Re: Other Planets

The earth is not a planet because it does not exhibit planet-ness.

Quote from: Ski on June 02, 2018, 08:30:52 PM

The earth is not a planet because it does not exhibit planet-ness.

Failed logic and inference.
If youre going to use biology as an example, use it properly.
Kingdom phylum class order family genus species.
A sheep dog cat are mammals.
Sheep has multiple stomachs due to need for plant digestion.
Dogs cats have sharp teeth for meat eating.
Cats adapted to climbing have shoulders.
Etcetc
Still mammals with fur, live babies and warm blooded.

Jupiter saturn are gas giants.
Mercury spins slowly because it is small, close to sun, funkydoodee orbit.
All are large celestially spheriod bodies orbiting the sun.
Earth just happens to house a few people.
Be it designed or by natural is regardless to OP.

Sooooo the differneces can be explored but throwing a simularity outright for the sake of no valid reason is ridiculous.

• is not spherical, which the planets might be
• might be infinite, which the planets are not
• might be accelerating in a direction vertical to its surface, which the planets are not
• might be the center of the universe, which the planets are not
• is big, which the planets might not be
• is real, which the planets might not be

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 21, 2018, 02:36:22 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 02, 2018, 08:30:52 PM

The earth is not a planet because it does not exhibit planet-ness.

Failed logic and inference.
If youre going to use biology as an example, use it properly.
Kingdom phylum class order family genus species.
A sheep dog cat are mammals.
Sheep has multiple stomachs due to need for plant digestion.
Dogs cats have sharp teeth for meat eating.
Cats adapted to climbing have shoulders.
Etcetc
Still mammals with fur, live babies and warm blooded.

Jupiter saturn are gas giants.
Mercury spins slowly because it is small, close to sun, funkydoodee orbit.
All are large celestially spheriod bodies orbiting the sun.
Earth just happens to house a few people.
Be it designed or by natural is regardless to OP.

Sooooo the differneces can be explored but throwing a simularity outright for the sake of no valid reason is ridiculous.

What Ski meant, is, that earth is not like a planet, because it:

• is not spherical, which the planets might be
• might be infinite, which the planets are not
• might be accelerating in a direction vertical to its surface, which the planets are not
• might be the center of the universe, which the planets are not
• is big, which the planets might not be
• is real, which the planets might not be

EDIT: Some points added.

The question rephrased, why would we infer a flat earth when all other viewed large bodies are spherical?

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 21, 2018, 08:27:48 PM

The question rephrased, why would we infer a flat earth when all other viewed large bodies are spherical?

While I can't speak for Ski, in answer to your question, we wouldn't.

But why would we infer that all other viewed large bodies are spherical if the Earth is flat?

Quote from: Tessa

But why would we infer that all other viewed large bodies are spherical if the Earth is flat?

Why why would we need to "infer that all other viewed large bodies are spherical"?
Once astronomers started using telescopes the nearer planets could be seen to be spherical.

Yes, but my point is if Earth being seen to be spherical isn't enough for flat Earthers to accept that it is round, why would we accept that same evidence for other planets? I'll tone down the 'gotcha'-style throwing-the-question-back language in future.

Haumea is thought to rotate in just under 4 hours. This rapid rotation causes it to be elongated. (Artists impression)

I wasn't taking a dig at you, just pointing out that the earth has to be almost spherical for the same reason that "other planets" are.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 21, 2018, 11:05:31 PM

I wasn't taking a dig at you, just pointing out that the earth has to be almost spherical for the same reason that "other planets" are.

With this I agree; if we accept the other planets are round then the same evidences carry over to the Earth and vice versa.

Q: How big are the planets in the FE model?
A: Pretty small.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 21, 2018, 08:27:48 PM

The question rephrased, why would we infer a flat earth when all other viewed large bodies are spherical?

While I can't speak for Ski, in answer to your question, we wouldn't. But why would we infer that all other viewed large bodies are spherical if the Earth is flat?

You wouldnt infer they are spherical, it is observed through telescope...

The trouble is that flat-earthers claim the planets are "pretty small" as in.

Quote

Q: How big are the planets in the FE model?
A: Pretty small.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on June 21, 2018, 10:10:21 PM

Yes, but my point is if Earth being seen to be spherical isn't enough for flat Earthers to accept that it is round, why would we accept that same evidence for other planets? I'll tone down the 'gotcha'-style throwing-the-question-back language in future.

I wasn't taking a dig at you, just pointing out that the earth has to be almost spherical for the same reason that "other planets" are.
At least one "big" (and it's not very big) dwarf planet that is far from spherical is Haumea with a mass about one-third that of Pluto.
It's more like a long potato because it rotates so fast.

Haumea is thought to rotate in just under 4 hours. This rapid rotation causes it to be elongated. (Artists impression)

Quote from: rabinoz on June 21, 2018, 11:05:31 PM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on June 21, 2018, 10:10:21 PM

Yes, but my point is if Earth being seen to be spherical isn't enough for flat Earthers to accept that it is round, why would we accept that same evidence for other planets? I'll tone down the 'gotcha'-style throwing-the-question-back language in future.

