The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Paizuri on September 11, 2008, 03:03:15 PM
-
If a large meteor or something of the like were to come along and smack the FE at an angle, what do you figure would happen?
-
There would be a loud sound.
-
The earth is so big it would have to be very large in order for it to have any kind of noticeable impact on us. But if such an object does indeed exist somewhere outside the observable part of the universe it could very well spell doomsday for us all.
-
We've been hit by some pretty large objects in the past, and if we're accelerating upward at around 1-g wouldn't it cause a big wobble (for lack of a better word)? Possibly causing the water to spill over the "ice wall"
-
We've been hit by some pretty large objects in the past, and if we're accelerating upward at around 1-g wouldn't it cause a big wobble (for lack of a better word)? Possibly causing the water to spill over the "ice wall"
That all depends on how thick, wide and massive the Earth is.
-
We've been hit by some pretty large objects in the past, and if we're accelerating upward at around 1-g wouldn't it cause a big wobble (for lack of a better word)? Possibly causing the water to spill over the "ice wall"
In fact, by conservation of momentum it would start the Earth turning, or tipping over. Unless there is some kind of self-righting mechanism, the Earth should be doing (admitedly very slow) flips.
The bigger the Earth, the slower the flips, but they should be happening.
-
We've been hit by some pretty large objects in the past, and if we're accelerating upward at around 1-g wouldn't it cause a big wobble (for lack of a better word)? Possibly causing the water to spill over the "ice wall"
In fact, by conservation of momentum it would start the Earth turning, or tipping over. Unless there is some kind of self-righting mechanism, the Earth should be doing (admitedly very slow) flips.
The bigger the Earth, the slower the flips, but they should be happening.
I almost want to say it would spin out control like a top, but I'm not quite clear enough on the subtleties of FET.
-
Kinda like spinning a plate on a stick. If you hit it with a tennis ball, the plate will be knocked off of its axis of spin at the center, causing the mass that we stand on to continue its acceleration. since we are all being acted on by this acceleration, we will slide off, because, (as any FE'er will tell you, gravity doesn't exist.)
-
So in some misterious way the DE doesnt affect the meteor?
-
Might be that the meteor is moving more slowly than the Earth, and it is beyond the sun and moon which obscure it.
-
Over a long period of time there would be an equal number of collisions on each side of the flat Earth, so as long as the FE is massive enough to ride out each impact long enough for another few to occur the effects would cancel out (assuming nowhere on Earth is a 'favoured' impact site).
I can't believe I'm arguing for FE these days.
-
It happens to the best of us Matrix.
-
OK, I've done some calculations based on the Chicxulub impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater). I've assumed the Earth to be a uniform disk 40 000 km across, 1 000 km thick and having a density of 3 000 kg/m. This gives a total mass of 3.77*1024 kg. I've used the statistics here (http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~marcus/examples.html) in my calculation.
After this impact, the Earth would be tipping end-over-end with an angular speed of ω = 8.83*10-13 s-1.
This may not sound fast, but the Earth would be upside-down after 113 000 years. Put another way, the Earth will have completed 287 full rotations since the Chicxulub impact.
Conclusion: We would have fallen off the Earth ages ago. FET fails.
NB: If you disagree with my estimates for mass of the Earth, then feel free to do your own calculations. Angular velocity scales linearly with Earth's mass, so you can take my result and multiply it by the ratio of your mass to my mass.
-
Over a long period of time there would be an equal number of collisions on each side of the flat Earth, so as long as the FE is massive enough to ride out each impact long enough for another few to occur the effects would cancel out (assuming nowhere on Earth is a 'favoured' impact site).
I can't believe I'm arguing for FE these days.
It would take impacts of the exact same size and strength (possibly stronger to counter the damage the acceleration had already done to the trajectory of the earth) to keep us on the same path. I'm just making this up as I go, but that's what FET is all about.
-
Over a long period of time there would be an equal number of collisions on each side of the flat Earth, so as long as the FE is massive enough to ride out each impact long enough for another few to occur the effects would cancel out (assuming nowhere on Earth is a 'favoured' impact site).
There haven't been enough giant impacts for them all to average out. Suppose that right before the Chicxulub impact, the Earth was still and level (this in itself is a big assumption, as there had been many giant impacts before this).
Then, the meteor hits Earth. Now the Earth is rotating.
