The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Integrity82 on April 25, 2016, 05:15:33 AM
-
Are there any other known flat planets with some structures known in space?
I know there are countless globe planets.
Please answer without saying the space we know is fake or a hologram or a projection.
-
I would have to do a bit of research, but I have not seen any evidence of any planets, including the earth, to be anything but globe shaped.
Of course in the world of Samuel Birley Rowbotham any thing is possible.
-
The counter argument is the Earth is not a planet and is special. So there is no reason to expect the Earth is a sphere even if everything observed with enough mass formed into one.
-
I know there are countless globe planets.
From where does that knowledge come? And how high a number do you consider to be "countless"?
The only celestial body close with a large enough angular diameter to discern a surface is the Moon, and it, curiously, only ever presents one side. Coincidence? Everything else up there is 1 arcminute or less in apparent size and you will never see details much beyond a blob of light as no optical telescope looking through the atmosphere can resolve details smaller than a few arcseconds. Looking through an optical telescope with your own eyes, you might see the "rings" of saturn or the "red spot" of jupiter, but that's about it as far as surface details.
Have you ever actually looked through a telescope before?
-
I am not an astronomer. But just interested in space and other ideas. I've been to small observatories and they let me take a photo through the eyepiece with my iPhone and I got great detailed pics of the moons surface (craters and shadows and such)
We also saw Saturn and her rings plus there were I think 3 visible moons around her too.
Was an amazing night. Just myself my fiancé and an old couple that ran a nightly observatory self funded at the local school up in the mountains.
I guess my figure of countless comes from looking up and not being able to count the number of dots I see.
(Assuming they are all planets, Suns or entire galaxies)
I suppose if you tell me they aren't planets I couldn't possibly prove it otherwise.
Makes sense to me though, still enjoy asking questions.
-
Sorry another reply.
Was thinking while I was driving just now.
I remember when I was a kid I used to play the Clarinet in our school band. We used to have Friday night stay overs at school for more practice. One night they organised an observatory team with huge telescopes up on our school oval.
The largest telescope with a standing platform was pointed at Saturn. I remember seeing Saturn with its rings going across the planet. While last year when I observed it the rings were completely around the planet like a hoop around it.
Does that offer "good" evidence for globe planets?
How is that explained in flat earth theory? Or are the planets mainly globes meanwhile earth is flat with a dome.
As far as seeing the one face (side) of the moon. I also questioned that.
But Phil plait a well known debunker of bad science and misconceptions has a good explanation in his book the bad astronomer.
Also are there known planets with moons which may orbit them differently, meaning that from that planets view you see different faces of their moon?
I don't expect everything answered I'm just riffing ideas mainly for my own benefit.
Peace and thank you for any replys.
-
I know there are countless globe planets.
From where does that knowledge come? And how high a number do you consider to be "countless"?
Setting aside the "countless" part, we are at least able to point to the Wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets), which acknowledges that the planets are round when they answer (without challenging the premise) the question "If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?" The wiki gives the reply stated by Woody.
We can also observe gibbous phases of both Mercury and Venus using ground-based telescopes, which suggests that at least those two objects are round.
The only celestial body close with a large enough angular diameter to discern a surface is the Moon, and it, curiously, only ever presents one side. Coincidence?
One side, with quite distinct curvature at the terminator, suggesting that it too is round. Additionally, while the moon does present the same face to earth all the time, it isn't static. There is a slight wobble, called libration (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration), which is also indicative of roundness not flatness. I say it indicates roundness because lunar features at the apparent 'edge' come in and out of view, which would not be the case for a disc with a true edge. I remembered something posted to another thread which is relevant here: The moon isn't always pointing perfectly at earth. It librates throughout its orbit, as shown here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.gif)
-
Thanks rounder.
I've also read that in Phil plaits book. But he worked for NASA, does that discredit him any ?
So is the "countless" too poetic for science talk?
I apologise and in no way knowledgable but trying to think it all out and find what fits into common sense for myself.
Keep it all coming it's exciting. Beats television or YouTube conspiracies...
-
The only celestial body close with a large enough angular diameter to discern a surface is the Moon,
Have you ever actually looked through a telescope before?
(http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/venus-telescope-ph-15-anim.gif)
But you can see other planets with powerful enough telescopes. and they are clearly spherical.
