Formation of Bodies disproves FET

  • 106 Replies
  • 13918 Views
Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« on: May 21, 2012, 11:47:16 AM »
If Flat Earth Theory is correct, then how did Earth form? After all, such a large body would tend normally towards hydrostatic equilibrium, which would be a sphere. Additionally, if one flat planet formed, why aren't all stars, moons, and planets flat?

On another point, why, even on this forum, do some claim Earth to be a disk rushing rapidly upward, and claim space to be a mostly empty medium, like the early idea of the photoelectric ether, while others claim Earth to be surrounded by an undetectable dome in which all observable objects in 'space' are set?

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2012, 06:51:58 PM »
Unless I'm mistaken, about this particular point, this post has received no address by one of the gallant defenders of Flat Earth 'Theory' because it's somewhat foolproof. Think differently? Don't be shy...

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2012, 07:09:14 PM »
Or maybe because the earth is not a liquid, we simply think the question is not pertinent.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2012, 07:15:55 PM »
Or maybe because the earth is not a liquid, we simply think the question is not pertinent.

It would appear, Ski, that it went a little over your head. Hydrostatic equilibrium means achieving enough pressure to form the 'easiest' shape, that is, reverting to the lowest surface area to volume ratio. It doesn't mean that Earth is completely liquid, though it can be proven that much of it is molten.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2012, 07:40:31 PM »
Hydrostatic equilibrium means achieving enough pressure to form the 'easiest' shape, that is, reverting to the lowest surface area to volume ratio. It doesn't mean that Earth is completely liquid, though it can be proven that much of it is molten.

How does your hydrostatic equilibrium hold up if I were to place a ball of bread dough on a pastry board and then accelelrate that pastry board.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2012, 07:46:46 PM »
Hydrostatic equilibrium means achieving enough pressure to form the 'easiest' shape, that is, reverting to the lowest surface area to volume ratio. It doesn't mean that Earth is completely liquid, though it can be proven that much of it is molten.

How does your hydrostatic equilibrium hold up if I were to place a ball of bread dough on a pastry board and then accelelrate that pastry board.

The bread would have to be awfully large to attain such equilibrium. You don't see many bread-dough planets.
And the whole point of this is that Earth is made of basalt, iron, and nickel (mostly), not bread dough. And such things don't place themselves on pastry boards. How would a flat Earth form? Any object, no matter how fast it's accelerating, in a virtually empty region like space, won't naturally, or unnaturally, form a plane. Especially when it's as massive as a planet.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2012, 07:50:57 PM »
The bread would have to be awfully large to attain such equilibrium. You don't see many bread-dough planets.
And the whole point of this is that Earth is made of basalt, iron, and nickel (mostly), not bread dough. And such things don't place themselves on pastry boards. How would a flat Earth form? Any object, no matter how fast it's accelerating, in a virtually empty region like space, won't naturally, or unnaturally, form a plane. Especially when it's as massive as a planet.

Rigidity is an illusion and irrelevant.  You did not answer the question.  What would happen to a spherical object with a force applied to the bottom of the sphere and accelerating?
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2012, 07:53:18 PM »
Or maybe because the earth is not a liquid, we simply think the question is not pertinent.

Hydrostatic equilibrium means achieving enough pressure
to form the 'easiest' shape, that is, reverting to the lowest surface area to volume ratio. It doesn't mean that Earth is completely liquid, though it can be proven that much of it is molten.

Where is this pressure coming from?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2012, 07:58:48 PM »
The bread would have to be awfully large to attain such equilibrium. You don't see many bread-dough planets.
And the whole point of this is that Earth is made of basalt, iron, and nickel (mostly), not bread dough. And such things don't place themselves on pastry boards. How would a flat Earth form? Any object, no matter how fast it's accelerating, in a virtually empty region like space, won't naturally, or unnaturally, form a plane. Especially when it's as massive as a planet.

Rigidity is an illusion and irrelevant.  You did not answer the question.  What would happen to a spherical object with a force applied to the bottom of the sphere and accelerating?

Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2012, 08:05:38 PM »
Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?

You answered your own question, you just don't realize it.  Air resistance is also irrelevant to the question.  You can accelerate an object in a perfect vacuum and with sufficient force it would still deform.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2012, 02:31:03 PM »
Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?

You answered your own question, you just don't realize it.  Air resistance is also irrelevant to the question.  You can accelerate an object in a perfect vacuum and with sufficient force it would still deform.

