits the sun, with the planets having moons orbiting them. Then what drives people to believe that the Earth does not follow this rule of other planets

Using your logic:
Since every other planet in the Solar System is devoid of life (as far as we know), and the Solar System is uniform, then the Earth must also be devoid of life.

Seems to me that the Earth is not like the other planets.

Being or not being devoid of life is not a property of a planet, but a property of the environment on a planet. And a lot of planets (and moons) could potentially have microorganisms on them, so life. And we know (have observed) that the environment of planets can vary greatly from each other, so why wouldn't earths environment vary greatly from other planets?

If I look up at the sky, I see stars and the Sun. Should I conclude that the Earth is a star?

I'm with the FEers on this one. the argument that the earth must be the same as one particular class of object we see in the sky is a terrible one, end of. It comes from supposing that the Earth is the same as those planets (ie: supposing RET) which is an awful ground on which to base any argument.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 26, 2016, 08:37:49 PM

Quote from: matty on January 26, 2016, 01:16:24 PM

If the Solar System is uniform, every planet orbits the sun, with the planets having moons orbiting them. Then what drives people to believe that the Earth does not follow this rule of other planets

Using your logic:
Since every other planet in the Solar System is devoid of life (as far as we know), and the Solar System is uniform, then the Earth must also be devoid of life.

Seems to me that the Earth is not like the other planets.

Being or not being devoid of life is not a property of a planet, but a property of the environment on a planet. And a lot of planets (and moons) could potentially have microorganisms on them, so life. And we know (have observed) that the environment of planets can vary greatly from each other, so why wouldn't earths environment vary greatly from other planets?

So you agree the OP's logic is not sound.  Thanks.

If I look up at the sky, I see stars and the Sun. Should I conclude that the Earth is a star?

I'm with the FEers on this one. the argument that the earth must be the same as one particular class of object we see in the sky is a terrible one, end of. It comes from supposing that the Earth is the same as those planets (ie: supposing RET) which is an awful ground on which to base any argument.

I don't know all the flat Earth theories, I've heard many which to me just seem silly e.g. Duel Earth Theory, but where do you come on the fact there might be (supposing FET) that there are objects like the Earth, or is Earth the soley the only object which everything revolves around, the only one which accelerates downwards.

Quote from: matty on January 26, 2016, 01:16:24 PM

If the Solar System is uniform, every planet orbits the sun, with the planets having moons orbiting them. Then what drives people to believe that the Earth does not follow this rule of other planets

Using your logic:
Since every other planet in the Solar System is devoid of life (as far as we know), and the Solar System is uniform, then the Earth must also be devoid of life.

Seems to me that the Earth is not like the other planets.

So you're saying because other planets are lacking life, and the Earth doesn't, then the Earth works totally different. The Earth behaves exactly like other planets; it rotates, has natural satellites etc... The reason it has life is because of the conditions on the planet e.g. range of temperatures, atmospheric composition etc... I'm not sure on FE'ers views on this, but if they believe going to the moon is a conspiracy, then it's impossible to make them believe there is life on other planets if we do find there is. Does that mean if we actually do find life on other planets then it must behave on the rules of FE. Or will FE'ers disregard this as a conspiracy. And can you give a logical argument to why we cannot consider the Earth is the same as other planets? (Just because other planets aren't proven to have life doesn't mean it cannot be a planet)

So you agree that the Earth is different than the other planets.  Now we are getting somewhere.

Using your logic:
Since every other planet in the Solar System is devoid of life (as far as we know), and the Solar System is uniform, then the Earth must also be devoid of life.

Seems to me that the Earth is not like the other planets.

What we do have though, is a pretty good explanation of why complex life as we know it cant exist on the the planets we have examed closely, and a pretty good explanation of why earth and other celestal objects are the way they are. Unless you can give a pretty good argument as to why earth should be different from these other objects, claiming that your example use the same logic is quite a stretch...at best. You are simply dodging the question and debunking a strawman.

So you agree that the Earth is different than the other planets.  Now we are getting somewhere.

