The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: potato9times on September 26, 2019, 09:15:17 AM
-
Why do you think earth alone is flat? Why do you believe the pictures of other planets, but not earth? Do you not realise that the concepts with LOT OF APPLICATIONS like conservation of angular momentum, newtons third law and lot others are completely against the disc structure of earth.
-
Why do you think earth alone is flat? Why do you believe the pictures of other planets, but not earth? Do you not realise that the concepts with LOT OF APPLICATIONS like conservation of angular momentum, newtons third law and lot others are completely against the disc structure of earth.
Who can argue against photographic evidence - like this one
https://www.dogster.com/the-scoop/breaking-pluto-the-dog-has-been-found-on-pluto
-
Why do you think earth alone is flat? Why do you believe the pictures of other planets, but not earth? Do you not realise that the concepts with LOT OF APPLICATIONS like conservation of angular momentum, newtons third law and lot others are completely against the disc structure of earth.
Who can argue against photographic evidence - like this one
https://www.dogster.com/the-scoop/breaking-pluto-the-dog-has-been-found-on-pluto
Are you making a point? Humans are famously good at seeing shapes or patterns in meanlingless noise.
The "Face on Mars" thing which for a while got people excited that ancient Martian communities had build the structure.
Subsequent better quality images show it looks nothing like a face
https://www.space.com/17191-face-on-mars.html
-
The point is blindingly obvious to those who can see .
-
The point is blindingly obvious to those who can see .
OK, well humour me.
What is your point?
-
The point is blindingly obvious to those who can see .
OK, well humour me.
What is your point?
Yes, humour us both, and spell it out. What is your point?
-
Make that three of us to humour. More to the point I don't understand what a distinctive pattern of dark and light features on Pluto has to do with the Earth being flat?
-
Why do you think earth alone is flat?
How have you reached that conclusion? There could well be celestial bodies we haven't discovered yet.
Now, to be fair, you did specifically ask about the solar system, so perhaps that likelihood is not great. But the Earth is rather unique even within the context of RET. How come you believe reports of all other celestial bodies in the solar system being entirely lifeless, but you somehow think there might be life on Earth?
The answer is bordering on blatant: because we can observe it directly and readily.
Why do you believe the pictures of other planets, but not earth?
This is, quite simply, not the case. Our approach is to not take any photographic evidence for granted. Those of us who accept the rotundity of planets do so, again, because they were able to directly observe it, not because someone showed them a pretty picture.
Do you not realise that the concepts with LOT OF APPLICATIONS like conservation of angular momentum, newtons third law and lot others are completely against the disc structure of earth.
A contentious claim at best. I'd recommend familiarising yourself with FET instead of assuming that your imagination of it is representative.
-
Contentious claim? Do you drive or observe people who drive? Tell them to go fast when they turn and see how they topple of from ground. Conservation of angular momentum is real. Photographic evidence is there for earth too, ISS is observable. Do you think the trajectory of observable ISS is fake? Have all your members around the world and notice ISS, for one full rotation of ISS.
-
But the Earth is rather unique even within the context of RET. How come you believe reports of all other celestial bodies in the solar system being entirely lifeless, but you somehow think there might be life on Earth?
I've seen this said before, maybe by you, I can't remember.
I completely disagree with this assertion. Earth is, admittedly, the only place we know of where life exists but
a) We have a very small sample set of planets to check, compared to the scale of the universe.
b) Our exploration of them is in its infancy, relatively speaking.
We've sent probes to all the other planets in our solar system now but only landed on 2 of them. We've never sent humans to any of them. We can be pretty confident there's no intelligent life anywhere else in the solar system (the word "else" is possibly superfluous ;)) but could there be microbial life on one of the planets or moons? There are a few potential candidates and we've only just started scratching the surface in terms of exploration. It's only in the last 50 years we've had the technology to start exploring them and because of the distances and complexities involved we are very much at the start of that exploration.