Not to become flat. Not unless it had a completely uniform force forming a wall at enough speed and density to do so. If you're suggesting that, Earth would be going faster than light.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2012, 05:19:40 PM »
Sorry to get in the middle of this ( I am not familiar with many of the scientific debates going on on these forums) so please, if I am completely wrong then just let me know.

If earth is accelerating, is there a direction to this acceleration?  is it up, down, or to one side? it seems to me that if earth was indeed accelerating would the direction of acceleration dicate the shape?

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2012, 05:23:49 PM »
Sorry to get in the middle of this ( I am not familiar with many of the scientific debates going on on these forums) so please, if I am completely wrong then just let me know.

If earth is accelerating, is there a direction to this acceleration?  is it up, down, or to one side? it seems to me that if earth was indeed accelerating would the direction of acceleration dicate the shape?

No, because space is, for practical purposes, omnidirectional. There is not an up of down.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2012, 05:58:37 PM »
Sorry to get in the middle of this ( I am not familiar with many of the scientific debates going on on these forums) so please, if I am completely wrong then just let me know.

If earth is accelerating, is there a direction to this acceleration?  is it up, down, or to one side? it seems to me that if earth was indeed accelerating would the direction of acceleration dicate the shape?

No, because space is, for practical purposes, omnidirectional. There is not an up of down.

If space is omnidirectional how do we account for a direction a space shuttle would travel to get to...say... the star Vega ( I know the space shuttle could not get to that star, just picked a random star I know) Astronomers can tell you which direction you have to look to see the star. So once in space... can you not use a direction? If I was in the shuttle can I not say Vega is at 005 and then head towards that direction based off of a gyroscope on board?

Sorry if I am side tracking this discussion. I just would like to know what is causing earth to accelerate and if so why is the planet not in a shape that would dictate that acceleration. If direction does not matter in space then why would the expanding or contracting universe say that everything is moving either away or towards a "center" point (center in quotes because I know there is no exact center to the universe). Just seems to me that you can still move in a perceptive direction in space...
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 06:03:45 PM by BoatswainsMate »

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2012, 06:03:08 PM »
Sorry to get in the middle of this ( I am not familiar with many of the scientific debates going on on these forums) so please, if I am completely wrong then just let me know.

If earth is accelerating, is there a direction to this acceleration?  is it up, down, or to one side? it seems to me that if earth was indeed accelerating would the direction of acceleration dicate the shape?

No, because space is, for practical purposes, omnidirectional. There is not an up of down.

If space is omnidirectional how do we account for a direction a space shuttle would travel to get to...say... the star Vega ( I know the space shuttle could not get to that star, just picked a random star I know) Astronomers can tell you which direction you have to look to see the star. So once in space... can you not use a direction? If I was in the shuttle can I not say Vega is at 005 and then head towards that direction based off of a gyroscope on board?

Sorry if I am side tracking this discussion. I just would like to know what is causing earth to accelerate and if so why is the planet not in a shape that would dictate that acceleration. If direction does not matter in space, then I am sorry to have asked this.

Yes, bearing vectors are appropriate. There simply is no up or down. Because of Earth's gravitational compression (9.8 m/s2), and Earth's immense size (comparatively), there seem to be an up and down, and, effectively, on planets and such, there are. But in space, all directions have the same effect. You can identify where something is, but it's at a vector, not 'up' or 'down.'

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #15 on: May 23, 2012, 06:10:37 PM »
Ah, thank you! that clears some stuff up. It still makes me wonder how earth is flat yet everything els in the universe is a sphere. As if when the gasses from the big bang created the solid earth with a superheated core the planet decided to suddenly go flat.... I am reading Steven Hawking's a brief history of time so I am becoming ever so curious as to how the earth could not possibly be spherical... not perfect, but spherical.

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #16 on: May 23, 2012, 06:17:08 PM »
Ah, thank you! that clears some stuff up. It still makes me wonder how earth is flat yet everything els in the universe is a sphere. As if when the gasses from the big bang created the solid earth with a superheated core the planet decided to suddenly go flat.... I am reading Steven Hawking's a brief history of time so I am becoming ever so curious as to how the earth could not possibly be spherical... not perfect, but spherical.

