Is gravity really incompatible with FET?

To be honest, I have always had trouble with the constant accelleration concept in the FET. At the same time, I like the mystery and magic of gravity. Which made me look at the possibility of gravity on flat Earth. Since FET states that the TOP of the Earth is flat, would the "concave parabolic" shape of the BOTTOM of the Earth not produce relatively uniform gravity pull across the flat Earth surface? Note that I put "concave parabolic" inquotation marks, as I have not yet attempted to calculate the actual shape of the curve required to distribure Earth's mass appropriately. I am hoping that someone may have already considered this possibility and performed all the necessary calculations.

The infinite plane model uses gravitation.

The infinite plane model uses gravitation.

Tom's infinite plane model doesn't use gravitation.

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Not in the case of an infinite plane.

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 11:58:18 PM

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Not in the case of an infinite plane.

But how did the infinite plane form, instead of a sphere? Unless the infinite plane is just part of a huge sphere, in which case FE is technically wrong.

Infinite SLAB to be more correct.

The current working idea is that it did not form.   On the other hand, another idea is sthat we don't know - we can't speculate on why or how it formed.

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 11:58:18 PM

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Not in the case of an infinite plane.

Unless you have an absolutely perfect plane you've got some tremendous folding forces at work. Infinite in fact.

Quote from: Parsifal on December 07, 2009, 06:20:34 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 11:58:18 PM

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Not in the case of an infinite plane.

Unless you have an absolutely perfect plane you've got some tremendous folding forces at work. Infinite in fact.

Or a plane that approaches being perfect.  So to speak.

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 11:58:18 PM

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Not in the case of an infinite plane.

Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?

Quote from: Parsifal on December 07, 2009, 06:20:34 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 11:58:18 PM

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Not in the case of an infinite plane.

Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?

Not, due to gauss's law.  It would have a finite pull.

An infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate it. Or are we going for gravitation this time? Either way it could not move at all without infinite energy.

Quote from: Canadark on February 26, 2010, 08:11:12 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on December 07, 2009, 06:20:34 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 11:58:18 PM

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Not in the case of an infinite plane.

Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?

Not, due to gauss's law.  It would have a finite pull.

I don't know how that relates to the question. Can you explain it in layman's terms?

Quote from: John Davis on March 01, 2010, 09:54:41 AM

Quote from: Canadark on February 26, 2010, 08:11:12 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on December 07, 2009, 06:20:34 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 11:58:18 PM

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Not in the case of an infinite plane.

Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?

Not, due to gauss's law.  It would have a finite pull.

I don't know how that relates to the question. Can you explain it in layman's terms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_gravity
Essentially, the strength of the gravitational pull would depend on the thickness and density of the infinite slab.

Quote from: Canadark on March 01, 2010, 10:57:46 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 01, 2010, 09:54:41 AM

Quote from: Canadark on February 26, 2010, 08:11:12 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on December 07, 2009, 06:20:34 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 11:58:18 PM

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Not in the case of an infinite plane.

Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?

Not, due to gauss's law.  It would have a finite pull.

I don't know how that relates to the question. Can you explain it in layman's terms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_gravity
Essentially, the strength of the gravitational pull would depend on the thickness and density of the infinite slab.

But an infinitely long slab that is not infinitely thick would be incredibly unstable, would it not?

Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2010, 01:18:46 PM

Quote from: Canadark on March 01, 2010, 10:57:46 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 01, 2010, 09:54:41 AM

Quote from: Canadark on February 26, 2010, 08:11:12 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on December 07, 2009, 06:20:34 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 11:58:18 PM

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Not in the case of an infinite plane.

Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?

Not, due to gauss's law.  It would have a finite pull.

I don't know how that relates to the question. Can you explain it in layman's terms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_gravity
Essentially, the strength of the gravitational pull would depend on the thickness and density of the infinite slab.

But an infinitely long slab that is not infinitely thick would be incredibly unstable, would it not?

I would think so.

Quote from: Canadark on March 01, 2010, 01:25:41 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2010, 01:18:46 PM

Quote from: Canadark on March 01, 2010, 10:57:46 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 01, 2010, 09:54:41 AM

Quote from: Canadark on February 26, 2010, 08:11:12 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on December 07, 2009, 06:20:34 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 11:58:18 PM

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Not in the case of an infinite plane.

Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?

Not, due to gauss's law.  It would have a finite pull.

I don't know how that relates to the question. Can you explain it in layman's terms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_gravity
Essentially, the strength of the gravitational pull would depend on the thickness and density of the infinite slab.

