Is gravity really incompatible with FET?

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.

What, you mean like layers upon layers of rock?

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.

In John's model there is no UA...

Quote from: markjo on March 07, 2010, 06:11:46 AM

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.

What, you mean like layers upon layers of rock?

I don't think you quite understand the ratio of finite to infinite.

No matter how thick it is, it is infinitely wide, therefore has a smaller thickness:length ratio than paper.

Doesn't matter how many layers of rock there are.

I don't think you quite understand the ratio of finite to infinite.

No matter how thick it is, it is infinitely wide, therefore has a smaller thickness:length ratio than paper.

Doesn't matter how many layers of rock there are.

Please don't insult my intelligence. I understand exactly what I'm talking about, and believe me that the infinite plane Earth model is nothing like a sheet of paper except in its general shape.

Please don't insult my intelligence.

Oh do, lets!

Quote from: markjo on March 07, 2010, 06:11:46 AM

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.

In John's model there is no UA...

John's is not the only infinite plane model.  Tom's model (as I recall) is an infinite plane with UA.

John's is not the only infinite plane model.  Tom's model (as I recall) is an infinite plane with UA.

Well, everyone else ws talking to John about his model, so I naturally thought you were doing the same.

Quote from: markjo on March 07, 2010, 07:05:58 AM

John's is not the only infinite plane model.  Tom's model (as I recall) is an infinite plane with UA.

Well, everyone else ws talking to John about his model, so I naturally thought you were doing the same.

Even without a UA, John's infinite plane (slab) would have stability issues.  John's FE can only be somewhere on the order of thousands of miles thick (according to Gauss's law), yet is infinitely wide.  Sounds pretty flimsy to me.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 07, 2010, 07:17:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 07, 2010, 07:05:58 AM

John's is not the only infinite plane model.  Tom's model (as I recall) is an infinite plane with UA.

Well, everyone else ws talking to John about his model, so I naturally thought you were doing the same.

Even without a UA, John's infinite plane (slab) would have stability issues.  John's FE can only be somewhere on the order of thousands of miles thick (according to Gauss's law), yet is infinitely wide.  Sounds pretty flimsy to me.

What about its length is affecting its stability?

Just because something is comparatively thin to its horizontal dimensions says nothing of its stability.

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.

a sheet of paper without any gravity acting upon it.

I don't think the analogy holds, if only because a sheet of paper is not finite.

Quote from: Parsifal on March 07, 2010, 04:05:40 AM

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.

If the piece of paper is being supported by the UA its stability is tied to the stability of the UA.

Quote from: markjo on March 07, 2010, 06:11:46 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on March 07, 2010, 04:05:40 AM

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.

If the piece of paper is being supported by the UA its stability is tied to the stability of the UA.

Comparing an infinite slab with a piece of paper is silly anyway. Take a piece of paper and remove ALL outside forces on it. Now you're getting closer to how an infinite slab would work.

Wouldn't the UA act on all parts of the earth, anyways? Or is that not part of the model?

Wouldn't the UA act on all parts of the earth, anyways? Or is that not part of the model?

The FET that posits a disc earth accelerating due to UA has the earth shielding us from the effects of the UA.

Quote from: JBJosh on March 08, 2010, 04:17:56 PM

Wouldn't the UA act on all parts of the earth, anyways? Or is that not part of the model?

The FET that posits a disc earth accelerating due to UA has the earth shielding us from the effects of the UA.

Ah, sorry. All parts of the bottom of the earth, therefore it wouldn't be unstable. The UA would be like a table, I would assume.

How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?

How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?

There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:42:29 PM

How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?

There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.

Hmm? How would this work at all? Then your poles would be underground, not above ground. Do you want me to get a nice pic of the earth's magnetosphere?

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 09, 2010, 04:44:51 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:42:29 PM

How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?

There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.

Hmm? How would this work at all? Then your poles would be underground, not above ground. Do you want me to get a nice pic of the earth's magnetosphere?

The poles are underground.
http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:47:10 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 09, 2010, 04:44:51 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:42:29 PM

How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?

There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.

Hmm? How would this work at all? Then your poles would be underground, not above ground. Do you want me to get a nice pic of the earth's magnetosphere?

The poles are underground.
http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html

http://anshsmagnetism.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/earth-magfield.jpg

Turn that on its side and tell me how a flat earth could have 2 magnetic poles from 1 molten core.

Hell, the fact there is a sun within our magnetic field means we would be roasted from radiation anyway.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 09, 2010, 04:51:44 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:47:10 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 09, 2010, 04:44:51 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:42:29 PM

How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?

There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.

Hmm? How would this work at all? Then your poles would be underground, not above ground. Do you want me to get a nice pic of the earth's magnetosphere?

The poles are underground.
http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html

http://anshsmagnetism.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/earth-magfield.jpg

Turn that on its side and tell me how a flat earth could have 2 magnetic poles from 1 molten core.

Hell, the fact there is a sun within our magnetic field means we would be roasted from radiation anyway.

The image you posted can easily work on a FE. It just depends what FE map you are using. The angle of dip may be weird towards the edges due to the inherent nature of the lines to be equal around the core, and the inherent nature of the earth [apparently] being flat. But that's a whole other topic.

Stop whining.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:56:02 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 09, 2010, 04:51:44 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:47:10 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 09, 2010, 04:44:51 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:42:29 PM

How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?

There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.

Hmm? How would this work at all? Then your poles would be underground, not above ground. Do you want me to get a nice pic of the earth's magnetosphere?

The poles are underground.
http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html

http://anshsmagnetism.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/earth-magfield.jpg

Turn that on its side and tell me how a flat earth could have 2 magnetic poles from 1 molten core.

Hell, the fact there is a sun within our magnetic field means we would be roasted from radiation anyway.

The image you posted can easily work on a FE. It just depends what FE map you are using. The angle of dip may be weird towards the edges due to the inherent nature of the lines to be equal around the core, and the inherent nature of the earth [apparently] being flat. But that's a whole other topic.

Stop whining.

I am talking about the reasonable one that has antartica and the south pole as a seperate continent. The field lines would be all messed up if you turned the core. Stop thinking you are the science god.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 09, 2010, 05:10:53 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:56:02 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 09, 2010, 04:51:44 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:47:10 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 09, 2010, 04:44:51 PM

Quote from: ugaboga313 on March 09, 2010, 04:42:29 PM

How does a 1000 to 3000 mile thick disc support two massive molten ferromagnetic cores?

There wouldn't be two. Just one on it's side you nub.

Hmm? How would this work at all? Then your poles would be underground, not above ground. Do you want me to get a nice pic of the earth's magnetosphere?

The poles are underground.
http://williams.best.vwh.net/compass/node3.html

http://anshsmagnetism.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/earth-magfield.jpg

Turn that on its side and tell me how a flat earth could have 2 magnetic poles from 1 molten core.

Hell, the fact there is a sun within our magnetic field means we would be roasted from radiation anyway.

The image you posted can easily work on a FE. It just depends what FE map you are using. The angle of dip may be weird towards the edges due to the inherent nature of the lines to be equal around the core, and the inherent nature of the earth [apparently] being flat. But that's a whole other topic.

Stop whining.

I am talking about the reasonable one that has antartica and the south pole as a seperate continent. The field lines would be all messed up if you turned the core. Stop thinking you are the science god.

That's the one where it would work the most readily. However it has other issues.