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

Quote from: Jane on November 20, 2018, 12:33:44 PM

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

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.

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.

Stop completely ignoring me. This is pathetic.

Stop completely ignoring me. This is pathetic.

I'm not. You are the one ignoring me.
Your argument is that Earth isn't a planet in FE and thus the argument is invalid.
But that is assuming FE is true to dismiss an objection.

Observations without assuming the shape of the planet would lead one to conclude Earth is like the planets.
Note, this is not the same as baselessly assuming FE and leading to the same conclusion. The 2 are fundamentally different.
One makes no assumptions and thus allows a valid argument to be made. The other assumes Earth is flat, and thus is entirely circular as it assumes Earth is flat to negate arguments against Earth being flat and thus is effectively:
But Earth is flat so it must be fine for a flat Earth.

Now can you stop ignoring me and tell why these observations shouldn't lead one to conclude Earth is a planet?

Again, we observe the planets do not appear to significantly change size through any period of observation or at any location on the planet.
This indicates they are very far away. This combined with their size would lead one to conclude they are very large as well, just like Earth. The exact size would be unknown without some way to measure distance, where FEers would reject the HC model to do so and trying to use trig from Earth relies upon knowing the shape of Earth so that is ruled out. As such you are not able to tell if they are larger or smaller than Earth, just that they are large. As such, any appeal to relative sizes is invalid as you cannot establish sizes beyond they are large.

We also observe some of these planets to have moons which orbit them, just like we observe our moon to orbit us.

We cannot find any other such large object which isn't roughly spherical, nor which doesn't rotate (with appropriate filters you can even observe the sun rotating).

All this indicates that Earth should be like the other planets, and thus be round and rotating.

Now, can you respond to this without assuming FE is true?

Your argument is that Earth isn't a planet in FE and thus the argument is invalid.
But that is assuming FE is true to dismiss an objection.

Observations without assuming the shape of the planet would lead one to conclude Earth is like the planets.

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.

You have already failed to demonstrate your claim that "Observations without assuming the shape of the planet would lead one to conclude Earth is like the planets." Remember?

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.

Hence, again:

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.

You are rejecting FET as a concept long before you even make the argument. Meanwhile absolutely nothing I say relies on FET, you can happily cut that out and replace it with basically any other alternative.

Yet again, try to actually read this this time:
All the legwork you do to justify this argument requires you to make an entirely separate argument refuting FET.

This argument is either circular or obsolete, whichever way you want to put it.

Jesus Christ, have yet to see a flat Earther not dodge a question that goes against their model.

Of course every other planet, moon and star being a sphere would be more against FET than GE. The original post isn't the one trying to be against FET, reality is. All he is doing is asking why reality made every other planet in space round, but not Earth. He's not the one who made the planets, reality did. Which is why he is asking you why this would happen in the flat Earth model.

This is a debate sub-section, you will have words going against your model. Stop dodging or bob and weave out of the thread.

All he is doing is asking why reality made every other planet in space round, but not Earth.

1. Not a flat earther, just a round eartehr who's sick to death of seeing the terrible arguments be championed endlessly while the actually good ones go ignored.
2. Again, why should they be the same shape? There is nothing that inherently connects them to the Earth, excepting the heliocentric RE model which puts them all in the same category, which cannot be assumed.

You have already failed to demonstrate your claim that "Observations without assuming the shape of the planet would lead one to conclude Earth is like the planets." Remember?

You ignoring my demonstration doesn't mean I have failed, it just means you have ignored it.

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

Again, that relies upon assuming various shapes, in effect saying the argument is wrong because Earth might be flat and if Earth is flat then Earth isn't like the other planets in FE.
That is not a valid rebuttal. It is entirely circular.

Hence, again:

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

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.

And again, that is wrong.
The claim is made independent of the model. That means no model is assumed when making the claim.
That is fundamentally different to assuming a model and having the claim match any model.
The entire point of the argument is to show FE is wrong.
Your case is the circular one. You are saying this argument showing FE is wrong is wrong because FE isn't wrong.
You are assuming a FE to be correct to defend a FE. That isn't how it works.

You are rejecting FET as a concept long before you even make the argument.

No I am not.
Not assuming FE is true is fundamentally different from assuming it is false.
I am simply not accepting FE before making the argument.

