TheScientist

Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2019, 09:26:03 PM »
Quote
I do not question phases of the moon . Reflection of sunlight
Excellent...  we are getting somewhere! 

Quote
which is scattered by spherical bodies - has an observable hotspot effect due to reflective qualities of spherical objects .
- What?

Quote
I regularly observe the planets and moon through my telescopes
  Excellent - what telescopes have you got?

Quote
Never seen a lunar or planetary  hotspot and neither have you
  I'll be the judge of what I have seen through telescopes.  What do you mean by 'hotspot'?

Quote
The moons of Jupiter are seen in transit because Jupiter is a luminary .
- What do you mean by 'luminary' exactly? Jupiter is a planet.  Simple as.  The satellites move across Jupiters disk which we see by reflected sunlight, and we see both the satellite itself and its shadow move across the disk.  A shadow is produced by the temporary obstruction of a distant light source. In this case, the Sun.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2019, 09:28:17 PM by TheScientist »

Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2019, 10:15:47 PM »
Mainstream science accepts anything , even poor experiment , which supports the fictitious solar system.
...in the previous post you literally said "The oblate spheroid of Newton was rubbished by the scientists".
I asked for more details and said that if what you claim is true then how come the oblate sphere theory is the prevailing view and now you're just saying scientists accept anything which supports the solar system? But...you just said that scientists didn't accept that. ???

Quote
Posting CGI of planets/sun is evidence of nothing.

Claiming without basis that the photos are CGI isn't evidence either. It's a baseless claim. If you have evidence of fakery then please present it.

Quote
The planets and our moon do not exhibit the reflective properties of spherical objects (scattering of light resulting in a hotspot) lit from a distant source
A hotspot is a property of light reflected from a smooth curved surface. No-one is claiming the moon's surface is smooth.
Here's a photo I took of the moon.



As you can see, I don't have any fancy equipment, just a relatively cheap digital camera with a 16x optical zoom.
Even with that though you can see that the moon is being illuminated by a light source. The phase and the shadows on the craters show that.
Why would a self-illuminating object have phases? How would the shadows be cast like that?
The phases, shadows and the way those shadows change as the phase (and therefore angle between the earth, moon and sun) changes demonstrate the moon is being illuminated.

Quote
The outer planets exhibit no characteristics suggestive of reflection from a sphere lit by a distant sun
Yes they do. Shadows cast on them.

Quote
Inner planets are small moons of the local sun (Brahe)
The solar system model was introduced without any supporting evidence . A fact which is always ignored.
Well, no it wasn't. The evidence was the retrograde motion of the planets. That is best explained by a heliocentric model with us and the other planets orbiting the sun.
And it's ironic you say that it was introduced without supporting evidence when your claim about the inner planets and a local sun is presented without any supporting evidence. If you have any evidence to back up that claim then please present it.

Quote
Researching subjects yourself is the best way to form your own views.

Given your views that is patently not the case. You seem to overestimate your ability to understand this stuff.
There has to be a sensible middle ground between blind acceptance and thinking you can research and understand everything yourself.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2019, 10:28:05 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2019, 11:19:16 AM »

Quote
Inner planets are small moons of the local sun (Brahe)
The solar system model was introduced without any supporting evidence . A fact which is always ignored.
Well, no it wasn't. The evidence was the retrograde motion of the planets. That is best explained by a heliocentric model with us and the other planets orbiting the sun.
And it's ironic you say that it was introduced without supporting evidence when your claim about the inner planets and a local sun is presented without any supporting evidence. If you have any evidence to back up that claim then please present it.

Your replies show that you do not understand the model you defend , including it''s origins .

All planetary motions including retrograde motion were explained fully within Tycho Brahe's Geocentric Model . Why don't you have a look at that . You may understand then that the fact is that the heliocentric model was introduced without any new evidence . This is not debatable since real science admits that . You persist in describing retrograde motion as new evidence , this is incorrect - it is merely a different different interpretation of an already explained phenomenon .

Tycho Brahe formed his model knowing that there was no scientific evidence for earth rotation ,but used the assumption of a globe earth  - which led to the logical conclusion that the heavens rotated around the assumed spherical earth . This also led to the logical conclusion that the planets and stars were not at ridiculous distances or sizes.

