Offline Skythz

  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Why is every other planet round?
« on: March 15, 2019, 01:48:30 PM »
Why is every other planet humanity has ever seen (and you can see for yourself using a telescope) was round? Nature must've made one hell of a mistake.
In addition, how do you explain the shadow of the earth on the moon? It's clearly a round shadow.

manicminer

Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2019, 03:26:17 PM »
Under the Physics and Cosmology section of FE Wiki it states..

Quote
Planets (from Ancient Greek ἀστὴρ πλανήτης [astēr planētēs, "wandering star"], or just πλανήτης [planḗtēs, "wanderer"]) are orbiting astronomical objects. The Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve. The earths uniqueness, fundamental differences and centrality makes any comparison to other nearby celestial bodies insufficient - Like comparing basketballs to the court on which they bounce.

How you interperet that and whether you accept that or not of course, is up to you.

Offline Skythz

  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2019, 03:56:58 PM »
Under the Physics and Cosmology section of FE Wiki it states..

Quote
Planets (from Ancient Greek ἀστὴρ πλανήτης [astēr planētēs, "wandering star"], or just πλανήτης [planḗtēs, "wanderer"]) are orbiting astronomical objects. The Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve. The earths uniqueness, fundamental differences and centrality makes any comparison to other nearby celestial bodies insufficient - Like comparing basketballs to the court on which they bounce.

How you interperet that and whether you accept that or not of course, is up to you.
How would you explain the earth's shadow on the moon and other planets by that ideology?

manicminer

Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2019, 04:56:51 PM »
I will have to leave that to the FE side to explain but from the conventional RE point of view the answer is quite obvious.

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2019, 08:16:40 PM »
When you figure out how to get FErs to explain things that make FE look impossible, let me know. I have a bunch of questions that get zero replies. I would be very entertained to hear an explanation of how an equatorial mount works on FE.


manicminer

Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2019, 09:03:23 PM »
On a FE me too... on a spherical Earth dead easy. I have several equatorial mounts.

Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2019, 10:25:08 PM »
Or did it?  Maybe we made a mistake.  After all, no theory is perfect at first.  FE theory has stated that other planets have been observed to be round but how can we be so sure?  Maybe they’re flat, just like earth.  More experiments are required.

Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2019, 10:36:57 PM »
Or did it?  Maybe we made a mistake.  After all, no theory is perfect at first.  FE theory has stated that other planets have been observed to be round but how can we be so sure?  Maybe they’re flat, just like earth.  More experiments are required.

We can be sure because if the planets were flat discs, we'd see them as ellipses as they revolved around and over the Earth since we we aren't directly under them.
We are smarter than those scientists.
I see multiple contradicting explanations. You guys should have a pow-wow and figure out how your model works.

Nick428

Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2019, 12:18:38 AM »
Yeah, how are lunar eclipses possible on a flat earth? The disk can't possibly block all the sun's light to make the moon orange, and the sun would have to be in front of the Earth to create the eclipse. However, how the hell would that happen?

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2019, 12:36:50 AM »
Yeah, how are lunar eclipses possible on a flat earth? The disk can't possibly block all the sun's light to make the moon orange, and the sun would have to be in front of the Earth to create the eclipse. However, how the hell would that happen?

How is a RE phenomenon possible on a FE? This is the wrong question. Instead ask: how could a shadow be caused on the moon in a FE model?

Obviously, something other than the Earth would be the cause.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2019, 01:46:07 AM »
A shadow moon is a poor explanation for causing the lunar eclipse. Now this is literally an ad hoc explanation. It's a great theory that can never be proven false or true, due to the fact the FE Wiki says it cannot be seen. Lol ok...
BobLawBlah.

Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2019, 02:44:02 AM »
A shadow moon is a poor explanation for causing the lunar eclipse. Now this is literally an ad hoc explanation. It's a great theory that can never be proven false or true, due to the fact the FE Wiki says it cannot be seen. Lol ok...

Also, we should be able to bounce radio waves off this object - like a "moon bounce" - seeing that it's closer than the moon. Unless this mysterious shadow moon is randomly zig-zagging across the sky, surely we can predict where it will be in the hours leading up to the lunar eclipse?

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2019, 10:39:59 AM »
A shadow moon is a poor explanation for causing the lunar eclipse. Now this is literally an ad hoc explanation. It's a great theory that can never be proven false or true, due to the fact the FE Wiki says it cannot be seen. Lol ok...

Also, we should be able to bounce radio waves off this object - like a "moon bounce" - seeing that it's closer than the moon. Unless this mysterious shadow moon is randomly zig-zagging across the sky, surely we can predict where it will be in the hours leading up to the lunar eclipse?

Why would it have to be closer than the moon? I suppose you could predict where it will be, if you somehow know exactly where the Sun is when you can’t see it.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2019, 12:11:51 PM »
It's impossible for a completely invisible object to magically cast a visible shadow.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2019, 01:35:57 PM »
Why would it have to be closer than the moon? I suppose you could predict where it will be, if you somehow know exactly where the Sun is when you can’t see it.

Well, the moon can't be illuminated by the sun on a FE because then you could never have a full moon at night. The sun would have to be illuminating the moon from somewhere between the observer and the moon. That would look a lot like daytime...

And if the moon is emitting it's own light, then the shadow object has to be between the observer and the moon in a lunar eclipse.

Which is it?
« Last Edit: March 19, 2019, 01:39:00 PM by Balls Dingo »

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2019, 04:23:56 PM »
Why would it have to be closer than the moon? I suppose you could predict where it will be, if you somehow know exactly where the Sun is when you can’t see it.