Meanwhile absolutely nothing I say relies on FET, you can happily cut that out and replace it with basically any other alternative.

No, your entire argument boils down to asserting they aren't the same under FE, thus FE is fine. You are using a completely circular argument, assuming FE is true to dismiss an objection to FE.

Yet again, try to actually read this this time:

Follow your own advice and read what I have said and respond to that rather than repeating the same refuted strawman.

1. Not a flat earther, just a round eartehr who's sick to death of seeing the terrible arguments be championed endlessly while the actually good ones go ignored.

Then stop acting like one and instead go make good arguments. You not liking an argument doesn't mean it is terrible. You are yet to show any problem with the argument. Saying if Earth was flat that wouldn't be the case isn't a problem with the argument. It is an entirely circular non-argument against it.

2. Again, why should they be the same shape? There is nothing that inherently connects them to the Earth, excepting the heliocentric RE model which puts them all in the same category, which cannot be assumed.

Go back and read what I have said, then maybe you will see why.
You ignoring people explaining why they are similar doesn't magically mean no one has said why.

Quote from: Jane on November 20, 2018, 02:34:29 PM

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

Again, that relies upon assuming various shapes, in effect saying the argument is wrong because Earth might be flat and if Earth is flat then Earth isn't like the other planets in FE.
That is not a valid rebuttal. It is entirely circular.

Uh. No. No, that's not how logic works. If your argument depends on the Earth's shape, then your argument does not hold in a general circumstance. Thus, you have to specifically omit certain possibilities for your argument to hold.
What is complicated about that?

Stop the bloody rants. Seriously. This is not nearly as complex as you are making it out to be.

Uh. No. No, that's not how logic works. If your argument depends on the Earth's shape, then your argument does not hold in a general circumstance.

That is correct. That is why your argument, which relies upon discussing the shape of Earth, doesn't hold in a general sense, while my argument, which doesn't depend on Earth's shape (as it doesn't make any appeal to it at all), does hold in a general sense.

Good job. Now can you address why Earth shouldn't be deemed to be like the other planets?

Perhaps when you stop misrepresenting my position I will stop with the "rants" which is simply explaining that you are blatantly misrepresenting my position as you still seem to not understand.

This is starting to sound like the head banger regarding poisoned bread.

Matter be it clouds of gas or clumps of rock will behalve in the predicted manor until we find it to do so otherwise.
When we find it, then we can start asking what made it different than the rest.
Spinning bodies in the vacuum of space collects together by way of the f=gmM/r^2.
There is no evidence that earth behaves outside of this - when consideeing hprizons, star trails, eclipses, stick shadows, grsvity at the poles and all the such that point that our planet behaves just like any other so far observed planet.
Unles you show an observation that refutes this - stfu.

Quote from: Jane on November 20, 2018, 03:07:46 PM

Uh. No. No, that's not how logic works. If your argument depends on the Earth's shape, then your argument does not hold in a general circumstance.

That is correct. That is why your argument, which relies upon discussing the shape of Earth, doesn't hold in a general sense, while my argument, which doesn't depend on Earth's shape (as it doesn't make any appeal to it at all), does hold in a general sense.

Do you not know the difference between making an argument, an dpointing out why an argument doesn't work?

You just conceded your argument doesn't apply to a general case. We should be done, but inexplicably we're apparently not.

Good job. Now can you address why Earth shouldn't be deemed to be like the other planets?

Again, not my claim. My claim is that you have provided insufficient evidence to think it is. That's it. if you want to make the argument presented, you need to show that, it's not someone else's job to refute something you just claimed without evidence.
Again, noting that the evidence you presented rendered the use of this argument moot. So either way, terrible argument.

Do you not know the difference between making an argument, an dpointing out why an argument doesn't work?

Pointing out why an argument doesn't work would either be a baseless claim or an argument itself.
As such it can either be outright dismissed as a baseless claim, or needs to be supported just like any other argument.

You just conceded your argument doesn't apply to a general case.

No I didn't. Stop lying about what I said.
You have effectively admitted your argument doesn't apply to a general case as your argument relies upon assuming Earth is flat, and you admit that making assumptions about Earth's shape means it doesn't apply to a general case.

