The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: WastedTime on December 06, 2009, 06:53:11 PM
-
To be honest, I have always had trouble with the constant accelleration concept in the FET. At the same time, I like the mystery and magic of gravity. Which made me look at the possibility of gravity on flat Earth. Since FET states that the TOP of the Earth is flat, would the "concave parabolic" shape of the BOTTOM of the Earth not produce relatively uniform gravity pull across the flat Earth surface? Note that I put "concave parabolic" inquotation marks, as I have not yet attempted to calculate the actual shape of the curve required to distribure Earth's mass appropriately. I am hoping that someone may have already considered this possibility and performed all the necessary calculations.
-
The infinite plane model uses gravitation.
-
The infinite plane model uses gravitation.
Tom's infinite plane model doesn't use gravitation.
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
Not in the case of an infinite plane.
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
Not in the case of an infinite plane.
But how did the infinite plane form, instead of a sphere? Unless the infinite plane is just part of a huge sphere, in which case FE is technically wrong.
-
Infinite SLAB to be more correct.
-
The current working idea is that it did not form. On the other hand, another idea is sthat we don't know - we can't speculate on why or how it formed.
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
Not in the case of an infinite plane.
Unless you have an absolutely perfect plane you've got some tremendous folding forces at work. Infinite in fact.
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
Not in the case of an infinite plane.
Unless you have an absolutely perfect plane you've got some tremendous folding forces at work. Infinite in fact.
Or a plane that approaches being perfect. So to speak.
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
Not in the case of an infinite plane.
Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
Not in the case of an infinite plane.
Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?
Not, due to gauss's law. It would have a finite pull.
-
An infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate it. Or are we going for gravitation this time? Either way it could not move at all without infinite energy.
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
Not in the case of an infinite plane.
Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?
Not, due to gauss's law. It would have a finite pull.
I don't know how that relates to the question. Can you explain it in layman's terms?
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
Not in the case of an infinite plane.
Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?
Not, due to gauss's law. It would have a finite pull.
I don't know how that relates to the question. Can you explain it in layman's terms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_gravity
Essentially, the strength of the gravitational pull would depend on the thickness and density of the infinite slab.
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
Not in the case of an infinite plane.
Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?
Not, due to gauss's law. It would have a finite pull.
I don't know how that relates to the question. Can you explain it in layman's terms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_gravity
Essentially, the strength of the gravitational pull would depend on the thickness and density of the infinite slab.
But an infinitely long slab that is not infinitely thick would be incredibly unstable, would it not?
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
Not in the case of an infinite plane.
Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?
Not, due to gauss's law. It would have a finite pull.
I don't know how that relates to the question. Can you explain it in layman's terms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_gravity
Essentially, the strength of the gravitational pull would depend on the thickness and density of the infinite slab.
But an infinitely long slab that is not infinitely thick would be incredibly unstable, would it not?
I would think so.
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
Not in the case of an infinite plane.
Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?
Not, due to gauss's law. It would have a finite pull.
I don't know how that relates to the question. Can you explain it in layman's terms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_gravity
Essentially, the strength of the gravitational pull would depend on the thickness and density of the infinite slab.
But an infinitely long slab that is not infinitely thick would be incredibly unstable, would it not?
I would think so.
Well, I guess that's that.
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
Not in the case of an infinite plane.
Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?
Not, due to gauss's law. It would have a finite pull.
I don't know how that relates to the question. Can you explain it in layman's terms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_gravity
Essentially, the strength of the gravitational pull would depend on the thickness and density of the infinite slab.
But an infinitely long slab that is not infinitely thick would be incredibly unstable, would it not?
I would think so.
Well, I guess that's that.
Now you just need to convince the FE'ers.
-
Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.
Not in the case of an infinite plane.
Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?
Not, due to gauss's law. It would have a finite pull.
But it will have infinite pull in the horizontal direction, so every mountain would get torn sideways by infinite gravitational force.
-
It would have no pull in the horizontal direction.
I don't see evidence that states it would be unstable.
-
It would have no pull in the horizontal direction.
I don't see evidence that states it would be unstable.
The larger an object is, the more gravitational pull it is capable of exerting, even on itself. This is why our moon is round but the moons are Mars are more blob shaped, they are significantly smaller. An infinitely wide disk without an infinite thickness would need an infinitely strong substructure to keep it from folding in on itself and forming an infinitely huge sphere.
-
It would have no pull in the horizontal direction.
I don't see evidence that states it would be unstable.
The larger an object is, the more gravitational pull it is capable of exerting, even on itself. This is why our moon is round but the moons are Mars are more blob shaped, they are significantly smaller. An infinitely wide disk without an infinite thickness would need an infinitely strong substructure to keep it from folding in on itself and forming an infinitely huge sphere.
