[JRowe]

There is an easy way to determine that other celestial objects are not as we are taught. Before I begin this argument I will make a note on terminology. As a result of this argument, and the model itself, the Earth is the only thing I would call a planet. Mercury, Venus et al are not the same class of entity and have far more in common with stars than the Earth. However, as most people are used to thinking of them as planets, I will default to the mainstream terminology for the purposes of this post so that my point is clearer.

You likely have a clear image of many celestial objects in your head, planets and otherwise. The moon is endless plains of grey sand and rock. Mars is rust-brown sand and rock. Venus is volcanic and toxic. Jupiter is endlessly stormy gas. And everything we've seen from photos and statements from mainstream scientists is in line with this. Everything else in the Solar System is what is termed a single biome planet; a body with only one ecology.
It's an idea that is popular in sci-fi. The best known examples would be Star Wars; we have Hoth the ice planet, Tattooine the desert world. Something of a cliche, and plainly one that appeals to the human imagination, despite repeated criticism from the scientific.

But is it realistic?
We have only one planet that we can directly observe, and we see it covered in rainforest and desert and sea and ice. Certainly, if a world lacks water or plant life there are limits to the variation possible, but there should still be some. If you want to limit the materials to just sand and rock, then we should observe some areas of pure sand, some solid areas of just rock, but if you look at the myriad photos claimed to be of the moon (for example) then no matter the landing site they all seem to be pretty much identical. If you look at all the images from the Mars Rovers, it's the same. Loose rocks scattered over a sandy plain. There is no variation in the surface, the materials, the composition...
And that is to say nothing of the utter lack of climate variation.
Instead every single body that we have seen is little more than a quarry, and every single world that we are told about supposedly lacks any variation.

If one were to strip the Earth of all its water and plant life, you would still find that there were a multitude of colors, huge variations in the surface structure, some solid areas and some sandy... Does that bear any similarity to how we are told other planets look?

The way we are told the Solar System is composed is devoid of any logic or common sense.













The best we get is the claim Mars supposedly has ice caps... except it doesn't, according to REers it gets so cold that the carbon dioxide in the air freezes at the poles. There is no actual variation in its composition. Sand, rocks and air, the same stuff, the same layout, all over.
That just doesn't fly.

[Bad Puppy]

If you delve into the scientific properties of the other planets, it might give a bit of logical insight to why this may be.  I'm no astronomer, but too close to the sun, you won't find grass or leaves or water.  Too far from the sun, you won't get liquid water on the surface, so no trees, grass, mud, greens, etc.  Weak magnetic field in the planet, less solar wind deflection; irradiated surface.  Not all planets are made of the same junk, so they don't all display the same properties.  Why should they?

Our planet is perfect to support life.  Other solar systems may have similar layouts.  Star Wars planets are probably built like that so that the solar systems are easily distinguished from one another.  Star Trek has their planets far more diverse, if we're going into fiction.  The flat earth might as well be Asgard.

I see logic and common sense the solar system.

[QED]

I am afraid it is a bit more complex than that. The Sun is unique because it is the only celestial body in our solar system undergoing nuclear fusion to counteract gravitational collapse. It describes the energetic center and geometric center of our solar system, It is hence most unlike the planets which prevent gravitational collapse due to coulomb forces.

Our solar system makes a great deal of sense if you understand thermodynamics and classical dynamics. In fact, this was how they updated the classification of planets to exclude Pluto.

Poor guy.

[Tumeni]

There is an easy way to determine that other celestial objects are not as we are taught.

But they are "as we are taught". We've sent probes to many of them and confirmed this.

Mercury, Venus et al are not the same class of entity and have far more in common with stars than the Earth.

But WHAT do they have "in common"?

... And that is to say nothing of the utter lack of climate variation.

But they had to shut down the Mars rover recently for fear of damage from a sand storm. That seems like climate variation to me

The way we are told the Solar System is composed is devoid of any logic or common sense.

.. but it's not just you "being told". It's a whole subdivision of scientific study and space exploration. Real observations and real data provided by real craft operated by real people.

You don't get to discount it as though someone made it up and told you a story.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Single biome planets are a Sci-fi cliche just like alien planets that speak english

[MCToon]

There is an easy way to determine that other celestial objects are not as we are taught.

...

That just doesn't fly.