My claim is that you have provided insufficient evidence to think it is.

And you have failed to explain why.
A baseless assertion is not a counter argument.
Assuming Earth is flat is a fallacious counter argument.

So you have failed to substantiate your claim as the only argument you have backing it up is entirely circular.

Quote from: Jane on November 20, 2018, 04:41:16 PM

Do you not know the difference between making an argument, an dpointing out why an argument doesn't work?

Pointing out why an argument doesn't work would either be a baseless claim or an argument itself.
As such it can either be outright dismissed as a baseless claim, or needs to be supported just like any other argument.

What are you talking about?

You have effectively admitted your argument doesn't apply to a general case as your argument relies upon assuming Earth is flat, and you admit that making assumptions about Earth's shape means it doesn't apply to a general case.

Seriously, what are you talking about? What even is the 'general case' my argument doesn't apply to?
Your argument doesn't apply to every earth shape, thus it is meaningless as a conclusion about them. I, meanwhile am not even trying to apply my counter-argument to multiple earth-shapes because I don't need to, I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about your claim.

So you have failed to substantiate your claim as the only argument you have backing it up is entirely circular.

Seriously, do you not understand the concept of pointing out a flaw in an argument?

Or:

If your argument depends on the Earth's shape, then your argument does not hold in a general circumstance. Thus, you have to specifically omit certain possibilities for your argument to hold.
What is complicated about that?

Jesus christ. I don't know how much more basically we can break this down. We have established:

1. Your argument does not hold when viewed from FE perspectives, hollow Earth perspectives...
2. Thus, your argument does not hold when viewed independently of Earth shape. You need to reject certain shapes of the Earth for your argument to hold.

I am not assuming a shape of the Earth. I am pointing out that you are. I am not making any claim beyond that.

Are you going to acknowledge or respond to any of this? Look at that, two numbers, both objective facts. Which obviously true thing are you going to complain about?

What are you talking about?

That should be pretty clear. Read what I said and read the context.

Seriously, what are you talking about? What even is the 'general case' my argument doesn't apply to?

The general case would be one where you don't consider the shape of Earth.

Your argument doesn't apply to every earth shape, thus it is meaningless as a conclusion about them.

Considering it is meant to refute a FE, it isn't surprising that it doesn't apply to every model.
The fact that I don't appeal to the shape of Earth means it is meaningful.

I, meanwhile am not even trying to apply my counter-argument to multiple earth-shapes because I don't need to

Yes you are. You are dismissing it because it doesn't work with a FE, which is the entire point of the argument.

Seriously, do you not understand the concept of pointing out a flaw in an argument?

Yes I do. You are yet to do so. Insteal all you have is a baseless assertion backed up by circular reasoning.

Again, what is wrong with my argument?

Jesus christ. I don't know how much more basically we can break this down.

Try actually addressing the argument rather than the strawmen you have established.

We have established:
1. Your argument does not hold when viewed from FE perspectives, hollow Earth perspectives...

Yes, because it shows them to be wrong.
That is effectively saying:
"That argument can't refute a FE because Earth is flat".
That is an entirely circular refutation.

It is like you objecting to measurements of curvature as evidence for a RE/refutation of a FE, because you wouldn't measure curvature on a FE.

You are assuming FE is true to dismiss arguments against it.
That is not a valid argument. It is entirely circular.

My argument makes no assumptions about Earth's shape up until the conclusion.
As such, it is general.

I am not assuming a shape of the Earth. I am pointing out that you are. I am not making any claim beyond that.

And you are completely wrong.
I am not assuming a shape of Earth. You are assuming a possible shape to try and refute an argument.

Are you going to acknowledge or respond to any of this? Look at that, two numbers, both objective facts.

I already have, repeatedly and you have ignored it.
You don't have 2 objective facts, you have blatant lies that you continue to repeat because you don't want to give up defending FE.

Stop lying about my position and try responding to it for once.

You can stop derailing the thread to all Hell or just answer the question. This is a perfectly valid question.

Every planet, star and moon are all round. The heliocentric model says it is due to gravity, which is consistent. In general, every planet, star and moon being round with Earth also being round is consistent. Every planet, moon and star being round but Earth not being round for no reason is inconsistent.

