The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Koos on January 16, 2016, 05:28:14 PM
-
Do other planets like Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. exist? And if so, are they also flat?
-
Do other planets like Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. exist? And if so, are they also flat?
Some people - such as Socrates, Bill Nye (the science guy) and Ricky Ponting - have put out interesting theories about the other planets not existing at all. However, this is all up for debate until the day we manage to actually (don't believe all those pesky conspiracy theories out there) send a man into outer space. Thank you for your time.
-
Do other planets like Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. exist? And if so, are they also flat?
Yes. Many of your questions are answered in the wiki:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets
-
Do other planets like Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. exist? And if so, are they also flat?
Of course they exist! We've even had several successful landings on Mars. And no; they're not 'flat'. Pleeeease do your research! Where do you get your information from? Youtube?
-
Do other planets like Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. exist? And if so, are they also flat?
Yes. Many of your questions are answered in the wiki:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets
And the wiki contains such prime examples of hand-wavery;
Rotundity
Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?
A. The earth is not a planet.
Size and Magnitude
Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?
A. Pretty small.
Solar System
Q. What does the Solar System look like in FET?
A. In FET the planets are revolving around the sun, while the sun itself revolves around the Northern Hub.
Retrograde Motion
Q. Why do planets retrograde in the sky?
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/1/1e/Retrograde.jpg)
A. Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth. This particular path the planets take makes it appear as if several of them make a loop along their journeys across the night sky.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f7/Retrograde2.jpg)
Please note that the planets are moving very slowly around the sun and would not retrograde several times a day as might be implied by the above diagram. The diagram is for illustration purposes only. Several retrogrades a year would be more appropriate, depending on the planet.
The retrograde happens very slowly in the night sky, over a long period of time.
-
Do other planets like Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. exist? And if so, are they also flat?
Yes. Many of your questions are answered in the wiki:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets
And the wiki contains such prime examples of hand-wavery;
Rotundity
Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?
A. The earth is not a planet.
Size and Magnitude
Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?
A. Pretty small.
Solar System
Q. What does the Solar System look like in FET?
A. In FET the planets are revolving around the sun, while the sun itself revolves around the Northern Hub.
Retrograde Motion
Q. Why do planets retrograde in the sky?
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/1/1e/Retrograde.jpg)
A. Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth. This particular path the planets take makes it appear as if several of them make a loop along their journeys across the night sky.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/f/f7/Retrograde2.jpg)
Please note that the planets are moving very slowly around the sun and would not retrograde several times a day as might be implied by the above diagram. The diagram is for illustration purposes only. Several retrogrades a year would be more appropriate, depending on the planet.
The retrograde happens very slowly in the night sky, over a long period of time.
Unless you have a question, or something to add to the discussion, I'll ask you to refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. Pasting info from the wiki with a prefacing snide remark adds nothing. Consider this a warning.
-
I do not believe planets exist. They are reflexions of light.
And if so, are they also flat?
There are allegations that the 1st few telescopic photographs of Mars looked like the surface of the moon. I can not find a web source for that claim yet. Try to search it yourself.
-
I do not believe planets exist. They are reflexions of light.
And if so, are they also flat?
There are allegations that the 1st few telescopic photographs of Mars looked like the surface of the moon. I can not find a web source for that claim yet. Try to search it yourself.
how do you feel about the moon?
-
Yes they are, and we know they are spherical because they rotates, they also show phases and change in angular size.
See phases of Venus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_Venus
-
how do you feel about the moon?
The moon is obviously a reflection of the grand surface of the earth reflecting up upon the reflective surface of the firmament.
That is why we see the same surface and that is why it is a perfect circle.
We are probably a tiny point inside one of the craters.
-
I believe the other planets are probably flat. We have photographic evidence (https://www.google.com/search?q=surface+of+Mars&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibieG1h7LKAhVCOhoKHYKjCBsQ_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=971) that Mars is flat.
-
I believe the other planets are probably flat. We have photographic evidence (https://www.google.com/search?q=surface+of+Mars&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibieG1h7LKAhVCOhoKHYKjCBsQ_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=971) that Mars is flat.
