Back to the origin...

Hello all,
I would know what do you think about that:
When a star esploded it throw away a lot of materials.
After millions year this materials regroup themself because the gravity force between each single materials. This force is all around the materials, so it grow with a spherical form, and this is a logic consequence. After a while (million years) this material with a spherical form became a big asteroid and maybe a planet (if he continue to grow). So in conclusion our planet can be only spheric (best "geoid")  as all things in space...
Another example: why the asteroid that fall on the earth are almost spheric?

Sorry, what? If you mean what I think you do, then you are basing your claim on what RE says the Earth was formed by. FE does not hold to this belief, though personally I do.

is there a fail concept in my exposition?

No, I was just saying that, within reason, what holds true for RE does not hold true for FE, other than observable phenomena.

Hello all,
I would know what do you think about that:
When a star esploded it throw away a lot of materials.
After millions year this materials regroup themself because the gravity force between each single materials. This force is all around the materials, so it grow with a spherical form, and this is a logic consequence. After a while (million years) this material with a spherical form became a big asteroid and maybe a planet (if he continue to grow). So in conclusion our planet can be only spheric (best "geoid")  as all things in space...
Another example: why the asteroid that fall on the earth are almost spheric?

Your English is not too good, so it is difficult to follow, but I can tell you that you have a solid argument. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation makes the construction of a large, almost flat surface from small pieces of matter a practical impossibility.

You can see it in a different way. Suppose you miraculously happen to construct a flat disk of steel of 40000 kilometers of diameter and, say, 20 kilometers thickness. I showed many months ago that the vertical pressure on any given part of this disk exceeds the horizontal pressure by many times the maximum force that steel can withstand.

In fact the pressure is so strong that no known substance could keep the original disk shape of our supposed original flat disk. It would crumble into an almost perfect sphere.

There is a mathematical curiosity that creates a different (totally improbable) possibility: if Earth is an infinite disk then according to Newton's Law we could have a stable disk. But the problems of this "theory" are also daunting, including the fact that the stars would be in the wrong place to match observations, and that nobody has ever imagined a way how this infinite disk could appear.

Wait - how thick is the earth supposed to be?

The Marianas trench is at one point 11 km deep, so the earth would have to be thicker than 20 km?

Berny
Thinking of fluffy light pancakes

Wait - how thick is the earth supposed to be?

The Marianas trench is at one point 11 km deep, so the earth would have to be thicker than 20 km? 

If I'm not mistaken, according to Username's (John Davis) infinite plane model, using Gauss's Law of Gravitation the thickness of the FE would be roughly equivalent to the radius of the RE.  I'm not sure if that would apply to a FE model that uses UA, however.

Quote from: berny_74 on October 14, 2010, 09:39:28 AM

Wait - how thick is the earth supposed to be?

The Marianas trench is at one point 11 km deep, so the earth would have to be thicker than 20 km? 

If I'm not mistaken, according to Username's (John Davis) infinite plane model, using Gauss's Law of Gravitation the thickness of the FE would be roughly equivalent to the radius of the RE.  I'm not sure if that would apply to a FE model that uses UA, however.

UA and infinite disks are totally mutually exclusive. If you have an infinite disk you cannot accelerate it and you are specifically saying that the Law of Gravitation is correct. If you have a finite disk you are specifically denying the existence of the Law of Gravitation and declaring that a finite, although incredibly, impossibly large "dark energy" is pushing us up.

By the way, both of the above are totally mutually exclusive with real science.

"The Earth is not like other planets; it is special"

I believe that's the FE answer.

"The Earth is not like other planets; it is special"

I believe that's the FE answer.

Earth is special because its mass doesn't have gravity...but the same mass on other planets does have gravity....Problem FET?

Quote from: berny_74 on October 14, 2010, 09:39:28 AM

Wait - how thick is the earth supposed to be?

The Marianas trench is at one point 11 km deep, so the earth would have to be thicker than 20 km? 

If I'm not mistaken, according to Username's (John Davis) infinite plane model, using Gauss's Law of Gravitation the thickness of the FE would be roughly equivalent to the radius of the RE.  I'm not sure if that would apply to a FE model that uses UA, however.