You can even ignore the fact that people are suggesting that Earth should also be round. It is a perfectly valid question to ask flat Earthers why every object in space over a couple hundred miles in diameter is round, but why Earth isn't. Even if the Earth has no reason to be round as you say, in the FE model, there should be an answer to why every other planet in space is round and why Earth isn't, as the round Earth model has a fine answer for it.

Quote from: Jane on November 20, 2018, 04:41:16 PM

We have established:
1. Your argument does not hold when viewed from FE perspectives, hollow Earth perspectives...

Yes, because it shows them to be wrong.

Oh. My. God.
No. We have been over this a truly sickening number of times. No. No. No. The similarities you insist on are not there when viewed from a different perspective. Take size, the size of the planets is hardly going to be comparable to the Earth if viewed from a hollow Earth perspective, the Earth definitely can't be said to rotate around the Sun like them in that case, and yet those are the similarities you've appealed to. There is no reason to think the Earth has anything in common with the planets until you settle on a specific shape.
I am not assuming anything for this. I am not making any claims about the real world because I don't need to, I am pointing out how utterly pathetic this argument is and always has been. It is an objective, undeniable fact that the premises of your argument do not hold for any other shape of the world. Note, premises. Premises, premises, premises. It hasn't got the slightest thing to do with your conclusion. Your premises rely on FET being false, in order to support the conclusion of FET being false. That is the definition of circular.
This is beyond absurd.

If you disagree, stop the childish point-scoring rambles and answer a straight question: how do your premises hold, independent of the Earth's shape?
They're what matter. If your premises cannot be reconciled with any other models, then they cannot be used to support a conclusion about those models. That'd be like me using the fact denpressure can't occur on a globe to refute RET.

You can even ignore the fact that people are suggesting that Earth should also be round. It is a perfectly valid question to ask flat Earthers why every object in space over a couple hundred miles in diameter is round, but why Earth isn't. Even if the Earth has no reason to be round as you say, in the FE model, there should be an answer to why every other planet in space is round and why Earth isn't, as the round Earth model has a fine answer for it.

Yep, that's a valid question, and if that's what had been asked I wouldn't have a problem. My issue is just how often this dead horse gets tugged out, trying to connect the Earth's shape to that of other objects. What you're asking, by contrast, is 'how was the Earth formed?' That's a fine question. It's just a far cry from the nonsense jackblack's defending.
The gist is simple enough though. It can be drawn as an analogy to an RE solar system; under RET, dust gathered, formed the Sun, and then its gravitational field allowed planets to form in orbit around it, all of which were very different to a star, etc. The presence of an object alters its environment sufficiently for different entities to come into being, that's the basic principle. A flat Earth, by consequence, typically makes up a significantly larger proportion of what we think of us the universe, so its existence would have a larger effect on the surroundings. You have DET, where it's formed by two opposing forces pushing matter together, something that is only going to happen like that in a specific location so arround it you have much more general cases; you have UA which is much the same with the Earth being formed in an accelerator, but then causing an exclusion zone whee it temporarily blocks the accelerator and other objects would be formed at the edges of that exclusion zone where the forces at play are subsequently very different, plus then you just get FE models that claim those other objects are flat.
Very brief summary, but you get the idea.

<< All attacking other people and not attacking the topic >>

Who made YOU the local representative of the Thought Police?

Have you ever thought of actually answering the question asked on the topic? "If the other planets are observably round (I mean come on) why isn't Earth?"

Quote from: Jane on November 21, 2018, 04:07:12 AM

<< All attacking other people and not attacking the topic >>

Who made YOU the local representative of the Thought Police?

Have you ever thought of actually answering the question asked on the topic? "If the other planets are observably round (I mean come on) why isn't Earth?"

...Done. Several times over, in several ways by now, including the most recent post before yours.

How is it attacking people to point out the flaws in the argument of the topic? Do.. do you think arguments are people? Is that why you get so defensive over them?

Aah i would disagree.
Your response to Q did not answer his question.
I would even say he didnt ask a question but stated there is no reasonable (key word reasonable) flat earth answer as to why earth is special.
You the canned out a plehtora of nonsense all which have been shown in their independant review to not work.

Sure
You gave an answer by definition you responded with words.
If thats your whole argument we acknowledge - you wrote words.
You didnt "answer" the question.