Yes, and Mars is different to Jupiter, what's your point?

OP's statement:
We have observed other planets as spherical.  Therefore the Earth is spherical.

My statement:
We have observed other planets to not have life.  Therefore the Earth does not have life.

Conclusion:
The Earth is not like the other planets.

Quote from: Jane on January 27, 2016, 02:56:25 AM

If I look up at the sky, I see stars and the Sun. Should I conclude that the Earth is a star?

I'm with the FEers on this one. the argument that the earth must be the same as one particular class of object we see in the sky is a terrible one, end of. It comes from supposing that the Earth is the same as those planets (ie: supposing RET) which is an awful ground on which to base any argument.

I don't know all the flat Earth theories, I've heard many which to me just seem silly e.g. Duel Earth Theory, but where do you come on the fact there might be (supposing FET) that there are objects like the Earth, or is Earth the soley the only object which everything revolves around, the only one which accelerates downwards.

To be fair, the Dual Earth guy actually makes more of an effort to answer some questions that most FEers.
The Earth is accelerating upwards (under some models: some have no acceleration at all), not downwards, under FET, and it's the only one local to us. I don't think we're meant to be able to see any other such discs.
It makes sense though. With the acceleration model, the Earth alters its surroundings enough that we wouldn't expect something similar to form. If there were other discs, they'd be far beyond the stars, and probably wouldn't give off light from the underside, so why would we be able to see them?

OP's statement:
We have observed other planets as spherical.  Therefore the Earth is spherical.

My statement:
We have observed other planets to not have life.  Therefore the Earth does not have life.

Conclusion:
The Earth is not like the other planets.

Instead of being so stubborn, try considering everything I said. What I'm trying to say is Earth has more similarities with other planets, than not.

For RET

• Earth rotates, other planets rotate
• Earth has an atomosphere, other planets have atmospheres
• Earth has craters other planets have craters
• Earth has natural satellites, other planets have natural satalites
• Earth has gravity, other planets have gravity
• Earth has water, other planets have water (FE'ers certainly would argue against this but we have found water-ice for definite)
• Earth has volcanoes, other planets (and moons) have volcanoes

For FET

• Earth has life/plants, other planets don't have life or plants
• ...any FE'ers to carry this on? Either I can't think of any more, or more simply don't exist

P.s. this just brought up a new point, if we have witnessed foreign objects (Venus and Io especially) have volcanic eruptions, and they are spherical, and Earth has volcanoes too, only another reason. Also I don't know what FE'ers say about volcanoes but I'd rather not drift too off topic.

What I'm trying to say is Earth has more similarities with other planets, than not.

In RET, as your examples show. That's irrelevant to FET. Seriously, there are plenty of good arguments for RET, stop wasting time on terrible ones.

Quote from: matty on January 27, 2016, 12:04:17 PM

What I'm trying to say is Earth has more similarities with other planets, than not.

In RET, as your examples show. That's irrelevant to FET. Seriously, there are plenty of good arguments for RET, stop wasting time on terrible ones.

Yes, that's one of the problems I'm trying to address, a different type of proof, hence 'A uniform universe', I know there are lots of arguments for RET, which are based on physics calculations and visual observations on the Earth. I am suggesting to look at the bigger picture. When you look at the solar system, how planets have moons that orbit eachother , it all works, so why does the Earth not fit this. This is I guess, a slightly more philosophical view, rather than proved via calculations.

OP's statement:
We have observed other planets as spherical.  Therefore the Earth is spherical.

My statement:
We have observed other planets to not have life.  Therefore the Earth does not have life.

Conclusion:
The Earth is not like the other planets.

No.

Its more like:

OP: "We have a theory that explains why all planets must be close to spherical, and there are observations that back it up. Why abondon that for a theory that cant explain what it claims?"

You: "Continuing the logic of something the OP didnt claim, leads to logical inconsistencies".

Quote from: Jane on January 27, 2016, 12:10:41 PM

Quote from: matty on January 27, 2016, 12:04:17 PM

What I'm trying to say is Earth has more similarities with other planets, than not.