We now have perhaps, say, 10 000 years to completely undo the effects of the Chicxulub impact and bring the Earth back to level because after 10 000 years the Earth is tilting at such an angle (16°) that the atmosphere will have fallen off. Seeing as giant impacts happen every few hundred million years, this is immensely unlikely.
Seeing as there is still life on Earth, FET seems to be lacking an explanation.
-
OK, I've done some calculations based on the Chicxulub impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater). I've assumed the Earth to be a uniform disk 40 000 km across, 1 000 km thick and having a density of 3 000 kg/m. This gives a total mass of 3.77*1024 kg. I've used the statistics here (http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~marcus/examples.html) in my calculation.
After this impact, the Earth would be tipping end-over-end with an angular speed of ω = 8.83*10-13 s-1.
This may not sound fast, but the Earth would be upside-down after 113 000 years. Put another way, the Earth will have completed 287 full rotations since the Chicxulub impact.
Conclusion: We would have fallen off the Earth ages ago. FET fails.
NB: If you disagree with my estimates for mass of the Earth, then feel free to do your own calculations. Angular velocity scales linearly with Earth's mass, so you can take my result and multiply it by the ratio of your mass to my mass.
Did you assume that the impact was on the edge of the ice wall, or did you do the calculation based on the correct longitude of the Chicxulub impact site? Your argument does also assume (as you later point out) that the Earth was not slowly counter-rotating from previous impacts to which this one was playing its part in counter-acting.
Otherwise, your analysis could be considered good contributing evidence for calculating a lower bound on the thickness of the Flat Earth.
-
Did you assume that the impact was on the edge of the ice wall, or did you do the calculation based on the correct longitude of the Chicxulub impact site? Your argument does also assume (as you later point out) that the Earth was not slowly counter-rotating from previous impacts to which this one was playing its part in counter-acting.
I assumed the impact was at the correct latitude (not longitude, easy misake though) for the Chicxulub impact. It was at ~21°N, which translates to (90-21)/180 = 0.38 of the way from the centre to the edge. I also accounted for the fact that the impact was at a 45° angle.
If the Earth was slowly rotating before the impact, it would be unimaginably unlikely that the impact would be in the right place and be of the right size to exactly counterbalance it's effects. Even if it cancelled out the rotation to 1 part in 10, the Earth would still be upside-down after a bit more than 1 million years, and will have performed nearly 30 full rotations since then. We would have no atmosphere and no water by now.
Otherwise, your analysis could be considered good contributing evidence for calculating a lower bound on the thickness of the Flat Earth.
Unfortunately, I assumed the Earth was a relatively thin disk. In order for the Earth to be massive enough to remain stable it would need to be more like a long cylinder.
-
I assumed the impact was at the correct latitude (not longitude, easy misake though) for the Chicxulub impact. It was at ~21°N, which translates to (90-21)/180 = 0.38 of the way from the centre to the edge. I also accounted for the fact that the impact was at a 45° angle.
If the Earth was slowly rotating before the impact, it would be unimaginably unlikely that the impact would be in the right place and be of the right size to exactly counterbalance it's effects. Even if it cancelled out the rotation to 1 part in 10, the Earth would still be upside-down after a bit more than 1 million years, and will have performed nearly 30 full rotations since then. We would have no atmosphere and no water by now.
Unfortunately, I assumed the Earth was a relatively thin disk. In order for the Earth to be massive enough to remain stable it would need to be more like a long cylinder.
Yeah sorry, my bad with the lat/long thing... just wanted to check what assumptions had been made. There are many smaller impacts in addition to the big ones. My hunch would be that the average impact energy over any given area should be uniform (there's no reason to assume a preferred impact site). Sadly for RE, the kinetics of big impacts do not disprove the FET since all they can do is place a lower bound on the thickness and diameter (strictly the product of thickness and diameter) of the FE.
I agree that it is immeasurably unlikely to exactly counter-balance any previous rotation, but I wanted to caution against making too many unfounded assumptions when trying to make quantitative arguments.
-
Yeah sorry, my bad with the lat/long thing... just wanted to check what assumptions had been made. There are many smaller impacts in addition to the big ones. My hunch would be that the average impact energy over any given area should be uniform (there's no reason to assume a preferred impact site). Sadly for RE, the kinetics of big impacts do not disprove the FET since all they can do is place a lower bound on the thickness and diameter (strictly the product of thickness and diameter) of the FE.
I agree. My assumption here was the size of the Earth, which no FET hasn't been able to agree on.