I would even say he didnt ask a question but stated there is no reasonable (key word reasonable) flat earth answer as to why earth is special.
You the canned out a plehtora of nonsense all which have been shown in their independant review to not work.

Care to provide anything it's actually possible to respond to?

You can stop derailing the thread to all Hell or just answer the question. This is a perfectly valid question.

Every planet, star and moon are all round. The heliocentric model says it is due to gravity, which is consistent. In general, every planet, star and moon being round with Earth also being round is consistent. Every planet, moon and star being round but Earth not being round for no reason is inconsistent.

You can even ignore the fact that people are suggesting that Earth should also be round. It is a perfectly valid question to ask flat Earthers why every object in space over a couple hundred miles in diameter is round, but why Earth isn't. Even if the Earth has no reason to be round as you say, in the FE model, there should be an answer to why every other planet in space is round and why Earth isn't, as the round Earth model has a fine answer for it.

I think you make a valid point. The problem is FE and their familiers find that a difficult one to respond to without special pleading, like...but the earth is different! They can’t explain what the difference is or how it came about. But all that aside all high altitude imagery clearly show the earth is a sphere. If we consult the ‘elephant’ it tells us all the satellite photographs and live feed from the ISS , which one can see, show quite clearly it aint flat, it’s no different from all the other planets, form wise, in the solar system.

Would Q please let us know to whom he referred to in his "derailing" comment?

Other planets appear round because miraculously we observe them all 'top down'. We are actually seeing other flat planets in their entirety. Who needs an expidetion to the ice wall? Grab a telescope and look at the Earths likeness on another world! 

We have been over this a truly sickening number of times.

Yes, we have, and you still don't seem to get it and instead insist on repeating the same garbage again and again and again.

The similarities you insist on are not there when viewed from a different perspective.

Again, that is assuming a model to be true to refute against it. That is entirely circular.

Take curvature for instance. It doesn't exist in the FE model, so by your reasoning, we cannot use curvature (regardless of how it is observed) to argue against a FE.
In effect you are demanding we first prove FE is false before we even start to prove it is false, that we must assume it is true if we want to argue against it.

That is pure garbage.

Again, stop making appeals to various models. Go based upon the observations alone. If you appeal to a model you are a making a circular argument which relies upon that model being true for your claims to be true.

My issue is just how often this dead horse gets tugged out

And my issue is how often you try to beat this living horse with pure garbage claiming FE doesn't say that so you can't use it against FE.

under RET, dust gathered, formed the Sun, and then its gravitational field allowed planets to form in orbit around it

No, that is not how it worked at all.
The dust formed into a rotating disc from collisions, which also started to clump matter together. The exchange of energy between the clumps lead to some falling towards the centre and forming the star while others were clumping together to form the planets.

You do not need a star to form a planet, and you can have multiple stars form in the same system.
The main determining factor of if it is a star or planet is the mass.
You have the same thing occuring, the large mass is brought together by gravity which forces it into a roughly spherical shape.

The way the sun affects the other planets is by being very hot and making it quite difficult for more volatile elements/compounds to exist close to it, and the solar wind can help blow away small debris.

You have DET, where it's formed by two opposing forces pushing matter together

Which has absolutely no basis for the magic required, and if it was going to do that you would end up with a single disc with everything there.

you have UA which is much the same with the Earth being formed in an accelerator

Notice how no explanation is provided for how?
How does the accelerator cause the matter to clump together and why does it form a disc? Also, that should result in nothing above the disc.

Other planets appear round because miraculously we observe them all 'top down'. We are actually seeing other flat planets in their entirety. Who needs an expidetion to the ice wall? Grab a telescope and look at the Earths likeness on another world! 

Except we observe them rotating, or do they just magically change their apparence to make it look like they rotate? We can also use doppler shifts to determine the sun rotates.

Again, stop making appeals to various models. Go based upon the observations alone.

That is what I'm doing. If you divorce the observation from models, they are ambiguous. Seriously, what do you think it means when you get different answers depending on what perspective you look from? It means that if the perspective isn't a factor in your development, you don't have an answer. You're treating RET as a default.

