Earth the ONLY flat astronomical object?

"Blah blah blah, the Earth is special, blah blah what makes you think it should be the same as EVERYthing else we observe blah blah..."

These are the answers I expect to this question, but I'd like to know why there are no other observable disc-shaped planets? I mean, I realise that there are only 5 planets visible to the average astronomer...some who have more powerful scopes can observe Uranus and Neptune, but I think it's generally accepted amongst FErs that these other bodies are spherical (it's fairly easy to observe)...so why do none of these planets have similar properties to your Flat Earth? Is it not more likely that we all formed in the same way?

I watch Jupiter rotate and its moon's orbit it, through my back yard reflector scope so we know it's possible and we have done for centuries, so why is it so hard for you to believe that it could happen here on our world?

What are stars if not distant suns?

Under DET, it's down to how the Earth was formed. That alters the surroundings enough to ensure a flat object could not occur nearby.

If there are any other flat worlds, they would be an incredible distance away: likely too far to be able to confirm.

Mercury, Venus, Mars through Neptune are not the same class of object as the Earth. there is no reason to call both them and the Earth planets, save presupposing a connection (ie: presupposing RET).

Under DET, it's down to how the Earth was formed. That alters the surroundings enough to ensure a flat object could not occur nearby.

If there are any other flat worlds, they would be an incredible distance away: likely too far to be able to confirm.

Mercury, Venus, Mars through Neptune are not the same class of object as the Earth. there is no reason to call both them and the Earth planets, save presupposing a connection (ie: presupposing RET).

However, Mercury, Venus and Mars are rocky planets surrounding us... Occam's Razor?...

Which has just made me think... How are transits of Venus and Mercury explained if the Sun is only 3000miles up?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 23, 2016, 01:50:23 PM

Under DET, it's down to how the Earth was formed. That alters the surroundings enough to ensure a flat object could not occur nearby.

If there are any other flat worlds, they would be an incredible distance away: likely too far to be able to confirm.

Mercury, Venus, Mars through Neptune are not the same class of object as the Earth. there is no reason to call both them and the Earth planets, save presupposing a connection (ie: presupposing RET).

However, Mercury, Venus and Mars are rocky planets surrounding us... Occam's Razor?...

Which has just made me think... How are transits of Venus and Mercury explained if the Sun is only 3000miles up?

Once again, Mercury, Venus and Mars are not planets in the same way as the Earth unless you presuppose RET, there is no reason to suppose that connection. Presupposing also the RE model for them is a waste of time. Occam's razor applies only to competing theories: claiming the Earth must be the same as a random object in the sky, just because it's made of rock, is an assumption, just as the converse is.
The Sun is not 3000 miles up under the DE model, the details are more complex.

Quote from: richaddis on February 23, 2016, 02:00:21 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 23, 2016, 01:50:23 PM

Under DET, it's down to how the Earth was formed. That alters the surroundings enough to ensure a flat object could not occur nearby.

If there are any other flat worlds, they would be an incredible distance away: likely too far to be able to confirm.

Mercury, Venus, Mars through Neptune are not the same class of object as the Earth. there is no reason to call both them and the Earth planets, save presupposing a connection (ie: presupposing RET).

However, Mercury, Venus and Mars are rocky planets surrounding us... Occam's Razor?...

Which has just made me think... How are transits of Venus and Mercury explained if the Sun is only 3000miles up?

Once again, Mercury, Venus and Mars are not planets in the same way as the Earth unless you presuppose RET, there is no reason to suppose that connection. Presupposing also the RE model for them is a waste of time. Occam's razor applies only to competing theories: claiming the Earth must be the same as a random object in the sky, just because it's made of rock, is an assumption, just as the converse is.
The Sun is not 3000 miles up under the DE model, the details are more complex.

Presupposing that the giant rocky object that we inhabit follows the same laws of physics as other giant rocky objects is not as far fetched as to presuppose that it differs! And I'm not presupposing that they are spherical, I have observed it.

I'm really reaching out to Flat-Earthers for answers though JRowe...I know very little about the DET.  I'm challenging the standard FE model which has the Sun and Moon circling 3000 miles over head.

Any Flat Earthers have a rebuttal?

Presupposing that the giant rocky object that we inhabit follows the same laws of physics as other giant rocky objects is not as far fetched as to presuppose that it differs! And I'm not presupposing that they are spherical, I have observed it.

Why would they need to follow different laws of physics? The same laws create different objects. Under RET, the Sun (a star) allows the creation of planets. under DET, and several classical FET, the existence of the Earth (a flat surface) allows the creation of the other objects.
I am not saying planets are not spherical.

I'm really reaching out to Flat-Earthers for answers though JRowe...I know very little about the DET.  I'm challenging the standard FE model which has the Sun and Moon circling 3000 miles over head.

Any Flat Earthers have a rebuttal?

DET is the only working FE model. Circumpolar stars demonstrate that.
If you want to ask about transits specifically, dedicate a thread to the topic, not a post several entries down an otherwise unrelated thread.

Quote from: richaddis on February 23, 2016, 02:16:22 PM

Presupposing that the giant rocky object that we inhabit follows the same laws of physics as other giant rocky objects is not as far fetched as to presuppose that it differs! And I'm not presupposing that they are spherical, I have observed it.

Why would they need to follow different laws of physics? The same laws create different objects. Under RET, the Sun (a star) allows the creation of planets. under DET, and several classical FET, the existence of the Earth (a flat surface) allows the creation of the other objects.
I am not saying planets are not spherical.

Quote

I'm really reaching out to Flat-Earthers for answers though JRowe...I know very little about the DET.  I'm challenging the standard FE model which has the Sun and Moon circling 3000 miles over head.

Any Flat Earthers have a rebuttal?

DET is the only working FE model. Circumpolar stars demonstrate that.
If you want to ask about transits specifically, dedicate a thread to the topic, not a post several entries down an otherwise unrelated thread.

Ok, I'll accept that is somewhat of a deviation.

I would still like an advocate of the more standard FE model to supply a response to the original post though regarding the other observable planets...

I would still like an advocate of the more standard FE model to supply a response to the original post though regarding the other observable planets...

The answer will be the same, especially under the acceleration model.

"Why would they need to follow different laws of physics? The same laws create different objects. Under RET, the Sun (a star) allows the creation of planets. under DET, and several classical FET, the existence of the Earth (a flat surface) allows the creation of the other objects."

Quote from: richaddis on February 23, 2016, 02:33:23 PM

I would still like an advocate of the more standard FE model to supply a response to the original post though regarding the other observable planets...

The answer will be the same, especially under the acceleration model.

"Why would they need to follow different laws of physics? The same laws create different objects. Under RET, the Sun (a star) allows the creation of planets. under DET, and several classical FET, the existence of the Earth (a flat surface) allows the creation of the other objects."

But the point, JRowe, is that there are a number of different astronomical categories; Stars (in their different phases and different chemical make-ups) Rocky Planets, Gas Giants, Ice Giants... All of these objects are observed as spherical. NONE of them are flat. To suggest that the Earth should be different because stars are different is a pointless argument because we are a rocky giant just as Mercury, Mars and Venus are.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 23, 2016, 02:37:06 PM

Quote from: richaddis on February 23, 2016, 02:33:23 PM

I would still like an advocate of the more standard FE model to supply a response to the original post though regarding the other observable planets...

The answer will be the same, especially under the acceleration model.

"Why would they need to follow different laws of physics? The same laws create different objects. Under RET, the Sun (a star) allows the creation of planets. under DET, and several classical FET, the existence of the Earth (a flat surface) allows the creation of the other objects."

But the point, JRowe, is that there are a number of different astronomical categories; Stars (in their different phases and different chemical make-ups) Rocky Planets, Gas Giants, Ice Giants... All of these objects are observed as spherical. NONE of them are flat. To suggest that the Earth should be different because stars are different is a pointless argument because we are a rocky giant just as Mercury, Mars and Venus are.

How sure are you that we would be able to 'see' a flat, disc like celestial body, if one existed? Even in our own solar system, if it was presenting an edge on profile, in the outer rim, I think it would be a challenge to find.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 23, 2016, 02:37:06 PM

Quote from: richaddis on February 23, 2016, 02:33:23 PM

I would still like an advocate of the more standard FE model to supply a response to the original post though regarding the other observable planets...

