Incredible Shrinking Disc (ISD) Theory

Regarding the "dark energy" that FE guys have to use as a subsitute for gravity: It has been established in other threads that this energy can only accelerate the earth upwards and not the objects upon the erath, the reasoning being that the earths bulk "shields" them from the accelerative energy.
This leads to the conclusion that the energy must be applied equally across the whole base of an earth disc, otherwise it would tip over (this also enables us to conclude that the underside of an earth disc MUST be radially symmetrical to avoid the same effect... I dont remember any flat earthers working this out before, slackers!)
This would also mean, given the energy is sufficient to propel the immense mass of the earth, that at the very edge of the earth would be a line where the dark energy would come rushing upwards along the side of the disc with tremendous force, greater than the force found in earthquakes or volcanoes. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that this force would rip matter off the side of the disc, hurling it upwards at a far greater rate than the earth is moving (due to the smaller mass of debrided particles, they would be accelerated greater by the energy.)
This presents us with three phenomena that would occur. 1: The earths disc would be getting smaller and smaller as it was eroded away. 2: As the mass of the earth decreased, the rate of acceleration would increase and the force we experience as gravity would get stronger and stronger over time as the dark energy finds it progressively easier and easier to accelerate the earth as it gets lighter. 3: a huge stream of debris would be visible hurtling upwards from the edge.

Discuss.

Presumably this is being ignored by the flattists because they are ashamed that a round earther such as myself has understood more about their theory than they do?

Presumably this is being ignored by the flattists because they are ashamed that a round earther such as myself has understood more about their theory than they do?

This happens quite often to me, here is a list of topics that are unanswered, or just things that FET has no explanation for.

1.) What the sun uses as its power source.
2.) What moves the sun in its horizontal motion.
3.) Why is spaceflight impossible using the dark energy at the edge of the earth. (if it is so powerful as to crush rockets and humans why does not it erode the side of the earth?)
4.) Stellar parallax - Why would some stars move relative to the earth while others do not move in UA
5.) Retrograde motion - their model produces the wrong shaped movement in the sky, and if altered it requires Epicycles due to the suns position over the earth.
6.) Why when the signals that GPS satellites use require LoS they still provide accurate readings when no towers are visible, when in valleys, and when behind mountains.

They do not have answers for any of these questions because the only reason that the believe the earth is flat is because it seems to be when you walk outside, and therefore must be.

(or because they refuse to jump to conclusions without any hard evidence, except without seeing the whole planet they are willing to believe it is flat)

This is not an attempt to derail this thread however, so if you have an answer to one of these questions use the search function and answer it in the appropriate thread.  This thread is about why the earth would not gradually decrease in size.

UA is basically magic and doesn't adhere to the laws of anything normal. Don't worry, one of the crazies will be in here soon enough to make up something stupid to "prove you wrong".

Since we do not experience any of these phenomena, it would seem obvious that the force does not rip matter off the side. Clearly an equilibrium had been attained in which the soft parts have been obliterated away to leave a hardened edge.

Presumably this is being ignored by the flattists because they are ashamed that a round earther such as myself has understood more about their theory than they do?

Or maybe this was ignored because you only waited 50 mins for a response and posted it in the middle of the night?

Regarding the "dark energy" that FE guys have to use as a subsitute for gravity: It has been established in other threads that this energy can only accelerate the earth upwards and not the objects upon the erath, the reasoning being that the earths bulk "shields" them from the accelerative energy.

Correct - well lurked.

This leads to the conclusion that the energy must be applied equally across the whole base of an earth disc

Again correct. That's why its called 'universal' acceleration

... otherwise it would tip over (this also enables us to conclude that the underside of an earth disc MUST be radially symmetrical to avoid the same effect... I dont remember any flat earthers working this out before, slackers!)

Oh, that was disappointing. This is incorrect. DE says nothing about radial symetry. All it says is that the earth is solid. You know that already. Its why you haven't fallen through it. Remember the earth hurtles along in the vacuum of space. With a constant energy applied universally across its base, it doesn't matter what shape the underside is.