A slab with a thickness h, has a gravitational field near its surface equal to:


where G is the Universal Gravitational Constant and rho is the density of the homogeneous slab.

A sphere with radius R and the same uniform density will have a gravitational field at the surface equal to:


Equating the left hand sides of these equations we would get the following relation:


By using the RE value for the radius of the Earth, we would arrive at a thickness of 2,600 mi. There is nothing certain in this figure, however. This is because we do not know the internal structure and also because one of the models is drastically false.

Quote from: markjo on October 14, 2010, 09:56:00 AM

Quote from: berny_74 on October 14, 2010, 09:39:28 AM

Wait - how thick is the earth supposed to be?

The Marianas trench is at one point 11 km deep, so the earth would have to be thicker than 20 km? 

If I'm not mistaken, according to Username's (John Davis) infinite plane model, using Gauss's Law of Gravitation the thickness of the FE would be roughly equivalent to the radius of the RE.  I'm not sure if that would apply to a FE model that uses UA, however.

A slab with a thickness h, has a gravitational field near its surface equal to:

,

where G is the Universal Gravitational Constant and rho is the density of the homogeneous slab.

A sphere with radius R and the same uniform density will have a gravitational field at the surface equal to:

Equating the left hand sides of these equations we would get the following relation:

By using the RE value for the radius of the Earth, we would arrive at a thickness of 2,600 mi. There is nothing certain in this figure, however. This is because we do not know the internal structure and also because one of the models is drastically false.

Then you admit that Earth has a gravitational field.

Then you admit that Earth has a gravitational field.

John Davis's (Username) infinite plane model does.  However, other FE models do not.

Quote from: Danukenator123 on October 15, 2010, 09:10:58 AM

Then you admit that Earth has a gravitational field.

John Davis's (Username) infinite plane model does.  However, other FE models do not.

Its hard to keep all the theories straight.

Its hard to keep all the theories straight.

I've stated several times that the Flat Earth Wiki would be an ideal place to detail the various FE models, however no one seems to want to do anything about it.

I tell you what markjo.  If I don't go to the pub tonight (its about 50-50 at this point) I'll write in what I've stated on the forums into my section at the very least and if needed expand the cambridge model documentation.

Hmm...  Maybe all this nagging will pay off after all.  Maybe.

Apparently he headed to the pub.

Hmm... Go drinking or work on the wiki.  Tough choice, don't you think?

Quote from: Vindictus on October 14, 2010, 04:10:28 PM

"The Earth is not like other planets; it is special"

I believe that's the FE answer.

Earth is special because its mass doesn't have gravity...but the same mass on other planets does have gravity....Problem FET?

I've always said that the celestial bodies have gravitation, but not necessarily gravity.

They visibly attract, but the mechanism for that attraction is unknown.  Gravitation is not necessarily gravity. Gravitation is an action word to describe the apparent attraction of bodies. This could take place through numerous mechanisms.

When magnets move towards each other they are "gravitating" towards each other. Paul the mail man "gravitates" towards the Thai buffet every Saturday. When I flick a rubber band towards the wall it "gravitates" towards it.

Gravitation is an action word and nothing more. When we say that the cosmos exhibits gravitation, or that they gravitate, we are saying that they apparently attract. The mechanism to that attraction is not necessarily gravity. Gravity is a mechanism, while gravitation describes an action.

Indeed Tom, it's just like how women gravatate towards me.

Well, sorry for my english but I'm not mother tongue.
I would say that we can experiments gravity every day, see this formula:
                                                       
                                                            F= (G*M*m)/d*d

F is the attraction between M (that is the earth) and m (that can be another planet, a star, or you!). G is an universal constant that's equal to 6.67*10^-11.
d is the distance between M and m.
This show that's equal if m is you or a planet, and it shows because a thing fall down.
Furthermore I said the earth is a geoid, so it isn't perfectly spheric, north pole and south pole are little crushed, about 20 kilometers than a sphere.
Having said that I have another question: how can you explane me volcanism?

