Questions about "flat earth"

Try the FAQ.

How thin is this so called "flat earth"?

Is the Sun round or flat?

Are all the other planets round or flat?

>Size
>Shape
>Thickness
>if it spins
>and anything else possilble

I have! i need information wait sorry i mean "guesstimation" on the "flatearth's"

>Size
>Shape
>Thickness
>if it spins
>and anything else possilble

Quote from: FET is unrealistic on October 01, 2009, 09:42:03 AM

How thin is this so called "flat earth"?

Unknown.

Quote

Is the Sun round or flat?

Some FEers say round, some say flat.

Quote

Are all the other planets round or flat?

Some FEers say round, some say flat.

Quote from: FET is unrealistic on October 02, 2009, 09:32:57 AM

>Size
>Shape
>Thickness
>if it spins
>and anything else possilble

>FAQ, >FAQ, >see above, >most people think not, >sorry, I'm not psychic.

To all RE'ers...

Quote from: youareallwrong on October 04, 2009, 12:44:47 PM

To all RE'ers...

I'm sorry, when were you elected President of the Round Earth?

to make it simpler for the f.e.t to understand.. A sphere is the simplest energy-efficient geometric shape to contain a given quantity of matter thus the earth must be round.
That's why soap bubbles take the same shape.  i done see many bubbles that are flat

even if the earth was 'flat' over time gravity and the spinning motion in space and the orbit around the sun would make it round.... 

Quote from: miguelround on October 04, 2009, 08:04:25 PM

to make it simpler for the f.e.t to understand.. A sphere is the simplest energy-efficient geometric shape to contain a given quantity of matter thus the earth must be round.
That's why soap bubbles take the same shape.  i done see many bubbles that are flat

even if the earth was 'flat' over time gravity and the spinning motion in space and the orbit around the sun would make it round.... 

Nah, dude. They, for some reason, think that gravity doesn't exist, and we aren't orbiting around the Sun.
I don't understand why, but that's what they think.

i always thought that to..... but its the only thing that makes reasonable sense..

That's why soap bubbles take the same shape.  i done see many bubbles that are flat

Quote from: miguelround on October 04, 2009, 08:04:25 PM

That's why soap bubbles take the same shape.  i done see many bubbles that are flat

What happens if you apply a large force to a bubble with only weak surface tension then?

Well, the bubble would burst right? Not get flattened.

Quote from: Wings_RE on October 05, 2009, 04:15:33 AM

Well, the bubble would burst right? Not get flattened.

And, if it were in a vacuum in the absence of a gravitational field, what would happen to the substance that was once arranged into a bubble?

Ah...now I see your logic. But this would imply that FE'rs also deny that a ball is round? The reason being they can only see one side at a time; the outside?

Quote from: Wings_RE on October 05, 2009, 04:19:47 AM

Ah...now I see your logic. But this would imply that FE'rs also deny that a ball is round? The reason being they can only see one side at a time; the outside?

How is that in any way similar to the "force on a bubble" scenario?

Because if you were to state that a burst bubble in an vacuum with no gravity achieves a flat form, the outside would at one point cease to exist, leavin "nothing" in it's place.

Well, the bubble would burst right? Not get flattened.

Quote from: Wings_RE on October 05, 2009, 04:30:21 AM

Because if you were to state that a burst bubble in an vacuum with no gravity achieves a flat form, the outside would at one point cease to exist, leavin "nothing" in it's place.

 

If you were to flatten a bubble to the extent that it flattens (not in layers) and this bubble was originally round, it would have to burst at one point, letting the edge go and stretch to form the outer rim. Same principle applies to a ball, if one imagines the ball to be round by origin.

Quote from: Wings_RE on October 05, 2009, 05:32:04 AM

If you were to flatten a bubble to the extent that it flattens (not in layers) and this bubble was originally round, it would have to burst at one point, letting the edge go and stretch to form the outer rim. Same principle applies to a ball, if one imagines the ball to be round by origin.

The most I can gather from what you're saying is "if you apply a force to a ball, it will flatten too." Yes, this is true, but it would need to be a much larger force than what is required for a bubble.

True, but still the Q remains; when flattening any object to the point that it is flattened completely and not in two layers (over- and under-side) the void of what was the underside must leave a "nothing". And a nothing can not exist.

Quote from: Wings_RE on October 05, 2009, 05:59:17 AM

True, but still the Q remains; when flattening any object to the point that it is flattened completely and not in two layers (over- and under-side) the void of what was the underside must leave a "nothing". And a nothing can not exist.

Okay, you've lost me again. What do you mean by "not in two layers"?

Well, imagine you take a soft, hollow ball. Squeeze this so that it is seemingly flat. You will still have an over- and under-side (the side you could clearly see with you eyes, and the rear-side that you would have to imagine being there).
If I then backtrack to your Q about the bubble, in absolute vacuum with no gravity, what remains of the former ball-shaped bubble?
A flat object right?
So, when this is applied to the FE'rs belief that Arctic is in center of the earth and Antarctica is the outer rim, then the under-side of the earth must be a massive void...that again can not exist.
Or does the earth carry two different worlds at the same time, one over- and one under-world?
And if this is the presumption, what then of the athmosphere in the under-world being that the earth is travelling through space in an upward motion?

He's having problems grasping turning a globe into FE.

Which everyone has problems with too, since there's not a map yet.