The tides

If these so-called calculations are correct, then why hasn't the supposed "Round Earth" imploded by now? Ridiculous. Is this the best Round Earthers can do?

Perhaps because the earth is not hollow?

Hmm, it would be nice to see some math to back that up.

I would like to see the math they use to calculate the tides. 

Hmm, it would be nice to see some math to back that up.

In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow and Tipler make a rough calculation for the height a solid quartz mountain could reach under Earth's gravity before its base deformed plasticly: ~30km.

If these so-called calculations are correct, then why hasn't the supposed "Round Earth" imploded by now? Ridiculous. Is this the best Round Earthers can do?

So because you don't know the calculations behind it, it is rediculous... Alrighty then. And like Matrixfart says, the Earth isn't hollow, so before throwing in cool-sounding words like "implosion" maybe you should get familiar with what they actually mean. I wouldn't have responded this bluntly, but your lack of humility about your own ignorance merrits a blunt rebuttal.

The Earth isn't hollow either way, so your argument is silly. There's no reason for mountains to collapse on the Infinite Plane, since the Plane has a pretty damn deep and solid foundation.

There is no up or down in the universe, Franc. It doesn't matter which direction mass expands from the center, the middle of the earth is the center of gravity. All the mass will be pulled towards the center (since the weight of it is too much to support it). The earth would crumple up to a ball. Or a sphere. A round earth. You see what I mean?

There is no up or down in the universe, Franc. It doesn't matter which direction mass expands from the center, the middle of the earth is the center of gravity. All the mass will be pulled towards the center (since the weight of it is too much to support it). The earth would crumple up to a ball. Or a sphere. A round earth. You see what I mean?

Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...

Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...

An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 05:33:43 PM

Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...

An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.

The Earth does not exist? Don't be silly.

Quote from: Stray on March 17, 2007, 05:59:31 PM

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 05:33:43 PM

Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...

An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.

The Earth does not exist? Don't be silly.

Infinite is not a liked term.  For the Earth to be infinite then there would be infinite of every element and there would be infinite energy.  Both are not infinite.  Even the universe isn't infinite to most astronomers.

Well, of course most astronomers don't believe it, they have been indoctrinated to believe otherwise.

Quote from: Stray on March 17, 2007, 05:59:31 PM

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 05:33:43 PM

Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...

An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.

The Earth does not exist? Don't be silly.

Only two things are infinite. The Earth isn't one of them.

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:04:56 PM

Quote from: Stray on March 17, 2007, 05:59:31 PM

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 05:33:43 PM

Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...

An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.

The Earth does not exist? Don't be silly.

Only two things are infinite. The Earth isn't one of them.

Human stupidity is infinite, and Round Earthers provide constant examples of this on our board.

Quote from: Stray on March 17, 2007, 06:19:31 PM

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:04:56 PM

Quote from: Stray on March 17, 2007, 05:59:31 PM

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 05:33:43 PM

Don't be ridiculous. An infinite plane cannot collapse, since it has as much gravity towards one side than another- both are infinite. Once again, physics 101...

An infinite plane (of mass) is not a physical concept, and so in that sense you're correct. Something non-existent cannot collapse in objective reality.

The Earth does not exist? Don't be silly.

Only two things are infinite. The Earth isn't one of them.

Human stupidity is infinite, and Round Earthers provide constant examples of this on our board.

Human stupidity affects all, not just REers. 

Very true. Some FEers also manifest stupid stubbornness in believing in the silly "Accelerating Coin" model. Anyone can see the Earth cannot be finite.

Anyone can see the Earth cannot be finite.

...When trippin' on acid.

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:26:40 PM

Anyone can see the Earth cannot be finite.

...When trippin' on acid.

Stop projecting. Many REers who post here are obviously hopped-up on pot and cocaine. I, for one, am against the taking of all drugs (but am also against the War on Drugs, because of its enormous costs in freedom, resources and lives).

I, for one, am against the taking of all drugs (but am also against the War on Drugs, because of its enormous costs in freedom, resources and lives).

There we go. Making sense at last. Though we digress.

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:34:37 PM

I, for one, am against the taking of all drugs (but am also against the War on Drugs, because of its enormous costs in freedom, resources and lives).

There we go. Making sense at last. Though we digress.

Everything I say makes sense. When it doesn't seem like it, it's mostly because of your indoctrinated beliefs. I am sometimes wrong about things and correct myself, but because I find new information.

Quote from: Stray on March 17, 2007, 06:39:22 PM

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on March 17, 2007, 06:34:37 PM

I, for one, am against the taking of all drugs (but am also against the War on Drugs, because of its enormous costs in freedom, resources and lives).

There we go. Making sense at last. Though we digress.

Everything I say makes sense. When it doesn't seem like it, it's mostly because of your indoctrinated beliefs. I am sometimes wrong about things and correct myself, but because I find new information.

I was just begining to think you had some sense to you, but after that, um no.  Sounds like something my dad would say.  Except hes a bit better at hiding his arrogance. Just a bit.

I am not arrogant. I am quite aware that there are plenty of things I am ignorant about, and that's why I hang out with other smart people, many of which are smarter than I am (not on this board, on Skype and on my own board). My wife is smarter than I am. She keeps me humble.

I am not arrogant. I am quite aware that there are plenty of things I am ignorant about, and that's why I hang out with other smart people, many of which are smarter than I am (not on this board, on Skype and on my own board). My wife is smarter than I am. She keeps me humble.

And you count your attitude towards REers as what and lets not even go to religous people. 

Well, Round Earthism and other religions are immoral, epistemically bankrupt, and wrong. I am anti-religious because I don't want to live in a society where religious oppression flourishes. I'd rather have secular oppression.

Ah FEIPS, don't take it seriously.

And I'd rather have acceptance and equality amoung people of all backgrounds. Besides who are you to say its immoral? Its all in the eye of the beholder.

Sorry, Stray, but I have a tendency of feeding the trolls to try and get some insight on how people think.

And I'd rather have acceptance and equality amoung people of all backgrounds.

Do you accept mass murderers as a part of society?

Do you accept people who support and nurture aggression against people's bodies and minds?

Besides who are you to say its immoral? Its all in the eye of the beholder.

Morality is not "in the eye of the beholder." Morality is the study of the causal relation between action and result. What we call good is what fulfills our universal values, and evil, that which goes against them.

And I'd rather have acceptance and equality amoung people of all backgrounds. Besides who are you to say its immoral? Its all in the eye of the beholder.

Sorry, Stray, but I have a tendency of feeding the trolls to try and get some insight on how people think.

The arguments put forth by Franc shouldn't be taken seriously exactly because they are words of a person who does not think. So trying to figure people's thought processes out won't come to fruition with studying Franc (when he's like this). This isn't what Franc really thinks.

Sorry, Franc. I'll stop spoiling your fun now.

And to believe I took him seriously, well okay. Just another troll, then?

No... I am on a Flat Earth board and I am a Flat Earther. You are the troll, sorry to say.

Well, I'm a Round Earther on a Flat Earth Board which is open to Round Earthers for debate, so therefore, I am not a troll.

Can we get back to the subject at hand? 

Gravity is the pseudo force felt.
Gravitation is the influence that all objects have on each other.

By "influence", I presume you mean attraction? If this is the case, what makes gravity fictitious? How is Gravity not part of Gravitation?