What is the easy way we can determine that other celestial objects are not as we are taught?  All you have presented is an argument from incredulity.

We have a very small number of celestial objects we have explored in any detail from which to compare.  There are thousands of confirmed planets and moons orbiting stars that we have not yet gotten detailed imagery from.  There are many billions of stars that likely have planets in orbit.  What percentage of celestial objects are you expecting to have varied and interesting biomes?

[Rama Set]

All you have presented is an argument from incredulity.

Ah, so you already know Jrowe.

Seriously, even though Jrowe has done exactly what you said, he will accuse you of not reading him carefully enough, or willfully misrepresenting him, all the while, there will never manifest a real rationale for why a gas giant is not varied enough from some of it’s frozen moons to appear “logical” and “common sense”.

[JRowe]

If you delve into the scientific properties of the other planets, it might give a bit of logical insight to why this may be.  I'm no astronomer, but too close to the sun, you won't find grass or leaves or water.  Too far from the sun, you won't get liquid water on the surface, so no trees, grass, mud, greens, etc.  Weak magnetic field in the planet, less solar wind deflection; irradiated surface.  Not all planets are made of the same junk, so they don't all display the same properties.  Why should they?

Planets shouldn't all display the same properties, but the notion that every single other world has one solitary defining feature rather than the myriad of colors and properties that we see on Earth is not one that deserves any respect. A skeptic might call it a marketing ploy.

I am afraid it is a bit more complex than that. The Sun is unique because it is the only celestial body in our solar system undergoing nuclear fusion to counteract gravitational collapse. It describes the energetic center and geometric center of our solar system, It is hence most unlike the planets which prevent gravitational collapse due to coulomb forces.

Our solar system makes a great deal of sense if you understand thermodynamics and classical dynamics. In fact, this was how they updated the classification of planets to exclude Pluto.

Poor guy.

What does this have to do with my objection?

What is the easy way we can determine that other celestial objects are not as we are taught?  All you have presented is an argument from incredulity.

We have a very small number of celestial objects we have explored in any detail from which to compare.  There are thousands of confirmed planets and moons orbiting stars that we have not yet gotten detailed imagery from.  There are many billions of stars that likely have planets in orbit.  What percentage of celestial objects are you expecting to have varied and interesting biomes?

How is it an argument from incredulity? I demonstrated that the planets, as presented, match more what we would observe in a fictional construct rather than one observed in reality. I expect there to be even one planet that doesn't have some sci-fi signature to it.

Ah, so you already know Jrowe.

Seriously, even though Jrowe has done exactly what you said, he will accuse you of not reading him carefully enough, or willfully misrepresenting him, all the while, there will never manifest a real rationale for why a gas giant is not varied enough from some of it’s frozen moons to appear “logical” and “common sense”.

So you're going to try to bias someone against me without actually addressing my point?
Well, yes I would call someone out for willfully misrepresenting me if they think a gas giant being different to a frozen moon is in any way a response to it, given that I was talking about the universe being composed of single biome planets rather than saying everything had the same biome; a fact made explicit by the fact I listed multiple biomes.

[Rama Set]

Yes, claiming the universe is composed of single biome planets is super logical.

Perhaps we should make broad assumptions about everything we know basically nothing about? Seems to be your suggestion.

[MCToon]

What is the easy way we can determine that other celestial objects are not as we are taught?  All you have presented is an argument from incredulity.

We have a very small number of celestial objects we have explored in any detail from which to compare.  There are thousands of confirmed planets and moons orbiting stars that we have not yet gotten detailed imagery from.  There are many billions of stars that likely have planets in orbit.  What percentage of celestial objects are you expecting to have varied and interesting biomes?

How is it an argument from incredulity? I demonstrated that the planets, as presented, match more what we would observe in a fictional construct rather than one observed in reality. I expect there to be even one planet that doesn't have some sci-fi signature to it.

It's an argument from incredulity because all you did was claim it doesn't seem to you that is should be so.

You also include a very small group of celestial objects.  You included pictures of 2 and cited a few more.  In no way is this enough of a test group to draw any conclusions.  Certainly is matches fiction, but what is your control group for "observed in reality"?  A single example: Earth.

Again I ask, "What percentage of celestial objects are you expecting to have varied and interesting biomes?"

Dodge the question if you insist.  My estimate is "exceedingly small".  I take it that Earth is the exception, not the norm.