The heliocentric model requires the three still unproven assumptions of rotation , curvature  and astrocomical distances to the stars .

Of the two models the Geocentric model is the better fit , less assumptions mean less pseudo science .

The Meridian survey across France carried out by Cassini in 1670s , at the behest of the French Academy of Sciences used no assumptions but a direct measure of latitude along a meridian . The purpose being to determine the correct shape of earth , oblate or perfect sphere .It was found to be neither . Both models were incorrect . Brahe's model failed on the spherical assumption whereas the heliocentric model failed on all three assumptions .

Do some research if you are interested in real science .

TheScientist

Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2019, 12:00:32 PM »
Quote
Tycho Brahe formed his model knowing that there was no scientific evidence for earth rotation

By Earth rotation I assume you actually mean no evidence of Earth orbiting the Sun. Night and day is evidence enough of a rotating Earth of course. True there wasn't any detected movement of Earth through space in Tychos day. That's because there was no instrumentation available back then accurate enough or sensitive enough to detect the slight movement of the stars (proper motion) that indicated the Earth was in motion around the Sun.  Things are different now and we can detect those very slight movements. We can detect movements in the stars down to milli-arc seconds now which means we can measure the proper motions of many stars.

You will also note that the region of sky where the proper motions are at their least is in an area of sky marked by the constellation Coma Berenices.  What do you know that lies in Coma Berenices which could possibly account for the very small proper motions in this area of sky? 
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 01:45:42 PM by TheScientist »

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2019, 09:53:07 AM »
Quote
Tycho Brahe formed his model knowing that there was no scientific evidence for earth rotation

By Earth rotation I assume you actually mean no evidence of Earth orbiting the Sun. Night and day is evidence enough of a rotating Earth of course. True there wasn't any detected movement of Earth through space in Tychos day. That's because there was no instrumentation available back then accurate enough or sensitive enough to detect the slight movement of the stars (proper motion) that indicated the Earth was in motion around the Sun.  Things are different now and we can detect those very slight movements. We can detect movements in the stars down to milli-arc seconds now which means we can measure the proper motions of many stars.

You will also note that the region of sky where the proper motions are at their least is in an area of sky marked by the constellation Coma Berenices.  What do you know that lies in Coma Berenices which could possibly account for the very small proper motions in this area of sky?

Night and day as evidence enough ? Can't argue with such scientific evidence lol.

The stars do not change position .They are where they have always been in our recorded history .Have you checked yourself that these stars , light years distant , have moved by these milliseconds of arc ? You are being told these star positions have changed by milli seconds of arc . a milli second of arc is 1/3,600 divided by 1000 , i.e. 1/ 3,600,000  of a degree .

We have no instruments that measure with such accuracy . There are error limits to all instruments .


TheScientist

Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2019, 10:46:52 AM »
Quote
We have no instruments that measure with such accuracy . There are error limits to all instruments.

Actually there are...

https://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~mjp/hipparcos.html

Quote
The stars do not change position .They are where they have always been in our recorded history .Have you checked yourself that these stars , light years distant , have moved by these milliseconds of arc ?

I must admit no, I haven't checked myself because I don't own equipment that is capable of measuring such small angles. However I don't limit what I am prepared to believe in to measurements I can only make myself. That would be silly. The stars do change over time which is why we quote stellar coordinates according to the year (epoch) in which they were measured. The differences are very small and you won't notice the changes over a human lifetime without using purpose designed measuring equipment.  But the stars do change position over distances that can be measured. I can't be bothered to write out all the details myself so here is a guide to the details... make of it whatever you wish.

http://www.stargazing.net/kepler/b1950.html

I'm sure we don't need to call into question what causes night and day. That is something that is well known and I'm not going to enter into any petty arguments about that.