However, I don't think the statistical "averaging out" argument is valid here. As we've seen (assuming the Earth is within a few orders of magnitude of the size I think it is) that even a single impact is important.
The reason things generally become uniform over time is that individual fluctuations become small compared to the size of the whole.
This is not the case here -- no matter how many impacts came before it, a single impact is still going to have the same effect on the Earth.
-
I've operated under the assumption (barring any kind of giant turtle involvement) that the earth would need to be shaped like a large top in the FE model. The acceleration leads me to believe that the largest mass of the earth would be directly in the middle and likely come to a point at the bottom. Which now that I'm thinking about it, also leads me to believe that over time we would also be losing mass and leaving a trail of debris below us as we travel.
-
I agree. My assumption here was the size of the Earth, which no FET hasn't been able to agree on.
However, I don't think the statistical "averaging out" argument is valid here. As we've seen (assuming the Earth is within a few orders of magnitude of the size I think it is) that even a single impact is important.
The reason things generally become uniform over time is that individual fluctuations become small compared to the size of the whole.
This is not the case here -- no matter how many impacts came before it, a single impact is still going to have the same effect on the Earth.
My point was, if there are two smaller impacts in, say, China over the next few years, the rotation rate would not be entirely as fast as that lone impact - equally you could argue there could be more small impacts in the US which would speed up the rotation more. If I were arguing an FE perspective, I could argue that the anthropic principle allows us to take accurate impact models as evidence for determining a bound on the product of diameter and thickness for the FE. After all, the Earth still has an atmosphere/layer, does it not, and therefore no previous impact or series of impacts has caused the Earth to flip over.
-
After all, the Earth still has an atmosphere/layer, does it not, and therefore no previous impact or series of impacts has caused the Earth to flip over.
Or ... The Earth may not be flat, as previously suspected.
-
Or ... The Earth may not be flat, as previously suspected.
It may not be. This evidence does nothing to sway the argument either way - that was the key to my post.
-
If I were arguing an FE perspective, I could argue that the anthropic principle allows us to take accurate impact models as evidence for determining a bound on the product of diameter and thickness for the FE. After all, the Earth still has an atmosphere/layer, does it not, and therefore no previous impact or series of impacts has caused the Earth to flip over.
I mostly agree.
However, you are not quite correct in saying it would put a lower bound on the product of thickness and diameter. It would put a lower bound on Earth's moment of inertia about an axis perpendicular to the axis of the cylinder, i.e. it would put a lower bound on Ix, which is given by
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Moment_of_inertia_solid_cylinder.svg/170px-Moment_of_inertia_solid_cylinder.svg.png)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/7/d/e7d1b33e1e2a39ed115b6d7a3adb4a35.png)
For those who believe the FE is rotating on the z-axis, it would also put an upper bound on the rotation speed, because if it was rotating too fast the edges would fly off. When I have time, I'll pull some statistics on the tensile strength of rock and give you some figures.
-
I mostly agree.
However, you are not quite correct in saying it would put a lower bound on the product of thickness and diameter. It would put a lower bound on Earth's moment of inertia about an axis perpendicular to the axis of the cylinder, i.e. it would put a lower bound on Ix, which is given by
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Moment_of_inertia_solid_cylinder.svg/170px-Moment_of_inertia_solid_cylinder.svg.png)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/7/d/e7d1b33e1e2a39ed115b6d7a3adb4a35.png)
For those who believe the FE is rotating on the z-axis, it would also put an upper bound on the rotation speed, because if it was rotating too fast the edges would fly off. When I have time, I'll pull some statistics on the tensile strength of rock and give you some figures.
Yes, it's not a direct product but those two variables are all you need to calculate the moment of inertia (if you assume uniform density, which is most likely an invalid assumption). I didn't have the inclination to look up the MOI of a cylinder since I am at work and am doing all this from memory, with an occasional quick forage for images ;)
You take my point though - impact evidence can be used to set limits on these parameters, which combined with the mean inclination of the surface of the Earth will most likely make them extremely large.
You could even argue that it is evidence for the infinite plane model rather than a finite disc model.
-
I agree. My assumption here was the size of the Earth, which no FET hasn't been able to agree on.
However, I don't think the statistical "averaging out" argument is valid here. As we've seen (assuming the Earth is within a few orders of magnitude of the size I think it is) that even a single impact is important.
The reason things generally become uniform over time is that individual fluctuations become small compared to the size of the whole.