I wasn't taking a dig at you, just pointing out that the earth has to be almost spherical for the same reason that "other planets" are.
At least one "big" (and it's not very big) dwarf planet that is far from spherical is Haumea with a mass about one-third that of Pluto.
It's more like a long potato because it rotates so fast.

Haumea is thought to rotate in just under 4 hours. This rapid rotation causes it to be elongated. (Artists impression)

Not doubting the existence or shape of thing, but why is it elongated only at two ends?

I’d have thought if it was spinning fast enough, it would flatten out into more of a... dare I say it... disk shape.

The calculated ellipsoid shape of Haumea, 1,960×1,518×996 km (assuming an albedo of 0.73). At the left are the minimum and maximum equatorial silhouettes (1,960×996 and 1,518×996 km); at the right is the view from the pole (1,960×1,518 km).

Haumea

Keck image of Haumea and its two moons.
Hiʻiaka is above Haumea (center),
and Namaka is directly below.

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 22, 2018, 03:18:47 AM

You wouldnt infer they are spherical, it is observed through telescope...

Is the same not also observed of the Earth, just with the telescope pointed the other way? Your initial question suggests that there is a contradiction in saying evidence shows the planets are round but the same evidence doesn't show the Earth is. I accept this. My counter-question is why would flat Earthers accept this conclusion for other planets but not the Earth, given they are based on the same evidence?



Is the same what?
Yes, many people have observed spherical characteristic/ properties of the earth.
Not sure what your point is.

Or if you accept nasa photod then yes, the earth has been observed to be spherical.

You dont point a telescope at earth.
Its called a microscope.
And that will tell you nothing ref earth shape.

Assuming the "we've measured" comment is ref nasa as the "we".
If you agree the planet sizes are correct as observed why are you contributing nonarguements to them/ earth being round?

What same evidence?
Based purely on the question at hand, we are in earth, we see planets and sun and moon are spherical, all distant planets and stars are observed are spherical.
What shape is Earth?
- most likely is also spherical.
Ill throw in a "most likely".

I dont suggest any contradiction.
Not sure what youre ref to.

Eitherway FE accept there is a poisoned bread because they accept, as per first response, that the argument is valid.
It is not.
Why are you asking me why anFE believes such nonargument?
Go ask ski.

Its shape, based I think largely on the way its brightness varies, is thought to be:

The calculated ellipsoid shape of Haumea, 1,960×1,518×996 km (assuming an albedo of 0.73). At the left are the minimum and maximum equatorial silhouettes (1,960×996 and 1,518×996 km); at the right is the view from the pole (1,960×1,518 km).

So it is a rather weird shape.

This is all just from: Wikipedia, Haumea. Haumea is so small and far away that this is all the big Keck 10 m telescope on Hawaii sees:

Haumea

Keck image of Haumea and its two moons.
Hiʻiaka is above Haumea (center),
and Namaka is directly below.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 22, 2018, 05:32:58 AM

Its shape, based I think largely on the way its brightness varies, is thought to be:

The calculated ellipsoid shape of Haumea, 1,960×1,518×996 km (assuming an albedo of 0.73). At the left are the minimum and maximum equatorial silhouettes (1,960×996 and 1,518×996 km); at the right is the view from the pole (1,960×1,518 km).

So it is a rather weird shape.

This is all just from: Wikipedia, Haumea. Haumea is so small and far away that this is all the big Keck 10 m telescope on Hawaii sees:

Haumea

Keck image of Haumea and its two moons.
Hiʻiaka is above Haumea (center),
and Namaka is directly below.

What I mean is the earth is a slightly oblate spheroid, due to the spin causing it to bulge a bit at the equator.

That’s spinning much faster, so I’d expect it to a more extreme oblate spheroid, but it appears to be a prolate spheroid.

Seems odd.  I can’t help thinking something else in its formation may have made it that way. 

I don’t expect you to know the answer, btw.

Quote from: Unconvinced on June 22, 2018, 07:47:05 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on June 22, 2018, 05:32:58 AM

Its shape, based I think largely on the way its brightness varies, is thought to be:

The calculated ellipsoid shape of Haumea, 1,960×1,518×996 km (assuming an albedo of 0.73). At the left are the minimum and maximum equatorial silhouettes (1,960×996 and 1,518×996 km); at the right is the view from the pole (1,960×1,518 km).

So it is a rather weird shape.

This is all just from: Wikipedia, Haumea. Haumea is so small and far away that this is all the big Keck 10 m telescope on Hawaii sees:

Haumea

Keck image of Haumea and its two moons.
Hiʻiaka is above Haumea (center),
and Namaka is directly below.

What I mean is the earth is a slightly oblate spheroid, due to the spin causing it to bulge a bit at the equator.

That’s spinning much faster, so I’d expect it to a more extreme oblate spheroid, but it appears to be a prolate spheroid.

Seems odd.  I can’t help thinking something else in its formation may have made it that way. 

I don’t expect you to know the answer, btw.

Could be more than one rotation axes. Perhaps a collision in its early stages of formation.