The answer will be the same, especially under the acceleration model.

"Why would they need to follow different laws of physics? The same laws create different objects. Under RET, the Sun (a star) allows the creation of planets. under DET, and several classical FET, the existence of the Earth (a flat surface) allows the creation of the other objects."

But the point, JRowe, is that there are a number of different astronomical categories; Stars (in their different phases and different chemical make-ups) Rocky Planets, Gas Giants, Ice Giants... All of these objects are observed as spherical. NONE of them are flat. To suggest that the Earth should be different because stars are different is a pointless argument because we are a rocky giant just as Mercury, Mars and Venus are.

We are not a rocky giant like those planets unless you assume we're the same class of being. Stop presupposing RET, it's one of the most tiresome RE tactics. If your sole argument is "We're both made of rock," then I think it's pretty clear to everyone there's no actual logical path.
Once again, the presence of a flat world ALLOWS THE CREATION of the rounder objects. EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING IS PRECISELY AS IT WOULD BE EXPECTED UNDER A FE MODEL.

Quote from: richaddis on February 23, 2016, 02:48:16 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 23, 2016, 02:37:06 PM

Quote from: richaddis on February 23, 2016, 02:33:23 PM

I would still like an advocate of the more standard FE model to supply a response to the original post though regarding the other observable planets...

The answer will be the same, especially under the acceleration model.

"Why would they need to follow different laws of physics? The same laws create different objects. Under RET, the Sun (a star) allows the creation of planets. under DET, and several classical FET, the existence of the Earth (a flat surface) allows the creation of the other objects."

But the point, JRowe, is that there are a number of different astronomical categories; Stars (in their different phases and different chemical make-ups) Rocky Planets, Gas Giants, Ice Giants... All of these objects are observed as spherical. NONE of them are flat. To suggest that the Earth should be different because stars are different is a pointless argument because we are a rocky giant just as Mercury, Mars and Venus are.

How sure are you that we would be able to 'see' a flat, disc like celestial body, if one existed? Even in our own solar system, if it was presenting an edge on profile, in the outer rim, I think it would be a challenge to find.

Finally, an actual debate rather than just "you're wrong, it's not the way you think it is but I have no argument to back up my claims"...

That's a good point, if may be difficult to observe. But we'd be pretty unlucky if all flat objects happened to be side-on to us wouldn't we?! Surely they'd move in relation to us allowing us to see an oval shape?

Massive objects have their own set of physical laws in the same way that minuscule objects do. They form in the same way, move in the same way and look the same. So it's not hard to believe that the Earth would do the same thing as all the other similar objects, of similar size, that we observe. It's fairly egotistical to assume that we're special!

Finally, an actual debate rather than just "you're wrong, it's not the way you think it is but I have no argument to back up my claims"...

Try to see it from the other side, as difficult as it seems. Advancement and knowledge is the child of an open mind.

That's a good point, if may be difficult to observe. But we'd be pretty unlucky if all flat objects happened to be side-on to us wouldn't we?! Surely they'd move in relation to us allowing us to see an oval shape?

Well, we are not unlucky. Galaxies are flat, and we see plenty of those. If you look at our "Currently Accepted" model of the solar system, if there were to be a flat planet, it would stand to reason that it would be presenting an "edge on" profile to us.
As far as FET goes, If I were to believe it, we would be quite unique in the way of things. But that's my opinion. Another FET believer would be better suited to answer that.

And then there is DET. Follow the link in Jrowes sig to read about it. I am currently reading it, and find it quite fascinating.

Massive objects have their own set of physical laws in the same way that minuscule objects do. They form in the same way, move in the same way and look the same. So it's not hard to believe that the Earth would do the same thing as all the other similar objects, of similar size, that we observe. It's fairly egotistical to assume that we're special!

But we are special, regardless of what shape the earth is. You are a Round Earther, such as myself. Can you tell me how many planets we have found with signs of civilized life? . . I think the answer to that makes us special.

Finally, an actual debate rather than just "you're wrong, it's not the way you think it is but I have no argument to back up my claims"...

That's a good point, if may be difficult to observe. But we'd be pretty unlucky if all flat objects happened to be side-on to us wouldn't we?! Surely they'd move in relation to us allowing us to see an oval shape?