This is not the case here -- no matter how many impacts came before it, a single impact is still going to have the same effect on the Earth.
My point was, if there are two smaller impacts in, say, China over the next few years, the rotation rate would not be entirely as fast as that lone impact - equally you could argue there could be more small impacts in the US which would speed up the rotation more. If I were arguing an FE perspective, I could argue that the anthropic principle allows us to take accurate impact models as evidence for determining a bound on the product of diameter and thickness for the FE. After all, the Earth still has an atmosphere/layer, does it not, and therefore no previous impact or series of impacts has caused the Earth to flip over.
So why haven't the impacts on the earth shot the earth off it's orbit? Or started it spinning at odd rates or angles? The Flat earth is massive like the RE. Throw a baseball at bull elephant, how much did it move? There is more of a difference than that in size.
-
You take my point though - impact evidence can be used to set limits on these parameters, which combined with the mean inclination of the surface of the Earth will most likely make them extremely large.
You could even argue that it is evidence for the infinite plane model rather than a finite disc model.
Extremely large indeed. If we allow gravity into our model (fixing the thickness of the Earth to 5000 - 10,000 km) I'd imagine the Earth would have to be many orders of magnitude larger than the habitable region within the ice wall. Maybe 1000 times larger.
-
Extremely large indeed. If we allow gravity into our model (fixing the thickness of the Earth to 5000 - 10,000 km) I'd imagine the Earth would have to be many orders of magnitude larger than the habitable region within the ice wall. Maybe 1000 times larger.
Perhaps the infinite plane model is more plausible in that case, since a larger, finite Earth would have had more impacts at latitudes further over the Ice Wall which would impart more angular momentum than impacts near the centre. That is, of course, assuming that the habitable region is near the centre!
-
Perhaps the infinite plane model is more plausible in that case, since a larger, finite Earth would have had more impacts at latitudes further over the Ice Wall which would impart more angular momentum than impacts near the centre. That is, of course, assuming that the habitable region is near the centre!
Not quite. As the Earth gets larger, mean angular momentum imparted by an impact is propotional to R (R = radius of Earth) but moment of inertia is proportional to R2. The infinite Earth is the limiting case R -> infinity.
-
*adopts FE stance*
Statements of fact:
The earth is an infinite plane.
Actually, there seems to be some debate within the FE community on the true size of the FE. Some FE models say infinite plane, others say finite disc. Since no FE'er has been to the wall to see if the FE continues beyond it, this question remains unresolved.
-
Actually, there seems to be some debate within the FE community on the true size of the FE. Some FE models say infinite plane, others say finite disc. Since no FE'er has been to the wall to see if the FE continues beyond it, this question remains unresolved.
I have trouble with the idea of infinite just for the fact that most FE models require acceleration for the equivalence of gravity. Infinite things have trouble being accelerated due to the energy requirements.
-
So in some misterious way the DE doesnt affect the meteor?
It's my opinion that such bodies that come in contact with the earth originate outside the observable part of the universe and therefore outside the influence of the DE.
-
Actually, there seems to be some debate within the FE community on the true size of the FE. Some FE models say infinite plane, others say finite disc. Since no FE'er has been to the wall to see if the FE continues beyond it, this question remains unresolved.
I have trouble with the idea of infinite just for the fact that most FE models require acceleration for the equivalence of gravity. Infinite things have trouble being accelerated due to the energy requirements.
Personally, I have trouble with the idea of a physical object having an infinite dimension. I believe that it leads to too many paradoxes (infinity divided by any other number is pretty near zero and such).
-
My question is: If all matter from the Big Bang is moving at the same speed and direction, how can anything hit the surface at all?
-
My question is: If all matter from the Big Bang is moving at the same speed and direction, how can anything hit the surface at all?
It's not. Only objects caught in the earth's DEF (ie, the observable universe) are moving in the same direction as the earth. The rest of the universe may be far more chaotic for all we know.
-
Personally, I have trouble with the idea of a physical object having an infinite dimension. I believe that it leads to too many paradoxes (infinity divided by any other number is pretty near zero and such).
It's a good thing that the fundamental structure of the universe doesn't operate on Casio calculators, then.
-
Personally, I have trouble with the idea of a physical object having an infinite dimension. I believe that it leads to too many paradoxes (infinity divided by any other number is pretty near zero and such).
It's a good thing that the fundamental structure of the universe doesn't operate on Casio calculators, then.
Personally I prefer TI calculators, but HP still has the hearts of the true geeks.