Could there be life or even intelligent life elsewhere? We now have the technology to detect exoplanets but that is even newer than our ability to explore the planets in our own solar system. We are starting to discover planets in the so-called Goldilocks zone, we're able to pick up signatures from the atmospheres of other planets which hint at liquid water on some of them. From what we know about life on earth water is a prerequisite but, again, we only have a very small sample of planets to study the conditions which make life possible. It's a big universe. So big that some people believe that intelligent life is inevitable elsewhere. The fact is, we honestly don't know.
Our mentality that our planet is special or unique or has some privileged position in the universe is based on the fact that for most of our history we didn't have the technology to know different. It wasn't until the middle ages we realised that we weren't at the centre of the universe. It's only the last 50 years we've been able to start exploring the other planets and only in the last 30 we've started to be able to detect exoplanets (I'm surprised it's that long, according to Google the first one was discovered in 1988, it's certainly only recently we've started discover them in volume and be able to infer details of their atmospheres from spectroscopy).
In lots of ways there is nothing special about the earth. From our explorations of the other plants so far it looks like many of the same features found on earth are present on the other planets. They have volcanos and seismic activity, mountains and valleys. We think there are oceans on some of the moons. Mars has ice water and some of the features are highly suggestive on liquid water flowing at some point in the past. Did life ever exist there? Does it exist in any form now? We're so new to the exploration of it, relatively speaking, it's impossible to be sure.
The assertion that the earth is unique comes from religious belief or the limits of our scientific knowledge. Currently there is no reason to think there is anything special about the earth. It's possible we are the only planet in the universe with intelligent life on but the more we understand about other planets in our solar system and the similarities we see, the more we understand the scale of the universe and the prevalence of planets orbiting other stars the more plausible it seems that there's nothing special about our place in the universe and nothing unique about the earth at all.
-
How come you believe reports of all other celestial bodies in the solar system being entirely lifeless, but you somehow think there might be life on Earth?
I can confirm without any doubt whatsoever that there is definitely life on Earth.
How have you reached that conclusion? There could well be celestial bodies we haven't discovered yet.
We are discovering new celestial bodies all the time. None of them flat though.
Come to think of it there is no evidence that we have far discovered that shows us irrefutably that the Earth is flat either. So why on Earth would we think it is? If it was we wouldn't see a distinct and clearly defined horizon. That's not hard to figure out.
-
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.
In FET there’s no explanation for why the earth is flat and the other bodies we observe are round, it just is. The earth is special and different for some reason.
I can understand that from the people who come to FET through a skewed interpretation of certain Bible verses. Of course people like that would think the earth is special and different. Not sure why anyone who doesn’t come to FET from that angle would think that though as the evidence mounts up that we are a pretty unremarkable planet orbiting a pretty unremarkable star in an unremarkable galaxy.
With my Christian hat on I’d say our significance comes from who the Bible says we are, not where we are.
-
In FET there’s no explanation for why the earth is flat and the other bodies we observe are round, it just is.
In this sense FE'ers are like rebelious, arrogant teenagers who deliberately take on a different opinion to everyone else just because they want to disagree with the mainstream view. Their strongest contention is that the Earth must be flat because it looks flat. But that is simply a misinterptretation, deliberate or otherwise of the fact that we see so little of the Earths surface at any one time that we cannot see any noticeable curvature.
What happens when we look out into space? We see a round Moon, a round Sun and round planets. Strange that eh? Above a certain mass threshold any solid body in space is sculpted by gravity into a basically spherical shape. Why? Because there is a tendancy of matter to want to get as close as possible to the centre of the mass. So that naturally creates a spherical shape.
To try and avoid the inevitable, FE believers have created their own version of physics such as UA and EA, neither of which have ever actually been tested and proved to be true. The only thing special about the Earth is that we happen to live on it so we are obviously going to have a unique perspective of it. If we were to go and visit another planet in the Solar System, the Earth would just be a bright dot in the sky like all the other planets.
-
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.
The oblate spheroid of Newton was rubbished by the scientists that carried out the first test of Newtons theory of gravity - 1670's survey of arc of meridian across France carried out by the French academy of Sciences , led by Giovanni Cassini .