Massive objects have their own set of physical laws in the same way that minuscule objects do. They form in the same way, move in the same way and look the same. So it's not hard to believe that the Earth would do the same thing as all the other similar objects, of similar size, that we observe. It's fairly egotistical to assume that we're special!

What the hell are you on about? You're mounting a proof by contradiction: trying to expose a contradiction or flaw in the opposing model. Clearly then, what matters is how things are under that model, not a completely irrelevant one.

Your argument's been defeated, it's that simple, and you don't just get to evade the fact there is no logic whatsoever to your claims. When what you propose is EXACTLY WHAT WOULD BE PREDICTED by a model, how does that in any way imply the model is somehow wrong?!

Quote from: richaddis on February 23, 2016, 02:33:23 PM

Finally, an actual debate rather than just "you're wrong, it's not the way you think it is but I have no argument to back up my claims"...

Try to see it from the other side, as difficult as it seems. Advancement and knowledge is the child of an open mind.

Quote from: richaddis on February 23, 2016, 02:33:23 PM

That's a good point, if may be difficult to observe. But we'd be pretty unlucky if all flat objects happened to be side-on to us wouldn't we?! Surely they'd move in relation to us allowing us to see an oval shape?

Well, we are not unlucky. Galaxies are flat, and we see plenty of those. If you look at our "Currently Accepted" model of the solar system, if there were to be a flat planet, it would stand to reason that it would be presenting an "edge on" profile to us.
As far as FET goes, If I were to believe it, we would be quite unique in the way of things. But that's my opinion. Another FET believer would be better suited to answer that.

And then there is DET. Follow the link in Jrowes sig to read about it. I am currently reading it, and find it quite fascinating.

Quote from: richaddis on February 23, 2016, 02:33:23 PM

Massive objects have their own set of physical laws in the same way that minuscule objects do. They form in the same way, move in the same way and look the same. So it's not hard to believe that the Earth would do the same thing as all the other similar objects, of similar size, that we observe. It's fairly egotistical to assume that we're special!

But we are special, regardless of what shape the earth is. You are a Round Earther, such as myself. Can you tell me how many planets we have found with signs of civilized life? . . I think the answer to that makes us special.

You can't draw a comparison to the flatness of a galaxy or a solar system because they are not singular objects. They are a series of spherical objects orbiting around a much larger object. Orbit happens around a central point so a number of objects orbiting at varying distances will appear disk shaped but in reality the system as a whole is fluid and moving at different paces. Take Saturn, its main body is spherical but its orbiting objects appear disc shaped when In fact we know that they are many icy lumps orbiting. It's like comparing the qualities of a solid to that of a liquid.

There is good reasoning to why our planet is inhabited. It meets the appropriate conditions for carbon based life forms. That isn't to say that life forms formed from other compounds couldn't exist elsewhere, we just haven't discovered them yet (or if you follow the doctrine that NASA are lying to us then maybe we have!). Perhaps there is life on the rocky moons of Jupiter and Saturn... We don't know yet but I'm sure that in our lifetimes we will. And then our Earth will seem less special and a little more... Ordinary.

Quote from: richaddis on February 24, 2016, 02:52:36 AM

Finally, an actual debate rather than just "you're wrong, it's not the way you think it is but I have no argument to back up my claims"...

That's a good point, if may be difficult to observe. But we'd be pretty unlucky if all flat objects happened to be side-on to us wouldn't we?! Surely they'd move in relation to us allowing us to see an oval shape?

Massive objects have their own set of physical laws in the same way that minuscule objects do. They form in the same way, move in the same way and look the same. So it's not hard to believe that the Earth would do the same thing as all the other similar objects, of similar size, that we observe. It's fairly egotistical to assume that we're special!

What the hell are you on about? You're mounting a proof by contradiction: trying to expose a contradiction or flaw in the opposing model. Clearly then, what matters is how things are under that model, not a completely irrelevant one.

Your argument's been defeated, it's that simple, and you don't just get to evade the fact there is no logic whatsoever to your claims. When what you propose is EXACTLY WHAT WOULD BE PREDICTED by a model, how does that in any way imply the model is somehow wrong?!