Well, sorry for my english but I'm not mother tongue.
I would say that we can experiments gravity every day, see this formula:
                                                      
                                                            F= (G*M*m)/d*d

F is the attraction between M (that is the earth) and m (that can be another planet, a star, or you!). G is an universal constant that's equal to 6.67*10^-11.
d is the distance between M and m.
This show that's equal if m is you or a planet, and it shows because a thing fall down.
Furthermore I said the earth is a geoid, so it isn't perfectly spheric, north pole and south pole are little crushed, about 20 kilometers than a sphere.
Having said that I have another question: how can you explane me volcanism?

Or
F=mU  ... where U is the universal constant of acceleration. Roughly equal to 9.81m/s^2. Please read up about UA and dark energy in the FAQ and check the equivalence principle.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle/?set_language=en

I could explain volcanism to you, but what is the relevance of that? It would apply to both flat and round earth's. Hot stuff comes seeping up through the earth where tectonic plates meet, or hot spot's arise. Earth's shape cannot be determined either way by this.

Or
F=mU  ... where U is the universal constant of acceleration. Roughly equal to 9.81m/s. Please read up about UA and dark energy in the FAQ and check the equivalence principle.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle/?set_language=en

I could explain volcanism to you, but what is the relevance of that? It would apply to both flat and round earth's. Hot stuff comes seeping up through the earth where tectonic plates meet, or hot spot's arise. Earth's shape cannot be determined either way by this.

Wrong where noted.

Quote from: Danukenator123 on October 14, 2010, 06:32:03 PM

Quote from: Vindictus on October 14, 2010, 04:10:28 PM

"The Earth is not like other planets; it is special"

I believe that's the FE answer.

Earth is special because its mass doesn't have gravity...but the same mass on other planets does have gravity....Problem FET?

I've always said that the celestial bodies have gravitation, but not necessarily gravity.

They visibly attract, but the mechanism for that attraction is unknown.  Gravitation is not necessarily gravity. Gravitation is an action word to describe the apparent attraction of bodies. This could take place through numerous mechanisms.

When magnets move towards each other they are "gravitating" towards each other. Paul the mail man "gravitates" towards the Thai buffet every Saturday. When I flick a rubber band towards the wall it "gravitates" towards it.

Gravitation is an action word and nothing more. When we say that the cosmos exhibits gravitation, or that they gravitate, we are saying that they apparently attract. The mechanism to that attraction is not necessarily gravity. Gravity is a mechanism, while gravitation describes an action.

Justify this statement. Prove that it is celestial bodies are causing gravitation. Also explain how RET perfectly explains gravitational anomalies but you, correct me if I'm wrong, attribute it to the pull (not necessarily by gravity) of celestial bodies.

First of all acceleration's unit size is m/(s*s), after that I asked to ClockTower: where the materials of volcanoes ejections come from?
To Danukenator123 I answer that every things have a mass, and a mass have an influence on each other mass. If you don't believe this, you should at least believe that each mass have an electric charge that can attract or repel another charge. What do you mean with "gravitational anomalies" ?

Typo, now fixed. UA is an acceleration so m/s^2 is the correct unit. This plays out well for FE because the dimensions balance properly.

F=mU
Newton = F = m·kg·s^-2
Mass = M = kg
Acceleration = U = m.s^-2

So the formula works. F=mU   can be shown dimensionally as m.kg.s^-2 = kg.m.s^-2   .... dimensionally correct

Resorting to semantics does little to disprove the theory behind this.
Let us say an apple weighs roughly 100 grams or 0.1 kilograms. (It is how Sir Isaac defined the ball park figure).
How many Newton's is the apple using FE formula for UA?
F=mU
m= 0.1
U = 9.8
so F = (0.1 * 9.8 ) = 0.98 Newtons
Is it correct? .... drumrole ....
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_newtons_is_100_grams

No.
Newton = mass * 9,8  and nothing else. It isn't equal to m*kg*s^-2 , it's wrong...

No.
Newton = mass * 9,8  and nothing else. It isn't equal to m*kg*s^-2 , it's wrong...

Dear Sir, you are wrong and making a fool of yourself. Please check the base units of a Newton.
http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference/physics/units.html

Then argue with me about FE, when your physics is on a par with mine. 

yes, i wrong, it is dimensionally correct, and this is normal.
But I don't understand the problem in what you mean, can you make it simple for not mother tongue?