Why do you think it would have any pull horizontally on itself?
Why do you think the gravitational pull is not 0 in the center, vertically, of said slab?
-
It would have no pull in the horizontal direction.
I don't see evidence that states it would be unstable.
The larger an object is, the more gravitational pull it is capable of exerting, even on itself. This is why our moon is round but the moons are Mars are more blob shaped, they are significantly smaller. An infinitely wide disk without an infinite thickness would need an infinitely strong substructure to keep it from folding in on itself and forming an infinitely huge sphere.
Why do you think it would have any pull horizontally on itself?
Why do you think the gravitational pull is not 0 in the center, vertically, of said slab?
Because FET is the only theory that relies on the bending of laws of physics.
-
infinite wide, finite thick slab doesn't sound unstable to me.
Can someone reason through why it would be?
-
Well, if it moves at all, I can think of many many reasons. If its stationary i'd have to think. Obviously it means there is infinite energy in the universe. The trouble is everything ends up going to infiinity its hard to say anything sensible
-
infinite wide, finite thick slab doesn't sound unstable to me.
Can someone reason through why it would be?
An infinitely wide, finitely thick slab would be about as stable as a sheet of paper.
-
infinite wide, finite thick slab doesn't sound unstable to me.
Can someone reason through why it would be?
An infinitely wide, finitely thick slab would be about as stable as a sheet of paper.
Less than a sheet of paper.
-
An infinitely wide, finitely thick slab would be about as stable as a sheet of paper.
I use paper all the time for writing things down, and I've never found it to have disintegrated when I've needed to read the information later.
-
An infinitely wide, finitely thick slab would be about as stable as a sheet of paper.
I use paper all the time for writing things down, and I've never found it to have disintegrated when I've needed to read the information later.
I'm guessing that the paper has been supported by another device (table, pad, etc.), correct? Try writing on a piece of paper being supported by nothing but the UA.
-
I'm guessing that the paper has been supported by another device (table, pad, etc.), correct? Try writing on a piece of paper being supported by nothing but the UA.
What, you mean like layers upon layers of rock?
-
I'm guessing that the paper has been supported by another device (table, pad, etc.), correct? Try writing on a piece of paper being supported by nothing but the UA.
In John's model there is no UA...
-
I'm guessing that the paper has been supported by another device (table, pad, etc.), correct? Try writing on a piece of paper being supported by nothing but the UA.
What, you mean like layers upon layers of rock?
I don't think you quite understand the ratio of finite to infinite.
No matter how thick it is, it is infinitely wide, therefore has a smaller thickness:length ratio than paper.
Doesn't matter how many layers of rock there are.
-
I don't think you quite understand the ratio of finite to infinite.
No matter how thick it is, it is infinitely wide, therefore has a smaller thickness:length ratio than paper.
Doesn't matter how many layers of rock there are.
Please don't insult my intelligence. I understand exactly what I'm talking about, and believe me that the infinite plane Earth model is nothing like a sheet of paper except in its general shape.
-
Please don't insult my intelligence.
Oh do, lets!
-
I'm guessing that the paper has been supported by another device (table, pad, etc.), correct? Try writing on a piece of paper being supported by nothing but the UA.
In John's model there is no UA...
John's is not the only infinite plane model. Tom's model (as I recall) is an infinite plane with UA.
-
John's is not the only infinite plane model. Tom's model (as I recall) is an infinite plane with UA.
Well, everyone else ws talking to John about his model, so I naturally thought you were doing the same.
-
John's is not the only infinite plane model. Tom's model (as I recall) is an infinite plane with UA.
Well, everyone else ws talking to John about his model, so I naturally thought you were doing the same.
Even without a UA, John's infinite plane (slab) would have stability issues. John's FE can only be somewhere on the order of thousands of miles thick (according to Gauss's law), yet is infinitely wide. Sounds pretty flimsy to me.
-
John's is not the only infinite plane model. Tom's model (as I recall) is an infinite plane with UA.
Well, everyone else ws talking to John about his model, so I naturally thought you were doing the same.
Even without a UA, John's infinite plane (slab) would have stability issues. John's FE can only be somewhere on the order of thousands of miles thick (according to Gauss's law), yet is infinitely wide. Sounds pretty flimsy to me.
What about its length is affecting its stability?
Just because something is comparatively thin to its horizontal dimensions says nothing of its stability.
-
infinite wide, finite thick slab doesn't sound unstable to me.
Can someone reason through why it would be?
An infinitely wide, finitely thick slab would be about as stable as a sheet of paper.
a sheet of paper without any gravity acting upon it.
-
I don't think the analogy holds, if only because a sheet of paper is not finite.
-
An infinitely wide, finitely thick slab would be about as stable as a sheet of paper.