Telescopic Venus A simulated and much-magnified view of Venus as it appears through a telescope under moderate viewing conditions. The planet is seen in crescent phase, some 15% illuminated (phase = 0.15). Two more simulated views of the planet are shown below (all views on this page are shown at the same scale). The planet was filmed on May 15th 2004, during an evening apparition, when Venus was shining brilliantly in the Western sky after sunset, at an apparent magnitude of -4.5.
The unsteady appearance of the planet through the telescope is caused by a combination of turbulence in the Earth's atmosphere and rising heat currents from the ground and buildings (for more details see the section 'Seeing Conditions' below).
"The images were obtained by pointing a tripod-mounted videocamera directly into the eyepiece of an 8-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope; the eyepiece view was then magnified. The image is orientated with North upwards and towards the right, which approximately matches the Northern hemisphere view through a terrestrial telescope."
http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/venus-telescope.htm
-
here is Mars
(http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/mars-through-telescope.gif)
Features Visible on the Martian Surface
This animation shows a complete rotation of Mars at intervals of 10° in longitude (corresponding to about 41 minutes of the planet's rotation). The Central Meridian is marked as a faint red line (passing through the centre of the planet from pole to pole). South is up and East is to the right, reflecting the appearance of the planet through a typical astronomical telescope.
http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/mars-telescope.htm
-
Setting aside the "countless" part, we are at least able to point to the Wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets)
I do not consider the IFES wiki authoritative in any way. Do you?
The only celestial body close with a large enough angular diameter to discern a surface is the Moon, and it, curiously, only ever presents one side. Coincidence?
One side, with quite distinct curvature at the terminator, suggesting that it too is round.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.gif)[/quote]
Such a view could also suggest it is concave, or even a semisphere dome being observed. I'm not claiming it is, but the view doesn't preclude those explanations - as I said, you only ever see one side (certainly a marvellously impossible coincidence that an orbiting globe would rotate in such a way.
-
I am not an astronomer. But just interested in space and other ideas. I've been to small observatories and they let me take a photo through the eyepiece with my iPhone and I got great detailed pics of the moons surface (craters and shadows and such)
Interesting that you reference a picture in your possession, yet provide none.
Is hearsay about a picture the same as seeing a picture?
And for what it's worth, there are all sorts of images that can be shown in an eyepiece connected to a guarded device with hidden inner workings. I prefer what I can see with my own eyes through a telescope I can point and aim.
I guess my figure of countless comes from looking up and not being able to count the number of dots I see.
(Assuming they are all planets, Suns or entire galaxies)
I suppose if you tell me they aren't planets.
I would suggest what you are seeing are called "stars". Thinking they are all planets is quite, uh, extraordinary. Is that what schools have begun to teach?
-
A simulated and much-magnified view of Venus
Clearly you do not understand what is meant by "looking through an optical telescope with your own eyes". All you have done is gone on the Internet and found an image graphic (and one which even states it is SIMULATED).
This animation shows a complete rotation of Mars
... and an animation. Why not throw in a Jetsons cartoon as well?
-
I see what your saying setec astronomy.
I don't know how to put up a picture on this forum? I tried but couldn't figure it out. Plus it's not stored on my phone anymore. I have it on my instagram account is you could be bothered scrolling through hundreds of photos of my he Man figurine collection.
We looked through the eye piece.
Also you picked apart only "parts" of my argument.
Could you give advice on my points about Saturnia rings being around and across the "planet" Saturn?
Sorry I don't know the scienecy jargon.
If it doesn't make sense. Let me know.
"I have the power!!!"
-
Oh one other thing.
Is this forum okay with non science people asking questions on here.
I put them in the q and a section for that reason.
I forget that saying "I saw" and "I have this" is all here say. So I'll work on wording and backing up with photos.
As far as the dots we see being stars not planets that's fair enough. But we observed also a smudge in the sky from normal eye view. But through the telescope it turned out to be an array of colour and some sort of galaxy which the name escapes me. Galaxy meaning billions of more stars yeah?
Or is the cosmos program lying? My mum who believes in FE says Neil Degrassi junior high Tyson is a lying free mason. :(
I like him.
-
Such a view could also suggest it is concave, or even a semisphere dome being observed. I'm not claiming it is, but the view doesn't preclude those explanations - as I said, you only ever see one side (certainly a marvellously impossible coincidence that an orbiting globe would rotate in such a way.
Not a coincidence. In fact, it proves the nature of tides. The moon is tidally locked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking) with the earth, and the earth is becoming tidally locked with the moon, due to tidal forces caused by gravity gradients.
Tidal forces are also the cause of Saturn's rings. I'll explain why later, if you decide not to research it yourself.
(https://web.njit.edu/~gary/320/assets/tide_fig2.gif)
-
If the evidence from NASA is any actual indication of reality, then it appears that flatness is the normal shape for objects in the known universe. We have observed both the moon and Mars from right at the surface and in both cases the surface is shown to be flat. It is inconclusive as of yet, but (again, assuming NASA can be trusted) it seems that large objects tend to flatness as a general rule.
Naturally this also means that the dome theory of FE is incorrect, meaning the answer posed in the OP is interestingly no, but again because based on NASA's evidence the dome theory is incorrect.
-
If the evidence from NASA is any actual indication of reality, then it appears that flatness is the normal shape for objects in the known universe. We have observed both the moon and Mars from right at the surface and in both cases the surface is shown to be flat. It is inconclusive as of yet, but (again, assuming NASA can be trusted) it seems that large objects tend to flatness as a general rule.
Naturally this also means that the dome theory of FE is incorrect, meaning the answer posed in the OP is interestingly no, but again because based on NASA's evidence the dome theory is incorrect.
Thanks mate,
So is it only chance that all the planets faces face earth if they happen to be flat plains as well?
Also do the Chinese, Russian or other space exploration agencies have photographs from space looking back at earth?
One argument for fe that a work colleague made was, what took the photographs of earth from space. The ones showing earth as a complete circle basically the way we would photograph our moon from earth?
He basically said that it looks fairly conclusive that they are produced images to "represent" what earth looks like.
Too many questions... Sorry
-
Not a coincidence. In fact, it proves the nature of tides. The moon is tidally locked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking) with the earth,
Odd that you consider an ad hoc explanation to be a "proof".
Tell me, what other examples of "tidal locking" orbits have been observed? (I'll give you a hint: you could count them on one hand even if you chopped off all your fingers)
-
Not a coincidence. In fact, it proves the nature of tides. The moon is tidally locked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking) with the earth,
Odd that you consider an ad hoc explanation to be a "proof".
Tell me, what other examples of "tidal locking" orbits have been observed? (I'll give you a hint: you could count them on one hand even if you chopped off all your fingers)
On the other hand (the one where you didn't stupidly chop off your fingers):
Locked to Mars
Phobos
Deimos
Locked to Jupiter
Metis
Adrastea
Amalthea
Thebe
Io
Europa
Ganymede
Callisto
Locked to Saturn
Pan
Atlas
Prometheus
Pandora
Epimetheus
Janus
Mimas
Enceladus
Telesto
Tethys
Calypso
Dione
Rhea
Titan
Iapetus
Locked to Uranus
Miranda
Ariel
Umbriel
Titania
Oberon
Locked to Neptune
Proteus
Triton
Locked to Pluto
Charon (Pluto is itself locked to Charon)
Tau Boötis is known to be locked to the close-orbiting giant planet Tau Boötis b.
-
I do not consider the IFES wiki authoritative in any way. Do you?
Good Lord, NO I do not, LOL! I only brought it up to illustrate that on the question of 'other round things' even the flat earth wiki draws the line before suggesting flat planets.
-
Whoa. This got way smarter than my original question.
Perhaps I shall just watch...
Thanks again for all the replys.
Globers and flatheads.
-
Locked to Mars
Phobos
Deimos
Locked to Jupiter
Metis
Adrastea
Amalthea
Thebe
Io
Europa
Ganymede
Callisto
Locked to Saturn
Pan
Atlas
Prometheus
Pandora
Epimetheus
Janus
Mimas
Enceladus
Telesto
Tethys
Calypso
Dione
Rhea
Titan
Iapetus
Locked to Uranus
Miranda
Ariel
Umbriel
Titania
Oberon
Locked to Neptune
Proteus
Triton
Locked to Pluto
Charon (Pluto is itself locked to Charon)
Tau Boötis is known to be locked to the close-orbiting giant planet Tau Boötis b.
Very few of those are even observable moons, and none of them have a surface that can be seen with any optical telescope.
It's very difficult to discuss thing with one who is still under mind control and believing every Royal/Naval/NASA/Freemason factoid about things that are 100% unobservable.
Let's try to chip away at that a little bit. Are you aware that the "lunar laser ranging" experiment is a complete fraud/lie/hoax? This can be proven quite definitively, but I'm curious to see how much folks will double down before seeing the proof (which is actually quite obvious, but everyone misses it thanks to misdirection).
