The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Kami on May 25, 2016, 08:21:38 AM

Title: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on May 25, 2016, 08:21:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: rabinoz on May 25, 2016, 10:20:26 PM
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.
As far as I know the calculations are correct, but that doesn't mean it explains gravity on earth.

For me I would first determine the shape of the Earth, then everything falls into place.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on May 26, 2016, 01:43:10 AM
Of course, a sphere makes way more sense, since in this case you can explain its formation and you don't need an infinite mass (not to mention the sun and other planets whou would, in this scenario, fall down on earth pretty quickly). I'm just saying that it would be theoretically possible.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: FalseProphet on May 26, 2016, 03:48:23 AM
That's most interesting. Unfortunally I'm bad in math.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Lowezar on May 26, 2016, 04:09:52 AM
Interesting, thanks!
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on May 26, 2016, 06:45:20 AM
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
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: sokarul on May 26, 2016, 07:02:54 AM
An infinite plane requires infinite energy, which is said not to exist.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on May 26, 2016, 07:05:52 AM
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

And here is the longer version on our upcoming site: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

Would you mind if I verified yours was correct and included it as well on this page?

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.)
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on May 26, 2016, 02:30:59 PM
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.
Your derived formula for the gravitational acceleration seems to be the same as mine, although the derived depths differ slightly. Probably we used different numbers for the density of the earth :).
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on May 27, 2016, 06:47:23 AM
The Tex would be useful. We could even post it here then

[jstex]2\pi Gp\int_{0}^{d} \frac{\left | h + l \right |}{h + l}[/jstex]
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on May 27, 2016, 07:14:30 AM
Just a thought. Would gravitational pull not stay consistent regardless of altitude on a infinite plane?
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.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Empirical on May 27, 2016, 10:47:55 AM
If gravity didn't change as you got higher, nether would air pressure, and we know air pressure does decrease.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on May 27, 2016, 12:21:33 PM
Just a thought. Would gravitational pull not stay consistent regardless of altitude on a infinite plane?
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.
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.

Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on May 27, 2016, 03:34:01 PM
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.
Yes, the gravitational pull would not decrease at higher altitudes, and the sun, stars and other planets might have Problems with that, but the air pressure would behave almost the same as on a spherical earth.
There would be a layer of zero gravity in the middle of the plane.
John davis I will send you the file in a few hours when I'm home.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: rabinoz on May 27, 2016, 04:35:20 PM
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"

Take a look at:
Quote from: University of Illinois
Pressure with Height,
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.
From: http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/prs/hght.rxml (http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/prs/hght.rxm)

Likewise the variation in pressure with water depth is for the above reason, not variation in "g".

The variation of"g" with altitude is quite slow.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on May 27, 2016, 05:37:53 PM
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.'
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Blue_Moon on May 27, 2016, 06:24:41 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 27, 2016, 06:37:55 PM
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.

Wow that is the first time I have seen math on this site. COOL!!

First off, good job, seemed like a fun little exercise. This is also a perfect (yet disturbing) point of being about to make things feasible on paper. Just go to Tesla's views on this subject.

I will say, with the estimated mass and trajectory of the sun and moon, this model would not work. Though, I am not jumping your ass, I know you were just playing with a fun exercise.

Edit: flat earth sun and moon, not speaking about he heliocentric sun/moon
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: MrDebunk on May 27, 2016, 07:00:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: JerkFace on May 27, 2016, 07:55:04 PM
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?   


Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: SkepticMike on May 27, 2016, 08:06:01 PM
.....Of course, a constantly expanding and accelerating universe always requires infinite energy (or energies approaching infinity very quickly.)

No it doesn't
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: MrDebunk on May 27, 2016, 09:38:34 PM
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?

Yes. I see where you're going and will respect you on this thinking. (and yes I know you're a round earther)

I'm talking about mass here. Earth has a finite mass, so do tennis balls, basketballs, and bowling balls. An infinite plane has infinite mass.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: rabinoz on May 28, 2016, 01:56:48 AM
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?
The equatorial diameter is c.7,926 mi (12,760 km) and the polar diameter 7,900 mi (12,720 km) from Hypertext Book Facts (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/RicardoMartinez.shtml).

