Offline hmmm

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
planets
« on: September 27, 2018, 05:05:41 PM »
I'm new to the flat earth group. I'm neither flat earth or round earth. Anyways, I was wondering are other planets such as mars, Venus, etc. also flat? I'm also interested in any other knowledge available.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2018, 05:08:47 PM by hmmm »

Re: planets
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2018, 05:18:27 PM »
I would suggest starting in the wiki. Your question here is in fact answered in the FAQ: https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#If_the_planets_are_round.2C_why_isn.27t_the_Earth.3F If you see a post by Junker about he has links to most of the helpful resources in his signature, as well as the link to the wiki is located at the top of the page.

Re: planets
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2018, 12:08:41 AM »
Unfortunately the FAQ does not explain why other planets "appear" round, nor does it adequately explain what holds the planets/sun/moon in an orbital pattern around a flat earth. Lets assume that the theory of the universe itself is being a flat plane is correct, what theory best explains planets appearing round? Also, what theory best explains the other planet's rotation?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: planets
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2018, 01:02:36 AM »
FET is a theory in development. You are the researcher here.

Re: planets
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2018, 07:51:05 AM »
FET is a theory in development. You are the researcher here.
What makes you think the earth is anything other than round? Do you see the path of the sun and measured distances?

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: planets
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2018, 08:04:37 AM »
FET is a theory in development. You are the researcher here.
You keep saying that. Trouble is, all our research shows a globe earth.
So now what?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: planets
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2018, 10:44:36 AM »
FET is a theory in development. You are the researcher here.
You keep saying that. Trouble is, all our research shows a globe earth.
So now what?
If you are satisfied with your results ... you can leave. And yet you don't. Something must still be chewing away in the back of your mind. Something isn't sitting right. And that's what we encourage you to explore.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

LoveScience

Re: planets
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2018, 10:47:56 AM »
Hi hmmm,

I speak only from personal experience here and the evidence I present has been gained through 30+ years as an amateur astronomer. I have observed and imaged the Sun, Moon and all the planets many times through my own telescopes.


The curved surface of the Sun and Moon is easy to see through a telescope either visually or by imaging (see image link below). The planets not so because of the disk size being so small. However through high resolution imaging the more obvious features of Saturn and Jupiter become quite clearly visible. In particular we can see the Great Red Spot of Jupiter and the changing shape as it moves between the limb and the centre of the visible disk. At the limb (as the image link below shows) the GRS looks distinctly 'squashed' as we would expect of an elliptical shaped feature disappearing around a curved surface.


I don't think there can be any doubt that these images both show a curved surface. I can assure you that no satellite technology controlled by NASA or any other federal organisation has been used here. Just me, a telescope and a camera attached to the telescope in place of any eyepiece. Both images were taken from my own back garden.


https://www.astrobin.com/369811/?nc=user

https://www.astrobin.com/369809/?nc=user


*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: planets
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2018, 10:55:11 AM »
FET is a theory in development. You are the researcher here.
You keep saying that. Trouble is, all our research shows a globe earth.
So now what?
If you are satisfied with your results ... you can leave. And yet you don't.
No, because I'm fascinated by people who believe in a flat earth in this day and age and interested in exposing their ideas for what they are.
I've come to realise that very few of you do actually believe in a flat earth which is disappointing and you don't have any coherent ideas.
Which is disappointing. And that is the reason I will probably leave, there's only so many times you can debate the same things and I see no point in playing devil's advocate and arguing from a position I don't believe as some of you are doing.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: planets
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2018, 11:03:16 AM »
Hi hmmm,

I speak only from personal experience here and the evidence I present has been gained through 30+ years as an amateur astronomer. I have observed and imaged the Sun, Moon and all the planets many times through my own telescopes.


The curved surface of the Sun and Moon is easy to see through a telescope either visually or by imaging (see image link below). The planets not so because of the disk size being so small. However through high resolution imaging the more obvious features of Saturn and Jupiter become quite clearly visible. In particular we can see the Great Red Spot of Jupiter and the changing shape as it moves between the limb and the centre of the visible disk. At the limb (as the image link below shows) the GRS looks distinctly 'squashed' as we would expect of an elliptical shaped feature disappearing around a curved surface.


