Davis Plane: Possible explanation of UA

I haven't exmined it yet in enough detail, however  I wanted the opinion of those that actually believe in the Cambridge model (and heck anyone else too) and to just open it up to discussion.

By taking the hopefully now familiar concept of an infinite plane (with infinite mass and a finite gravitational pull) we turn our eyes to the interesting question:

What would happen if an infinite plane was below our disk?

Specifically, looking at work by scientists like Forward, lets suppose this infinite plane is made of exotic matter, namely that with negative mass.  Of course this is also assuming a level of gravitational shielding or bow shock effect around the surface of terra.  Looking at NASA's work concerning the diameteric drive with Forward (in BPPP) or simply by plugging in the appropriate math into Gauss's law we finally have a reasonable source for the acceleration of the Earth in the Cambridge model.

The Davis Plane is not an acceptable explanation of UA and has been rejected by the majority of FE Believers. The earth is demonstrably accelerating at 9.8m/s2 through space. Please read ENaG.

lets suppose

Unzetetic alert!

Quote from: John Davis on September 23, 2011, 08:25:45 AM

lets suppose

Unzetetic alert!

You'll notice that he didn't state as a fact, but rather as a possibility. The purpose of our rather unzetetic theories and rationalities are to show that FE is physically possible.

And John, that actually makes a lot of sense to me. I still stand by the Aetheric Wind model, simply because it is my own, but this seems to be a working alternative to it.

The Davis Plane is not an acceptable explanation of UA and has been rejected by the majority of FE Believers. The earth is demonstrably accelerating at 9.8m/s2 through space. Please read ENaG.

This is the first time I've mentioned the Davis Plane.

This is an explanation of why the earth is accelerating. 

Please read my post.

Quote from: thefireproofmatch on September 23, 2011, 11:43:52 AM

Quote from: John Davis on September 23, 2011, 08:25:45 AM

lets suppose

Unzetetic alert!

You'll notice that he didn't state as a fact, but rather as a possibility. The purpose of our rather unzetetic theories and rationalities are to show that FE is physically possible.

And John, that actually makes a lot of sense to me. I still stand by the Aetheric Wind model, simply because it is my own, but this seems to be a working alternative to it.

I'll have to look at your aetheric wind model.   Thanks!

Quote from: John Davis on September 23, 2011, 08:25:45 AM

lets suppose

Unzetetic alert!

I am not a zeteticist, but a neozeteticist.  Also, like Tausami pointed out, I did not state anything as fact.

Quote from: Tausami on September 23, 2011, 12:22:13 PM

Quote from: thefireproofmatch on September 23, 2011, 11:43:52 AM

Quote from: John Davis on September 23, 2011, 08:25:45 AM

lets suppose

Unzetetic alert!

You'll notice that he didn't state as a fact, but rather as a possibility. The purpose of our rather unzetetic theories and rationalities are to show that FE is physically possible.

And John, that actually makes a lot of sense to me. I still stand by the Aetheric Wind model, simply because it is my own, but this seems to be a working alternative to it.

I'll have to look at your aetheric wind model.

It's a work in progress, but I have some information about it in my generic response thread.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50238.0

Please read my post.

I have read your post. It contains nothing but the dangerous musings of a half mad LUNAtic intent on corrupting innocent Christian minds.

People would do better to look to their Bible for answers.

Such a huge leap, and for nothing.

Your flat disk will, again, crumple into a sphere because you still have gravity, or gravitational pull. A disk of some 40000 km diameter and some 1000 km or more of height has more than enough matter to convert itself into a sphere by the effect of its own weight, even if it was made of steel. The maths for this have been done a few times in this forum.

But this is usual in this forum: to solve one problem you create ten. And the new ones are even more intractable than the original. And to get there you need negative mass!

Or we could avoid the topic of negative mass and say that it is above the disk.

I am concerned that there is still no evidence that gravity actually exists.  I am happy to accept that the Earth is of infinite horizontal extent and accelerates upwards at 9.8m/s^2.

Here's an idea: The earth (or the part of it we are on) is flat, but the overall shape is that of an oblate spheroid. So the earth is like a squashed lump of mozzarella. Debunk this as you will, but it's just an idea.
             
                     

Or we could avoid the topic of negative mass and say that it is above the disk.

This doesn't work.  What will be shielding the surface of the earth from gravitation?

Your flat disk will, again, crumple into a sphere because you still have gravity, or gravitational pull. A disk of some 40000 km diameter and some 1000 km or more of height has more than enough matter to convert itself into a sphere by the effect of its own weight, even if it was made of steel. The maths for this have been done a few times in this forum.

Incorrect.  A flat disk of infinite horizontal dimensions will not crumple into a sphere.  The math for this has been done a few times on this forum.

Quote from: Tausami on September 24, 2011, 08:47:44 AM

Or we could avoid the topic of negative mass and say that it is above the disk.

This doesn't work.  What will be shielding the surface of the earth from gravitation?