::) ::) That's some pear  ::) ::)

The infamous "Pear Shaped" was just an out of context quote quite maliciously aimed at making Neil deGrasse Tyson look foolish! Just a little on in the video he explained that the earth was almost as spherical as a billiard ball, but a little "chubbier" south of the equator than northnorth.

There have been a number of recent posts just as disingenuous as this. 
I'm sure the posters thought they were "smart", but in my book it's simply dishonest.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on May 28, 2016, 02:08:23 AM
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.
Quote
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? 
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.

Edit: corrected an error
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on May 28, 2016, 08:13:57 AM
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.
We just provided you with two mathematical models that show that an infinite plane would not have infinite gravitational pull.

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. 
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.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: PeKu on May 28, 2016, 02:25:07 PM
You forgot a few things in your assumptions ...

"The earth is an infinite plane"

-> That means, no matter how thick, that V - Volume - is infinite

-> That means, no matter how low the density, M - Mass - is infinite

-> That means that gravity would be infinite on every possible point on this "plane"

-> But that also means that this plane does not actually have a centre of gravity, because all points on this plane are equally - infinitely - far away from the - technically non-existing - edge. You trying to glance over that problem by "assuming the plane to be symmetrical via rotations" doesn't just make it so - either infinite or a centre, not both

-> That means the distance between the centre of gravity of the two attracting masses r is undefined and can't be used in a calculation

Basically, the whole thought-experiment has already broken down at this point ... twice, on your first formula. Infinite planes can be used in math and geometry, but it doesn't work with actual physical properties, genius.

This is like one of those math "problems" created by "dividing by zero" or other tricks that make any calculation after that point mute ... "Einstein would love that!"
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: PeKu on May 28, 2016, 02:36:59 PM
Next Problem ...

"we can assume that all horizontal parts of the attractive force cancel out"

-> No, we cannot, because the gravity formula calculates the force between the two centres of gravity of the two objects, there are no other vectors cancelling anything out, the formula is already reduced to exactly one vector ... so yes, your "infinite plane" gravity - that can't exists, but lets humour you there  - would not be vertically, except right above your imaginary centre (that doesn't exists on an infinite plane, either, as I already mentioned in my previous post).

Stop making shit up.

I better stop reading this ...
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on May 28, 2016, 04:25:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: rabinoz on May 28, 2016, 10:45:32 PM
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.
Another interesting point is that the thickness does not matter, so long as the mass per unit area stays the same.

And then, if the average density of the material in this plane is the same as the average density of the earth, the thickness needed to make the gravity over the flat plane the same as earth's gravity just "happens" to be the radius of the Globe.
I think John Davis brings this out.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: PeKu on May 29, 2016, 02:13:09 AM
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.

Blabla, blabla ...

So the earth is "small compared to the distance"? The formula is correct when you assume an average, uniform dencity accross the whole object ... which is exactly what the paper does. Oh my god ...

And the funny thing is that saying "an infinite plane is symmetrical everywhere" actually supports my statement, it's just a different way of saying "there is no centre".

Try harder ...
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on May 29, 2016, 02:39:02 AM
Yes, there is no center, that is no contradiction to anything.

Okay, another approach: Imagine you stand on an infinite plane, which has a constant thickness and extends everywhere infinitely. Then no matter where you stand, the plane looks the same regardless of the direction you look. Now imagine this plane is split up in many cubes (like 1m^3 or so), then your gravitational attraction is the same as the sum of the attractions of the cubes. Now make the cubes smaller. And even smaller. In fact, infinitely small. Now you are integrating.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: PeKu on May 29, 2016, 03:49:04 AM
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.

Before you can proudly flex those high school math muscles, learn to make correct assumptions (or maybe you made the wrong ones on purpose, so it looks a little more complex and believeable, so that the gullable morons on this forum actually think you got something).