Nope it's mountainous and cratered. The link also show photos from Martian rovers by NASA, which would be impossible if both Earth and Mars is flat.
-
I believe the other planets are probably flat. We have photographic evidence (https://www.google.com/search?q=surface+of+Mars&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibieG1h7LKAhVCOhoKHYKjCBsQ_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=971) that Mars is flat.
Nope it's mountainous and cratered.
Weirdly pedantic, don't you think? ???
The link also show photos from Martian rovers by NASA, which would be impossible if both Earth and Mars is flat.
Why?
-
I would assume the other planets are round.
-
I believe the other planets are probably flat. We have photographic evidence (https://www.google.com/search?q=surface+of+Mars&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibieG1h7LKAhVCOhoKHYKjCBsQ_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=971) that Mars is flat.
These photo's are clearly doctored because we've never been to space or we'd have pictures of our flat earth from space. Don't link doctored photo's as fact please.
-
The angular size of Venus is another topic of interest, mentioned by the RE, that cannot be answered in the context of the official faq.
As usual, I have to come to the rescue.
THE EXTENDED SCHROETER EFFECT: THE EVENING STAR AND THE MORNING STAR ARE TWO DIFFERENT PLANETS
Official astronomy science:
In 1793, J. H. Schroeter reported, for the first time, observing the southern limb of the planet Venus remaining concave up to about eight days before or after its conjunction with the Sun, according to his best estimate.
In general, the time difference between the time of theoretical dichotomy and the time of observed dichotomy is about four to six days.
The various theoretical interpretations of this long-standing anomaly, whether they be atmospheric, kinematic or optical, have not been able to explain the basic Schroeter effect: they cannot explain in any way the extended Schroeter effect.
Nonetheless, the phase anomaly of Venus is much wider than the Schroeter's effect, and can produce differences of ± 0.10 for all phases from near 0.1 Phase to 0.9 Phase; and not just at 0.5 Phase alone.
Eastern elongation Venus Schroeter effect data:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005JBAA..115...79H/0000080.000.html
Western elongation Venus Schroeter effect data:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005JBAA..115...79H/0000081.000.html
Notable differences observed:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005JBAA..115...79H/0000082.000.html
The superb analysis of the Schroeter effect in the context of geocentrism:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120726101423/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Schroter.htm (it includes a different proof of the fact that the Schroeter effect can only take place within the geocentric context, many other quotes concerning the Schroeter effect)
http://www.issibern.ch/teams/venusso2/multimedia/pdf/Krasnopolsky_06.pdf (unsolved problems for the atmosphere of Venus)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969JBAA...79..286J (the phase anomalies of Mercury)
The Evening Star and Morning Star are two different planets:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427
On the angular size of Mars:
http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/The-resolution-of-Mars,4
"In fact, the only thing that Galileo's findings showed was that the epicycles in the Ptolemaic system were much larger than had previously been suspected.
As for the Tychonic model of Geocentrism, if one uses the same elliptical orbits of Kepler, the result is that two epicycles in the Ptolemaic system will translate into one ellipse, per planet, in the Tychonic system. Thus, around the sun, Mercury and Venus would each have a perigee and an apogee, and each locus of points along that polarity would show the respective phases of Mercury and Venus, as viewed from earth." (R. Sungenis) - (this is how, on a flat earth, we correctly explain the phases of Venus photograph: http://s23.postimg.org/sfm8mp8p7/venus_phase1.jpg )
-
I believe the other planets are probably flat. We have photographic evidence (https://www.google.com/search?q=surface+of+Mars&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibieG1h7LKAhVCOhoKHYKjCBsQ_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=971) that Mars is flat.
These photo's are clearly doctored because we've never been to space or we'd have pictures of our flat earth from space. Don't link doctored photo's as fact please.
Can you prove that? Even the staunchest fundamentalist FEer is wise enough to know that they can't really claim the images are "clearly doctored" (beyond some occasional and openly acknowledged cosmetic clean-up) because they know that they aren't "clearly" doctored, since such doctoring has never been proven; rather, the argument is made that images in general *can* be doctored, therefore the evidence is unreliable.
But I think the notion of the Conspiracy is too unwieldy to realistically exist, so it's more prudent to take it as incorrect (at this point, saying NASA has never been to space is a lot like saying that Australia doesn't exist; there are too many people who can verify it for it to be fake). That's why I thought a reformation of the old ideas was necessary, since one way or the other the Earth is clearly and verifiably flat. Fortunately, the images that NASA provides from the surface of other planets actually shows that they are flat, suggesting that flatness is the norm for large bodies like planets and likely even the sun.
-
I believe the other planets are probably flat. We have photographic evidence (https://www.google.com/search?q=surface+of+Mars&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibieG1h7LKAhVCOhoKHYKjCBsQ_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=971) that Mars is flat.
These photo's are clearly doctored because we've never been to space or we'd have pictures of our flat earth from space. Don't link doctored photo's as fact please.
Can you prove that? Even the staunchest fundamentalist FEer is wise enough to know that they can't really claim the images are "clearly doctored" (beyond some occasional and openly acknowledged cosmetic clean-up) because they know that they aren't "clearly" doctored, since such doctoring has never been proven; rather, the argument is made that images in general *can* be doctored, therefore the evidence is unreliable.
But I think the notion of the Conspiracy is too unwieldy to realistically exist, so it's more prudent to take it as incorrect (at this point, saying NASA has never been to space is a lot like saying that Australia doesn't exist; there are too many people who can verify it for it to be fake). That's why I thought a reformation of the old ideas was necessary, since one way or the other the Earth is clearly and verifiably flat. Fortunately, the images that NASA provides from the surface of other planets actually shows that they are flat, suggesting that flatness is the norm for large bodies like planets and likely even the sun.
So where are the pictures of our planet from space? Why do they give us pictures of Mars but not Earth? The images being doctored are the logical conclusion of a lack of pictures of our own Earth. It's easier when in space to turn around and snap a photo than from the surface of Mars. In the case of a conspiracy, if you think the space conspiracy is to unwieldy to realistically exist you are also claiming the same for FE theory since they go hand in hand. From space the evidence would be indisputable.
-
So where are the pictures of our planet from space?
Can't you use google? They are not hard to find.
-
So where are the pictures of our planet from space?
Can't you use google? They are not hard to find.
So you are a round worlder, showing pictures of the earth from different angles would be evidence of a round world and you have bought it. Why are you here?
-
So where are the pictures of our planet from space?
Can't you use google? They are not hard to find.
So you are a round worlder, showing pictures of the earth from different angles would be evidence of a round world and you have bought it. Why are you here?
No, I am a Flat Earther. I can observe for myself that the Earth is flat, I don't need images from a million miles up influencing my judgment.
-
So where are the pictures of our planet from space?
Can't you use google? They are not hard to find.
So you are a round worlder, showing pictures of the earth from different angles would be evidence of a round world and you have bought it. Why are you here?
No, I am a Flat Earther. I can observe for myself that the Earth is flat, I don't need images from a million miles up influencing my judgment.
Now I'm confused, how do you see pictures of the world at different angles, think their real and also think the world is flat.
-
So where are the pictures of our planet from space?
Can't you use google? They are not hard to find.
So you are a round worlder, showing pictures of the earth from different angles would be evidence of a round world and you have bought it. Why are you here?
No, I am a Flat Earther. I can observe for myself that the Earth is flat, I don't need images from a million miles up influencing my judgment.
Now I'm confused, how do you see pictures of the world at different angles, think their real and also think the world is flat.
I'm confused by what you mean by seeing the world "at different angles". I look down, I see a flat Earth. The only angle i need to see that is 90 degrees, though it works equally well at 45 degrees or 60 degrees.
-
I'm confused by what you mean by seeing the world "at different angles". I look down, I see a flat Earth. The only angle i need to see that is 90 degrees.
If you google 'pictures of the Earth' lots of pictures pop up showing a circular object centered on different continents. This is impossible in a flat world since the pictures would all be focused on the same spot, so I dismiss them. You say they're real so they must have been taken at different angles of a round object (according to you).
-
You say they're real so they must have been taken at different angles of a round object (according to you).
