I was bored and did some math regarding John Davis' approach of an infinite plane. Since I don't know how to embed formulas here, I uploaded a PDF. https://www.docdroid.net/abhC8KU/infplane.pdf.html (https://www.docdroid.net/abhC8KU/infplane.pdf.html)As far as I know the calculations are correct, but that doesn't mean it explains gravity on earth.
Feel free to debate/criticize/point out errors.
I haven't taken a look at this in depth, but it seems to match my ballpark estimate for the depth using Gaussian Pillboxes instead.
Here is the Wolfram for that: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BouguerGravity.html
An infinite plane requires infinite energy, which is said not to exist.Really? I'm pretty sure we just said it did exist. Of course, a constantly expanding and accelerating universe always requires infinite energy (or energies approaching infinity very quickly.)
Would you mind if I verified yours was correct and included it as well on this page?Sure, feel free to use it, i hereby declare this open source ;D. If you want to edit this I can send you the .tex file.
Just a thought. Would gravitational pull not stay consistent regardless of altitude on a infinite plane?Yes, altitude would not diminish gravitational pull if the plane is infinite and uniform. Local mass differences would cause diminishing effects though, since in reality we aren't dealing with an infinite plane that is uniform. So, at high altitudes you'd still be further away from the local mass differences that would add to this finite non-diminishing pul and then would still note air pressure differences.
As your altitude increases, you move to a more perpendicular position to more mass, meaning higher downward attraction.
Its the inverse square law working against itself.
At a infinite plane world the only point with consistent zero gravity is in a plane in the middle of the "earth" or infinite plane itself.
If gravity didn't change as you got higher, nether would air pressure, and we know air pressure does decrease.That is not true, on a round earth the graviy at 400km (height of ISS) is about 80% of the gravity on earth, still there is almost no air. For the same reason the water pressure increases when you dive deep.
If gravity didn't change as you got higher, nether would air pressure, and we know air pressure does decrease.As you know I certainly accept the Globe, gravitation and gravity varying with altitude etc, but I do believe you are quite wrong with the statement "If gravity didn't change as you got higher, nether would air pressure"
Pressure with Height,From: http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/prs/hght.rxml (http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/prs/hght.rxm)
pressure decreases with increasing altitude
The pressure at any level in the atmosphere may be interpreted as the total weight of the air above a unit area at any elevation. At higher elevations, there are fewer air molecules above a given surface than a similar surface at lower levels. For example, there are fewer molecules above the 50 km surface than are found above the 12 km surface, which is why the pressure is less at 50 km.(http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/guides/mtr/prs/gifs/hght1.gif)What this implies is that atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing height. Since most of the atmosphere's molecules are held close to the earth's surface by the force of gravity, air pressure decreases rapidly at first, then more slowly at higher levels.
So slow in fact, that it's hard to detect. So hard, that when we find an issue with it, the earth suddenly becomes 'pear shaped.'
I was bored and did some math regarding John Davis' approach of an infinite plane. Since I don't know how to embed formulas here, I uploaded a PDF. https://www.docdroid.net/abhC8KU/infplane.pdf.html (https://www.docdroid.net/abhC8KU/infplane.pdf.html)
Feel free to debate/criticize/point out errors.
I'm going to ask you to keep an open mind on this one. OK.
@John Davis thinks that we all live on an infinite plane, but only in a specific section. The infinite plane would of course have infinite mass. Infinite mass = infinite gravitational pull = not in our reality.
Nice try.
P.S. "but gravity doesn't exist!" prove it.
.....Of course, a constantly expandingand acceleratinguniverse always requires infinite energy (or energies approaching infinity very quickly.)
I'm going to ask you to keep an open mind on this one. OK.
@John Davis thinks that we all live on an infinite plane, but only in a specific section. The infinite plane would of course have infinite mass. Infinite mass = infinite gravitational pull = not in our reality.
Nice try.
P.S. "but gravity doesn't exist!" prove it.
The infinite plane and the globe have some topological similarities, for example no edges.... :)
Maybe we live on the surface of a globe? Wouldn't that explain the variation of pressure with altitude?
So slow in fact, that its hard to detect. So hard, that when we find an issue with it, the earth suddenly becomes 'pear shaped.'Not you going "pear shaped" as well?
Infinite mass = infinite gravitational pull = not in our reality.If I made no mistake (and John Davis came to the same conclusion with another way, so I tend to believe that the math is correct), then this is not true.
The infinite plane and the globe have some topological similarities, for example no edges.... :)Actually, if you add the point "infinity" to the plane, it topologically becomes a sphere. If you assume it to be non-euclidean and apply the right metric, you get a sphere. But in my case I assumed the distance to be euclidean, otherwise my formula would be moot.
Maybe we live on the surface of a globe? Wouldn't that explain the variation of pressure with altitude?
I'm going to ask you to keep an open mind on this one. OK.We just provided you with two mathematical models that show that an infinite plane would not have infinite gravitational pull.
@John Davis thinks that we all live on an infinite plane, but only in a specific section. The infinite plane would of course have infinite mass. Infinite mass = infinite gravitational pull = not in our reality.
Nice try.
P.S. "but gravity doesn't exist!" prove it.
It actually still is hard to detect. That is why we supposedly use satellites to gather this data. The differences are so small that one can easily make a flat earth an oblate spheroid. Its not about the silliness of calling it "pear shaped", its about taking minute differences and curve fitting them to an already existing model. If the existing model is wrong, so is the adjusted one, even if it happens to describe well enough.So slow in fact, that it's hard to detect. So hard, that when we find an issue with it, the earth suddenly becomes 'pear shaped.'
"Pear shaped" is a gross exaggeration/oversimplification. And it's not hard to detect if you have a gravimeter.
PeKu, the approach "calculating gravitational force just by watching their center of masses" is only correct when you have objects which are small compared to the distance that seperates them. In the other case you have to integrate over the whole mass.Another interesting point is that the thickness does not matter, so long as the mass per unit area stays the same.
The funny thing is that an infinite plane is symmetrical everywhere, therefore you can say that the horizontal parts of the forces cancel out.
PeKu, the approach "calculating gravitational force just by watching their center of masses" is only correct when you have objects which are small compared to the distance that seperates them. In the other case you have to integrate over the whole mass.
The funny thing is that an infinite plane is symmetrical everywhere, therefore you can say that the horizontal parts of the forces cancel out.
Work on your reading comprehension, your "math" breaks down long before the integrating, don't try to deflect the issue by assuming I don't know what integration is.Look, if John Davis and a few Globe supporters more or less agree, that's near enough to a miracle, so it must be correct!
It is funny when round earth proponents argue with a round earth proponent that a flat earth concept can work.That pretty much sums it up. I think most people have a problem with the infinite mass aspect.
So far this is the most reasonable explanation for gravity in the big bundle of ideas for a flat earth gravity. I don't know why there is not more adoption of it.
It explains gravitational fluctuations, gravity using existing science and can explain why it gets hotter the deeper you go.
It however does not explain orbits, any extra terrestrial bodies or sunsets.
That pretty much sums it up. I think most people have a problem with the infinite mass aspect.
So far this is the most reasonable explanation for gravity in the big bundle of ideas for a flat earth gravity. I don't know why there is not more adoption of it.
@John Davis and others believe Earth is a section of an infinite surface, and we are enclosed in a dome within the section. This surface no matter how it is organized, will have infinite volume. No matter the density it will have infinite mass. Therefore it will have infinite gravity, which is absolutely impossible.Can you provide any maths to prove your statement?
I think (I don't know but I think) the objection to my reasoning is UA which is a popular theory among FEers. Let's just say that regular gravity works with this.We've just shown using two different methods this is not the case here (https://www.docdroid.net/abhC8KU/infplane.pdf.html) and here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics).
@John Davis and others believe Earth is a section of an infinite surface, and we are enclosed in a dome within the section. This surface no matter how it is organized, will have infinite volume. No matter the density it will have infinite mass. Therefore it will have infinite gravity, which is absolutely impossible.
It is funny when round earth proponents argue with a round earth proponent that a flat earth concept can work.
So far this is the most reasonable explanation for gravity in the big bundle of ideas for a flat earth gravity. I don't know why there is not more adoption of it.
It explains gravitational fluctuations, gravity using existing science and can explain why it gets hotter the deeper you go.
It however does not explain orbits, any extra terrestrial bodies or sunsets.
It is funny when round earth proponents argue with a round earth proponent that a flat earth concept can work.
So far this is the most reasonable explanation for gravity in the big bundle of ideas for a flat earth gravity. I don't know why there is not more adoption of it.
It explains gravitational fluctuations, gravity using existing science and can explain why it gets hotter the deeper you go.
It however does not explain orbits, any extra terrestrial bodies or sunsets.
If you are referring to me with "a round earth proponent that a flat earth concept can work", all I was claiming was that the maths were, as far as I can see correct. If I think that a "Flat Earther's" maths, or even some logic, is correct I will say so.
This is a Forum not a "Debating Club". Mind you I am quite sure in my own mind that we live on a Globe in an almost precisely Euclidean space - and I meant space not space-time, that according to GR is curved sufficiently to cause what we call "gravitation" and the measured rate variation clocks.
I do not agree with the proposition of an infinite flat plane. For a start it does not explain the variation of gravity with latitude.
IF THE EARTH IS INFINITELY FLAT THEN THAT MEANS THERE IS INFINITE GRAVITY WHICH = BLACK HOLE SO HTEREThe math we both provided shows this isn't the case. Are you even paying attention?
Mathematical physics is NOT science.I too yearn for a return to natural philosophy and the recognition that mathematics and science are only strewn together loosely. Nominalism is valid - the tie of mathematics to reality is tenuous and at best conservative.
JohnRozz, please keep out of threads you do not understand.
Mathematical physics is NOT science.I too yearn for a return to natural philosophy and the recognition that mathematics and science are only strewn together loosely. Nominalism is valid - the tie of mathematics to reality is tenuous and at best conservative.
And yet, there is a glimmer of god there - and there are mathematics in the bible. This shouldn't and can't be ignored by the rational and faithful mind.
I was one of the first to throw the Tesla quote concerning mathematics into the fray. And I agree with it - we have lost common sense and replaced it far too often with far gone conclusions brought on by deep mathematical reasoning based on principle upon principle that each weighs heavily on assumption.
I think we agree more than we might both wish to admit.
Yea, those 460m/s winds that hit you as soon as you step outside.. really annoying.JohnRozz, please keep out of threads you do not understand.
Yea, those 460m/s winds that hit you as soon as you step outside.. really annoying.JohnRozz, please keep out of threads you do not understand.
and everything is in so perfect sync of course. just like the sun and the moon, which are supposed to be very different in size and distance, yet they're placed conveniently so that you can have eclipses, and they only "appear" to have the the same "size"... you know what, this seems to be really intelligent design. another point for god. ;)Granted, this is indeed a nice coincidence.
Relativity, learn it.JohnRozz, please keep out of threads you do not understand.
your point being that on round earth, atmosphere and gravity effects are so that the earth acts just like if it was stationary.I would suggest you get a telescope and look at Mars. A day on Mars is ~23 hours, 56 minutes relative to the Earth.
because it is? no, thanks to magic gravity and atmosphere. impressed. but nonsense nonetheless.
and everything is in so perfect sync of course. just like the sun and the moon, which are supposed to be very different in size and distance, yet they're placed conveniently so that you can have eclipses, and they only "appear" to have the the same "size"... you know what, this seems to be really intelligent design. another point for god. ;)
and everything is in so perfect sync of course. just like the sun and the moon, which are supposed to be very different in size and distance, yet they're placed conveniently so that you can have eclipses, and they only "appear" to have the the same "size"... you know what, this seems to be really intelligent design. another point for god. ;)What does this have to do with the OP?