But an infinitely long slab that is not infinitely thick would be incredibly unstable, would it not?

I would think so.

Well, I guess that's that.

Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2010, 02:43:33 PM

Quote from: Canadark on March 01, 2010, 01:25:41 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2010, 01:18:46 PM

Quote from: Canadark on March 01, 2010, 10:57:46 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 01, 2010, 09:54:41 AM

Quote from: Canadark on February 26, 2010, 08:11:12 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on December 07, 2009, 06:20:34 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 11:58:18 PM

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Not in the case of an infinite plane.

Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?

Not, due to gauss's law.  It would have a finite pull.

I don't know how that relates to the question. Can you explain it in layman's terms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27_law_for_gravity
Essentially, the strength of the gravitational pull would depend on the thickness and density of the infinite slab.

But an infinitely long slab that is not infinitely thick would be incredibly unstable, would it not?

I would think so.

Well, I guess that's that.

Now you just need to convince the FE'ers.

Quote from: Canadark on February 26, 2010, 08:11:12 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on December 07, 2009, 06:20:34 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 11:58:18 PM

Gravity is incompatible because then you would start getting spheres, and you definately don't want that.

Not in the case of an infinite plane.

Wouldn't it have an infinitely strong gravitational pull?

Not, due to gauss's law.  It would have a finite pull.

But it will have infinite pull in the  horizontal direction, so every mountain would get torn sideways by infinite gravitational force.

It would have no pull in the horizontal direction.


I don't see evidence that states it would be unstable. 

It would have no pull in the horizontal direction.


I don't see evidence that states it would be unstable. 

The larger an object is, the more gravitational pull it is capable of exerting, even on itself. This is why our moon is round but the moons are Mars are more blob shaped, they are significantly smaller. An infinitely wide disk without an infinite thickness would need an infinitely strong substructure to keep it from folding in on itself and forming an infinitely huge sphere.

Quote from: John Davis on March 02, 2010, 10:52:42 AM

It would have no pull in the horizontal direction.


I don't see evidence that states it would be unstable. 

The larger an object is, the more gravitational pull it is capable of exerting, even on itself. This is why our moon is round but the moons are Mars are more blob shaped, they are significantly smaller. An infinitely wide disk without an infinite thickness would need an infinitely strong substructure to keep it from folding in on itself and forming an infinitely huge sphere.

Why do you think it would have any pull horizontally on itself?

Why do you think the gravitational pull is not 0 in the center, vertically, of said slab?

Quote from: Canadark on March 02, 2010, 12:15:40 PM

Quote from: John Davis on March 02, 2010, 10:52:42 AM

It would have no pull in the horizontal direction.


I don't see evidence that states it would be unstable. 

The larger an object is, the more gravitational pull it is capable of exerting, even on itself. This is why our moon is round but the moons are Mars are more blob shaped, they are significantly smaller. An infinitely wide disk without an infinite thickness would need an infinitely strong substructure to keep it from folding in on itself and forming an infinitely huge sphere.

Why do you think it would have any pull horizontally on itself?

Why do you think the gravitational pull is not 0 in the center, vertically, of said slab?

Because FET is the only theory that relies on the bending of laws of physics.

infinite wide, finite thick slab doesn't sound unstable to me.

Can someone reason through why it would be?

Well, if it moves at all, I can think of many many reasons. If its stationary i'd have to think. Obviously it means there is infinite energy in the universe. The trouble is everything ends up going to infiinity its hard to say anything sensible

infinite wide, finite thick slab doesn't sound unstable to me.

Can someone reason through why it would be?

An infinitely wide, finitely thick slab would be about as stable as a sheet of paper.

Quote from: SupahLovah on March 05, 2010, 11:40:54 AM

infinite wide, finite thick slab doesn't sound unstable to me.

Can someone reason through why it would be?

An infinitely wide, finitely thick slab would be about as stable as a sheet of paper.

Less than a sheet of paper.

An infinitely wide, finitely thick slab would be about as stable as a sheet of paper.

I use paper all the time for writing things down, and I've never found it to have disintegrated when I've needed to read the information later.

Quote from: markjo on March 06, 2010, 05:40:37 PM

An infinitely wide, finitely thick slab would be about as stable as a sheet of paper.

I use paper all the time for writing things down, and I've never found it to have disintegrated when I've needed to read the information later.

I'm guessing that the paper has been supported by another device (table, pad, etc.), correct?  Try writing on a piece of paper being supported by nothing but the UA.