I am not the one trying to will an object with infinite volumn, mass and gravity into existance.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: rabinoz on May 29, 2016, 04:23:14 AM
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!

No, I don't think the earth could be an infinite plane, take that up with John Davis, I think he is the only one considering the possibility.
But, I think you will find that the gravity it causes is quite finite and constant everywhere above the plane surface. It depends only on the mass density (ie mass per unit area as kg/m2) and not even on the depth.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on May 29, 2016, 04:38:02 AM
PeKu, I am not saying that this infinite plane exists, and I do not believe it. I am just saying if it existed, then the gravitational pull would be finite.
Since I am writing my master's thesis in math, I hope that it is a little better than high-school level, although I am not completely familiar with the american educational system.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on May 29, 2016, 07:43:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on May 29, 2016, 10:31:34 AM
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.
That pretty much sums it up. I think most people have a problem with the infinite mass aspect.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on May 29, 2016, 10:39:29 AM
That pretty much sums it up. I think most people have a problem with the infinite mass aspect.

Infinity is scary. We have no idea of the size of our universe, we can only see 13 billion light years out and have no idea if there is an end to it.
There could be no end ever, there could literally be infinite mass out there. We just don't have the capacity to comprehend this.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Space Cowgirl on May 29, 2016, 10:40:53 AM

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's because UA was popular with a couple of the more active FE theorists. It kinda took over, and it was assumed, by most, that UA was the only explanation.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: MrDebunk on May 29, 2016, 09:49:30 PM
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.

@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.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on May 30, 2016, 06:42:30 AM
@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?
And please refrain from using the center of mass argument, this is just an approximation for relatively small objects.
An infinite mass infinitely far away does not have infinite gravity.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on May 30, 2016, 07:44:13 AM
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.

@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.
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).

You seem to know something we don't. We'd love if you shared it with us. I think the part you are missing is that gravity diminishes with distance and the horizontal forces cancel out. In this case, this makes the sum finite.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Empirical on May 30, 2016, 11:52:50 AM
John Davis is right, it would only be infinite gravity if the mass was at a single point.
Think about it this way, gravity follows a inverse square law, and the infinite sum of the inverse square of every integer is a finite amount, pi^2/6
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on May 30, 2016, 12:09:49 PM
I vote that John Davis change his flat earth gravity hypothesis to one where there is an infinite flat plane. :)

It is way more thought provoking for me as a non-flattie. So tired of discussions of why universal acceleration does not account actual findings.

Come on John, is there any reason why Infinite plane is not superior to universal acceleration?
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on May 30, 2016, 01:33:48 PM
I don't believe in UA and I have no idea why folks think I do. I originally did the math linked (the alternate method to Kami) years and years ago. Since then I have made a non-Euclidean approach which also shares this same math for its justification. I can't think of a time when I believed in UA.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on May 30, 2016, 02:34:03 PM
It should be noted the infinite plane is a mainstay in Flat Earth theory. Johnson believed in it, Shenton did, and the idea even goes back as far as Rowbotham. Lately, there's me and Matt Boylan (aside: why do flat earthers insist on making up silly names for themselves?)
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: rabinoz on May 30, 2016, 04:48:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on May 30, 2016, 10:34:47 PM
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.

Don't take my statement too seriously. I literally thought it a bit funny when round earth proponents disagreed on something where some agreed with a flattie.
I also think the concept of gravity on a infinite flat plane works as a thought experiment. I just don't think a infinite flat plane exists. Earth is round.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Nate on June 21, 2016, 07:26:59 AM
IF THE EARTH IS INFINITELY FLAT THEN THAT MEANS THERE IS INFINITE GRAVITY WHICH = BLACK HOLE SO HTERE
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on June 21, 2016, 07:42:06 AM
IF THE EARTH IS INFINITELY FLAT THEN THAT MEANS THERE IS INFINITE GRAVITY WHICH = BLACK HOLE SO HTERE
The math we both provided shows this isn't the case. Are you even paying attention?
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: GlaringEye on June 21, 2016, 01:30:43 PM
This just came into mind:

If the plane is infinite, there's infinite mass. Infinite mass is infinite energy. How can we even have a night then, if the infinite space is filled with infinite energy?

It's just a thought that crossed my mind, I expect a quick refutal.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on June 21, 2016, 02:51:37 PM
It is entirely possible that infinite space is filled with infinite energy, it is simply important that the amount of energy in a finite section of space is finite. And that is given.
In RE-theory it is possible that the universe includes infinite energy.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: JohnRozz on June 21, 2016, 03:05:37 PM
math... math... math...

are you gonna do some actual experiment or are you gonna go the shill way?

"so much the worse for experiments, the theory is right." (Albert FrankEinstein)

(http://cutelovequotesforher.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Nikola-Tesla-Quotes-with-Photos.jpg)

(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f9/2b/84/f92b84751f6e4768cd8e634a7171f633.jpg)

(http://legendsquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/einstein.jpg)
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on June 21, 2016, 03:11:58 PM
JohnRozz, please keep out of threads you do not understand.
Math can be a great tool to understand and predict things. You know, your computer is working with it, for example.
Nice quotes. Any reason I should value them more than my own education/trusting my own senses and reason?

EDIT: In case you did not understand (which I believe): These calculations show that an infinite plane could be possible (well, at least the gravity-issue is not a problem). This is in favor of flat earth. You do not need to attack it.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: JohnRozz on June 21, 2016, 03:25:12 PM
I just wanted to state the obvious, but it seems you (pretend) not to understand...

I could not give a fuck about math, neither if it "PROVES" or if it "DISPROVES" flat/round earth.

math is NOT a proof.

the whole round earth bullshit has NO PROOF. it's all a bunch of theories and math. and "given fact".

round, flat, a cube, or a peer like this clown say



stop the math crap and bogus theory like magic gravity and atmosphere and give us some REAL evidence (no CGI or  nasa Bolliwood crap please).

Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on June 21, 2016, 03:27:08 PM
You are absolutely right that math has no tie to reality, but it is a useful tool to inspect reality if reality acts causally.

The truth IS obvious, to our senses, to our knowledge and to the plane out facts.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on June 21, 2016, 03:29:37 PM
So JohnRozz, what would count as proof, since neither pictures/videos/maps/calculations/predictions count?

Sometimes I feel like John Davis is the only flat earther who tries to develop a real theory while the rest just ... well, look at your post, you see what I mean.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on June 21, 2016, 03:35:55 PM
They weigh too heavily on the old works and don't look enough with open eyes as Parallax did. Too confident in their knowledge, they have yet to see where it fails.

They will realize this with time, I never expected people to catch on to the truth so quickly.

I've been doing this a while and have 'reached beyond the veil' enough times to be where I am today. A few in the new will be the same, and the theory will grow in strength until it cannot be ignored.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: JohnRozz on June 21, 2016, 03:45:36 PM
Mathematical physics is NOT science.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on June 21, 2016, 04:24:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: John Davis on June 21, 2016, 04:25:36 PM
We stand on giants, but unfortunately, we can never meet them at eye level - as the horizon, God does...
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: disputeone on June 21, 2016, 10:50:55 PM
JohnRozz, please keep out of threads you do not understand.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: JohnRozz on June 22, 2016, 03:48:52 AM
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.

I'm not against science nor against math, I'm for the correct use of 'em, and I think this is the key point that some seems NOT to understand, while keeping it all about theories and math.

flat earth is a fact, and the round spinning earth is just nonsense if you look at it with a working brain.

now go out in the open air and scream "IT'S FLAAAAAAAAAT!!", none can hear you, since the speed of sound is just 340 m/s while the earth in the same time turns @ 460 m/s... in the open you have NO reverb so that you can only listen to direct sound through the air (unlike a room or an enclosed space)...
poor waveforms try to reach your ears (and brain), but just can't. what a shame  ::)

oh, wait, the air is magic, just like gravity, just like everything. cool.

the most comical thing is that to make things work according to their model, you MUST have a solid, an outer absolutely solid sphere around the sphere so that it could all be possible, but, you would still feel a lot of movement, just when you're on a plane or car or whatever.

magic gravity, magic air, magic everything.

seriously, all round earthers IN THIS FORUM are either dumb or shills.
about round earthers that never even questioned it, well, they're just brainwashed to the point they don't even care to look at it and find the countless nonsense of this shit solar system THEORY.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on June 22, 2016, 05:28:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: JohnRozz on June 22, 2016, 05:36:32 AM
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.

are you stupid or what?

I'll put it simply. sound is slower than the earth spinning, so sound can NOT reach you. now you get it?

it's not my fault if you're just plain stupid or a shill pretending not to understand. it's all so clear, you must be a monkey if you don't understand... since there's no proof of evolution, I guess I must assume the proof is monkey people like you. anyway, monkeys are way more intelligent, so I guess you should be looking at some more appropriate ancestors. maybe bacteria?  8)
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on June 22, 2016, 05:37:40 AM
You do know that the speed of sound is measured relative to the medium (air)? And that the air is not moving at 420m/s relative to you?
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: JohnRozz on June 22, 2016, 05:48:24 AM
your point being that on round earth, atmosphere and gravity effects are so that the earth acts just like if it was stationary.

because it is? no, thanks to magic gravity and atmosphere. impressed. but nonsense nonetheless.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on June 22, 2016, 05:50:48 AM
As everyone on earth (and the atmosphere) is spinning with the earth, one could get the impression.

There are other reasons that make be believe that the earth is round.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: JohnRozz on June 22, 2016, 06:00:08 AM
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.  ;)
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Kami on June 22, 2016, 06:02:28 AM
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.

That everyone is spinning with the earth in perfect sync is due to friction and conservation of angular momentum.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: disputeone on June 22, 2016, 06:39:47 AM
JohnRozz, please keep out of threads you do not understand.
Relativity, learn it.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: Jadyyn on June 22, 2016, 09:28:21 AM
your point being that on round earth, atmosphere and gravity effects are so that the earth acts just like if it was stationary.

because it is? no, thanks to magic gravity and atmosphere. impressed. but nonsense nonetheless.
I would suggest you get a telescope and look at Mars. A day on Mars is ~23 hours, 56 minutes relative to the Earth.

We can SEE the ground on Mars and it changing in the course of a night - rotating. It also sometimes has clouds. These rotate with the ground. By your reasoning about the Earth, why are the Mars atmosphere and clouds moving? Why aren't they stationary while the planet spins under them or doesn't spin at all? Stationary relative to what?
(http://www.damianpeach.com/mars1112/2012_03_14-15rgb.jpg)

We SEE the atmosphere around Jupiter spinning in ~10 hrs. In a night, you can just about see it go through one Jovian day. Why isn't it stationary? Relative to what? BTW, every planet that has an atmosphere has it spinning - not stationary.
(http://www.astrosurf.com/comolli/g991128.jpg)

If the Earth is spinning, why would the atmosphere not be? Why would it be stationary? Relative to what?

Is this because the non-existent FE model says so? And... believing in a non-existent model is not nonsense?
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: MrDebunk on June 22, 2016, 10:00:40 PM
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.  ;)

Please look up annular eclipses.
Title: Re: Gravity on an infinite plane
Post by: rabinoz on June 23, 2016, 02:01:04 AM
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?

But,since you ask the distance from the earth to the moon varies considerably and the distance to the sun varies, though not so much. Here is the relative change in the size of the moon:
(https://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/figures/sidebyside.jpg)
The Moon at Perigee and Apogee
From: Inconstant Moon (http://=https://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/moon_ap_per.html)
Here is a scale diagram of the earth moon system:
(https://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/figures/toscale.gif)
The Earth-Moon System to Scale, 650 km/pixel
From the same source.

So you coincidence is not all that close!