Also ,seeing a round sun and planets is not the same as seeing spheres.
-
Also ,seeing a round sun and planets is not the same as seeing spheres.
Really - how is that then? By that comment alone you make it clear that you have never looked through a telescope at the Moon through a telescope. I would recommend it because you can clearly see, unmistakably that the Moon is indeed spherical. Same applies to the Sun but of course you have to use the proper filters and precautions when looking at the Sun through telescopes. I can highly recommend Ha dedicated solar telescopes.
No question from this image for example that the Suns shape is spherical http://www.avertedimagination.com/images/a_ha_moment2.jpg
-
The oblate spheroid of Newton was rubbished by the scientists that carried out the first test of Newtons theory of gravity - 1670's survey of arc of meridian across France carried out by the French academy of Sciences , led by Giovanni Cassini.
I see. Please provide more details. If it's been rubbished then how come that remains the prevailing scientific view?
Also ,seeing a round sun and planets is not the same as seeing spheres.
Correct, I guess they could be flat discs. But given the phases we observe of the planets and the way sunspots and other features move across the sun's surface it's clear they're spheres. There's only one 3D shape which appears as a circle (or part thereof, if it's partially lit) from any angle and that's a sphere.
How do you think moons orbit the other planets if it's not for them all being spheres and gravity?
-
But given the phases we observe of the planets and the way sunspots and other features move across the sun's surface it's clear they're spheres.
The only planets that show a full sequence of phases are Mercury and Venus. Evidence that shows the Earth is the third planet out from the Sun. Sunspots are the 'giveaway' evidence for the Suns rotation and since the Sun always looks like a disk from Earth there is your observational evidence that the Sun is a sphere.
Of course if Somerled can offer some viable, alternative explanation then please let us know. However if you refuse to accept any evidence other than what you can see with just your eyes alone then your arguments are very limited I'm afraid.
-
The oblate spheroid of Newton was rubbished by the scientists that carried out the first test of Newtons theory of gravity - 1670's survey of arc of meridian across France carried out by the French academy of Sciences , led by Giovanni Cassini.
I see. Please provide more details. If it's been rubbished then how come that remains the prevailing scientific view?
Also ,seeing a round sun and planets is not the same as seeing spheres.
Correct, I guess they could be flat discs. But given the phases we observe of the planets and the way sunspots and other features move across the sun's surface it's clear they're spheres. There's only one 3D shape which appears as a circle (or part thereof, if it's partially lit) from any angle and that's a sphere.
How do you think moons orbit the other planets if it's not for them all being spheres and gravity?
Mainstream science accepts anything , even poor experiment , which supports the fictitious solar system . Posting CGI of planets/sun is evidence of nothing.
The planets and our moon do not exhibit the reflective properties of spherical objects (scattering of light resulting in a hotspot) lit from a distant source . The outer planets exhibit no characteristics suggestive of reflection from a sphere lit by a distant sun , you can see that through your telescopes . They could be luminaries . Inner planets are small moons of the local sun (Brahe). Of course all our theories about light could be wrong too .
The solar system model was introduced without any supporting evidence . A fact which is always ignored .
Researching subjects yourself is the best way to form your own views . Blind acceptance not my thing .
-
I really cannot fathom where you get your ideas from. Everything you say is quite simply made up as you go along.
Mainstream science accepts anything , even poor experiment , which supports the fictitious solar system
Absolute rubbish.
The planets and our moon do not exhibit the reflective properties of spherical objects
Again, absolute rubbish. How do you suppose the phases of the Moon happen if its not by reflected sunlight? What causes the phases of Venus?
The outer planets exhibit no characteristics suggestive of reflection from a sphere lit by a distant sun
I see, so how do you account for the shadow transits of the satellites of Jupiter then as they pass across Jupiters disk. Something you can see in a telescope quite regularly. And how do you account for the shadow of Saturns disk on the rings? Something you don't see when Saturn is at or very near opposition?