Quote from: trig on September 24, 2011, 08:44:30 AM

Your flat disk will, again, crumple into a sphere because you still have gravity, or gravitational pull. A disk of some 40000 km diameter and some 1000 km or more of height has more than enough matter to convert itself into a sphere by the effect of its own weight, even if it was made of steel. The maths for this have been done a few times in this forum.

Incorrect.  A flat disk of infinite horizontal dimensions will not crumple into a sphere.  The math for this has been done a few times on this forum.

A few questions. If you're going to use gravity in your theory, you should know that mass doesn't shield other things from gravity, it causes gravity. The mathematics have been done for a perfectly flat infinite plane. As the Earth, if it were actually flat, is not perfectly flat, tidal forces would rip it apart and it would collapse on itself.

Dear John,
I am not going to get into a debate here, but if you would like some information please email me. There is a tremendous amount of evidence gravity exists, it is astounding that people continue to make this claim. I will be more then happy to provide scientifically reviewed literature on the topic and can give pages of quantified measured correlation with the gravitational model. Even if you refuse to acknowledge gravity i can demonstrate why an infinitely wide disk can not be uniformly accelerating and why if this was allowed it would not correlate with the observed effects of gravity on a local scale. i am aware of how difficult changing ones belief structure can be but I will gladly provide explanations that you can feel free to attempt counter claims on.

Anthony Heath
Undisclosed Melbourne University, department on physics.

I apologise, this post was directed at James, although i will be happy to discuss material with you also John

Quote from: trig on September 24, 2011, 08:44:30 AM

Your flat disk will, again, crumple into a sphere because you still have gravity, or gravitational pull. A disk of some 40000 km diameter and some 1000 km or more of height has more than enough matter to convert itself into a sphere by the effect of its own weight, even if it was made of steel. The maths for this have been done a few times in this forum.

Incorrect.  A flat disk of infinite horizontal dimensions will not crumple into a sphere.  The math for this has been done a few times on this forum.

Thank you for your explanation. When you say

What would happen if an infinite plane was below our disk?

our disk is not a disk, but another infinite plane. But please be precise when you speak.

Now we have two infinite planes instead of one and negative mass, and no additional questions answered. Lets agree on one thing: two infinite, parallel planes are essentially the same as one plane made of layers of different materials. It gives an incomplete answer to the gravitational pull we feel, and no answers to any other questions. And you do not even tell us what answers your two infinite planes answer that the original one did not.

Just another word game. If the model is more complex then people might be a little bit more intimidated to call it hogwash.

Dear Mr Heath,

There is no need to conduct our scientific interchange under the clandestine cover of e-mails.  I am more than happy to hear your claims on the forum here, where the tribunal of public scrutiny will engender an attitude of the truth.  I am particularly interested to know why an infinitely wide disc cannot uniformly accelerate, as this is manifestly what is occurring at present in the universe.

I invite you to release an object from your hand; you will see the entire cosmos rise at a steady acceleration to meet it.  I appreciate that you may believe some mystic force to be at work, that the object is moving down from your hand under the impetus of this force.  But I beseech you to consider that this is the bias of your perspective, as you yourself are being accelerated upward by the great heaving Earth beneath us.  I ask you - whither this mystical force?  Have you ever observed a graviton, the explanatory panacea of the globularist account of physics?  I must say that the Earth moving in accordance with the forces we understand from our very lives requires a good deal less explanation than objects being mystically drawn to the Earth by an unseen force, transmitted by an unseen particle, a force which you presumably claim is operative across every cubic centimetre of the universe. I am eager to hear your reasons for believing such a story.

Best wishes,
James MacIntyre
Flat Earth Society, department of Palaeontology and Moon Studies

Dear Mr Heath,

There is no need to conduct our scientific interchange under the clandestine cover of e-mails.  I am more than happy to hear your claims on the forum here, where the tribunal of public scrutiny will engender an attitude of the truth.  I am particularly interested to know why an infinitely wide disc cannot uniformly accelerate, as this is manifestly what is occurring at present in the universe.

I invite you to release an object from your hand; you will see the entire cosmos rise at a steady acceleration to meet it.  I appreciate that you may believe some mystic force to be at work, that the object is moving down from your hand under the impetus of this force.  But I beseech you to consider that this is the bias of your perspective, as you yourself are being accelerated upward by the great heaving Earth beneath us.  I ask you - whither this mystical force?  Have you ever observed a graviton, the explanatory panacea of the globularist account of physics?  I must say that the Earth moving in accordance with the forces we understand from our very lives requires a good deal less explanation than objects being mystically drawn to the Earth by an unseen force, transmitted by an unseen particle, a force which you presumably claim is operative across every cubic centimetre of the universe. I am eager to hear your reasons for believing such a story.