[Rama Set]

Perhaps Earth is common amongst planets that form in the Goldilocks zones.

[Bad Puppy]

Perhaps Earth is common amongst planets that form in the Goldilocks zones.

I'd think that's more likely, and what would affect it as well is what kind of star it would be orbiting.  It's possible that the type of radiation and light frequency which reaches such a planet would affect life in interesting ways.  Who knows?  Bioluminescence of surface plants might be normal on some planet out there.

Unless it's flat..in which case...

A. The earth is not a planet.

[Pinky]

But is it realistic?
We have only one planet that we can directly observe, and we see it covered in rainforest and desert and sea and ice. Certainly, if a world lacks water or plant life there are limits to the variation possible, but there should still be some. If you want to limit the materials to just sand and rock, then we should observe some areas of pure sand, some solid areas of just rock, but if you look at the myriad photos claimed to be of the moon (for example) then no matter the landing site they all seem to be pretty much identical. If you look at all the images from the Mars Rovers, it's the same. Loose rocks scattered over a sandy plain. There is no variation in the surface, the materials, the composition...

Translation:

You made an evidence-free guess what a planet SHOULD look like. And the planet not matching your imagination is proof that the planet is fake.

Can you give any argument why Mars and Moon SHOULD have variation on the surface?

[Curious Squirrel]

If you delve into the scientific properties of the other planets, it might give a bit of logical insight to why this may be.  I'm no astronomer, but too close to the sun, you won't find grass or leaves or water.  Too far from the sun, you won't get liquid water on the surface, so no trees, grass, mud, greens, etc.  Weak magnetic field in the planet, less solar wind deflection; irradiated surface.  Not all planets are made of the same junk, so they don't all display the same properties.  Why should they?

Planets shouldn't all display the same properties, but the notion that every single other world has one solitary defining feature rather than the myriad of colors and properties that we see on Earth is not one that deserves any respect. A skeptic might call it a marketing ploy.

A common FE claim for why the Earth is flat and everything else is round is that the Earth is special. While I don't necessarily think it's a strong argument, it's certainly reasonable. Earth IS the only one that we're aware of with life presently on it. So why shouldn't it be unique in some manner? Maybe a varied biome is a prerequisite for life in some manner. So all these single biome planets are basically dictated to not have life by that very reason. But if we were to ever find another one with multiple biome's, it would be a very good candidate for life because it has that first basic requirement. Essentially, Earth is already unique in so many ways, why not this one? Not as though your sample size is all that large though either, and 2 of your 'poster planets' have no atmosphere to really support alternative biomes to begin with.

[Pinky]

If you delve into the scientific properties of the other planets, it might give a bit of logical insight to why this may be.  I'm no astronomer, but too close to the sun, you won't find grass or leaves or water.  Too far from the sun, you won't get liquid water on the surface, so no trees, grass, mud, greens, etc.  Weak magnetic field in the planet, less solar wind deflection; irradiated surface.  Not all planets are made of the same junk, so they don't all display the same properties.  Why should they?

Planets shouldn't all display the same properties, but the notion that every single other world has one solitary defining feature rather than the myriad of colors and properties that we see on Earth is not one that deserves any respect. A skeptic might call it a marketing ploy.

A common FE claim for why the Earth is flat and everything else is round is that the Earth is special. While I don't necessarily think it's a strong argument, it's certainly reasonable. Earth IS the only one that we're aware of with life presently on it. So why shouldn't it be unique in some manner? Maybe a varied biome is a prerequisite for life in some manner. So all these single biome planets are basically dictated to not have life by that very reason. But if we were to ever find another one with multiple biome's, it would be a very good candidate for life because it has that first basic requirement. Essentially, Earth is already unique in so many ways, why not this one? Not as though your sample size is all that large though either, and 2 of your 'poster planets' have no atmosphere to really support alternative biomes to begin with.

You are arguing "specialness" by proxy. Just because something is outstanding in one aspect, that doesn't mean it's outstanding in another unrelated aspect. I can type really fast. That doesn't mean I'm good at driving cars.

[Bobby Shafto]

A note about terminology: the other "planets" (and moons)  would not classify as biomes since they appear to lack life.

Earth's unusual geographic and climate diversity is, perhaps, why it even can be a biome in the first place. (Or conversely life is why earth's character is so much more diverse than other lifeless worlds.)