Well, the moon can't be illuminated by the sun on a FE because then you could never have a full moon at night. The sun would have to be illuminating the moon from somewhere between the observer and the moon. That would look a lot like daytime...

And if the moon is emitting it's own light, then the shadow object has to be between the observer and the moon in a lunar eclipse.

Which is it?

This is only the case if you believe the radiation of light from the Sun is isotropic. FE never makes this claim.

Also, there is a very easy observation anyone can make which demonstrates diffinitively that the Moon cannot be emanating light. Can you guess which this is?

Lastly, your question is an example of a false dichotomy fallacy. Those are not the only two options.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline Skythz

  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2019, 07:58:37 PM »
Can't really argue with those who can just make anything they'd like up and change physics because they don't believe in them.
It's hard to argue with a smart person, but impossible with an ignorant.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2019, 03:25:42 AM »
Can't really argue with those who can just make anything they'd like up and change physics because they don't believe in them.
It's hard to argue with a smart person, but impossible with an ignorant.

I would respectfully disagree with you that Balls Dingo is ignorant. He seems to ask honest and thoughtful questions.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2019, 04:53:34 AM »
This is only the case if you believe the radiation of light from the Sun is isotropic. FE never makes this claim.

Also, there is a very easy observation anyone can make which demonstrates diffinitively that the Moon cannot be emanating light. Can you guess which this is?

Lastly, your question is an example of a false dichotomy fallacy. Those are not the only two options.

That seems like a dodge. What are these other options? Honestly, just one feasible one will do. Can we agree that these criteria are commonly met all at once:

1. The moon is full to an observer, and other observers within a certain range of latitudes. In other words, the entire face is illuminated. At other times, the illumination of the moon is crescent, gibbous, etc. An intuitive explanation would be that the full moon is being illuminated from "below" or the source of illumination is between the observer and the moon on a flat Earth, but I accept that other explanations are possible.
2. No light from the sun is otherwise visible, and no celestial body of similar size to the sun is visible that is partly illuminated or that appears to be projecting light (eg. visible beams in the sky).
3. At other longitudes observers are seeing an almost perfectly round sun (viewed through a solar filter if necessary) and are in daylight. It is doubtful that a cone sun would meet this criteria as some of the top or bottom would be obscured for some observers.

If I recall correctly, you believe that lunar phases demonstrate definitively that the moon cannot be emanating light. I find that a very odd statement for this site. Theories explaining this wouldn't be any more ridiculous than most others here. Someone could propose an army of highly-trained lunar glow worms and that wouldn't surprise me. I can only assume that whatever explanation you can come up with the full moon phenomenon will be more believable than that. Personally, I'm particularly fond of theories where there is at some form of evidence to back them up. Theories that are proposed simply because a model doesn't work are pretty unsatisfactory.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 11:31:44 AM by Balls Dingo »

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is every other planet round?
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2019, 01:39:14 AM »
This is only the case if you believe the radiation of light from the Sun is isotropic. FE never makes this claim.

Also, there is a very easy observation anyone can make which demonstrates diffinitively that the Moon cannot be emanating light. Can you guess which this is?

Lastly, your question is an example of a false dichotomy fallacy. Those are not the only two options.

That seems like a dodge. What are these other options? Honestly, just one feasible one will do. Can we agree that these criteria are commonly met all at once:

1. The moon is full to an observer, and other observers within a certain range of latitudes. In other words, the entire face is illuminated. At other times, the illumination of the moon is crescent, gibbous, etc. An intuitive explanation would be that the full moon is being illuminated from "below" or the source of illumination is between the observer and the moon on a flat Earth, but I accept that other explanations are possible.
2. No light from the sun is otherwise visible, and no celestial body of similar size to the sun is visible that is partly illuminated or that appears to be projecting light (eg. visible beams in the sky).
3. At other longitudes observers are seeing an almost perfectly round sun (viewed through a solar filter if necessary) and are in daylight. It is doubtful that a cone sun would meet this criteria as some of the top or bottom would be obscured for some observers.

If I recall correctly, you believe that lunar phases demonstrate definitively that the moon cannot be emanating light. I find that a very odd statement for this site. Theories explaining this wouldn't be any more ridiculous than most others here. Someone could propose an army of highly-trained lunar glow worms and that wouldn't surprise me. I can only assume that whatever explanation you can come up with the full moon phenomenon will be more believable than that. Personally, I'm particularly fond of theories where there is at some form of evidence to back them up. Theories that are proposed simply because a model doesn't work are pretty unsatisfactory.

Hey Balls,

That, my friend, is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The claim was made that there are only two options. The burden of proof is with you making that claim. Until you demonstrate that these are the only two options, the claim is unjustified.

I have no obligation to prove you wrong, you must prove the claim correct.

You found my statement odd for this site? Perhaps your assumptions might benefit from a revisiting :). Especially if my statement surprises you but glow worms do not!

Why do you think the Sun is a cone? It is possible to achieve non-isotropic radiation without a geometrical cone. For example, the radiation distribution from an ordinary campfire is conic. This results from an interesting interference between radiative, conductive, and convective energy transport mechanisms caused by atmospheric pressure gradients resulting from the combustion process.

This is why you blow air underneath a fire to stoke it - that region is oxygen depleted and partially vacuated.

Anyway...

1. Sure Balls. But look. If I see an eclipse where I live and you don’t where you live, then the light must be reflected. It’s that simple. If it was emanated, we’d all see the same thing.

2. I have no idea what this sentence says. It sounds like you used google translate to take an English sentence into German, then into Russian, then Chinese, and finally Klingon before translating it back to English and posting it. But it’s probably just above my head.

3. Well, I guess I already answered this above.

I like talking to you Balls.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 01:41:23 AM by QED »
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior