Discussing Infinite Earth Model

Let's assume that an earth is an infinite plain as described in John Davis model. Our known continents are just a tiny section of this infinite slab. Surrounding our known world is of course the ice wall. How far do you think the ice wall extends? How far away do you think are other worlds of this infinite plain beyond the ice wall?

No one knows the definite answer to this, so naturally every response to this topic will be pure speculation. I'm just interested in what some people's perspective on this theory is.

Let's assume that an earth is an infinite plain as described in John Davis model. Our known continents are just a tiny section of this infinite slab. Surrounding our known world is of course the ice wall. How far do you think the ice wall extends?

If we're assuming that the earth is an infinite plane then the answer is obvious.

How far away do you think are other worlds of this infinite plain beyond the ice wall?

Who says that there are other worlds?

You could start by checking the journals of Scott and Amundsen, Or those of James Clarke Ross. You might wonder why the Ice Wall was no impediment for any of them.

Quote from: New Earth on April 05, 2011, 02:18:38 PM

Let's assume that an earth is an infinite plain as described in John Davis model. Our known continents are just a tiny section of this infinite slab. Surrounding our known world is of course the ice wall. How far do you think the ice wall extends?

If we're assuming that the earth is an infinite plane then the answer is obvious.

Quote

How far away do you think are other worlds of this infinite plain beyond the ice wall?

Who says that there are other worlds?

To assume that there are no other worlds is the same reasoning as assuming that earth is the only planet that can sustain life in a spherical model.

No the answer is not obvious. There is no evidence that the ice wall is infinite and there is nothing beyond it. That makes no sense unless of course you are an atheist.

A Bouguer plate is an infinite, flat plate, used as a model in gravity and gravity anomaly computations.

Gravity outside the plate is perpendicular to the plate, towards it, with magnitude 2?G times the mass per unit area, where G = 6.67 × 10?11 N m² kg?2, hence we have 4.191 × 10?10 N m² kg?2 times the mass per unit area.

Using 1 Gal = 0.01 m/s² we get 4.191 × 10?5 mGal m² kg?1 times the mass per unit area.

For mean rock density (2.67 g/cm³) this gives 0.1119 mGal/m.

This is independent of the distance to the plate. (This can be proven most simply with Gauss's law for gravity, but can also be proven directly with Newton's law of gravity.)



Sooo, using mean rock density we get .1119 mGal per meter of thickness

the earth's gravity is 983 000 mGal

983 000 / 0.1119 = 8784629

So using the infinite earth model the earth is 9000 km thick.



However, Gravity should be uniform regardless of height on an infinite plane, so finding different valuse for gravity at the same location but differing heights would disprove infinite earth theory.

You could start by checking the journals of Scott and Amundsen, Or those of James Clarke Ross. You might wonder why the Ice Wall was no impediment for any of them.

You know.  Except where Scotts party died and Amundsen mysteriously disappeared.

Well where does the other suns go?

Gravity should be uniform regardless of height on an infinite plane

Incorrect.

Quote from: Demouse on April 10, 2011, 12:22:50 AM

Gravity should be uniform regardless of height on an infinite plane

Incorrect.

please elaborate

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on April 18, 2011, 02:21:58 PM

Quote from: Demouse on April 10, 2011, 12:22:50 AM

Gravity should be uniform regardless of height on an infinite plane

Incorrect.

please elaborate

A very curious thing about the existence of an infinite, completely flat plane is that, whatever the height you get from the plane, the gravitational pull will be the same. Of course, if you want an infinite plane you have to start with the magical appearance of an infinite amount of matter, just flat lying around you and you have not even a clue as to why it shaped itself in an infinite plane, but mathematics permit us some understanding of impossible scenarios.

This scenario is complicated by the existence of mountains, which have their own gravitational pull and could start the self-destruction of the infinite plane, and with tectonic plates that, in real life, have moved through the South Pole, something that is impossible on a real Earth. And to complicate things even more, Tom Bishop decided that the stars have gravitational pull over us, so whatever measurement of gravitational pull you get on whatever place on Earth, the Flat Earthers will say they predicted that result.

In reality, the idea of an infinite plane with gravity is as bad as the flat Earth with Universal Acceleration, except for the explanation of why we are not being burned by the rocket under us that accelerates us at 9.8 m/s/s for billions of years on end.

ok, idk, im a RE'er

does a infinite plane have a infinite thickness?

A very curious thing about the existence of an infinite, completely flat plane

Who's suggesting that?

ok, idk, im a RE'er

does a infinite plane have a infinite thickness?