In RET, as your examples show. That's irrelevant to FET. Seriously, there are plenty of good arguments for RET, stop wasting time on terrible ones.

Yes, that's one of the problems I'm trying to address, a different type of proof, hence 'A uniform universe', I know there are lots of arguments for RET, which are based on physics calculations and visual observations on the Earth. I am suggesting to look at the bigger picture. When you look at the solar system, how planets have moons that orbit eachother , it all works, so why does the Earth not fit this. This is I guess, a slightly more philosophical view, rather than proved via calculations.

It's not different, it's been done before, and it didn't make sense then either. How the rest of the universe looks depends on which model you hold. Observations made under the RE model don't exactly mean much for the FE model.
And I wouldn't advise basing any argument in "The RE model works," many FEers take issue with that.

It's not different, it's been done before, and it didn't make sense then either. How the rest of the universe looks depends on which model you hold. Observations made under the RE model don't exactly mean much for the FE model.
And I wouldn't advise basing any argument in "The RE model works," many FEers take issue with that.

This is probably going to start another debate, since I'm drifting greatly from my main point which no one can seem to reasonably argue with, but societies current accepted model of RE, for classical mechanics is a solid theory. Every type of motion can be explained. Kepler's laws, all proved. FE theory has holes everywhere, you can explain how some things work, but doesn't explain other phenonema, and vice-versa with oher FE theories. It seems people are inventing more and more complicated ways of explaining the flat Earth theory when the round Earth theory makes perfect sense.

It's not different, it's been done before, and it didn't make sense then either. How the rest of the universe looks depends on which model you hold. Observations made under the RE model don't exactly mean much for the FE model.
And I wouldn't advise basing any argument in "The RE model works," many FEers take issue with that.

I am not sure that i understand what that means Jane...observations are observations, they are made under whatever system is the one we actually live in?

Sure, you can try to make sense of them in the context of different systems, but how are the observations themselves relative to RE/FE?

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 27, 2016, 11:48:26 AM

OP's statement:
We have observed other planets as spherical.  Therefore the Earth is spherical.

My statement:
We have observed other planets to not have life.  Therefore the Earth does not have life.

Conclusion:
The Earth is not like the other planets.

No.

Its more like:

OP: "We have a theory that explains why all planets must be close to spherical, and there are observations that back it up. Why abondon that for a theory that cant explain what it claims?"

You: "Continuing the logic of something the OP didnt claim, leads to logical inconsistencies".

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 26, 2016, 08:37:49 PM

Using your logic:
Since every other planet in the Solar System is devoid of life (as far as we know), and the Solar System is uniform, then the Earth must also be devoid of life.

Seems to me that the Earth is not like the other planets.

What we do have though, is a pretty good explanation of why complex life as we know it cant exist on the the planets we have examed closely, and a pretty good explanation of why earth and other celestal objects are the way they are. Unless you can give a pretty good argument as to why earth should be different from these other objects, claiming that your example use the same logic is quite a stretch...at best. You are simply dodging the question and debunking a strawman.

Exactly, I started this thread hoping I would get some logical arguments from some FE'ers, I'm starting to think they can't challenge them.

Why should the Earth be different from other planets? Concluding what j79 said, I am backed up by evidence which can be found through a telescope at home, that was my original idea, I'm only using absolutely solid evidence in an attempt to solidify it, no one has yet thrown evidence to counteract this yet.

Even IF a FE appeared, we wouldn't be able to convince him. It's confirmation bias: http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm

I am not sure that i understand what that means Jane...observations are observations, they are made under whatever system is the one we actually live in?

Sure, you can try to make sense of them in the context of different systems, but how are the observations themselves relative to RE/FE?

Well, for one easy example, take the relationship between the Sun and Earth. Under RET, the Earth goes around the Sun. Under FET, that's impossible: shifting the shape of the Earth shifts everything. Observations are observations, but they mean different things depending on where you're observing from.
Take Eratosthenes' famous experiment. if you observe from a sphere with a distant Sun, then the angle variation between shadows gives the curvature of the Earth. If you observe from a flat disc, it gives the distance to the Sun.