-
If the evidence from NASA is any actual indication of reality, then it appears that flatness is the normal shape for objects in the known universe. We have observed both the moon and Mars from right at the surface and in both cases the surface is shown to be flat. It is inconclusive as of yet, but (again, assuming NASA can be trusted) it seems that large objects tend to flatness as a general rule.
No, the lunar and Martian surfaces have not been shown to be flat. If the photos of their surfaces were incompatible with a round Mars and moon, every astronomer in the world would have had a WTF? moment, and they'd probably be still saying it.
-
Locked to Mars
Phobos
Deimos
Locked to Jupiter
Metis
Adrastea
Amalthea
Thebe
Io
Europa
Ganymede
Callisto
Locked to Saturn
Pan
Atlas
Prometheus
Pandora
Epimetheus
Janus
Mimas
Enceladus
Telesto
Tethys
Calypso
Dione
Rhea
Titan
Iapetus
Locked to Uranus
Miranda
Ariel
Umbriel
Titania
Oberon
Locked to Neptune
Proteus
Triton
Locked to Pluto
Charon (Pluto is itself locked to Charon)
Tau Boötis is known to be locked to the close-orbiting giant planet Tau Boötis b.
Very few of those are even observable moons, and none of them have a surface that can be seen with any optical telescope.
Iapetus one of Saturn's moon are observed to be brighter when it's on the western side of Saturn (viewed from Earth) and very very dim when it's on the eastern side of Saturn, this could only mean that Iapetus is tidally locked and have a dark and bright hemisphere.
The surface feature of Galilean moons are visible in observatory telescopes.
Such a view could also suggest it is concave, or even a semisphere dome being observed. I'm not claiming it is, but the view doesn't preclude those explanations - as I said, you only ever see one side (certainly a marvellously impossible coincidence that an orbiting globe would rotate in such a way.
We never said it was coincidence, yet you reject the explanation we give.
-
Aren't the free masons just a rich boys club who paddle each other's arses and wear creepy cloaks?
-
Aren't the free masons just a rich boys club who paddle each other's arses and wear creepy cloaks?
Along with masturbating in coffins, taking Luciferian oaths, and other monkeyshines.
Isaac Newton was a mason. As was Copernicus. Also police chiefs, military officers, and every NASA astroNot.
-
Yeah setec astronomy. I've read and heard that before. Never about astronauts or police chiefs.
But I assume positions of power and influence are positions that free masons would like to place people.
That's assuming they are a shadowy clan with a worldwide historic plan to rule the world.
It's a hard one for me to grasp.
I definitely think there is something weird and not quite right with free masons. I don't know anything more than reading things online about them. And anyone could tell me the bush family for instance are free masons and I can't prove they aren't.
Is it publicly known who's part of it?
And what do the free masons claim they are for? Or why people join them?
A rich boys club to help each other keep positions of power and keep their lineage elite? Or is it way more sinister? If that in itself isn't sinister enough.
If you e ever known anyone very wealthy, then from my experience you would know they are not apethetic people. I've got pretty well off people in my family and they definitely use and abuse.
So the top wealthy families in the world and throughout history. Of course some very shady shit went down and continues.
This is a good point as this conspiracy "I think" grabs a lot of people (who are open to many conspiracy a like free masons) and leads them into the idea for a flat earth cover up. Would that be correct?
-
That's assuming they are a shadowy clan with a worldwide historic plan to rule the world.
Freemasonry is only a tool (one of many such fraternal organizations) to get smart and influential people controllable and keep them "on the right side".
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/syma/img/secdeg.jpg)
As for the globe conspiracy - we are all inundated with it every day. If you watch TV at all (not recommended) you'll see globes shown all the time, if you notice them. Children are presented with globes in school long before they have any critical reasoning abilities. Any flat maps are always Mercator-type projections and never the northern azimuthal equidistant.
One must at least wonder why it is so depserately important to get all people everywhere to regard their world as a globe. For if were simply the truth, people could be introduced to any flat earth ideas first, then gradually shown more advanced proofs. Instead they are always only shown the round idea first, and the flat idea is never given more than a cursory glance - but only when it is known that the people have completely attached themselves to the globe idea.
-
Do they enlist or do you join?
or is it just if your father is in you are in?
Or elite schools make you join?
Can I join?
Do they even have free masons in Australia?
Is it just a male club or are there females too. Seems kind of sexist and weird if it's just old creepy rich men and lots of young (easily influenced) boys...
-
Do they enlist or do you join?
or is it just if your father is in you are in?
Or elite schools make you join?
Can I join?
Do they even have free masons in Australia?