What you say is based on your biased opinions and not on real, observational evidence. In weak efforts to defend your views you always revert back to historical evidence when our knowledge of the Solar System was far less thorough than it is now.
The solar system model was introduced without any supporting evidence . A fact which is always ignored .
You are very good at making completely false claims to suit your beliefs. What you are not good at and never have been is providing any supporting actual evidence to back up your own claims about what you think the Solar System is like.
Have you ever looked through a telescope and seen the Moon through it for yourself?
-
Your ignorance of mainstream theory is showing in your accusations .Tell us which new unexplained observation prompted the introduction of globe earth theory .
I do not question phases of the moon . Reflection of sunlight , which is scattered by spherical bodies - has an observable hotspot effect due to reflective qualities of spherical objects .
I regularly observe the planets and moon through my telescopes . Never seen a lunar or planetary hotspot and neither have you . The moons of Jupiter are seen in transit because Jupiter is a luminary .
-
I do not question phases of the moon . Reflection of sunlight
Excellent... we are getting somewhere!
which is scattered by spherical bodies - has an observable hotspot effect due to reflective qualities of spherical objects .
- What?
I regularly observe the planets and moon through my telescopes
Excellent - what telescopes have you got?
Never seen a lunar or planetary hotspot and neither have you
I'll be the judge of what I have seen through telescopes. What do you mean by 'hotspot'?
The moons of Jupiter are seen in transit because Jupiter is a luminary .
- What do you mean by 'luminary' exactly? Jupiter is a planet. Simple as. The satellites move across Jupiters disk which we see by reflected sunlight, and we see both the satellite itself and its shadow move across the disk. A shadow is produced by the temporary obstruction of a distant light source. In this case, the Sun.
-
Mainstream science accepts anything , even poor experiment , which supports the fictitious solar system.
...in the previous post you literally said "The oblate spheroid of Newton was rubbished by the scientists".
I asked for more details and said that if what you claim is true then how come the oblate sphere theory is the prevailing view and now you're just saying scientists accept anything which supports the solar system? But...you just said that scientists didn't accept that. ???
Posting CGI of planets/sun is evidence of nothing.
Claiming without basis that the photos are CGI isn't evidence either. It's a baseless claim. If you have evidence of fakery then please present it.
The planets and our moon do not exhibit the reflective properties of spherical objects (scattering of light resulting in a hotspot) lit from a distant source
A hotspot is a property of light reflected from a smooth curved surface. No-one is claiming the moon's surface is smooth.
Here's a photo I took of the moon.
(https://image.ibb.co/dPrt6o/moon.jpg)
As you can see, I don't have any fancy equipment, just a relatively cheap digital camera with a 16x optical zoom.
Even with that though you can see that the moon is being illuminated by a light source. The phase and the shadows on the craters show that.
Why would a self-illuminating object have phases? How would the shadows be cast like that?
The phases, shadows and the way those shadows change as the phase (and therefore angle between the earth, moon and sun) changes demonstrate the moon is being illuminated.
The outer planets exhibit no characteristics suggestive of reflection from a sphere lit by a distant sun
Yes they do. Shadows cast on them.
Inner planets are small moons of the local sun (Brahe)
The solar system model was introduced without any supporting evidence . A fact which is always ignored.
Well, no it wasn't. The evidence was the retrograde motion of the planets. That is best explained by a heliocentric model with us and the other planets orbiting the sun.
And it's ironic you say that it was introduced without supporting evidence when your claim about the inner planets and a local sun is presented without any supporting evidence. If you have any evidence to back up that claim then please present it.
Researching subjects yourself is the best way to form your own views.
Given your views that is patently not the case. You seem to overestimate your ability to understand this stuff.
There has to be a sensible middle ground between blind acceptance and thinking you can research and understand everything yourself.
-
Inner planets are small moons of the local sun (Brahe)
The solar system model was introduced without any supporting evidence . A fact which is always ignored.
Well, no it wasn't. The evidence was the retrograde motion of the planets. That is best explained by a heliocentric model with us and the other planets orbiting the sun.