So, what do calculators have to do with the fundamental structures of the universe? And since when is the universe immune to paradoxes?
-
Personally, I have trouble with the idea of a physical object having an infinite dimension. I believe that it leads to too many paradoxes (infinity divided by any other number is pretty near zero and such).
It's a good thing that the fundamental structure of the universe doesn't operate on Casio calculators, then.
Personally I prefer TI calculators, but HP still has the hearts of the true geeks.
So, what do calculators have to do with the fundamental structures of the universe? And since when is the universe immune to paradoxes?
Tom has a special FET edition calculator that divides by zero and multiplies by infinity.
-
What happened to Username's theory of an infinite earth that was 9,000 km (i think) in height?
-
Personally, I have trouble with the idea of a physical object having an infinite dimension. I believe that it leads to too many paradoxes (infinity divided by any other number is pretty near zero and such).
It's a good thing that the fundamental structure of the universe doesn't operate on Casio calculators, then.
Personally I prefer TI calculators, but HP still has the hearts of the true geeks.
So, what do calculators have to do with the fundamental structures of the universe? And since when is the universe immune to paradoxes?
Tom has a special FET edition calculator that divides by zero and multiplies by infinity.
Dividing by infinity isn't so hard. You just have to use a little bit of limit theory to see where the answer should be.
-
If the Earth is flat and of finite thickness, then we have to take on board the points raised earlier about asteroid/comet collisions and the Earth staying flat. There are a few possible resolutions to this problem:
1) The Earth is extremely thick, making impacts of any magnitude negligible
2) The Earth is extremely massive, making its moment of inertia extremely large (same effect as 1)
3) Some combination of the above
4) The DE/UA/whatever forces the FE to be level for some reason (equilibrium point)
or, otherwise
5) The Earth is infinite and as such as infinite moment of inertia (in the limit that an impact doesn't cause a hole/fracture)
-
If the Earth is flat and of finite thickness, then we have to take on board the points raised earlier about asteroid/comet collisions and the Earth staying flat. There are a few possible resolutions to this problem:
1) The Earth is extremely thick, making impacts of any magnitude negligible
2) The Earth is extremely massive, making its moment of inertia extremely large (same effect as 1)
3) Some combination of the above
4) The DE/UA/whatever forces the FE to be level for some reason (equilibrium point)
or, otherwise
5) The Earth is infinite and as such as infinite moment of inertia (in the limit that an impact doesn't cause a hole/fracture)
If Earth were vertically infitinite ("underneath" us) it could be "expanding" upward at 9,8m/s² instead of accelerating. In that case, the universe could have started with a "big bang", starting from an infinitely dense area of matter that is constantly expanding. The upper "crust" of the infinite matter quickly cooled down and formed the normal matter we know today. The sun, moon and planets are part of this upper crust that was blasted into the sky by some major eruption (perhaps forming the Chicxulub crater) and are now staying up by riding on a compression wave that is moving ahead of the Earth...
And so, "Expanding Earth Theory" is born.
-
That's about as good as the "sun is a firey volcano cannonball" theory from yesterday.
-
Eg, if I type 5/0 im my Casio calculator, we won't all implode. Try it. (Don't worry I've already checked)
You're toying with powerful forces here, goldy, how can you be sure you won't create a singularity and destroy us all? Or turn the Earth into a giant gorilla-anti-gorilla pair and obliterate the Solar System? You don't know do you? YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!!
-
Eg, if I type 5/0 im my Casio calculator, we won't all implode. Try it. (Don't worry I've already checked)
You're toying with powerful forces here, goldy, how can you be sure you won't create a singularity and destroy us all? Or turn the Earth into a giant gorilla-anti-gorilla pair and obliterate the Solar System? You don't know do you? YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!!
Most modern calculators contain several security measures to prevent that from happening.
-
Most modern calculators contain several security measures to prevent that from happening.
If they can't even make ssh secure then how can we rely on the tech-heads to protect us from antimatter annihilation?
-
We've been hit by some pretty large objects in the past, and if we're accelerating upward at around 1-g wouldn't it cause a big wobble (for lack of a better word)? Possibly causing the water to spill over the "ice wall"
In fact, by conservation of momentum it would start the Earth turning, or tipping over. Unless there is some kind of self-righting mechanism, the Earth should be doing (admitedly very slow) flips.
The bigger the Earth, the slower the flips, but they should be happening.