Well, reading Stephen Hawking's work is something that you haven't got in common with the FET. They don't seem to believe in mathematical support for their "theory," yet claim it to be reasonable science. Their idea for a flat Earth's formation seems to be that Earth formed a sphere, like everything else, (not sure how it formed, since Flat Earthers don't believe in gravity) but was somehow bumped from behind by a giant cookie sheet type object or force, that accelerated Earth so fast that it flattened.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #17 on: May 23, 2012, 06:24:32 PM »
That... seems as feasible as the flying spaghetti monster being an actual God.

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #18 on: May 23, 2012, 06:28:35 PM »
That... seems as feasible as the flying spaghetti monster being an actual God.

I'm sure you could start a cult that believes that. The FET has some members who're good at debate, but mainly because they're quite adept at pulling the self-proclaimed trumps like "You can't directly disprove it" and such. Try taking one of them on with mathematics and you'll have a frustrated Flat Earther.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2012, 06:54:35 PM »
The flying spaghetti monster was an attempt by the Orlando Weekly to mess with the creationists about a debate for school curriculum reform. I guess an example of a "cult" that is formed based off of pretty ridiculous claims would be scientology. founded by a science fiction writer to prove that he can make a religion out of nothing.

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2012, 07:09:14 PM »
The flying spaghetti monster was an attempt by the Orlando Weekly to mess with the creationists about a debate for school curriculum reform. I guess an example of a "cult" that is formed based off of pretty ridiculous claims would be scientology. founded by a science fiction writer to prove that he can make a religion out of nothing.

In this case, it was formed by a man who simply couldn't fit into his head that his world was not flat. He somehow managed to form a group. To this day the Flat Earth Society believes their "theory" to be legitimate science, though they have no evidence or otherwise support of it. There are still just under 1000 people who doggedly defend the idea.

?

BoatswainsMate

  • 675
  • You just been Tom Bishop'ed
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2012, 08:01:54 PM »
Sometimes people just want to be part of something I guess.

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2012, 06:47:17 AM »
Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?

You answered your own question, you just don't realize it.  Air resistance is also irrelevant to the question.  You can accelerate an object in a perfect vacuum and with sufficient force it would still deform.

So a FE would be very unlikely?
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2012, 11:00:32 AM »
Depends on the circumstances. Under sufficient pressure, it would deform. However, as space has very regular pressure, objects in it do not deform like that. No air resistance. And you still haven't answered my question, how would a flat planet form?

You answered your own question, you just don't realize it.  Air resistance is also irrelevant to the question.  You can accelerate an object in a perfect vacuum and with sufficient force it would still deform.

So a FE would be very unlikely?

So the formation of a flat Earth would be virtually impossible. Even if one did form, it wouldn't be able to sustain life. It'd be more like an asteroid than a planet.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2012, 06:27:32 AM »
Not to become flat. Not unless it had a completely uniform force forming a wall at enough speed and density to do so. If you're suggesting that, Earth would be going faster than light.

An object can accelerate for an indefinite amount of time and never reach the speed of light.

Try taking one of them on with mathematics and you'll have a frustrated Flat Earther.

I would love to see your math supporting the statement above.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2012, 11:59:53 AM »
Not to become flat. Not unless it had a completely uniform force forming a wall at enough speed and density to do so. If you're suggesting that, Earth would be going faster than light.

An object can accelerate for an indefinite amount of time and never reach the speed of light.

Try taking one of them on with mathematics and you'll have a frustrated Flat Earther.

I would love to see your math supporting the statement above.

I could start with something really basic, saying the area of a planet can be approximated with A=4πr2, and the volume of a sphere can be V=4/3πr3. Since we know that Earth's radius is about 6,371.0 km (it's been measured differently at the poles and the equator), one can easily determine what a spherical Earth's full dimensions are, approximately (V=536018.35 and A=510064471.91). I don't think you can say the same for a flat Earth.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2012, 12:05:12 PM »
What does that have to do with force and acceleration?

Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2012, 12:30:05 PM »
What does that have to do with force and acceleration?

Oh yes, regarding acceleration and velocity, you actually answered my point, that an object itself can't surpass the speed of light.

Regarding acceleration, Earth's gravitational acceleration ("pull") is approximately 9.8 m/s2. If you've got a pendulum handy, you can measure it (gravitational acceleration) with this equation: g= T2/4Lπ2.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #28 on: May 27, 2012, 03:17:36 PM »
I did not answer your point at all. 

An object can accelerate for an indefinite amount of time and never reach the speed of light.

That is the exact opposite of your point. 
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

Re: Formation of Bodies disproves FET
« Reply #29 on: May 27, 2012, 05:59:49 PM »
Now now, let's not stray from topic.