And it's ironic you say that it was introduced without supporting evidence when your claim about the inner planets and a local sun is presented without any supporting evidence. If you have any evidence to back up that claim then please present it.
Your replies show that you do not understand the model you defend , including it''s origins .
All planetary motions including retrograde motion were explained fully within Tycho Brahe's Geocentric Model . Why don't you have a look at that . You may understand then that the fact is that the heliocentric model was introduced without any new evidence . This is not debatable since real science admits that . You persist in describing retrograde motion as new evidence , this is incorrect - it is merely a different different interpretation of an already explained phenomenon .
Tycho Brahe formed his model knowing that there was no scientific evidence for earth rotation ,but used the assumption of a globe earth - which led to the logical conclusion that the heavens rotated around the assumed spherical earth . This also led to the logical conclusion that the planets and stars were not at ridiculous distances or sizes.
The heliocentric model requires the three still unproven assumptions of rotation , curvature and astrocomical distances to the stars .
Of the two models the Geocentric model is the better fit , less assumptions mean less pseudo science .
The Meridian survey across France carried out by Cassini in 1670s , at the behest of the French Academy of Sciences used no assumptions but a direct measure of latitude along a meridian . The purpose being to determine the correct shape of earth , oblate or perfect sphere .It was found to be neither . Both models were incorrect . Brahe's model failed on the spherical assumption whereas the heliocentric model failed on all three assumptions .
Do some research if you are interested in real science .
-
Tycho Brahe formed his model knowing that there was no scientific evidence for earth rotation
By Earth rotation I assume you actually mean no evidence of Earth orbiting the Sun. Night and day is evidence enough of a rotating Earth of course. True there wasn't any detected movement of Earth through space in Tychos day. That's because there was no instrumentation available back then accurate enough or sensitive enough to detect the slight movement of the stars (proper motion) that indicated the Earth was in motion around the Sun. Things are different now and we can detect those very slight movements. We can detect movements in the stars down to milli-arc seconds now which means we can measure the proper motions of many stars.
You will also note that the region of sky where the proper motions are at their least is in an area of sky marked by the constellation Coma Berenices. What do you know that lies in Coma Berenices which could possibly account for the very small proper motions in this area of sky?
-
Tycho Brahe formed his model knowing that there was no scientific evidence for earth rotation
By Earth rotation I assume you actually mean no evidence of Earth orbiting the Sun. Night and day is evidence enough of a rotating Earth of course. True there wasn't any detected movement of Earth through space in Tychos day. That's because there was no instrumentation available back then accurate enough or sensitive enough to detect the slight movement of the stars (proper motion) that indicated the Earth was in motion around the Sun. Things are different now and we can detect those very slight movements. We can detect movements in the stars down to milli-arc seconds now which means we can measure the proper motions of many stars.
You will also note that the region of sky where the proper motions are at their least is in an area of sky marked by the constellation Coma Berenices. What do you know that lies in Coma Berenices which could possibly account for the very small proper motions in this area of sky?
Night and day as evidence enough ? Can't argue with such scientific evidence lol.
The stars do not change position .They are where they have always been in our recorded history .Have you checked yourself that these stars , light years distant , have moved by these milliseconds of arc ? You are being told these star positions have changed by milli seconds of arc . a milli second of arc is 1/3,600 divided by 1000 , i.e. 1/ 3,600,000 of a degree .
We have no instruments that measure with such accuracy . There are error limits to all instruments .
-
We have no instruments that measure with such accuracy . There are error limits to all instruments.
Actually there are...
https://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~mjp/hipparcos.html
The stars do not change position .They are where they have always been in our recorded history .Have you checked yourself that these stars , light years distant , have moved by these milliseconds of arc ?
I must admit no, I haven't checked myself because I don't own equipment that is capable of measuring such small angles. However I don't limit what I am prepared to believe in to measurements I can only make myself. That would be silly. The stars do change over time which is why we quote stellar coordinates according to the year (epoch) in which they were measured. The differences are very small and you won't notice the changes over a human lifetime without using purpose designed measuring equipment. But the stars do change position over distances that can be measured. I can't be bothered to write out all the details myself so here is a guide to the details... make of it whatever you wish.
http://www.stargazing.net/kepler/b1950.html
I'm sure we don't need to call into question what causes night and day. That is something that is well known and I'm not going to enter into any petty arguments about that.
