If the other planets are observably round (I mean come on) why isn't Earth?

I've actually wondered this for a while now. If Earth is flat, why are all the other planets round? Is Earth just special for some reason? Does it's flatty-ness allow it to have life?

What do you mean by "other" planets?

Planets ("wanderers") are observed in the sky to have different motions and properties than the fixed array of stars.

What observation have you made that equates those planets to the Earth?

Well you see, I took a fancy thing called a telescope, knew what Mars looked like, and observed.

What observation have you made that equates those planets to the Earth?

They are large objects with significant mass, and all appear to orbit the sun, just like Earth.

Well you see, I took a fancy thing called a telescope, knew what Mars looked like, and observed.

Missed the point entirely.

Where did you personally observe that the Earth is a "planet"?

You assume the earth has a certain characteristic (a characteristic that is the major subject of this web site), then try to show that characteristic using your assumption.

You're essentially saying "The earth is round. Why isn't the earth round?"

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on November 19, 2018, 07:39:22 AM

What observation have you made that equates those planets to the Earth?

They are large objects with significant mass, and all appear to orbit the sun, just like Earth.

Interesting. Where did Forgettafluff say that?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on November 19, 2018, 07:39:22 AM

What observation have you made that equates those planets to the Earth?

They are large objects with significant mass, and all appear to orbit the sun, just like Earth.

You made those observations, or did you just hear about those observations?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on November 19, 2018, 07:39:22 AM

What observation have you made that equates those planets to the Earth?

They are large objects with significant mass, and all appear to orbit the sun, just like Earth.

When viewed from the FE perspective, which is after all what the OP was asking after, in what conceivable way does a flat Earth orbit the Sun?

When viewed from the FE perspective, which is after all what the OP was asking after, in what conceivable way does a flat Earth orbit the Sun?

No, the OP was clearly showing they don't agree with the FE model.
Observations alone, without presupposing a model, indicate it.

It is only by baselessly assuming a FE model that it magically becomes different.

Quote from: Jane on November 19, 2018, 01:38:13 PM

When viewed from the FE perspective, which is after all what the OP was asking after, in what conceivable way does a flat Earth orbit the Sun?

No, the OP was clearly showing they don't agree with the FE model.
Observations alone, without presupposing a model, indicate it.

It is only by baselessly assuming a FE model that it magically becomes different.

So... they're asking how FET answers a question, and they want an answer that appeals to RET rather than FET?

Look, if you can give observations to demonstrate that the Earth independent of shape orbits the Sun, or to take a specific case of that to demonstrate that a flat Earth would orbit the Sun, which is what you are claiming, go make a thread on it rather than basing your point here on some ethereal argument.

So... they're asking how FET answers a question, and they want an answer that appeals to RET rather than FET?

No, they want an answer, which appeals to observation and sense. At no point did I appeal to RET.
Meanwhile, you jump straight to FE nonsense to say it is different, effectively saying Earth isn't like the planets because it is flat.

Quote from: Jane on November 19, 2018, 05:33:41 PM

So... they're asking how FET answers a question, and they want an answer that appeals to RET rather than FET?

No, they want an answer, which appeals to observation and sense. At no point did I appeal to RET.
Meanwhile, you jump straight to FE nonsense to say it is different, effectively saying Earth isn't like the planets because it is flat.

What? If you really need this spelled out to you, replace my previous post with "Why, under an abstract undetermined model, do we conclude the Earth goes around the Sun?"
It just so happens that a flat Earth is one of those abstract undetermined models, and one with the most relevance. What you're doing is just presupposing RET and using that to justify RET.

And Jane quickly derails into semantics...

What? If you really need this spelled out to you, replace my previous post with "Why, under an abstract undetermined model, do we conclude the Earth goes around the Sun?"

Based upon observations of the relative/apparent positions of objects in the sky, which leads to a heliocentric model of the solar system, regardless of the shape of Earth.

It just so happens that a flat Earth is one of those abstract undetermined models

Not really, it has loads of baseless assertions.

What you're doing is just presupposing RET and using that to justify RET.

No, what I am doing is using some of the observations which would lead to RET, not RET itself.
Meanwhile you are dismissing it because FE says Earth is flat.

As a human,
I can "read between the lines" in this case buddy OP kindly even them in parentheses for us.
Janes attempt to play semantics fails.

And altjough Forgetful didnt understand wind resistance, it is clear he is RE and out to poke fun at FE and troll out some debate.

No, what I am doing is using some of the observations which would lead to RET, not RET itself.
Meanwhile you are dismissing it because FE says Earth is flat.