No, I never said that. How could that be when the Earth is flat?
-
You say they're real so they must have been taken at different angles of a round object (according to you).
No, I never said that. How could that be when the Earth is flat?
You told me to use google to find pictures of the Earth, you claimed those pictures are real, the pictures in google images show many different continents as the central focus, this is impossible if the earth is flat. Where did I slip up? I think these pictures are doctored because if I draw the earth on a piece of paper I can only take a picture of it from one angle. I'm starting to think you aren't a flat worlder because you've made two assertions that can't co-exist. I knew the government wants to keep an eye on people who know the truth but this is the first time I've seen a piece of evidence to their existence online. You need more consistency in your logic to get people to believe your conviction.
-
You say they're real so they must have been taken at different angles of a round object (according to you).
No, I never said that. How could that be when the Earth is flat?
You told me to use google to find pictures of the Earth, you claimed those pictures are real, the pictures in google images show many different continents as the central focus, this is impossible if the earth is flat.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
Where did I slip up?
Obviously you aren't taking aetheric refraction into account.
You need more consistency in your logic to get people to believe your conviction.
Frankly I don't give a shit if you believe my conviction. Go away if you don't like the answers I give you. You are a typical smug REer.
-
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
I do in fact. Take a piece of paper and draw the earth on it. Now take a camera and take pictures of the piece of paper from any angle you choose. Look and the pictures you've taken and see that the center of the picture never changes. A simple experiment that allows you to see those photo's are doctored.
Obviously you aren't taking aetheric refraction into account.
No, because that's an outdated hypothesis. Frame-dragging is the correct term you're looking for and it doesn't apply to the distances we're talking about.
Frankly I don't give a shit if you believe my conviction. Go away if you don't like the answers I give you. You are a typical smug REer.
This is a typical government agent response, claim the true believer is a REer and act all indignant in the hopes your cover isn't blown.
-
You told me to use google to find pictures of the Earth,
Not only that but his 1st link is nothing more than a Googly search. That is not evidence --- rather, that is spamming and setting up a honey pot.
He is helping Google collect data.
-
You told me to use google to find pictures of the Earth,
Not only that but his 1st link is nothing more than a Googly search. That is not evidence --- rather, that is spamming and setting up a honey pot.
He is helping Google collect data.
The plot thickens, I'm pretty sure data collection on people is his occupation.
-
I'd like to believe that you are all trolling about man never going to space and that all the planets are flat and such, because I refuse to believe that people liing in this day and age can be as stupid as you people are being on this thread.
-
I'd like to believe that you are all trolling about man never going to space and that all the planets are flat and such, because I refuse to believe that people liing in this day and age can be as stupid as you people are being on this thread.
There are a few trolls, but I don't think it's too hard to point them out. I, for one, am a legitimate flat earth believer. However, I tend towards believing the other planets are spherical; though, I don't believe man has been to space (at least not to the extent we've been led to believe).
As for other planets existing, I repeat myself - yes, and I imagine they are spherical.
-
I'd like to believe that you are all trolling about man never going to space and that all the planets are flat and such, because I refuse to believe that people liing in this day and age can be as stupid as you people are being on this thread.
There are a few trolls, but I don't think it's too hard to point them out. I, for one, am a legitimate flat earth believer. However, I tend towards believing the other planets are spherical; though, I don't believe man has been to space (at least not to the extent we've been led to believe).
As for other planets existing, I repeat myself - yes, and I imagine they are spherical.
If the others are spherical, why is the earth not? if you went to the surface of those planets, you would also see the terrain in front of you as flat because of their sizes.
-
Roundy,
Your responses were insufficient to demonstrate to others, this conviction you hold.
Icaruss,
I agree that the sudden attack is a low level response and suspicious.
Earthisround,
This phrase, "people living this day and age" is commonly used to assert the negative connotation with questioning one's environment. Interesting to see so many people repeat this mantra in any discussion related to this subject.
With our society's focus fixated outside of our own environment it assists greatly in dismissing any notion that the Earth is anything but round.
I assume that these planets, as they are classified are either an independent light source or reflections.
-
Well given the fact that there is no outer space, I would have to say no.