I use paper all the time for writing things down, and I've never found it to have disintegrated when I've needed to read the information later.
I'm guessing that the paper has been supported by another device (table, pad, etc.), correct? Try writing on a piece of paper being supported by nothing but the UA.
If the piece of paper is being supported by the UA its stability is tied to the stability of the UA.
-
An infinitely wide, finitely thick slab would be about as stable as a sheet of paper.
I use paper all the time for writing things down, and I've never found it to have disintegrated when I've needed to read the information later.
I'm guessing that the paper has been supported by another device (table, pad, etc.), correct? Try writing on a piece of paper being supported by nothing but the UA.
If the piece of paper is being supported by the UA its stability is tied to the stability of the UA.
Comparing an infinite slab with a piece of paper is silly anyway. Take a piece of paper and remove ALL outside forces on it. Now you're getting closer to how an infinite slab would work.
-
Wouldn't the UA act on all parts of the earth, anyways? Or is that not part of the model?
-
Wouldn't the UA act on all parts of the earth, anyways? Or is that not part of the model?
The FET that posits a disc earth accelerating due to UA has the earth shielding us from the effects of the UA.
-
Wouldn't the UA act on all parts of the earth, anyways? Or is that not part of the model?
The FET that posits a disc earth accelerating due to UA has the earth shielding us from the effects of the UA.
Ah, sorry. All parts of the bottom of the earth, therefore it wouldn't be unstable. The UA would be like a table, I would assume.
-
How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?
-
How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?
There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.
-
How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?
There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.
Hmm? How would this work at all? Then your poles would be underground, not above ground. Do you want me to get a nice pic of the earth's magnetosphere?
-
How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?
There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.
Hmm? How would this work at all? Then your poles would be underground, not above ground. Do you want me to get a nice pic of the earth's magnetosphere?
The poles are underground.
http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html (http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html)
-
How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?
There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.
Hmm? How would this work at all? Then your poles would be underground, not above ground. Do you want me to get a nice pic of the earth's magnetosphere?
The poles are underground.
http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html (http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html)
http://anshsmagnetism.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/earth-magfield.jpg
Turn that on its side and tell me how a flat earth could have 2 magnetic poles from 1 molten core.
Hell, the fact there is a sun within our magnetic field means we would be roasted from radiation anyway.
-
How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?
There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.
Hmm? How would this work at all? Then your poles would be underground, not above ground. Do you want me to get a nice pic of the earth's magnetosphere?
The poles are underground.
http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html (http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html)
http://anshsmagnetism.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/earth-magfield.jpg
Turn that on its side and tell me how a flat earth could have 2 magnetic poles from 1 molten core.
Hell, the fact there is a sun within our magnetic field means we would be roasted from radiation anyway.
The image you posted can easily work on a FE. It just depends what FE map you are using. The angle of dip may be weird towards the edges due to the inherent nature of the lines to be equal around the core, and the inherent nature of the earth [apparently] being flat. But that's a whole other topic.
Stop whining.
-
How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?
There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.
Hmm? How would this work at all? Then your poles would be underground, not above ground. Do you want me to get a nice pic of the earth's magnetosphere?
The poles are underground.
http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html (http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html)
http://anshsmagnetism.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/earth-magfield.jpg
Turn that on its side and tell me how a flat earth could have 2 magnetic poles from 1 molten core.
Hell, the fact there is a sun within our magnetic field means we would be roasted from radiation anyway.
The image you posted can easily work on a FE. It just depends what FE map you are using. The angle of dip may be weird towards the edges due to the inherent nature of the lines to be equal around the core, and the inherent nature of the earth [apparently] being flat. But that's a whole other topic.
Stop whining.
I am talking about the reasonable one that has antartica and the south pole as a seperate continent. The field lines would be all messed up if you turned the core. Stop thinking you are the science god.
-
How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?
There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.
Hmm? How would this work at all? Then your poles would be underground, not above ground. Do you want me to get a nice pic of the earth's magnetosphere?
The poles are underground.
http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html (http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html)
http://anshsmagnetism.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/earth-magfield.jpg
Turn that on its side and tell me how a flat earth could have 2 magnetic poles from 1 molten core.
Hell, the fact there is a sun within our magnetic field means we would be roasted from radiation anyway.
The image you posted can easily work on a FE. It just depends what FE map you are using. The angle of dip may be weird towards the edges due to the inherent nature of the lines to be equal around the core, and the inherent nature of the earth [apparently] being flat. But that's a whole other topic.
Stop whining.
I am talking about the reasonable one that has antartica and the south pole as a seperate continent. The field lines would be all messed up if you turned the core. Stop thinking you are the science god.
That's the one where it would work the most readily. However it has other issues.