Christ. Ok. Let's start this again.

What you are relying on: "The Earth rotates around the Sun."
This claim is supposed to be made independently of model. Therefore it holds for every shape of the Earth, including a flat Earth. Therefore it should be justifiable from the perspective of a flat Earth. If this is not the case then your argument is circular.
What you have said to justify this:
You're assuming FET! (not true, my views are of zero relevance to the argument at hand. Plus, you know, REer)
Observations of objects in the sky leads to a heliocentric model (assuming or concluding FET is false because heliocentric quite literally means nothing there)
Observations say it (the ethereal argument already referred to, handwaving rather than making an actual point)
FET relies on baseless assertions anyway (a wholly separate case)

When your premise for an argument against FET is that FET is false, you have a bad argument.
Do I seriously need to explain why?

And Jane quickly derails into semantics...

What... What do you think semantics are?

Insert princess bride meme.
Ahhaah

Quote from: Forgettafluff on November 19, 2018, 07:40:54 AM

Well you see, I took a fancy thing called a telescope, knew what Mars looked like, and observed.

Missed the point entirely.

Where did you personally observe that the Earth is a "planet"?

You assume the earth has a certain characteristic (a characteristic that is the major subject of this web site), then try to show that characteristic using your assumption.

You're essentially saying "The earth is round. Why isn't the earth round?"

When did you definitively observe the earth as being flat beyond question?

To answer this much discussed topic just ask anyone who has been on the ISS. EMAIL them, pretty simple and it would save all the endless discussions. Part of the job of many of these astronauts is public engagement. I would be very surprised if you did not recieve an answer to your question.

When did you definitively observe the earth as being flat beyond question?

The same day you personally, definitively observed the earth as being spherical beyond question.

Quote from: Lonegranger on November 19, 2018, 09:46:29 PM

When did you definitively observe the earth as being flat beyond question?

The same day you personally, definitively observed the earth as being spherical beyond question.

I never ever said that! Mistaken identity.....how’s the cream working for you?

What you are relying on: "The Earth rotates around the Sun."
This claim is supposed to be made independently of model. Therefore it holds for every shape of the Earth, including a flat Earth. Therefore it should be justifiable from the perspective of a flat Earth. If this is not the case then your argument is circular.

Sure, if you leave the flat Earth as nothing more than Earth being flat.
Instead what it really means is that it holds from observations rather than assuming a model with Earth with a particular shape.

When your premise for an argument against FET is that FET is false, you have a bad argument.
Do I seriously need to explain why?

No, instead you need to address what has been said.
Observations of the night sky is not simply assuming FE nonsense is false.
Not just accepting FE is not the same as assuming it is wrong.

Meanwhile your entire argument seems to boil down to "FE DOESN"T SAY THAT SO YOU CAN"T USE IT!!! WAH!!!"
Grow up. Stop assuming FE is correct to try and defend FE.

If you want to start again, don't just start with blatant misrepresentation of my position. Instead, try starting again.

We have observations of the stars and the planets in the sky. This includes their apparent and relative positions.
The majority of the stars appear to rotate as a single unit, and thus might be objects on a rotating sphere or Earth itself rotating (note: This says nothing about the shape as I am just focusing on observations from one point). I know that this goes directly against the commonly presented FE model. I don't care. Me not accepting that isn't the same as assuming it is wrong.

We can also try and figure out how they move relative to one another and doing so ends up with the best model being one in which the planets revolve around the sun, and that includes Earth.

But if you wish to ignore that then we have other aspects as well.
They can be observed with a telescope, with many even having moons, just like Earth, where the moon revolves around the planet, just like Earth's moon revolves around us, they can also be observed to rotate. Due to them remaining roughly the same size we can tell they must be very far away and thus must be large. All such large objects are observed to be round. So far everything we can see about these planets, except those which are debated, are consistent with Earth. (If you want to appeal to ignorance and rejecting the work of NASA which clearly shows Earth is round, then we haven't been there and thus can't determine if they support life or not).

In just what way are they different? Note, this would specifically be something which distinguishes all the planets from Earth, not just one planet from Earth which would also distinguish it from other planets.

.....how’s the cream working for you?

My dick has never been more silky smooth.
Thanks for begging me to let you apply it twice a day.

Sure, if you leave the flat Earth as nothing more than Earth being flat.
Instead what it really means is that it holds from observations rather than assuming a model with Earth with a particular shape.

Oh, so along with lonegranger you're of the "Let's just ignore this argument!" camp. Throw this whole discussion out the window, you don't actually care about it, you want to instead make it about completely different arguments.