This would also mean, given the energy is sufficient to propel the immense mass of the earth, that at the very edge of the earth would be a line where the dark energy would come rushing upwards along the side of the disc with tremendous force, greater than the force found in earthquakes or volcanoes. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that this force would rip matter off the side of the disc, hurling it upwards at a far greater rate than the earth is moving (due to the smaller mass of debrided particles, they would be accelerated greater by the energy.)

Again I don't think you grasp the concept of universal. It means everything travels at the same speed in the same direction. Imagine the earth is carried along as the twig is upon a stream. There is no water rushing past the twig. It goes along at the speed of the water. As earth travels along in dark energy. The water may accelerate as the gradient increases. The twig just goes faster. So there is no rushing of energy past the edge of the disk.

This presents us with three phenomena that would occur. 1: The earths disc would be getting smaller and smaller as it was eroded away. 2: As the mass of the earth decreased, the rate of acceleration would increase and the force we experience as gravity would get stronger and stronger over time as the dark energy finds it progressively easier and easier to accelerate the earth as it gets lighter. 3: a huge stream of debris would be visible hurtling upwards from the edge.

Discuss.

As your assumptions above are incorrect, your conclusions are also blighted.

Quote from: Skeleton on May 19, 2011, 04:42:42 PM

This would also mean, given the energy is sufficient to propel the immense mass of the earth, that at the very edge of the earth would be a line where the dark energy would come rushing upwards along the side of the disc with tremendous force, greater than the force found in earthquakes or volcanoes. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that this force would rip matter off the side of the disc, hurling it upwards at a far greater rate than the earth is moving (due to the smaller mass of debrided particles, they would be accelerated greater by the energy.)

Again I don't think you grasp the concept of universal. It means everything travels at the same speed in the same direction. Imagine the earth is carried along as the twig is upon a stream. There is no water rushing past the twig. It goes along at the speed of the water. As earth travels along in dark energy. The water may accelerate as the gradient increases. The twig just goes faster. So there is no rushing of energy past the edge of the disk.

Actually Thork, what you are suggestion is a scenario where you are having it both ways.  If it is indeed Universal Acceleration, and there is no rushing of DE along the edge of the FE, then like the twig, every portion would be coated in DE.  This would lead to a lack of gravity on the earth.  So no, your wrong, there is a rushing past of DE, or otherwise i would be able to fly.  The only counterargument that works is that the edge is superdense and therefore will not break off under the great force of DE.

That being said, FE'ers perception of how modern science views DE and its counterpart DM is a it off.  Like Dark matter, DE is everywhere, it works more like a balloon than a jet of water pushing something upward.  If you draw five dots on a balloon, and begin to blow it up, all of those dots will get further and further apart.  Therefore the universe is expanding due to DE in all directions, not just in one.  There is no scientific evidence that the universe is accelerating in one direction, especially considering what we see from the red shift in galaxies as they get further from us.

Thork is quite wrong. The answer is, the bottom of the Earth is a concave cone-shape. You can try this at home. A conical shape is harder to flip over than a flat one.

Ok, a simpler analogy. Imagine you are in a fast car. And you squash your foot into the Axminster. The car accelerates and you are squashed back into your seat. UA is like that. If you were sat forward in your car seat, you would still be 'pulled' back into your chair as the car caught up with you (like falling). However the rest of the car isn't ripping at your edges or having its edges ripped. And your back doesn't need to be conical.

Ok, a simpler analogy. Imagine you are in a fast car. And you squash your foot into the axeminster. The car accelerates and you are squashed back into your seat. UA is like that. If you were sat forward in your car seat, you would still be 'pulled' back into your chair as the car caught up with you (like falling). However the rest of the car isn't ripping at your edges. And your back doesn't need to be conical.

Apologies; I misunderstood your hypothesis, as I tl;dr'd your post (and the OP, coincidentally), and only read the reactions to it. However, I do believe the bottom to be conical, as this would greatly increase stability.

Now to answer the OP's question, there's no reason why the ice wall would be destroyed by UA.

And, OINS, you're a hypocrite.

Quote from: Thork on May 24, 2011, 01:15:03 PM

Ok, a simpler analogy. Imagine you are in a fast car. And you squash your foot into the axeminster. The car accelerates and you are squashed back into your seat. UA is like that. If you were sat forward in your car seat, you would still be 'pulled' back into your chair as the car caught up with you (like falling). However the rest of the car isn't ripping at your edges. And your back doesn't need to be conical.

