Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
The outer planets
« on: November 30, 2017, 07:05:11 PM »
Concerning the outer planets size, the Wiki states:
Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?

A. Pretty small.

Can anyone quantify the term 'pretty small?' Are they smaller than the Earth? Smaller than the moon?
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8998
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The outer planets
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2017, 02:22:33 AM »
Concerning the outer planets size, the Wiki states:
Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?

A. Pretty small.

Can anyone quantify the term 'pretty small?' Are they smaller than the Earth? Smaller than the moon?

The vague answer is given because there is a lack of research on the topic.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: The outer planets
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2017, 05:28:30 AM »
Concerning the outer planets size, the Wiki states:
Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?

A. Pretty small.

Can anyone quantify the term 'pretty small?' Are they smaller than the Earth? Smaller than the moon?

The vague answer is given because there is a lack of research on the topic.

Then how can you say with any authority that they are small? Given what we know about perspective, very large objects that are very far away may seem very small. I'd submit you say they are small because giant planets orbiting a giant star would kill FEH. This should raise some concerns for a Zetetic council member, no? It would seem planet size started with an initial theory, which is not Zetetic at all. It doesn't remove preconceived notions at all.

As for their size, with my small 6" telescope, I can see the cloud bands on Jupiter. If the planet is 'very small' how does it hold onto its atmosphere, which should be blown away by the solar wind?
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8998
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The outer planets
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2017, 06:00:56 AM »
Then how can you say with any authority that they are small? Given what we know about perspective, very large objects that are very far away may seem very small. I'd submit you say they are small because giant planets orbiting a giant star would kill FEH. This should raise some concerns for a Zetetic council member, no? It would seem planet size started with an initial theory, which is not Zetetic at all. It doesn't remove preconceived notions at all.

I don't really feel like giving a history lesson, but the stars and planets must be small and close to the earth in the Flat Earth model for a number of reasons.

If you are interested start with Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, continue with the celestial studies found in Zetetic Cosmology by Thomas Winship and the journal Earth Not a Globe Review by Lady Blount and Albert Smith.

The Wiki is really just a summary of the major studies of the greatest generation of our society.

Quote
As for their size, with my small 6" telescope, I can see the cloud bands on Jupiter. If the planet is 'very small' how does it hold onto its atmosphere, which should be blown away by the solar wind?

Earth Not a Globe covers this. You are assuming that the planets are worlds as they are imagined in popular fiction, and that they must have an "atmosphere".
« Last Edit: December 01, 2017, 06:11:18 AM by Tom Bishop »

devils advocate

Re: The outer planets
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2017, 06:24:09 AM »
Then how can you say with any authority that they are small? Given what we know about perspective, very large objects that are very far away may seem very small. I'd submit you say they are small because giant planets orbiting a giant star would kill FEH. This should raise some concerns for a Zetetic council member, no? It would seem planet size started with an initial theory, which is not Zetetic at all. It doesn't remove preconceived notions at all.

I don't really feel like giving a history lesson, but the stars and planets must be small and close to the earth in the Flat Earth model for a number of reasons

Exactly, "in the flat earth model" they must be blah blah therefore everything MUST conform to this starting point. How Zetetic Tom. You want the earth to be flat and so you fit the facts to your belief, however incompatible, and all that can't work on a flat earth you assume to be erroneous.

And all whilst admitting in your own lack of evidence, ignoring the vast mutually supporting facts provided by astronomy and continually referring back to a period of history without the modern technology and scientific advances we have today.

Why keep pointing back to the past Tom? Because that's where FE "theory" belongs? Because it is incompatible with modern life as 21 century knowledge debunks the crazy notion of a flat earth in so so many ways.

Re: The outer planets
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2018, 10:45:29 AM »
We have just been reminded that this topic Q&A is about flat earth model.

So we are not following Zetetic process. We may see or observe planet, but cannot quite explain. Maybe this, maybe that, but we'll leave the subject unknown. You are right that is proper process that Mr. Samuel did not follow either.

This topic, as Mr. Samuel proceeds to the realm of rationalization - using conjecture and speculation to fit the observations in the Flat Earth model. As such you are correct. It is not proper Zetetic process, but rather using rationalization.

But that is point of Q&A. If you want to talk further about your point, maybe start new topic in debate forum?
As the saying goes "The internet belongs to the lunatics in their walled gardens" - Xiang Yu

I see a Flat Earth. And I can't imagine anything else.

I got work to do. 0.00018% of Christians believe in a Flat Earth. Pls help

Devils Advocate

Re: The outer planets
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2018, 07:23:51 PM »
We have just been reminded that this topic Q&A is about flat earth model.

So we are not following Zetetic process. We may see or observe planet, but cannot quite explain. Maybe this, maybe that, but we'll leave the subject unknown. You are right that is proper process that Mr. Samuel did not follow either.

This topic, as Mr. Samuel proceeds to the realm of rationalization - using conjecture and speculation to fit the observations in the Flat Earth model. As such you are correct. It is not proper Zetetic process, but rather using rationalization.

But that is point of Q&A. If you want to talk further about your point, maybe start new topic in debate forum?

Hi Treep, not sure who your comment is aimed at here?

Re: The outer planets
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2018, 08:34:32 AM »
Last poster or maybe others too.
How Zetetic Tom.
As the saying goes "The internet belongs to the lunatics in their walled gardens" - Xiang Yu

I see a Flat Earth. And I can't imagine anything else.

I got work to do. 0.00018% of Christians believe in a Flat Earth. Pls help

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9506
    • View Profile
Re: The outer planets
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2018, 02:31:15 PM »
We have just been reminded that this topic Q&A is about flat earth model.

So we are not following Zetetic process. We may see or observe planet, but cannot quite explain. Maybe this, maybe that, but we'll leave the subject unknown. You are right that is proper process that Mr. Samuel did not follow either.

This topic, as Mr. Samuel proceeds to the realm of rationalization - using conjecture and speculation to fit the observations in the Flat Earth model. As such you are correct. It is not proper Zetetic process, but rather using rationalization.

But that is point of Q&A. If you want to talk further about your point, maybe start new topic in debate forum?

Please don't necro 4+ month old threads, especially when you aren't adding anything.

Warned. Locking thread.