I know you people like to make it your business to question absolutely everything but if you are going start arguing about what cause night and day then we are not going to get anywhere.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2019, 04:01:46 PM by TheScientist »

Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2019, 03:08:32 PM »
Your replies show that you do not understand the model you defend , including it''s origins .
All planetary motions including retrograde motion were explained fully within Tycho Brahe's Geocentric Model
Is this the Tycho Brahe who died in 1601?
This is the trouble with cherry picking. You're picking a scientist whose theories back up your agenda but you're randomly ignoring the last FOUR HUNDRED YEARS of science,
People like like Kepler who used Tycho's data as part of his basis for his theories. Newton who explained how gravity holds it all together. And so on.
Part of Tycho's argument against heliocentric model was the lack of parallax...but that parallax does exist, it's just very small. It was first observed in 1838.
TheScientist has just pointed you to some information about a space telescope which is now able to measure this incredibly accurately.

Retrograde motion was part of the reason for Copernicus advocating a heliocentric model. You're right in that there are geocentric models which account for it but, ultimately, the heliocentric model won out as observations got more accurate and more was learned about the solar system.

Quote
Tycho Brahe formed his model knowing that there was no scientific evidence for earth rotation ,but used the assumption of a globe earth  - which led to the logical conclusion that the heavens rotated around the assumed spherical earth . This also led to the logical conclusion that the planets and stars were not at ridiculous distances or sizes.

And there's your problem, and his. He was working over 400 years ago when we didn’t have anywhere near as much knowledge about the way stuff works or as good tools or technology to make observations.

Quote
The heliocentric model requires the three still unproven assumptions of rotation , curvature  and astrocomical distances to the stars
Unproven if you ignore all the evidence, sure. But the Coriolis effect is evidence of rotation and as our good friends at Globebusters found out it can be detected with a ring-laser gyroscope.
Curvature...well, lots of ways to show this but we literally have an ISS orbiting the globe as well as a bunch of satellites taking photos of the globe earth.
As for distances. Well, we can show those from the parallax. Your personal incredulity is not evidence to the contrary.

Quote
Of the two models the Geocentric model is the better fit , less assumptions mean less pseudo science.
And yet every scientist disagrees with you.

Quote
Do some research if you are interested in real science.

Am I allowed to do any research which involves any science from later than the 17th century? Stop cherry picking the bits of science which you think back up your agenda and ignoring all the stuff which doesn't.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2019, 04:47:30 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

TheScientist

Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2019, 03:45:57 PM »
If Somerled is so confident that he knows better than the rest of the world about all this then I'm surprised he hasn't appeared on TV and in Nature magazine among others. Because a total debunking of all the modern scientific models in favour of what he thinks is right would surely attract some attention by the worlds media and scientific community.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2019, 03:52:07 PM by TheScientist »

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2019, 05:35:07 PM »
Quote
I'm sure we don't need to call into question what causes night and day. That is something that is well known and I'm not going to enter into any petty arguments about that.

One thing to bear in mind in discussions with these people, is that they use the words evidence and proof interchangably, as if they mean the same thing.  When you cite evidence, they read that as a claim of proof.   Night and day is indeed evidence of earth's rotation, but it is not proof.  Thus, the LOL.

TierraPlana

Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2019, 07:27:09 PM »
Quote
One thing to bear in mind in discussions with these people, is that they use the words evidence and proof interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing

Well you can make a word mean whatever you want it to mean. Evidence to me is something that supports a particular hypothesis but leaves open the possibility of others. Proof on the other hand is something that doesn't just support a particular hypothesis but eliminates beyond reasonable doubt any other.

I acknowledge that proving beyond any element of doubt whatsoever the true shape of the Earth from ground level is not easy to do. And I think often that is what flat Earthers are setting out to do. If you limit what you take into account to what you can see directly then it is entirely reasonable to say you cannot say for definite that the Earth is spherical. To form an educated judgement though you have to go further than that. The ancient Greeks watched not just one but several eclipses of the Moon. They did not know at first that it was the shadow of the Earth dimming the Moon but they recognised that lunar eclipses only happened at the time of the full Moon. Taking that into account the reasoning of Aristarchus was that the Moon orbited the Earth and the Earth orbited the Sun. From that they came to a logical conclusion that it was the Earths shadow moving across the Moons disk and given that the shadow was always circular, that implied that the Earth was therefore spherical. Based on the evidence they saw, that was the most likely explanation.