Apologies; I misunderstood your hypothesis, as I tl;dr'd your post (and the OP, coincidentally), and only read the reactions to it. However, I do believe the bottom to be conical, as this would greatly increase stability.

Now to answer the OP's question, there's no reason why the ice wall would be destroyed by UA.

And, OINS, you're a hypocrite.

When did I say something hypocritical?  I am genuinely interested so i can either apologize or re- explain myself.  Sorry in advance if i was a hypocrite, never was my intention.

And its Orbis Non Sufficit - "the world is not enough" and not Orb is Non Sufficit.

Quote from: Tausami on May 24, 2011, 01:21:12 PM

Quote from: Thork on May 24, 2011, 01:15:03 PM

Ok, a simpler analogy. Imagine you are in a fast car. And you squash your foot into the axeminster. The car accelerates and you are squashed back into your seat. UA is like that. If you were sat forward in your car seat, you would still be 'pulled' back into your chair as the car caught up with you (like falling). However the rest of the car isn't ripping at your edges. And your back doesn't need to be conical.

Apologies; I misunderstood your hypothesis, as I tl;dr'd your post (and the OP, coincidentally), and only read the reactions to it. However, I do believe the bottom to be conical, as this would greatly increase stability.

Now to answer the OP's question, there's no reason why the ice wall would be destroyed by UA.

And, OINS, you're a hypocrite.

When did I say something hypocritical?  I am genuinely interested so i can either apologize or re- explain myself.  Sorry in advance if i was a hypocrite, never was my intention.

And its Orbis Non Sufficit - "the world is not enough" and not Orb is Non Sufficit.

Ah, hadn't noticed the Latin. I'll keep that in mind. Anyway, I called you a hypocrite because many of the things you ask can be answered via searching. It's not a big deal, and really there wasn't much of a reason for me to post that, it just annoyed me for some reason while I was reading your post.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 24, 2011, 01:32:16 PM

Quote from: Tausami on May 24, 2011, 01:21:12 PM

Quote from: Thork on May 24, 2011, 01:15:03 PM

Ok, a simpler analogy. Imagine you are in a fast car. And you squash your foot into the axeminster. The car accelerates and you are squashed back into your seat. UA is like that. If you were sat forward in your car seat, you would still be 'pulled' back into your chair as the car caught up with you (like falling). However the rest of the car isn't ripping at your edges. And your back doesn't need to be conical.

Apologies; I misunderstood your hypothesis, as I tl;dr'd your post (and the OP, coincidentally), and only read the reactions to it. However, I do believe the bottom to be conical, as this would greatly increase stability.

Now to answer the OP's question, there's no reason why the ice wall would be destroyed by UA.

And, OINS, you're a hypocrite.

When did I say something hypocritical?  I am genuinely interested so i can either apologize or re- explain myself.  Sorry in advance if i was a hypocrite, never was my intention.

And its Orbis Non Sufficit - "the world is not enough" and not Orb is Non Sufficit.

Ah, hadn't noticed the Latin. I'll keep that in mind. Anyway, I called you a hypocrite because many of the things you ask can be answered via searching. It's not a big deal, and really there wasn't much of a reason for me to post that, it just annoyed me for some reason while I was reading your post.

its no biggie, i have no intention of bringing up topics that have been sufficiently answered.  Although i for the most part thought that i was doing the opposite of that.  Heres a list of things ive brought up that have no answer

The sun's power source
The movement of the sun
Stellar parallax
Retrograde motion
What evidence there is for a conspiracy beyond the earth being flat?

ive done my best to avoid bringing up topics like

How come we can circumnavigate the world then?
Wouldnt we reach the speed of light?
what about the curvature of the earth?

Ill try my best not to bring up anymore pointless or answered topics, but unfortunately i was honestly under the impression that i was already doing that.

I told you one of the crazies would be in soon enough, luckily you got one of the crazier ones.