That made me LOL.
-
Dividing by infinity isn't so hard. You just have to use a little bit of limit theory to see where the answer should be.
Divide by infinity is easy. Zero.
Divide by zero, then you're in trouble, cos that's infinity.
Oh and Tom, you do realise that saying the word "infinity" and the existence of infinity are two different things. Eg, if I type 5/0 im my Casio calculator, we won't all implode. Try it. (Don't worry I've already checked)
I meant dividing by zero. It doesn't actually represent infinity. It represents an unknown value.
-
Grief. No it represents infinity.
Take a non zero positive number.
Take 0.1. Divide your number by this 0.1. It got bigger diddnt it? Now divide your number by 0.01. Bigger still? Good. Now 0.001. What's happening?
As we approach zero, we can say our result approaches infinity. Infinity is a concept which helps mathmaticians get out of a lot of scrapes. If you want to call it an unknown value, call it an unknown unfeasably large value.
Take a non zero positive number.
Divide your number by -0.1. It got bigger and negative, didn't it? Now divide your number by -0.01. Bigger still, but also negative? Good. Now -0.001. What's happening?
-
Negative infinity. It's still infinitely large. You still need a shorthand way to express it.
I agree. Preferably an unambiguous one, like ±∞. limx→0 (1/x) is not defined.
-
Any doubt, go out and borrow as much money as you can then blow it all on hookers and coke. The borrow more and more and more.
Then at the end of the day, try to write down how much money you have. Is it a positive or negative number? Is it incredibly large?
Who cares, you have hookers and coke!
-
Dividing by infinity isn't so hard. You just have to use a little bit of limit theory to see where the answer should be.
Divide by infinity is easy. Zero.
Not necessarily. Infinity divided by infinity is in indeterminant form.
0^0, ∞^0, 0/0, 1^∞, ∞/∞, and 0×∞ are all indeterminate.
EDIT: I forgot ∞ - ∞. Silly me.
-
Any doubt, go out and borrow as much money as you can then blow it all on hookers and coke. The borrow more and more and more.
Then at the end of the day, try to write down how much money you have. Is it a positive or negative number? Is it incredibly large?
Who cares, you have hookers and coke!
HAD hookers and coke. You never have coke. You had coke and snorted it. Or you possessed coke and cops arrested you. Or you were stealing coke and shot 3 police officers, but you never have coke.
-
HAD hookers and coke. You never have coke. You had coke and snorted it. Or you possessed coke and cops arrested you. Or you were stealing coke and shot 3 police officers, but you never have coke.
Fair point... I prefer to get cops to give chase before putting an RPG through the windscreen - makes for a more dramatic escape.
-
If Earth were vertically infitinite ("underneath" us) it could be "expanding" upward at 9,8m/s² instead of accelerating. In that case, the universe could have started with a "big bang", starting from an infinitely dense area of matter that is constantly expanding. The upper "crust" of the infinite matter quickly cooled down and formed the normal matter we know today. The sun, moon and planets are part of this upper crust that was blasted into the sky by some major eruption (perhaps forming the Chicxulub crater) and are now staying up by riding on a compression wave that is moving ahead of the Earth...
If the Earth were vertically infinite, surface gravity would be infinite also (see here (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21763.msg438033#msg438033)).
I'm pretty sure geologists would be able to tell the difference between an impact crater and a volcanic crater.
Fair point... I prefer to get cops to give chase before putting an RPG through the windscreen - makes for a more dramatic escape.
Woot! Go Niko Matrix!
-
If Earth were vertically infitinite ("underneath" us) it could be "expanding" upward at 9,8m/s² instead of accelerating. In that case, the universe could have started with a "big bang", starting from an infinitely dense area of matter that is constantly expanding. The upper "crust" of the infinite matter quickly cooled down and formed the normal matter we know today. The sun, moon and planets are part of this upper crust that was blasted into the sky by some major eruption (perhaps forming the Chicxulub crater) and are now staying up by riding on a compression wave that is moving ahead of the Earth...
If the Earth were vertically infinite, surface gravity would be infinite also (see here (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21763.msg438033#msg438033)).
I'm pretty sure geologists would be able to tell the difference between an impact crater and a volcanic crater.
Fair point... I prefer to get cops to give chase before putting an RPG through the windscreen - makes for a more dramatic escape.
Woot! Go Niko Matrix!
Yeah, they spotted that yellowstone was a humongous volcano so fast now.... oh wait....