Nowadays we have evidence in the form of photos of the Earth from space that show the Earth is round. That should have put a stop to any form of continued flat Earth belief. To get around that the rules of FE theory have had to be changed. So the rule of FE theory now is that only directly observable evidence/proof can be accepted. That conveniently eliminates all space based imagery or video as acceptable evidence. Those who have been to space and seen for themselves the shape of the Earth they will claim have been 'silenced' or bribed into lying.
 
« Last Edit: October 11, 2019, 07:30:06 PM by TierraPlana »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10069
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2019, 04:27:50 PM »
I completely disagree with this assertion. Earth is, admittedly, the only place we know of where life exists but
a) We have a very small sample set of planets to check, compared to the scale of the universe.
b) Our exploration of them is in its infancy, relatively speaking.
Right, but then we're on the same page with both questions.

Why haven't we found life outside of Earth? Dunno, maybe it's not there, or maybe we need to keep looking.
Why haven't we found other flat celestial bodies? Dunno, maybe they're not there, or maybe we need to keep looking.

Surely you noticed that my original question (How come you believe reports of all other celestial bodies in the solar system being entirely lifeless, but you somehow think there might be life on Earth?) is not meant to be taken at face value? You're not disagreeing with me - you're merely spelling out what I wanted our readers to infer :)

The Earth is unique amongst the celestial bodies we have good amounts of knowledge about. As a necessary consequence, it is unique within the solar system (divert your attention to the thread's subject for a moment). It may or may not be unique in a broader context. We can speculate about how likely that is until the cows come home, but in the end we simply don't know.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2019, 04:34:33 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

TierraPlana

Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #31 on: October 13, 2019, 06:41:54 PM »
Quote
Why haven't we found life outside of Earth? Dunno, maybe it's not there, or maybe we need to keep looking.

Agreed. We could have asked the same question about exoplanets prior to the 1990s but now we know they do exist.

Quote
The Earth is unique amongst the celestial bodies

The only unique feature about Earth among other celestial bodies (in the current era) that I'm aware of is that it happens to support liquid water naturally.  That has no relevance to the shape of the Earth though. Just to the temperature. And that happens to be because the Earth lies within the habitable zone of the Sun.

Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #32 on: October 13, 2019, 07:50:25 PM »
The Earth is unique amongst the celestial bodies we have good amounts of knowledge about. As a necessary consequence, it is unique within the solar system (divert your attention to the thread's subject for a moment). It may or may not be unique in a broader context. We can speculate about how likely that is until the cows come home, but in the end we simply don't know.
Yes, fine. We don't know. We have reason to believe there may be life elsewhere in the universe - from our explorations so far, which are very much in their infancy, it seems that other planets have similar features and chemistry to earth so there's no particular reason to think we're unique. There could even be life elsewhere in the solar system. If there is it's pretty certain it's microbial but you're right, right now we don't know.
But, the OP is about the shape of the earth and why that is unique in the solar system. It's much easier to determine the shape of other celestial bodies than know whether they harbour life. There is speculation there may be life on Titan, right now we don't know. But we do know it's a sphere.
So while we don't know for sure about the existence of life elsewhere, we do know for sure that all the other planets and moons we can observe elsewhere are spheres too, and we know why. Any object over a certain mass will end up as a sphere because of the way gravity acts on the material in it.
It would be a major discovery if we found life elsewhere in the universe, it would have massive philosophical implications but it wouldn't significantly change our understanding of how the universe works. If we ever found a flat planet elsewhere though it would have massive implications for the laws of physics we have come to believe are a good model for how the universe hangs together.
In FET the earth is flat just because, RET tells us why it's a sphere and why all the other celestial bodies we can observe are too.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10069
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #33 on: October 13, 2019, 08:11:38 PM »
it wouldn't significantly change our understanding of how the universe works
And the discovery of further flat celestial bodies wouldn't change our understanding of how it works. You choose to ignore the evidence of FE - your choice. But seeing more flat worlds wouldn't snap you out of it. You'd just make a new excuse.