Regarding the "dark energy" that FE guys have to use as a subsitute for gravity: It has been established in other threads that this energy can only accelerate the earth upwards and not the objects upon the erath, the reasoning being that the earths bulk "shields" them from the accelerative energy.
This leads to the conclusion that the energy must be applied equally across the whole base of an earth disc, otherwise it would tip over (this also enables us to conclude that the underside of an earth disc MUST be radially symmetrical to avoid the same effect... I dont remember any flat earthers working this out before, slackers!)
This would also mean, given the energy is sufficient to propel the immense mass of the earth, that at the very edge of the earth would be a line where the dark energy would come rushing upwards along the side of the disc with tremendous force, greater than the force found in earthquakes or volcanoes. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that this force would rip matter off the side of the disc, hurling it upwards at a far greater rate than the earth is moving (due to the smaller mass of debrided particles, they would be accelerated greater by the energy.)
This presents us with three phenomena that would occur. 1: The earths disc would be getting smaller and smaller as it was eroded away. 2: As the mass of the earth decreased, the rate of acceleration would increase and the force we experience as gravity would get stronger and stronger over time as the dark energy finds it progressively easier and easier to accelerate the earth as it gets lighter. 3: a huge stream of debris would be visible hurtling upwards from the edge.

Discuss.

The earth is infinite or not? I just dont grasp this concept, someone claims it is finite, others that is infinite. I don't care. I just don't understand this UA: what generates UA? Dunno. Why UA moves only "up"? Dunno. Why UA affects the earth only, not other stuff? Again, Dunno. What exists beyond the earth and solar system? Nothing?

Quote from: Skeleton on May 19, 2011, 04:42:42 PM

Regarding the "dark energy" that FE guys have to use as a subsitute for gravity: It has been established in other threads that this energy can only accelerate the earth upwards and not the objects upon the erath, the reasoning being that the earths bulk "shields" them from the accelerative energy.
This leads to the conclusion that the energy must be applied equally across the whole base of an earth disc, otherwise it would tip over (this also enables us to conclude that the underside of an earth disc MUST be radially symmetrical to avoid the same effect... I dont remember any flat earthers working this out before, slackers!)
This would also mean, given the energy is sufficient to propel the immense mass of the earth, that at the very edge of the earth would be a line where the dark energy would come rushing upwards along the side of the disc with tremendous force, greater than the force found in earthquakes or volcanoes. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that this force would rip matter off the side of the disc, hurling it upwards at a far greater rate than the earth is moving (due to the smaller mass of debrided particles, they would be accelerated greater by the energy.)
This presents us with three phenomena that would occur. 1: The earths disc would be getting smaller and smaller as it was eroded away. 2: As the mass of the earth decreased, the rate of acceleration would increase and the force we experience as gravity would get stronger and stronger over time as the dark energy finds it progressively easier and easier to accelerate the earth as it gets lighter. 3: a huge stream of debris would be visible hurtling upwards from the edge.

Discuss.

The earth is infinite or not? I just dont grasp this concept, someone claims it is finite, others that is infinite. I don't care. I just don't understand this UA: what generates UA? Dunno. Why UA moves only "up"? Dunno. Why UA affects the earth only, not other stuff? Again, Dunno. What exists beyond the earth and solar system? Nothing?

Answers to the questions you claim we can't answer:
1) UA is generated by Dark Energy. Yes, dark energy is, indeed, scientifically accepted. We aren't making it up.
2) 'Up', as a direction, is subjective. In RET, a Chinese man's 'up' is different from an American's 'up'.
3) You clearly haven't lurked as much as you imply. Thork and I answered this question yesterday. It was also answered a few days ago. And about a week ago. Ad infinitum.
4) Who suggested that there is nothing beyond the solar system?

As for the point about the theory being inconsistent, please refer to number 3. You aren't unique. You aren't smarter than everyone else here. Until you have a better understanding of the theory, you will not be able to find holes in it beyond that which everyone points out when they come here for the first time.

Yes dark energy is a scientifically accepted theory for why the universe will not collapse back on itself as the universe is expanding in a manner that would make it appear that the universe has less than zero matter.  But the way the FE uses DE is not scientifically accepted.  Current theories suggest that space is being expanded,  and that causes things to move away from eachother,  not that de is pushing the matter away from eachother.   