Earth may just be in the solar system sweet spot to be a biome. Mars may have been too, and could serve as a cautionary tale for what Earth could be like if it were to cease supporting the life (and thus be disqualified as a biome) that gives it such unique variety.

May not be the definitive argument you intended, jrowe, but good grist for thought and discussion.

[MCToon]

What is the easy way we can determine that other celestial objects are not as we are taught?  All you have presented is an argument from incredulity.

We have a very small number of celestial objects we have explored in any detail from which to compare.  There are thousands of confirmed planets and moons orbiting stars that we have not yet gotten detailed imagery from.  There are many billions of stars that likely have planets in orbit.  What percentage of celestial objects are you expecting to have varied and interesting biomes?

How is it an argument from incredulity? I demonstrated that the planets, as presented, match more what we would observe in a fictional construct rather than one observed in reality. I expect there to be even one planet that doesn't have some sci-fi signature to it.

It's an argument from incredulity because all you did was claim it doesn't seem to you that is should be so.

You also include a very small group of celestial objects.  You included pictures of 2 and cited a few more.  In no way is this enough of a test group to draw any conclusions.  Certainly is matches fiction, but what is your control group for "observed in reality"?  A single example: Earth.

Again I ask, "What percentage of celestial objects are you expecting to have varied and interesting biomes?"

Dodge the question if you insist.  My estimate is "exceedingly small".  I take it that Earth is the exception, not the norm.

To further clarify the argument from incredulity, your claim boils down to this:
It seems to me that celestial objects other than earth should have similar characteristics to earth.  The ones we have been presented don't have these characteristics.  I don't understand how they couldn't have these characteristics.  Therefore, they are fake.

[JRowe]

To further clarify the argument from incredulity, your claim boils down to this:
It seems to me that celestial objects other than earth should have similar characteristics to earth.  The ones we have been presented don't have these characteristics.  I don't understand how they couldn't have these characteristics.  Therefore, they are fake.

Why is everyone repeating this lie?

We have observed a planet. Even if you were to strip it of all life, all water, all those things that make it 'special,' and then take a trip over it, you would see changes. You would see a multitude of colors, a multitude of layouts. This is a fact. This is what any sane person would expect to see. This is not 'incredulity,' this is common sense. Unless you are going to leave science behind and insist every planet was made just-so to fill one particular, ordered niche with every element carefully sifted through so that only the correct ones make it through, you cannot justify the fact that every celestial body we have seen fails to have any variation.
They are one color, they are composed of one basic set-up. Where's the bright yellow or black rock on Mars? Where's the red on Venus? Where is the variation?
This is not 'incredulity,' this is a legitimate scientific question that you are all trying to evade rather than answer. The whole solar system was supposedly made up of a dust cloud that all got mixed up and certain parts attracted together. Ok, so why did only red dust make up Mars? Orange and volcanic make up Venus? If you want to make an excuse about, say, various masses sorted through, why was Earth lucky enough to get all the variation?

And that's just on color, that's just on one of the many grounds we would expect to see variation. Where's the solid ground on the moon (which should be more common than the sandiness, given that on Earth sand tends to be formed along oceansides, places where there is friction or force unlike the airless moon)? Where's the volcanic activity free portion of Venus; don't say that's down to distance from the Sun given that Mercury's apparently just fine? Why a gas giant but no gaseous seas?
Why is it that 100% of the celestial bodies that we have seen lack any of the variation that we see on Earth? Why do none of you care about this baffling 'coincidence?' Why do you want to handwave away a major incoherency in how RET describes the solar system as mere 'incredulity?'

This is a question that needs to be answered. So far all you've presented is ludicrous levels of happenstance or divine intervention.
I have given my reasons for why the planets should not be composed of a single environment several times over, it is not 'it seems to me,' it is scientific fact. You people's persistent refusal to even acknowledge, let alone address, it is genuinely sickening given how you claim to be the scientifically enlightened. I have repeated these questions, and none of you have even attempted to answer them, preferring instead to just ignore, to just handwave, to just pretend that I never gave it.
The next question for you to ponder would be: why is it, if RET truly is as strong and unshakeable as you insist, that you rely on lies to defend it?

[MCToon]

To further clarify the argument from incredulity, your claim boils down to this:
It seems to me that celestial objects other than earth should have similar characteristics to earth.  The ones we have been presented don't have these characteristics.  I don't understand how they couldn't have these characteristics.  Therefore, they are fake.

