[AATW]

I think you're getting a bit too bogged down in semantics:

An astronomical object or celestial object is a naturally occurring physical entity, association, or structure that exists in the observable universe. In astronomy, the terms object and body are often used interchangeably. However, an astronomical body or celestial body is a single, tightly bound, contiguous entity, while an astronomical or celestial object is a complex, less cohesively bound structure, which may consist of multiple bodies or even other objects with substructures. Examples of astronomical objects include planetary systems, star clusters, nebulae, and galaxies, while asteroids, moons, planets, and stars are astronomical bodies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_object

Wiki is admittedly not the best source but it's the first one I found and that's pretty much how I'm using the term.

[Pete Svarrior]

Yes - as predicted, you redefine the term every time you turn out to be wrong. The OP asked about bodies, you tried to make it about large bodies, and now "bodies" means something else than it does in physics.

We will not be having this discussion here. I am asking you to get back on topic, and I'd like to keep it to just asking.

[ChrisTP]

Pete, if I could rephrase his question AATW was asking, have humans discovered an object in the universe that is as massive as a planet/moon or more (massive being in terms of weight, not size) that is anything other than roughly spheroid? Oumuamua is too tiny, nebulars are large but not massive. Oumuamua would be a great example if it weren't so small. It'd be like throwing a spanner into space and saying "there, look! It's an object in space that isn't a sphere!". I think this is also the OP's thoughts, how have we not seen other massive objects that aren't shaped like the norm?

Also arguing semantics and calling people names really gets you nowhere in these discussions Pete, it's pretty distruptive.

[Pete Svarrior]

Pete, if I could rephrase his question AATW was asking, have humans discovered an object in the universe that is as massive as a planet/moon or more (massive being in terms of weight, not size) that is anything other than roughly spheroid?

I refer you to my first post in this thread. The answer is "no" and I provided it long before you guys descended into... whatever this is.

how have we not seen other massive objects that aren't shaped like the norm?

Once again, going back to my first post in this thread, the answer is "I don't know. Much like with extraterrestrial life, perhaps it's simply not there, or perhaps we simply need to keep looking. The fact that we haven't seen life outside of Earth does not mean life does not exist altogether. Similarly, the fact that we haven't seen another Flat Earth does not mean that the Earth is not flat"

I do not understand the benefit of repeating myself, and I tend to get quite annoyed when people demand it of me. We're all adults. We should read each other's arguments before responding to them. Now that I've repeated myself, there's a risk of people repeating counter-arguments that have already been made and responded to. It just turns the discussion into a mess.

nebulars are large but not massive

The nebula in question is much more massive than other bodies you're willing to accept.

Also arguing semantics and calling people names really gets you nowhere in these discussions Pete

I agree, but I propose that you incorrectly identified the person who started the argument over semantics. I (quite harshly, to be fair) asked AATW to stop doing that. Luckily, he's complied. Redefining terms over and over is indeed extremely unhelpful.

If you consider me calling someone a "zealot" to be name-calling and something that's worth spending any time discussing, well, I fear for your ability to cope in society. Many people will be much harsher to you than I ever am.

[TheMatrix]

If you consider me calling someone a "zealot" to be name-calling and something that's worth spending any time discussing, well, I fear for your ability to cope in society. Many people will be much harsher to you than I ever am.

The definition of a zealot is

a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

It seems to me that such a definition can be more appropriately applied to the average FE believer than anyone on the RE side. FE Theorists appear to start with an assertion or conclusion (i.e. that the Earth is flat) and then do their best to make real world observations fit that theory. Even if it means inventing apparently new aspects of physics that the rest of the world has not discovered yet to achieve that.

I appreciate that you don't and never will think of the Earth as anything other than flat, but that is no reason to be disrespectful towards those who don't share your views. Without people who hold different views we couldn't and wouldn't have any of these discussions. RE believers have no less right to believe what they do than anyone else does.

RE believers are open minded and quite willing to make corrections to their models as new or different evidence comes to light.  That's not something that seems to be applicable to the FE side.

[AATW]

I don't feel Pete is name calling but I do feel he is being disingenuous.

Let's say we have a discussion about the properties of "bodies of water" and I claim that all bodies of water over a certain mass have a certain property and say why they have that property. Someone says "what about this puddle?" and then, when I say "that isn't above a certain mass" the person pretends I've added mass as a new requirement, even though I mentioned that right from the start.
Then the person says "well, what about this cloud?"
I think pretty much everyone would understand if I talk about "bodies of water" I mean oceans and lakes, not clouds or puddles.
So if the person is claiming it's me "redefining terms over and over" then at best they're being intellectually dishonest, more likely they're just trolling.

So, just for clarity, I'm using the term - and have consistently been doing so - to mean stars, planets and moons (above a certain mass). These two links back up that use of the term:

https://www.universetoday.com/48671/celestial-body/
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/celestial-body

To be fair, this one does also mention nebulae:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/celestial%20body

But I think most people would understand the word "body" in the way I'm using it. In the same way that if I ask for a fruit salad I think most people would know that I don't mean a bowl of chopped tomatoes and the explanation that "tomatoes are a fruit".

Semantics are important because if you want to have an honest discussion you need to agree what terms mean. If I'm talking about "large bodies of water" and someone starts talking about puddles or clouds then they are not being honest. If I'm talking about "celestial bodies above a certain mass" and someone mentions small rocks then they're being dishonest. If they mention nebulae then at best they're playing semantic games and wilfully misunderstanding what I mean. My point remains what I originally said:

It’s not just that the earth and all the other celestial bodies above a certain mass we observe are spherical, or roughly so.
Gravity explains why that is so and we understand the oblateness caused by the earth’s spin.

I have now defined what I mean by celestial body unless that was unclear. Physics doesn't predict that small bodies will form into a spherical shape under the force of gravity. Nebulae are where stars are born so yes, parts of nebulae will coalesce into spherical bodies but that happens over deep time.

The original question was "Why do you think earth alone is flat?". The only honest FE answer to that is that they don't know. It just is. This is where RE wins, it explains why earth is an oblate spheroid. It explains why every other star, planet and moon (above a certain mass) is too. If we were discover a flat earth-size planet then it would completely change our understanding of physics, our current understanding of it says we won't.