JRowe chill out! It's a debate, it's fun to play devil's advocate and suppose different scenarios. As for my argument being defeated, it wouldn't have been contested if global_addiction hadn't joined in!

JRowe chill out! It's a debate, it's fun to play devil's advocate and suppose different scenarios. As for my argument being defeated, it wouldn't have been contested if global_addiction hadn't joined in!

I am sick of having to put up with smugness and liars on this site. Apparently the sole defense of RET is arrogance.
Your argument was defeated long before that. it was demonstrated, clearly and completely, that it didn't imply a thing. You just persisted in presupposing the RE model. That's not going to manage any kind of objection to a different model. This is incredibly basic logic, and you just consistently ignored it as though smugness would cover up those flaws.

How do you expect me to react when faced with continual dishonesty from you and others on this site? I'm human. I get frustrated. When you can actually respond to my points rather than outright ignore them, maybe we can enjoy a conversation.

"But RET!" is not a defense.

You can't draw a comparison to the flatness of a galaxy or a solar system because they are not singular objects. They are a series of spherical objects orbiting around a much larger object. Orbit happens around a central point so a number of objects orbiting at varying distances will appear disk shaped but in reality the system as a whole is fluid and moving at different paces. Take Saturn, its main body is spherical but its orbiting objects appear disc shaped when In fact we know that they are many icy lumps orbiting. It's like comparing the qualities of a solid to that of a liquid.

I understand the physics behind Orbital Mechanics and the formation of Galaxies and our Solar System. But keep in mind when you are debating with a Flat Earth believer, that the "Lights in the Sky" are somewhat different then what we (Round Earthers) believe to be true. So yes, I was comparing Apples to Oranges.

There is good reasoning to why our planet is inhabited. It meets the appropriate conditions for carbon based life forms. That isn't to say that life forms formed from other compounds couldn't exist elsewhere, we just haven't discovered them yet (or if you follow the doctrine that NASA are lying to us then maybe we have!). Perhaps there is life on the rocky moons of Jupiter and Saturn... We don't know yet but I'm sure that in our lifetimes we will. And then our Earth will seem less special and a little more... Ordinary.

To set the record straight, I am a firm believer in evolution, and I have no reason to doubt NASA. With that being said, I also have an open mind and will look at the Flat Earth and Dual Earth models completely, ask questions when needed, and then I will debate the observations behind each theory, including RET.
As far as life on the rocky moons of Saturn or Jupiter, if we have or when we do find it, and it turns out to be microbial or maybe silica based, my thought is we will be far from "Ordinary". We, as a species, have evolved and left our own planet in search of life. That alone will still make us "Special".

Quote from: richaddis on February 24, 2016, 07:59:38 AM

JRowe chill out! It's a debate, it's fun to play devil's advocate and suppose different scenarios. As for my argument being defeated, it wouldn't have been contested if global_addiction hadn't joined in!

I am sick of having to put up with smugness and liars on this site. Apparently the sole defense of RET is arrogance.
Your argument was defeated long before that. it was demonstrated, clearly and completely, that it didn't imply a thing. You just persisted in presupposing the RE model. That's not going to manage any kind of objection to a different model. This is incredibly basic logic, and you just consistently ignored it as though smugness would cover up those flaws.

How do you expect me to react when faced with continual dishonesty from you and others on this site? I'm human. I get frustrated. When you can actually respond to my points rather than outright ignore them, maybe we can enjoy a conversation.

"But RET!" is not a defense.

That's just it JRowe, you think that you've won the argument by telling me that what I'm "presupposing" is lies purely on the basis that you don't agree with it. Never mind the millions of scientists who have a far better understanding of this than either of us can purport to have and can explain the physics far more eloquently.

I'll admit that I'm not very scientifically literate and can't use the appropriate terminology to support my arguments so you'll have to use your imagination to try and understand  my point.
 

That's just it JRowe, you think that you've won the argument by telling me that what I'm "presupposing" is lies purely on the basis that you don't agree with it. Never mind the millions of scientists who have a far better understanding of this than either of us can purport to have and can explain the physics far more eloquently.

I'll admit that I'm not very scientifically literate and can't use the appropriate terminology to support my arguments so you'll have to use your imagination to try and understand  my point.