and why all the other celestial bodies we can observe are too.
We already observed non-spherical celestial bodies, other than the Earth. Which brings me back to my point - it doesn't matter how many times you zealots prove yourselves wrong.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #34 on: October 13, 2019, 08:43:27 PM »
We already observed non-spherical celestial bodies, other than the Earth.
Interesting. So isn't that the answer to the OP then? It isn't alone. Or are these objects not in the solar system?
Can you give examples? I mean, if you're talking about asteroids then sure, for matter the form into a spherical sphere it has to be above a certain mass and a certain degree of oblateness is caused by spin. That is all to be expected. But do you have an example of a non-spherical (ignoring a certain degree of oblateness) celestial body of significant mass?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10069
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2019, 08:24:06 AM »
Interesting. So isn't that the answer to the OP then? It isn't alone. Or are these objects not in the solar system.
If it was the answer to OP's question, I would have stated it as such in the first place. Of course, I already answered OP's question, so you already know what my answer actually is. No need to guess.

Interesting. So isn't that the answer to the OP then? It isn't alone. Or are these objects not in the solar system?
Can you give examples? I mean, if you're talking about asteroids then sure, for matter the form into a spherical sphere it has to be above a certain mass and a certain degree of oblateness is caused by spin. That is all to be expected. But do you have an example of a non-spherical (ignoring a certain degree of oblateness) celestial body of significant mass?
"A certain degree of oblateness" is really pushing it when you're talking about a turd-shaped celestial body (ʻOumuamua). And hey, suddenly we have a brand new requirement of mass! It's almost as if you were well-aware that your "universal" properties are not at all universal, and that they're conditional on many factors. As I said, you'll just keep adding excuses.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 08:35:24 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #36 on: October 14, 2019, 09:13:53 AM »
"A certain degree of oblateness" is really pushing it when you're talking about a turd-shaped celestial body (ʻOumuamua).

Agreed. Tbh I had to Google it and that is a very small object, relative to moons and planets.

Quote
And hey, suddenly we have a brand new requirement of mass!

No, not brand new. On 27th September in this thread I said:

It’s not just that the earth and all the other celestial bodies above a certain mass we observe are spherical, or roughly so.
Gravity explains why that is so and we understand the oblateness caused by the earth’s spin.

On 28th August on a similar topic in this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15269.msg199009#msg199009
I said:

While we're here, gravity explains why the earth is round. It also explains why every celestial body we can observe (above a certain mass) is round.
This is yet another thing which gravity explains.

So come on, dude, stop being disingenuous. You understand enough about how gravity is said to work to understand that the mass is a factor. I've mentioned it in this thread and several other times in different ones. I'm not adding mass a requirement on the fly. It's well known that mass is a factor in this:

https://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/what-is-the-minimum-size-a-celestial-body-can-become-a-sphere/
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10069
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2019, 09:17:16 AM »
No, not brand new. On 27th September in this thread I said
What do I care about what you said? You're not the OP, and you keep trying to inject your position into the thread with nobody really asking for it. The question was about celestial bodies. You keep trying to introduce new requirements, because you cannot engage the debate in an intellectually honest way. And now you want to project that onto others. Hilarious.

This is the problem with RE zealots. You want a big body, you can have the Carina Nebula. Oh, wow, what's that I hear, you didn't actually just need it to be big and massive? How shocking!

Come back when you're ready to discuss this seriously.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 09:21:16 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2019, 10:37:07 AM »
You want a big body, you can have the Carina Nebula. Oh, wow, what's that I hear, you didn't actually just need it to be big and massive? How shocking!
Well, I need it to be a body :) rather than a cloud of gas and dust.

The OP asks why earth alone is flat in the solar system. I'm merely pointing out that conventional physics explains why all the celestial bodies we observe (above a certain mass) are (roughly) spherical.
So, for the same reason, we know why the earth is. Maybe a better question would be if you reject gravity why are all the objects we observe spherical? What would cause that and why would the earth be different? I think in your model the planets are close and small? So maybe that's a factor?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10069
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Reply #39 on: October 14, 2019, 11:14:28 AM »
Well, I need it to be a body :) rather than a cloud of gas and dust.
A nebula is a celestial body - a body is a mass of matter distinct from other masses. What you're really looking for, in a patently obvious way, is to restrict it to spherical bodies and then complain that I can't find you a body that both is and isn't spherical.

If you can't engage with this subject in a mature way, please don't engage at all.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2019, 11:17:21 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*