Yes dark energy is a scientifically accepted theory for why the universe will not collapse back on itself as the universe is expanding in a manner that would make it appear that the universe has less than zero matter.  But the way the FE uses DE is not scientifically accepted.  Current theories suggest that space is being expanded,  and that causes things to move away from eachother,  not that de is pushing the matter away from eachother.   

I was just saying that dark energy is a real thing, before someone said

Yeah, and superstrings cause the Sun's fusion

or something stupid like that.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 25, 2011, 03:29:34 PM

Yes dark energy is a scientifically accepted theory for why the universe will not collapse back on itself as the universe is expanding in a manner that would make it appear that the universe has less than zero matter.  But the way the FE uses DE is not scientifically accepted.  Current theories suggest that space is being expanded,  and that causes things to move away from eachother,  not that de is pushing the matter away from eachother.   

I was just saying that dark energy is a real thing, before someone said

Quote

Yeah, and superstrings cause the Sun's fusion

or something stupid like that.

I just found it a bit misleading to say that "UA" which i believe you meant in FE terms, is caused by DE, when there is no scientific evidence of that.  The Dark energy that is "real" (we have no clue what it is or how it works) does not appear to cause the "UA" presented in the wiki.  The Dark Energy supported by the scientific community seems to behave in a completely different manner, it does not push in one direction, it does not push at all, it expands the universe in all directions, which explains the redshift that we see from nearly every galaxy.  Its more comparable to a balloon with a bunch of dots drawn on it, where the dots all move away from each other as the balloon gets air pushed in to it, than a rock being pushed by a jet of water (which is UA in in FE terms). Thats why i think that saying that UA is caused by dark energy which is accepted in science is sort of, if not completely, misleading to tell people.

Answers to the questions you claim we can't answer:
1) UA is generated by Dark Energy. Yes, dark energy is, indeed, scientifically accepted. We aren't making it up.
2) 'Up', as a direction, is subjective. In RET, a Chinese man's 'up' is different from an American's 'up'.
3) You clearly haven't lurked as much as you imply. Thork and I answered this question yesterday. It was also answered a few days ago. And about a week ago. Ad infinitum.
4) Who suggested that there is nothing beyond the solar system?

As for the point about the theory being inconsistent, please refer to number 3. You aren't unique. You aren't smarter than everyone else here. Until you have a better understanding of the theory, you will not be able to find holes in it beyond that which everyone points out when they come here for the first time.

Ok, not this shit AGAIN. You can't just take theories originated elsewhere and throw it in your "FE Theory" to cover holes here and there. Dark Energy implies GRAVITY. Oh man this FE theory really is a mess.

So find YOUR theory for UA, not other peoples theory that develop things assuming the earth is ROUND, orbiting around the SUN, using instruments and methods that you refuse.

So I destroy your first point.

Then... Second point is blind faith, we are going conveniently UP, why the UA does not just crush our ass off pulling the other way around, no one really knows, pure luck.

Point three... i have to lurk, so skip this for a moment.

Point four, you just accepted the evidence of a solar system, implying the system relying on the sun and not around the Earth, so i think we have a winner, finally.

To conclude, i can have "better understanding of the theory" if this theory EXISTS with matemathics and phisics proving that this stuff works, and not a faq of 100 lines explaining things pretending people believe that moon kills people or that dinosaurs go around within boats or the presence of a gigantic ice wall with snipers on.

come on stop arguing with them, this is a troll site.

Oh, that was disappointing. This is incorrect. DE says nothing about radial symetry. All it says is that the earth is solid. You know that already. Its why you haven't fallen through it. Remember the earth hurtles along in the vacuum of space. With a constant energy applied universally across its base, it doesn't matter what shape the underside is.

Of course it matters what shape the underside is. You acknowledge the Earth resists the force, which means if confronted with a slanted underside area, the force will not exert the same pressure as it would on an underside perpendicular to the force. Therefore th only way to keep the force even across the base is for it to have radial symmetry. That way, even if there was a non-perpendicular surface somewhere providinfg less resistance, there would be another one somewhere countering it. If you take the assumption that the force is even across the base, then there has to be radial symmetry to allow that to happen. Your stream of water analogy is useless as the water is not constantly accelerating and imparting more and more kinetic energy to the object it carries, which is what your UA needs in order to simulate gravity.