Is it just a male club or are there females too. Seems kind of sexist and weird if it's just old creepy rich men and lots of young (easily influenced) boys...
Joining is by invitation only (actually they have to vote to let someone in, who must avoid being "blackballed"), and it's a men-only club. Lower degrees don't have to come from a long family line of freemasons, but the higher-ups always do.
For women they have something called the Order of the Eastern Star.
-
If the evidence from NASA is any actual indication of reality, then it appears that flatness is the normal shape for objects in the known universe. We have observed both the moon and Mars from right at the surface and in both cases the surface is shown to be flat. It is inconclusive as of yet, but (again, assuming NASA can be trusted) it seems that large objects tend to flatness as a general rule.
No, the lunar and Martian surfaces have not been shown to be flat. If the photos of their surfaces were incompatible with a round Mars and moon, every astronomer in the world would have had a WTF? moment, and they'd probably be still saying it.
They most certainly have. If you google "surface of Mars" you will find plenty of images that show conclusively that the surface of Mars is every bit as flat as that of Earth, and a google search for "surface of the Moon" will yield similar results. The most likely explanation is that those astronomers you mention are merely witnessing an optical illusion, possibly caused by EA, much like that viewed by NASA of Earth.
-
If the evidence from NASA is any actual indication of reality, then it appears that flatness is the normal shape for objects in the known universe. We have observed both the moon and Mars from right at the surface and in both cases the surface is shown to be flat. It is inconclusive as of yet, but (again, assuming NASA can be trusted) it seems that large objects tend to flatness as a general rule.
No, the lunar and Martian surfaces have not been shown to be flat. If the photos of their surfaces were incompatible with a round Mars and moon, every astronomer in the world would have had a WTF? moment, and they'd probably be still saying it.
They most certainly have. If you google "surface of Mars" you will find plenty of images that show conclusively that the surface of Mars is every bit as flat as that of Earth, and a google search for "surface of the Moon" will yield similar results. The most likely explanation is that those astronomers you mention are merely witnessing an optical illusion, possibly caused by EA, much like that viewed by NASA of Earth.
This would be true aside from the fact that any observer with a telescope can observe the rotation of Mars over the course of a month. Mars rotation takes slightly longer than a day and over long periods, a noticeable change on the surface relative to us is visible. Also, the moon cannot be flat, as the shadows cast on the surface of the moon are parabolic. It is impossible to cast a curved shadow on a flat surface, try it. So that is also implausible unless accounting for:
1: Some third, hyperbolic-shaped stellar object that blocks light from the sun
2: Extreme amounts of light distortion
3: The fact that the argument makes no sense.
Sorry if that was rude, I'm just saying.
-
If the evidence from NASA is any actual indication of reality, then it appears that flatness is the normal shape for objects in the known universe. We have observed both the moon and Mars from right at the surface and in both cases the surface is shown to be flat. It is inconclusive as of yet, but (again, assuming NASA can be trusted) it seems that large objects tend to flatness as a general rule.
It sounds like you are referring to photos taken at the Martian surface by Viking, Spirit, and Opportunity, for example? If so this is an acknowledgement of the reality of spaceflight, which is unexpected (I guess you DID bracket that statement with a pair of 'if' statements, which I included, but still...). It also serves to illustrate what we round earth folks have been saying all along: from the ground, from the perspective of a puny human and his tiny machines, the shape of a vast, round, planet-sized object APPEARS to be flat, even though it is NOT flat. From the great distance of earth, look at the moon with the naked eye and look at Mars with a telescope: they are both round. Look at them from ground level: they appear to be flat.
If you google "surface of Mars" you will find plenty of images that show conclusively that the surface of Mars is every bit as flat as that of Earth, and a google search for "surface of the Moon" will yield similar results. The most likely explanation is that those astronomers you mention are merely witnessing an optical illusion, possibly caused by EA, much like that viewed by NASA of Earth.
I put it to you that the 'optical illusion' you speak of has nothing to do with EA, but instead is caused by the enormous difference in scale from the tiny human/machine sized object to the vast moon/mars sized object. And having shown that the round-from-a-distance moon and Mars appear flat-from-the-surface, perhaps one can conclude that the same flat-from-the-surface appearance earth does not eliminate the possibility that it too is round-from-a-distance? (I won't go so far as to claim proof, merely that the possibility is not eliminated)
-
there is no planets except Earth. The others are dead stars that did'nt fall down to the earth.
-
there is no planets
There, fixed that for you. Unless you think the earth is a globe, of course.