The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Henry Borbath on July 04, 2008, 07:51:36 PM
-
How massive is the FE?
-
Infinite Flat Earth Depth and Gravitational Pull
Using Gauss's law:
(http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/3673/calc001bq3.jpg) (http://img230.imageshack.us/my.php?image=calc001bq3.jpg)
Alternately, you can integrate:
Apply
(http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/bimg244.gif)
to an infinite slab of density (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/bimg45.gif), obtaining
(http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/bimg245.gif)
where A is the area of the "pillbox," G is the gravitational constant, and h is the thickness of the slab. Therefore, the gravitational acceleration is given by
(http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/bimg246.gif)
Source:Wolfram.com (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BouguerGravity.html)
Either way, a < 2*pi*G*D*t for an infinite set of planes with thickness t
Plug in 2500 kg/m^3 for D, 9.81m/s/s for a and we find a minimum 9000 km for the thickness, t.
-
Thank you. I thought the infinite plane model was alternate to the FE canonical theory.
-
Actually, the fact that the Earth has thickness is irrelevant. Force of gravity does not depend on distance from the plane.
We can see this because gravitational field lines emerge parrallel from an infinite plane. This means force of gravity is uniform with distance.
Basically, the "<" signs should be replaced with "=" signs.
-
Actually, the fact that the Earth has thickness is irrelevant. Force of gravity does not depend on distance from the plane.
We can see this because gravitational field lines emerge parrallel from an infinite plane. This means force of gravity is uniform with distance.
Basically, the "<" signs should be replaced with "=" signs.
Yeah, I realized that recently when reading up on Bougher plates. Thanks =-).
-
Speaking as a non-infinite Flat Earther - the Earth's radius from the North Pole to Antarctica is around 12500 miles.
-
Actually, the fact that the Earth has thickness is irrelevant. Force of gravity does not depend on distance from the plane.
We can see this because gravitational field lines emerge parrallel from an infinite plane. This means force of gravity is uniform with distance.
Basically, the "<" signs should be replaced with "=" signs.
So does this mean that the GPS system should not have to correct for effects predicted by general relativity due to the changing spacetime curvature at altitude above the Earth? While I can accept that since the GPS system is run by the US military it could be involved in some form of government control exercise, what about future systems such as the European Galileo system or other, more independent atomic clock experiments? Or is the argument that GPS is a ground-based system that mimics a space-based one?
-
I suspect a combination of stratellites and ground based transmitters to emulate a satellite-based system.
-
I suspect a combination of stratellites and ground based transmitters to emulate a satellite-based system.
For this to work every GPS manufacturer would have to be in on the conspiracy. I have a GPS device that tells me the locationof all te satellites it is picking up at any one time. Sometimes they are overhead. They also cross from horizon to horizon quite quickly.
The only way this can fit with FET is if the companies that make this are fabricating data on where the satellites are. This puts a huge number of peple in on the conspiracy.
-
For this to work every GPS manufacturer would have to be in on the conspiracy.
Nope.
-
For this to work every GPS manufacturer would have to be in on the conspiracy.
Nope.
Tom, do you even know what information is transmitted by GPS satellites?
-
Nope.
-
I suspect a combination of stratellites and ground based transmitters to emulate a satellite-based system.
An immediate concern I have with this idea is how do you maintain prolonged, stable flight with a stratellite? I confess I've not come across the term before but I'm guessing that it implies some form of high altitude balloon or UAV-type aircraft? A satellite in (RE) free-fall only has to supply enough power to keep its electronics going and a small amount of fuel for counteracting atmospheric drag or minor collisions - if something is flying at lower altitude it would need more power to counteract the effects of drag. Balloons would be easy to spot from the ground by amateur telescopes, which leaves some kind of nuclear-powered UAV (as my first guess) since solar powered ones have large wingspans and so again would be easily spotted.
Is this what you had in mind, or are the stratellites in your model geostationary with some kind of interference-based signal giving their location as moving? I appreciate that some thought may have gone into this and so don't expect to get the core of your idea right away, but I'd be interested to hear the details! :)
-
For this to work every GPS manufacturer would have to be in on the conspiracy.
Nope.
Hah! That made me laugh. It's like a little child saying "does not!". Well, here is my considered response:
"Does to!"
Tom, I'm ready to begin serious debate when u are.