We might've been using words differently. The facts of what's observed have to be fixed, but the immediate consequences of those observations are drastically different.

This is probably going to start another debate, since I'm drifting greatly from my main point which no one can seem to reasonably argue with, but societies current accepted model of RE, for classical mechanics is a solid theory. Every type of motion can be explained. Kepler's laws, all proved. FE theory has holes everywhere, you can explain how some things work, but doesn't explain other phenonema, and vice-versa with oher FE theories. It seems people are inventing more and more complicated ways of explaining the flat Earth theory when the round Earth theory makes perfect sense.

They disagree, it's that simple.

Even IF a FE appeared, we wouldn't be able to convince him. It's confirmation bias: http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm

Indeed, I was going to mention this. TheEngineer is a forum moderator, and his low-quality posts are making me ponder the fact he is just here for fun.

Quote from: matty on January 27, 2016, 01:52:58 PM

This is probably going to start another debate, since I'm drifting greatly from my main point which no one can seem to reasonably argue with, but societies current accepted model of RE, for classical mechanics is a solid theory. Every type of motion can be explained. Kepler's laws, all proved. FE theory has holes everywhere, you can explain how some things work, but doesn't explain other phenonema, and vice-versa with oher FE theories. It seems people are inventing more and more complicated ways of explaining the flat Earth theory when the round Earth theory makes perfect sense.

They disagree, it's that simple.

They can't disagree without a reason, quote from big bang theory "I don't know how this is scored, but I believe we may have won".

Quote from: n37 on January 27, 2016, 02:21:28 PM

Even IF a FE appeared, we wouldn't be able to convince him. It's confirmation bias: http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/confirmation_bias.htm

Indeed, I was going to mention this. TheEngineer is a forum moderator, and his low-quality posts are making me ponder the fact he is just here for fun.

The fact that a lot of FE's write things in a very simular way is also making me ponder if they aren't just five people with 20 fake accounts.

They can't disagree without a reason, quote from big bang theory "I don't know how this is scored, but I believe we may have won".

They have reasons. Good reasons, now that's a different question. If you want specific examples, the search function can probably provide some. The most repeated example would be how gravity failed to explain certain observations and dark matter was supposed.

Indeed, I was going to mention this. TheEngineer is a forum moderator, and his low-quality posts are making me ponder the fact he is just here for fun.

Most people are here for fun. That's what forums are generally for. Enjoy yourself. You'll be beating your head against the wall otherwise.

Well, for one easy example, take the relationship between the Sun and Earth. Under RET, the Earth goes around the Sun. Under FET, that's impossible: shifting the shape of the Earth shifts everything. Observations are observations, but they mean different things depending on where you're observing from.
Take Eratosthenes' famous experiment. if you observe from a sphere with a distant Sun, then the angle variation between shadows gives the curvature of the Earth. If you observe from a flat disc, it gives the distance to the Sun.

We might've been using words differently. The facts of what's observed have to be fixed, but the immediate consequences of those observations are drastically different.

Ok, i get it, thanks. But that brings me back to my original point: you can always reject a RE-centric interpretation of an observation, but never the observation itself. Which is why it, at least to me, seems like a bad trade, id go as far as saying bad science actually, to reject a theory that explains almost all our observations for one that does not come anywhere near that, with no evidence that that theory in other heavily significant areas are closer to the truth.

Am i overinterpreting you if i get the feeling that science isnt always acknowledged as such around here?

Quote from: matty on January 27, 2016, 02:27:06 PM

Indeed, I was going to mention this. TheEngineer is a forum moderator, and his low-quality posts are making me ponder the fact he is just here for fun.

Most people are here for fun. That's what forums are generally for. Enjoy yourself. You'll be beating your head against the wall otherwise.

Haha yes, I came her last year to debate this topic because I found it fun, no matter how stupid I think some of it is, I debate it for fun, the reason why I'm hear. It just makes me wonder if people are actually being serious. Also, there has not been any good reasons I have seen.