Put it like this. Break this down to the simplest possible element of the Sun going around the Earth. Under RET it is completing an orbit, going around a spherical object. Under FET it is travelling in a circle over a flat surface, with only emptiness in the middle of that circle.
What you are doing is the equivalent of saying "Tell about the force making the Sun move without paying attention to the model!"
That is impossible. Every single thing defining that force is completely different depending on the model, so if you just ignore that context you're going to get nothing. The only way this could be done, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is if you came to the conclusion as to what model you're viewing from entirely separately: but if you do that, this whole argument is pointless.

I am sick of needing to repeat this. Stop ignoring it. Stop outright lying about what I have said. Stop assuming RET, stop confusing premise and conclusion, stop acting as though your premises don't rely on RET to be true.

Fact is this discussion is rather pointless. Just like there can be no flat earth map, what with everywhere in known fixed locations based on known coordinates. If there can be no flat earth map, it follows there can be no flat earth.
In an age where people were pretty much in the dark about where every thing was and not all the planet had been explored, then I suppose Mavericks like Rowbotham could convince people about all sorts of things. Today things are very very different as we known know where every place and feature are relative to one another. Millions of journeys are made every day using that knowledge which is all based on the earth being a sphere. With all locations of everywhere now known how could anyone design a new map?....  it’s just impossible if you care to think about it, regardless of what ‘model’ you care to bandy on about.

That is what I'm doing.

No, you're not. You are saying under particular models that wouldn't be the case, completely ignoring the observations when doing so.

Again, it would be like dismissing observations of curvature, because a FE doesn't have curve.

I provided a list of observations and conclusions which show Earth and the other planets are similar, without any appeal to a model.

Under RET it is completing an orbit, going around a spherical object. Under FET it is travelling in a circle over a flat surface

Again, notice how you ignore the observations and instead only bother focusing on what the model itself says.
The FE notion is not backed up by ANY evidence.

At best what you actually get is the sun moving in an extremely chaotic path as it spirals in circles up and down around a stationary Earth, it obits a rotating Earth, with the axis of the orbit and rotation offset by some angle, or a rotating Earth orbits the sun.

No observations indicate the sun is circling above a FE. Again, it is only by assuming the FE model that you end up with that model.
Again, it is rejecting observations because it doesn't fit with a FE.
That would be like saying, no you can't use measurements of curvature in an argument against a FE because there is no curvature for a FE.

I am sick of needing to repeat this.

I'm not the one making you repeat yourself, nor is it needed or in any way helpful.
If you want to stop repeating yourself the solution is simple; stop repeating the same useless garbage and start addressing what I have actually said; alternatively just stay out of the conversation as you aren't offering anything useful with your circular non-rebuttal.
Stop assuming FE is true to refute arguments against it.

Quote from: Jane on November 21, 2018, 12:51:41 PM

That is what I'm doing.

No, you're not. You are saying under particular models that wouldn't be the case, completely ignoring the observations when doing so.

So are you saying those observations demonstrate that FET isn't a possibility?

Quote from: JackBlack on November 21, 2018, 03:23:59 PM

Quote from: Jane on November 21, 2018, 12:51:41 PM

That is what I'm doing.

No, you're not. You are saying under particular models that wouldn't be the case, completely ignoring the observations when doing so.

So are you saying those observations demonstrate that FET isn't a possibility?

We know there is only one shape and being flat is not is because there is no edge. Plus other reasons.

Do you have proof Donald Trump exists?

Quote from: JackBlack on November 21, 2018, 03:23:59 PM

Quote from: Jane on November 21, 2018, 12:51:41 PM

That is what I'm doing.

No, you're not. You are saying under particular models that wouldn't be the case, completely ignoring the observations when doing so.

So are you saying those observations demonstrate that FET isn't a possibility?

Yes i would say so.

Quote from: Jane on November 21, 2018, 03:32:34 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on November 21, 2018, 03:23:59 PM

Quote from: Jane on November 21, 2018, 12:51:41 PM

That is what I'm doing.

No, you're not. You are saying under particular models that wouldn't be the case, completely ignoring the observations when doing so.

So are you saying those observations demonstrate that FET isn't a possibility?

Yes i would say so.

Then why on the rhombicuboctahedral earth are you using this argument if you've refuted FET before you even get to making it?