Best wishes,
James MacIntyre
Flat Earth Society, department of Palaeontology and Moon Studies

James,

I think that if you really looked at the two theories, you will see that both do have holes that can not be explained.  For example, you say that the Earth is accelerating upwards but give no explanation as to why.  I have read many theories that try to explain this, but all fall far from providing any evidence, other than the effects of this acceleration guesses as to why this is happening.  The round Earthers also give an explanation, in the form of gravity.  They also can not give an explanation as to why this effect takes place, for certain.  They simply say that, "things attract each other".

My point is that you seem to be trying to disprove gravity as being a "Mystical Force" that can not be explained, and therefore not true.  Yet, your "Earth Acceleration" theory also can not be explained or proven. 

It most certainly can be explained; modern science suggests that it is occurring because of the Big Bang. Once we abandon the globularist confusions about the nature of "up", we arrive at a very simple fact that the Big Bang was monodirectional. It went up. And it is still going up.

It most certainly can be explained; modern science suggests that it is occurring because of the Big Bang. Once we abandon the globularist confusions about the nature of "up", we arrive at a very simple fact that the Big Bang was monodirectional. It went up. And it is still going up.

How can an explosion be monodirectional?  I have used shape charges in the military, and yes, you can focus a charge in a certain direction, but that does not mean that the entire explosion happens in that direction.  Also, the energy dissipates as you move away from the epicenter of the explosion.  We are we supposedly moving much faster now than we were when the big bang happened, much less half way between the present time and the time that the big bang occurred?

We are not moving at a speed, we are accelerating.

Quote from: James on September 26, 2011, 06:10:45 AM

It most certainly can be explained; modern science suggests that it is occurring because of the Big Bang. Once we abandon the globularist confusions about the nature of "up", we arrive at a very simple fact that the Big Bang was monodirectional. It went up. And it is still going up.

How can an explosion be monodirectional?

Remind me again where "explosions" even come into the picture?  We are talking about the big bang.  Despite its humourous name, it is not referring to a literal bang or explosion.

Quote from: jroa on September 26, 2011, 08:05:01 AM

Quote from: James on September 26, 2011, 06:10:45 AM

It most certainly can be explained; modern science suggests that it is occurring because of the Big Bang. Once we abandon the globularist confusions about the nature of "up", we arrive at a very simple fact that the Big Bang was monodirectional. It went up. And it is still going up.

How can an explosion be monodirectional?

Remind me again where "explosions" even come into the picture?  We are talking about the big bang.  Despite its humourous name, it is not referring to a literal bang or explosion.

So, you are saying that the Big Bang did occur, but the energy was only focused in a narrow beam that happened to point at the Earth, and despite known physics, constantly increases in acceleration?  Is there any evidence for this, other that it must be true for the flat Earth to exist?

Would I be correct in assuming, that regardless of the distance between the two planes, that forces produced between them will not diminish?

We are not moving at a speed, we are accelerating.

The definition for acceleration is a change in speed relative to time.  You have already implied that speed does not exist.  Does time not exist as well?  What is your definition of acceleration if it is not the same as the one I provided?

You have already implied that speed does not exist.

What?

We are not moving at a speed, we are accelerating.

The fact that our speed changes constantly does not imply that "we are not moving at a speed". You have to improve your physics skills, or choose another subject to debate. Even Primary students understand speed.

Quote from: John Davis on September 25, 2011, 08:59:15 AM

Quote from: trig on September 24, 2011, 08:44:30 AM

Your flat disk will, again, crumple into a sphere because you still have gravity, or gravitational pull. A disk of some 40000 km diameter and some 1000 km or more of height has more than enough matter to convert itself into a sphere by the effect of its own weight, even if it was made of steel. The maths for this have been done a few times in this forum.

Incorrect.  A flat disk of infinite horizontal dimensions will not crumple into a sphere.  The math for this has been done a few times on this forum.

Thank you for your explanation. When you say

Quote

What would happen if an infinite plane was below our disk?

our disk is not a disk, but another infinite plane. But please be precise when you speak.

Now we have two infinite planes instead of one and negative mass, and no additional questions answered. Lets agree on one thing: two infinite, parallel planes are essentially the same as one plane made of layers of different materials. It gives an incomplete answer to the gravitational pull we feel, and no answers to any other questions. And you do not even tell us what answers your two infinite planes answer that the original one did not.

Just another word game. If the model is more complex then people might be a little bit more intimidated to call it hogwash.

The questions answered should be extremely obvious, especially since one of them is in the thread subject and the others are obvious with even cursory knowledge of the Cambridge model.  I'd hate for you to have to think, however, so I'll leave it at rest as far as you are concerned.  If anyone has any legitimate comments, concerns, or arguments please feel free however to continue this discussion.

Quote from: jroa on September 26, 2011, 09:11:59 AM

You have already implied that speed does not exist.

What?

Lurk moar:

I do not believe in speed. There is no such thing. Drunken physicists have been measuring an imaginary quantity. The only comprehensible measure of movement is acceleration.

If the other plane is moving the Earth, what is moving the plane?