I cannot believe you need this continually explained to you. You are acting like you've been backed into a corner, and the only way you can defend your perspective is to change the topic. I sincerely doubt that's how pathetic you think RET is. It certainly shouldn't be. RET is more than capable of standing the fact that any random claim thrown out doesn't automatically provide evidence for it.

What you are doing is the equivalent of:
Q: How can universal acceleration go on endlessly, wouldn't it reach the speed of light?
A: The Earth can't be flat because of star trails, so UA is wrong!

It's not relevant. It's nothing more than frankly evasion, and it does one hell of a disservice to RET.

When did you definitively observe the earth as being flat beyond question?

To quote you just several posts later, "I never ever said that."

Oh, so along with lonegranger you're of the "Let's just ignore this argument!" camp.

Are you capable of honestly representing anyone arguing against a FE?

That is not me at all.
Your entire posts is just outright lies about my position.

Again, in what way do the other planets differ from Earth, in a way which can be measured by people on Earth?
Can you actually address that, or can you just say that FE says Earth isn't a planet?

Again, in what way do the other planets differ from Earth, in a way which can be measured by people on Earth?
Can you actually address that, or can you just say that FE says Earth isn't a planet?

Depends hugely on the Earth's shape, that's my entire point. To take just one instance, size: if RET is true they can be a more comparable size (but even then only partially, and not necessarily depending on scale). If FET is true they have to be much smaller. If concave Earth is true they have to be piddling. You cannot say that they are the same class of object as the Earth 'just because,' amazingly you actually need to put in some work.

I am not the one that's been adamantly refusing to address a point here.

Once again:

When your premise for an argument against FET is that FET is false, you have a bad argument.

You need to have established that FET is false for your comparison to have any weight. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that? It's not even the slightest bit ambiguous.

Depends hugely on the Earth's shape, that's my entire point.

So your entire point is to completely dismiss the argument and instead pretend that FE is fine with it as FE says Earth isn't a planet?

Don't bother assuming the shape, either way. Address what is possible with direct observations.
In what way are they different?

FE is unable to predict a size for the planets other than very big.

Direct observations show insignificant size variation during their entire observed motion and position around Earth. This indicates that they must be very far away and thus must be large.
Notice how this is based upon simple observation rather than any assumption about the shape of Earth?

Quote from: Jane on November 19, 2018, 06:37:33 PM

When your premise for an argument against FET is that FET is false, you have a bad argument.

Once again, that is irrelevant garbage and in fact is more akin to demonstrating a problem with your argument.
When your premise to defend FE nonsense is that FE nonsense is correct, you don't have an argument.

My argument is not that FE nonsense is false, it is simply not starting with the assumption that it is true.
If your only way to defend it is by assuming it is true, then you aren't defending, you are simply dismissing arguments against it.

You are effectively saying we must first prove FE is false before trying to prove it is false. You are trying to say no one is allowed to refute it.

Depends hugely on the Earth's shape, that's my entire point. To take just one instance, size: if RET is true they can be a more comparable size (but even then only partially, and not necessarily depending on scale). If FET is true they have to be much smaller. If concave Earth is true they have to be piddling. You cannot say that they are the same class of object as the Earth 'just because,' amazingly you actually need to put in some work.

Quote from: Jane on November 19, 2018, 06:37:33 PM

When your premise for an argument against FET is that FET is false, you have a bad argument.

Don't pretend that I didn't already answer you. This is pointless. You cannot seriously still need this to be explained to you.

You are effectively saying we must first prove FE is false before trying to prove it is false. You are trying to say no one is allowed to refute it.

This claim is supposed to be made independently of model. Therefore it holds for every shape of the Earth, including a flat Earth. Therefore it should be justifiable from the perspective of a flat Earth. If this is not the case then your argument is circular.

Don't pretend that I didn't already answer you. This is pointless. You cannot seriously still need this to be explained to you.

You didn't actually answer me. You dismissed it because it doesn't agree with FE. So no, I do need it explained to me as you are yet to do so.

You dismiss them as being comparable under FE because FE says they are not comparable.
But that is assuming FE is true to dismiss the argument showing FE is faulty.
I want to know what observations can be made which indicates Earth and the planets are different, especially given observations clearly indicates they are all very large, and all that have a shape that can be observed appear round, all of which rotate and some of which have moons which orbit them.

All this indicates Earth is similar to the other planets and thus likely is round and rotates. What is there to challenge that other than FE saying it isn't?