I know you people like to make it your business to question absolutely everything but if you are going start arguing about what cause night and day then we are not going to get anywhere.
-
Your replies show that you do not understand the model you defend , including it''s origins .
All planetary motions including retrograde motion were explained fully within Tycho Brahe's Geocentric Model
Is this the Tycho Brahe who died in 1601?
This is the trouble with cherry picking. You're picking a scientist whose theories back up your agenda but you're randomly ignoring the last FOUR HUNDRED YEARS of science,
People like like Kepler who used Tycho's data as part of his basis for his theories. Newton who explained how gravity holds it all together. And so on.
Part of Tycho's argument against heliocentric model was the lack of parallax...but that parallax does exist, it's just very small. It was first observed in 1838.
TheScientist has just pointed you to some information about a space telescope which is now able to measure this incredibly accurately.
Retrograde motion was part of the reason for Copernicus advocating a heliocentric model. You're right in that there are geocentric models which account for it but, ultimately, the heliocentric model won out as observations got more accurate and more was learned about the solar system.
Tycho Brahe formed his model knowing that there was no scientific evidence for earth rotation ,but used the assumption of a globe earth - which led to the logical conclusion that the heavens rotated around the assumed spherical earth . This also led to the logical conclusion that the planets and stars were not at ridiculous distances or sizes.
And there's your problem, and his. He was working over 400 years ago when we didn’t have anywhere near as much knowledge about the way stuff works or as good tools or technology to make observations.
The heliocentric model requires the three still unproven assumptions of rotation , curvature and astrocomical distances to the stars
Unproven if you ignore all the evidence, sure. But the Coriolis effect is evidence of rotation and as our good friends at Globebusters found out it can be detected with a ring-laser gyroscope.
Curvature...well, lots of ways to show this but we literally have an ISS orbiting the globe as well as a bunch of satellites taking photos of the globe earth.
As for distances. Well, we can show those from the parallax. Your personal incredulity is not evidence to the contrary.
Of the two models the Geocentric model is the better fit , less assumptions mean less pseudo science.
And yet every scientist disagrees with you.
Do some research if you are interested in real science.
Am I allowed to do any research which involves any science from later than the 17th century? Stop cherry picking the bits of science which you think back up your agenda and ignoring all the stuff which doesn't.
-
If Somerled is so confident that he knows better than the rest of the world about all this then I'm surprised he hasn't appeared on TV and in Nature magazine among others. Because a total debunking of all the modern scientific models in favour of what he thinks is right would surely attract some attention by the worlds media and scientific community.
-
I'm sure we don't need to call into question what causes night and day. That is something that is well known and I'm not going to enter into any petty arguments about that.
One thing to bear in mind in discussions with these people, is that they use the words evidence and proof interchangably, as if they mean the same thing. When you cite evidence, they read that as a claim of proof. Night and day is indeed evidence of earth's rotation, but it is not proof. Thus, the LOL.
-
One thing to bear in mind in discussions with these people, is that they use the words evidence and proof interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing
Well you can make a word mean whatever you want it to mean. Evidence to me is something that supports a particular hypothesis but leaves open the possibility of others. Proof on the other hand is something that doesn't just support a particular hypothesis but eliminates beyond reasonable doubt any other.
I acknowledge that proving beyond any element of doubt whatsoever the true shape of the Earth from ground level is not easy to do. And I think often that is what flat Earthers are setting out to do. If you limit what you take into account to what you can see directly then it is entirely reasonable to say you cannot say for definite that the Earth is spherical. To form an educated judgement though you have to go further than that. The ancient Greeks watched not just one but several eclipses of the Moon. They did not know at first that it was the shadow of the Earth dimming the Moon but they recognised that lunar eclipses only happened at the time of the full Moon. Taking that into account the reasoning of Aristarchus was that the Moon orbited the Earth and the Earth orbited the Sun. From that they came to a logical conclusion that it was the Earths shadow moving across the Moons disk and given that the shadow was always circular, that implied that the Earth was therefore spherical. Based on the evidence they saw, that was the most likely explanation.
Nowadays we have evidence in the form of photos of the Earth from space that show the Earth is round. That should have put a stop to any form of continued flat Earth belief. To get around that the rules of FE theory have had to be changed. So the rule of FE theory now is that only directly observable evidence/proof can be accepted. That conveniently eliminates all space based imagery or video as acceptable evidence. Those who have been to space and seen for themselves the shape of the Earth they will claim have been 'silenced' or bribed into lying.
-
I completely disagree with this assertion. Earth is, admittedly, the only place we know of where life exists but
a) We have a very small sample set of planets to check, compared to the scale of the universe.
b) Our exploration of them is in its infancy, relatively speaking.
Right, but then we're on the same page with both questions.
Why haven't we found life outside of Earth? Dunno, maybe it's not there, or maybe we need to keep looking.
Why haven't we found other flat celestial bodies? Dunno, maybe they're not there, or maybe we need to keep looking.
Surely you noticed that my original question (How come you believe reports of all other celestial bodies in the solar system being entirely lifeless, but you somehow think there might be life on Earth?) is not meant to be taken at face value? You're not disagreeing with me - you're merely spelling out what I wanted our readers to infer :)
The Earth is unique amongst the celestial bodies we have good amounts of knowledge about. As a necessary consequence, it is unique within the solar system (divert your attention to the thread's subject for a moment). It may or may not be unique in a broader context. We can speculate about how likely that is until the cows come home, but in the end we simply don't know.
-
Why haven't we found life outside of Earth? Dunno, maybe it's not there, or maybe we need to keep looking.
Agreed. We could have asked the same question about exoplanets prior to the 1990s but now we know they do exist.
The Earth is unique amongst the celestial bodies
The only unique feature about Earth among other celestial bodies (in the current era) that I'm aware of is that it happens to support liquid water naturally. That has no relevance to the shape of the Earth though. Just to the temperature. And that happens to be because the Earth lies within the habitable zone of the Sun.
-
The Earth is unique amongst the celestial bodies we have good amounts of knowledge about. As a necessary consequence, it is unique within the solar system (divert your attention to the thread's subject for a moment). It may or may not be unique in a broader context. We can speculate about how likely that is until the cows come home, but in the end we simply don't know.
Yes, fine. We don't know. We have reason to believe there may be life elsewhere in the universe - from our explorations so far, which are very much in their infancy, it seems that other planets have similar features and chemistry to earth so there's no particular reason to think we're unique. There could even be life elsewhere in the solar system. If there is it's pretty certain it's microbial but you're right, right now we don't know.
But, the OP is about the shape of the earth and why that is unique in the solar system. It's much easier to determine the shape of other celestial bodies than know whether they harbour life. There is speculation there may be life on Titan, right now we don't know. But we do know it's a sphere.
So while we don't know for sure about the existence of life elsewhere, we do know for sure that all the other planets and moons we can observe elsewhere are spheres too, and we know why. Any object over a certain mass will end up as a sphere because of the way gravity acts on the material in it.
It would be a major discovery if we found life elsewhere in the universe, it would have massive philosophical implications but it wouldn't significantly change our understanding of how the universe works. If we ever found a flat planet elsewhere though it would have massive implications for the laws of physics we have come to believe are a good model for how the universe hangs together.
In FET the earth is flat just because, RET tells us why it's a sphere and why all the other celestial bodies we can observe are too.
-
it wouldn't significantly change our understanding of how the universe works
And the discovery of further flat celestial bodies wouldn't change our understanding of how it works. You choose to ignore the evidence of FE - your choice. But seeing more flat worlds wouldn't snap you out of it. You'd just make a new excuse.
and why all the other celestial bodies we can observe are too.