I don't think there can be any doubt that these images both show a curved surface. I can assure you that no satellite technology controlled by NASA or any other federal organisation has been used here. Just me, a telescope and a camera attached to the telescope in place of any eyepiece. Both images were taken from my own back garden.


https://www.astrobin.com/369811/?nc=user

https://www.astrobin.com/369809/?nc=user


We've never once said that planets aren't round.

But planet is ancient Greek for 'wandering star'. The earth is not a wandering star. It is large, fixed and flat. It is where creatures dwell and the heavens revolve above it.

You think the sun is a star. We don't. It's the sun.
You think the earth is a planet. We don't. It's the earth.

We observe the sun to be different to stars. It's bigger, hotter, closer and runs on a 24 hour schedule unlike the stars. It is observably different.
And the planets are more like stars than they are like earth ... hence their name planet ... wandering star. They are small, far, they twinkle and they don't support life. At no point however, did we ever say they aren't round. But then they aren't much like earth ... are they?

No, because I'm fascinated by people who believe in a flat earth in this day and age and interested in exposing their ideas for what they are.
I've come to realise that very few of you do actually believe in a flat earth which is disappointing and you don't have any coherent ideas.
Which is disappointing. And that is the reason I will probably leave, there's only so many times you can debate the same things and I see no point in playing devil's advocate and arguing from a position I don't believe as some of you are doing.
I'm glad you find me fascinating. It's sad you find the compulsion to correct people. You must be very irritating IRL.
We don't have any coherent ideas and yet it has taken you over 1200 posts to work that out?  ::) Either you must have learning difficulties or those ideas must be reasonably coherent.
Regarding devil's advocate ... there is no better way to understand someone else than to walk a mile in their shoes. You did, after all, claim you are only here to understand us.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 11:06:18 AM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: planets
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2018, 11:21:38 AM »
I'm glad you find me fascinating. It's sad you find the compulsion to correct people. You must be very irritating IRL.
Oh, I am. You should see me if someone writes "your" when they should have written "you're".
Quote
We don't have any coherent ideas and yet it has taken you over 1200 posts to work that out?  ::) Either you must have learning difficulties or those ideas must be reasonably coherent.
I haven't only just worked it out, but it's become clear that you don't even agree on a FE model between you. Fundamental things like whether there is one pole or two, the most prominent FE posters on here don't even agree on basic stuff like that. Whether the sun sets because of "perspective" or EA. These are pretty big differences.
Quote
Regarding devil's advocate ... there is no better way to understand someone else than to walk a mile in their shoes. You did, after all, claim you are only here to understand us.
Not just to understand, also because I think truth is important and wrong ideas should not be left unchallenged.
I did want to understand your model but I've come to realise you don't have one - Tom admitted as much in a recent post. He may not speak for all of you but he is one of the most prominent FE posters on here. I can't argue from a position I don't agree with. I can't pretend that there is merit in ideas in which there is none. Well, I could but I see no value in that - it would just be propagating the very ideas I came here to challenge.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Dr David Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 5188
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: planets
« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2018, 11:30:06 AM »
We don't have a model we all agree on. But that isn't to say we don't have a model.

I don't like the infinite plane model. Personally I find it jarring. Nothing we observe is infinite. Not the grains of sand on a beach nor the atoms in the universe. Nothing is infinite. It is a man made number to describe something really big that you can't wrap your head around. An infinite plane would have to bisect the universe making the earth the floor. So I don't invest time fitting other pieces together for that theory. I'm already unhappy with it. Infinity isn't the right answer to anything from the natural order of things.

I invest my time in how I best think the earth and universe exist. And to me there is a monopole in the centre of earth at the North pole.

We all agree on one premise ... the earth is flat. Hence 'flat earth society'. There is a hollow earth society for those that think the earth is hollow. But we're all here unified under the unified belief that the earth is flat. That's the starting point. You can go explore whoever's model you like or dislike the best.

Now, if you still want to moan, take it to AR. This thread is about planets.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 11:31:59 AM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: planets
« Reply #12 on: October 04, 2018, 11:38:22 AM »
The Sun and all of the planets/stars have a discoidal shape.

It is very easy to prove that the shape of the Sun could not possibly be spherical.

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."



Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."


The Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding.

Eugene N. Parker


It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.

British physicist C. E. R. Bruce


It is likely that the problem of the dynamics of the explosions affecting the prominences will only be solved when the electrical conditions obtaining in the chromosphere and inner corona are better understood.