Why is everyone repeating this lie?

You are expecting celestial bodies to exhibit certain characteristics based on your opinions.

We have observed a planet

Your sample size is 1.

Even if you were to strip it of all life, all water, all those things that make it 'special,' and then take a trip over it, you would see changes. You would see a multitude of colors, a multitude of layouts. This is a fact

You provide no supporting evidence for this "fact".  Where are the places on earth that have no water, no plants, no animals that have this multitude of colors?

This is what any sane person would expect to see. This is not 'incredulity,' this is common sense. Unless you are going to leave science behind and insist every planet was made just-so to fill one particular, ordered niche with every element carefully sifted through so that only the correct ones make it through, you cannot justify the fact that every celestial body we have seen fails to have any variation.

They are one color, they are composed of one basic set-up. Where's the bright yellow or black rock on Mars? Where's the red on Venus? Where is the variation?

Again, this is just your opinion of how they should look.  There is nothing requiring them to be this way.

This is not 'incredulity,' this is a legitimate scientific question that you are all trying to evade rather than answer. The whole solar system was supposedly made up of a dust cloud that all got mixed up and certain parts attracted together. Ok, so why did only red dust make up Mars? Orange and volcanic make up Venus? If you want to make an excuse about, say, various masses sorted through, why was Earth lucky enough to get all the variation?

Goldilocks zone answers this very well.  Much better than your opinion of how things should be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_habitable_zone

And that's just on color, that's just on one of the many grounds we would expect to see variation. Where's the solid ground on the moon (which should be more common than the sandiness, given that on Earth sand tends to be formed along oceansides, places where there is friction or force unlike the airless moon)?

not sure what you mean here.  All the places the astronauts explored on the moon had solid ground with a coating of sand or dust.  It's distributed because there is no water or air on the moon.  Nothing to move or accumulate the sand in collections.  It just falls and stays where it fell.

Where's the volcanic activity free portion of Venus; don't say that's down to distance from the Sun given that Mercury's apparently just fine? Why a gas giant but no gaseous seas?

I think you should spend a lot more time on reading up on what experts think about these planets and how they came to be they way they are.

Why is it that 100% of the celestial bodies that we have seen lack any of the variation that we see on Earth? Why do none of you care about this baffling 'coincidence?' Why do you want to handwave away a major incoherency in how RET describes the solar system as mere 'incredulity?'

Your sample size is 1.  You cannot infer a pattern from a sample size of 1.

This is a question that needs to be answered. So far all you've presented is ludicrous levels of happenstance or divine intervention.
I have given my reasons for why the planets should not be composed of a single environment several times over, it is not 'it seems to me,' it is scientific fact.

You can say all you want that it's fact, but it is not.  It is your opinion.  It is my opinion that the majority of planets should be boring and quite uniform.

You people's persistent refusal to even acknowledge, let alone address, it is genuinely sickening given how you claim to be the scientifically enlightened. I have repeated these questions, and none of you have even attempted to answer them, preferring instead to just ignore, to just handwave, to just pretend that I never gave it.
The next question for you to ponder would be: why is it, if RET truly is as strong and unshakeable as you insist, that you rely on lies to defend it?

Your questions have been answered, you have exposed no lies.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

You people's persistent refusal to even acknowledge, let alone address, it is genuinely sickening given how you claim to be the scientifically enlightened. I have repeated these questions, and none of you have even attempted to answer them, preferring instead to just ignore, to just handwave, to just pretend that I never gave it.

Ok... even though I'm not "you people," I'll take a swing at this.

How do you know there aren't yellow rocks on Mars? You're only looking at the surface covered in some kind of iron oxide dust. We've detected methane, water and all kinds of stuff that we're just now finding.

How do you know what colors the Venusian surface should be? The cloudy atmosphere filters out light of certain wavelengths so we don't see true colors.

Outside of sci-fi movies no one believes in single biome planets. Even the moons of Jupiter have ice, oceans and volcanic activity.

Smaller celestial bodies subject to more extreme conditions usually show the most uniformity which makes sense. If you pick up a single rock, it will be the same all over. If you go to a rock quarry, you'll find all kinds of variations.


But as someone pointed out earlier, you main issue is that the planets don't appear as your 'common sense' expects them to.