We already observed non-spherical celestial bodies, other than the Earth. Which brings me back to my point - it doesn't matter how many times you zealots prove yourselves wrong.
-
We already observed non-spherical celestial bodies, other than the Earth.
Interesting. So isn't that the answer to the OP then? It isn't alone. Or are these objects not in the solar system?
Can you give examples? I mean, if you're talking about asteroids then sure, for matter the form into a spherical sphere it has to be above a certain mass and a certain degree of oblateness is caused by spin. That is all to be expected. But do you have an example of a non-spherical (ignoring a certain degree of oblateness) celestial body of significant mass?
-
Interesting. So isn't that the answer to the OP then? It isn't alone. Or are these objects not in the solar system.
If it was the answer to OP's question, I would have stated it as such in the first place. Of course, I already answered OP's question, so you already know what my answer actually is. No need to guess.
Interesting. So isn't that the answer to the OP then? It isn't alone. Or are these objects not in the solar system?
Can you give examples? I mean, if you're talking about asteroids then sure, for matter the form into a spherical sphere it has to be above a certain mass and a certain degree of oblateness is caused by spin. That is all to be expected. But do you have an example of a non-spherical (ignoring a certain degree of oblateness) celestial body of significant mass?
"A certain degree of oblateness" is really pushing it when you're talking about a turd-shaped celestial body (ʻOumuamua). And hey, suddenly we have a brand new requirement of mass! It's almost as if you were well-aware that your "universal" properties are not at all universal, and that they're conditional on many factors. As I said, you'll just keep adding excuses.
-
"A certain degree of oblateness" is really pushing it when you're talking about a turd-shaped celestial body (ʻOumuamua).
Agreed. Tbh I had to Google it and that is a very small object, relative to moons and planets.
And hey, suddenly we have a brand new requirement of mass!
No, not brand new. On 27th September in this thread I 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.
On 28th August on a similar topic in this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15269.msg199009#msg199009
I said:
While we're here, gravity explains why the earth is round. It also explains why every celestial body we can observe (above a certain mass) is round.
This is yet another thing which gravity explains.
So come on, dude, stop being disingenuous. You understand enough about how gravity is said to work to understand that the mass is a factor. I've mentioned it in this thread and several other times in different ones. I'm not adding mass a requirement on the fly. It's well known that mass is a factor in this:
https://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/what-is-the-minimum-size-a-celestial-body-can-become-a-sphere/
-
No, not brand new. On 27th September in this thread I said
What do I care about what you said? You're not the OP, and you keep trying to inject your position into the thread with nobody really asking for it. The question was about celestial bodies. You keep trying to introduce new requirements, because you cannot engage the debate in an intellectually honest way. And now you want to project that onto others. Hilarious.
This is the problem with RE zealots. You want a big body, you can have the Carina Nebula. Oh, wow, what's that I hear, you didn't actually just need it to be big and massive? How shocking!
Come back when you're ready to discuss this seriously.
-
You want a big body, you can have the Carina Nebula. Oh, wow, what's that I hear, you didn't actually just need it to be big and massive? How shocking!
Well, I need it to be a body :) rather than a cloud of gas and dust.
The OP asks why earth alone is flat in the solar system. I'm merely pointing out that conventional physics explains why all the celestial bodies we observe (above a certain mass) are (roughly) spherical.
So, for the same reason, we know why the earth is. Maybe a better question would be if you reject gravity why are all the objects we observe spherical? What would cause that and why would the earth be different? I think in your model the planets are close and small? So maybe that's a factor?
-
Well, I need it to be a body :) rather than a cloud of gas and dust.
A nebula is a celestial body - a body is a mass of matter distinct from other masses. What you're really looking for, in a patently obvious way, is to restrict it to spherical bodies and then complain that I can't find you a body that both is and isn't spherical.
If you can't engage with this subject in a mature way, please don't engage at all.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, 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 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15395.msg199861#msg199861). 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 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15395.msg199861#msg199861), 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.
-
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.
-
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.