Italian solar astronomer Giorgio Abetti


Observations give a wealth of detail about the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona. Yet we have difficulty in matching the observations with a theory.

Solar Interior & Atmosphere, J.-C. Pecker


The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.

Ralph E. Juergens




PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."


Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)

Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M

where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3

G = gr2/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s2


RATIO


ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:






And you are going to have to explain the radius of the sun paradox, the fact that the Sun has a distinct surface:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2090897#msg2090897 (part II)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2093726#msg2093726 (part III)

LoveScience

Re: planets
« Reply #13 on: October 04, 2018, 11:41:43 AM »
"We observe the sun to be different to stars. It's bigger, hotter, closer and runs on a 24 hour schedule unlike the stars. It is observably different."

Of course we do. It's a LOT closer than all the other stars.  The Sun is 8.3 light minutes away where as the next nearest star (Proxima Centauri) is 4.3 light years away.  And where do you get this 24 hour schedule from in the context of the Sun.  The Sun rotates on its axis on average every 27 days (sunspot observations tell us that). The only thing that has a 24 hour 'schedule' is the Earth.

Sorry if you don't believe that but everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I base mine on actual observations how about you?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: planets
« Reply #14 on: October 04, 2018, 11:43:57 AM »
The Sun is 8.3 light minutes away where as the next nearest star (Proxima Centauri) is 4.3 light years away.  And where do you get this 24 hour schedule from in the context of the Sun.  The Sun rotates on its axis on average every 27 days (sunspot observations tell us that). The only thing that has a 24 hour 'schedule' is the Earth.
You don't need to just emptily state what RET believes. It's off-topic, and it doesn't introduce anything new to the conversation.

Sorry if you don't believe that but everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I base mine on actual observations how about you?
You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to derail upper-fora discussions with meaningless attacks. Take your outrage to the Angry Ranting board.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

MattyWS

Re: planets
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2018, 03:53:52 PM »
Quote
We observe the sun to be different to stars. It's bigger, hotter, closer and runs on a 24 hour schedule unlike the stars. It is observably different.
And the planets are more like stars than they are like earth ... hence their name planet ... wandering star. They are small, far, they twinkle and they don't support life. At no point however, did we ever say they aren't round. But then they aren't much like earth ... are they?

It's not 'bigger' it's just closer than the other stars. it does not run on  a 24 hour schedule, the earth rotates on a 24 hour schedule (and man made time measurements are based on the earths rotation cycle, not the other way round.) It's hotter than other stars in the same way a fire is hotter the closer you are to it... That does not make other stars hotter or colder, again just further away.

"wondering star" is a descriptive name based on the fact that without tools like a telescope it is just another bright dot in the sky that moved across the sky while other stars did not, this is again because they are much much closer than stars, the same way as when you're in a moving vehicle and you look out to the side, trees off in the distance pan across your view slower than say the lamp posts on the street you're on. Stars look more static than planets because stars are far away and planets are closer.

So far we've observed planets to be quite different from each other. That means that earth while unique, is just as unique as the other planets. We just got lucky enough to be in the right locations in our solar system to support life and thrive. We may not have found it yet but there's no reason to say no other planet can support life. That is a lack of scope. saying no other planets support life because we haven't seen it yet is the same as saying a tree falling in a forest doesn't make a sound if no one is there to hear it....
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 04:44:34 PM by MattyWS »

LoveScience

Re: planets
« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2018, 09:33:28 PM »
I agree with MattyWS. We are extremely fortunate to have the Sun on our doorstep on astronomical distance scales as it provides a unique opportunity to observe the behaviour of a star close up. We have determined the internal structure of the Sun and the processes (nuclear) that generate the energy by which the Sun 'shines'.

The light emitted by the Sun today is the result of nuclear reactions that took place between 100,000 and 1 million years ago. The fusion of hydrogen into helium requires a temperature in the order of 15 million degrees which results in the emission of gamma ray photons. By the time those photons have made it to the 'surface' of the Sun (photosphere) they have lost energy and are thus transformed into visible light photons. The type of radiation emitted by the Sun is very much temperature dependent and that is why the Sun appears to have such a well defined 'surface'. The temperature of the photosphere is typically in the order of 5,500C

Above the photosphere into the chromoshere and beyond that the corona the temperature climbs once again into the millions. The reason for that remains an area of active research in solar astrophysics.