Thickness of FE

  • 16 Replies
  • 1530 Views
?

Germanicus

  • 485
  • Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant
Thickness of FE
« on: December 27, 2007, 04:26:48 PM »
Has anyone calculated the thickness that the FE would have to be to hold up its own weight?

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2007, 04:33:25 PM »
Although I am a RE believer, the most stable form for a FE would be a cube.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2007, 05:49:31 PM »
I don't think so.  And the UA is pushing on the Earth, which is kind of what's 'holding it up'.

Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2007, 07:22:07 PM »
Why would a FE'er BS an answer about how thick the Earth is?

?

eric bloedow

Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2007, 08:20:36 PM »
well, 2 points:

1) FErs cannot explain how waves from earthquakes would work in FE. every study of them appears (i'm being generous here) to indicate a round earth.

2) FErs claim a second moon UNDER earth-the "antimoon" produces tides.

in both cases the "thickness" of earth would make a substantial difference!

Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2007, 06:20:18 AM »
The FE would have to be quite thick simply to allow an area for magma to exist. Of course, it would also have to be quite thin, to allow the anti-moon to operate properly.

What we really need is some kind of standard model for the Flat Earth. Each time we make a claim to disprove FE, it turns out it's explainable in one of the FE models. We need some kind of collection of models for FE, because each of the FE believers seems to have a slightly different idea as to how the FE operates...

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16330
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2007, 06:54:58 AM »
Someone else calculated it for me and I verified it for my model.  I forget the exact number, however if you do a search for post by me Username that contain Gauss's Law it should come up.


Also, the antimoon would work given any thickness.   Gravitation is not impeded by matter (in the way you suggest).  The moon creates diurnal tides through the thickness of the RE with no issues...
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2007, 07:49:00 AM »
It's not so much that the thickness of the planet would affect the anti moons effect on tides, it's more the fact that if you assume the anti-moon is the same as the moon (aside from being repulsive to the matter that makes up the planet), then the planet and it's 'pusher plate' made of matter interacting with the FE dark energy can't be thicker than 3,000 miles, otherwise it's going to get in the way of the anti-moon. Likewise, it needs to thick enough to be able to support a molten core, otherwise volcanoes couldn't exist, along with continental drift (although I'm not sure if all FE theories believe in continental drift).

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16330
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2007, 05:32:12 PM »
It's not so much that the thickness of the planet would affect the anti moons effect on tides, it's more the fact that if you assume the anti-moon is the same as the moon (aside from being repulsive to the matter that makes up the planet)
It isn't repulsive to matter that makes up the planet...  why do you think this?

Quote
, then the planet and it's 'pusher plate' made of matter interacting with the FE dark energy can't be thicker than 3,000 miles, otherwise it's going to get in the way of the anti-moon.
The "pusher plate" is the bottom of the planet and the anti-moon and any other objects, as I understand it.  However, UA is not my favorite model as many know.

Quote
Likewise, it needs to thick enough to be able to support a molten core, otherwise volcanoes couldn't exist, along with continental drift (although I'm not sure if all FE theories believe in continental drift).
Yes, it is thick enough.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2007, 06:01:22 PM »
Quote
It isn't repulsive to matter that makes up the planet...  why do you think this?

I assumed that the anti-moon was in place to explain why there is a high tide on the side of the planet opposite the visible moon, in the sense that it 'pushes' the water up. Perhaps I don't fully understand how this anti moon operates...

Quote
The "pusher plate" is the bottom of the planet and the anti-moon and any other objects, as I understand it.  However, UA is not my favorite model as many know.

I thought that FE dark energy didn't have an effect on the matter that makes up the planet? I assumed this meant that there had to be a separate type of matter making up the base of the planet that can interact with both FE dark energy and the matter that makes up the surface we stand on. Again, perhaps my prior reading on how dark matter operates is incorrect.

Quote
Yes, it is thick enough.

Hmm, if you insist. I guess it depends on your view on how the planet formed, and how long it's been around


I think my main problem is that there aren't any clear models of FE. Some people seem to think of the FE as infinite, some not, some think of Dark energy saturating the universe, some think that the Planet shield us from it, some think the Sun, Moon and stars have Gravity/Gravitation, some not. I never really know which idea to counter, as each idea needs different arguments...

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2007, 06:14:33 PM »
The FE would have to be quite thick simply to allow an area for magma to exist. Of course, it would also have to be quite thin, to allow the anti-moon to operate properly.

What we really need is some kind of standard model for the Flat Earth. Each time we make a claim to disprove FE, it turns out it's explainable in one of the FE models. We need some kind of collection of models for FE, because each of the FE believers seems to have a slightly different idea as to how the FE operates...

I agree. They seem to think that the Earth exists in a quantum superposition of their models. It really is annoying. There is no standard model, so one version of a flat Earth might form tides. However, it can't have magma, or explain quakes. But another one can!  ::)
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2007, 06:37:47 AM »
Obviously it would have to be thick enough to account for stored minerals, fossil fuels, the water table etc. Plus there's that layer of dark matter to take into account. I'm thinking the thickness may be larger than the diameter.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2007, 07:00:16 AM »
They seem to think that the Earth exists in a quantum superposition of their models.

More of you and your fallacies. No, that's not how it works.

Different people have different ideas. It's no different than any of the UFTs.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2007, 07:07:20 AM »
It's not so much that the thickness of the planet would affect the anti moons effect on tides, it's more the fact that if you assume the anti-moon is the same as the moon (aside from being repulsive to the matter that makes up the planet), then the planet and it's 'pusher plate' made of matter interacting with the FE dark energy can't be thicker than 3,000 miles, otherwise it's going to get in the way of the anti-moon. Likewise, it needs to thick enough to be able to support a molten core, otherwise volcanoes couldn't exist, along with continental drift (although I'm not sure if all FE theories believe in continental drift).

Wait, RE has a molten core now?
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Germanicus

  • 485
  • Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant
Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2007, 06:20:43 PM »
Quote
Wait, RE has a molten core now?

Where the hell have you been?

Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #15 on: December 30, 2007, 06:22:04 PM »
Quote
Wait, RE has a molten core now?

Where the hell have you been?

The innermost core is solid.  Hint Hint

?

Germanicus

  • 485
  • Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant
Re: Thickness of FE
« Reply #16 on: December 30, 2007, 06:41:12 PM »
I know that, but in NTheGreat's example, he's talking about the molten part of the core. Lord Z's question made it seem as if he thought that the earth's entire core was solid.