Somebody here (not an FE'er) calculated that the thickness should be 6000 kilometers or something like that. And it makes sense that, to get a similar gravitational pull, the thickness of the theoretical flat Earth should be of the same order of magnitude as the radius of the real Earth.

Still, the creation of an infinite plane of any thickness is impossible with the current knowledge of physics, and the FE'ers are not even discussing the way it could have been created. And all the evidence we have on the contrary means we don't even have to look at this creation issue seriously.

Still, the creation of an infinite plane of any thickness is impossible with the current knowledge of physics, and the FE'ers are not even discussing the way it could have been created. And all the evidence we have on the contrary means we don't even have to look at this creation issue seriously.

Who's suggesting that it was 'created'?

Quote from: trig on April 27, 2011, 02:22:43 AM

Still, the creation of an infinite plane of any thickness is impossible with the current knowledge of physics, and the FE'ers are not even discussing the way it could have been created. And all the evidence we have on the contrary means we don't even have to look at this creation issue seriously.

Who's suggesting that it was 'created'?

A dynamic system with a clearly increasing entropy, since it has animals and other life forms, including bio-luminescent shrimp on the Sun and Moon, cannot have been as it is now forever into the past.

Whether you accept the best current account of the universe's history or not, it is clear that it was not just like it is now from an infinite number of years in the past. It just does not make any sense from the thermodynamic point of view. Or, maybe, the FE'ers will add the thermodynamics experts to their list of conspirators.

You can accept the Big Bang Theory or consider it far too speculative to dedicate your time to it, but one thing is clear: the universe was fundamentally different some 13 billion years ago. Supposing that it has always been a flat, infinite planet that looses energy all the time, with celestial objects also loosing energy, just does not make any sense.

I don't think anyone's saying it was exactly the same, but the word 'created' has a very different set of connotations.

I don't think anyone's saying it was exactly the same, but the word 'created' has a very different set of connotations.

So, tell us the connotations. Which connotations will make a bio-luminescent Sun not loose energy? Or is a connotation what makes the Sun the only thermodynamic closed system that looses energy but has zero entropy?

Because the real Earth, for example, can harbor life because it has an external source of energy. Any system with life in it has positive entropy as a whole, and either receives energy from the outside or becomes a dump of spent matter in no time.

And you are saying Earth was never created.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 27, 2011, 09:08:58 AM

I don't think anyone's saying it was exactly the same, but the word 'created' has a very different set of connotations.

So, tell us the connotations. Which connotations will make a bio-luminescent Sun not loose energy? Or is a connotation what makes the Sun the only thermodynamic closed system that looses energy but has zero entropy?

Because the real Earth, for example, can harbor life because it has an external source of energy. Any system with life in it has positive entropy as a whole, and either receives energy from the outside or becomes a dump of spent matter in no time.

And you are saying Earth was never created.

I believe that Wilmore was suggesting that the word "created", in lieu of shall we say "formed", had a religious undertone to it. That's silly of course, but religion is one of the more prevalent invokers of the word "create" in their everyday issues, so its natural to think that someone might interpret that word, incorrectly of course, as implying a Creator.

Quote from: trig on May 02, 2011, 12:17:22 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 27, 2011, 09:08:58 AM

I don't think anyone's saying it was exactly the same, but the word 'created' has a very different set of connotations.

So, tell us the connotations. Which connotations will make a bio-luminescent Sun not loose energy? Or is a connotation what makes the Sun the only thermodynamic closed system that looses energy but has zero entropy?

Because the real Earth, for example, can harbor life because it has an external source of energy. Any system with life in it has positive entropy as a whole, and either receives energy from the outside or becomes a dump of spent matter in no time.

And you are saying Earth was never created.

I believe that Wilmore was suggesting that the word "created", in lieu of shall we say "formed", had a religious undertone to it. That's silly of course, but religion is one of the more prevalent invokers of the word "create" in their everyday issues, so its natural to think that someone might interpret that word, incorrectly of course, as implying a Creator.

Gee, imagine thinking that the word "created" implies a creator! 

Earth, the giant disc is illuminated my many suns,
our sun, shines a giant circle of light (acting like a floodlight).
Its outer rim of light just barley makes it to the barrier put in place by God. (the "ice wall" is a metaphor)
Because of a slight wobble the sun does not shine at the poles for 6 months respectively.

The other sun(s) shine far beyond this barrier and cannot be seen from orbit. that is why you can only seen a circle from above, easily mistaked by the untrained eye as being round.

Beyond is Paradise, where the great mammoths lie down with the smallest of creatures.

And a very popular believe, is we are in Hell.

This would explain very many things.

the good thing is when we die, we will not go to any worse a place.

thank God.

And you are saying Earth was never created.

No I am not. See above.