If you have the ability to prove RET, then do so. That should be pretty trivial: and if you can provide the proof of RET, why would you need this?
There remains no logical implication. I notice you still ignore that fact.
I'm responding to the argument as it's set out. I complain that you presuppose a model you have not justified. Either you can justify that model (in which case this argument is redundant) or you cannot (in which case this argument fails).

Are you familiar with a circular argument?

Quote from: richaddis on February 24, 2016, 08:18:51 AM

That's just it JRowe, you think that you've won the argument by telling me that what I'm "presupposing" is lies purely on the basis that you don't agree with it. Never mind the millions of scientists who have a far better understanding of this than either of us can purport to have and can explain the physics far more eloquently.

I'll admit that I'm not very scientifically literate and can't use the appropriate terminology to support my arguments so you'll have to use your imagination to try and understand  my point.

If you have the ability to prove RET, then do so. That should be pretty trivial: and if you can provide the proof of RET, why would you need this?
There remains no logical implication. I notice you still ignore that fact.
I'm responding to the argument as it's set out. I complain that you presuppose a model you have not justified. Either you can justify that model (in which case this argument is redundant) or you cannot (in which case this argument fails).

Are you familiar with a circular argument?

JRowe, the proofs of Round Earth have already been provided numerous times on this forum; observing objects sinking over the horizon, the very presence of a horizon, sunsets and rises, circumnavigation etc

There is very little point in my rehashing arguments that have already been presented and so instead I've presented an argument that I haven't yet seen here.

Much of FET is based on observation and it's argued that Scientific data isn't needed as proof and that human observation is key, so therefore I'm presenting this argument based on my observations.

I'm not a scientist, but I am an amateur astronomer and so I observe the planets and their movements and this is the inspiration for my question. I've seen it suggested that the other planets are also flat, and that they produce their own light. This is so easily observed to be nonsense and anyone with a backyard scope can testify to this and I just want to use my knowledge of our solar system to suggest similarities.

There is very little point in my rehashing arguments that have already been presented and so instead I've presented an argument that I haven't yet seen here.

You really can't have looked that hard.

Quote

There is very little point in my rehashing arguments that have already been presented and so instead I've presented an argument that I haven't yet seen here.

You really can't have looked that hard.

Well I only discovered this site about 1 month ago and I have 2 jobs and a daughter so I'm a little too busy to backdate...

This video proves the earth does indeed have a curve.

This video proves the earth does indeed have a curve.

Stop spamming unrelated threads with your blatant timewasting tactic. No one has time to watch and respond to a ten minute video, especially not midway through a thread ona  completely different issue.

Look at that, I'M REPEATING MYSELF TO YOU YET AGAIN.
WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?!

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on February 24, 2016, 09:27:12 AM

This video proves the earth does indeed have a curve.

Stop spamming unrelated threads with your blatant timewasting tactic. No one has time to watch and respond to a ten minute video, especially not midway through a thread ona  completely different issue.

Look at that, I'M REPEATING MYSELF TO YOU YET AGAIN.
WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?!

This time it is on topic. It shows that the earth has a curve. Isn't that's the thread about?

This time it is on topic. It shows that the earth has a curve. Isn't that's the thread about?

I imagine it can be interpreted that way. If it were to be accepted, it would show that there is no flat astronomical object at all.

Earth is not an "astronomical object" in the same class as these other planets. My guess would be that if these planets truly exist, they circle the Earth just as the Sun and the Moon do. However, I do believe that they are simply mirages caused by sunlight reflecting off of the Earth's ice and hitting the "sky-sphere", as you might call it, and then reflecting back down.

Earth is not an "astronomical object" in the same class as these other planets. My guess would be that if these planets truly exist, they circle the Earth just as the Sun and the Moon do. However, I do believe that they are simply mirages caused by sunlight reflecting off of the Earth's ice and hitting the "sky-sphere", as you might call it, and then reflecting back down.

What evidence you have for that? Why can we see great serials about some of the planets if they are mirages? If the earth is flat the explain the video I gave.

Earth is not an "astronomical object" in the same class as these other planets.

Well, that would depend on your Frame Of Reference, wouldn't it? Say, to an astronaut in orbit, or perhaps one standing on the moon? Through they're eyes, I imagine the Earth would be one of the most wonderful "astronomical objects" of all.