Sinking effect, not a question trying to prove FE false

I know that the Sinking effect isn't really explained in the FE theory, but could it be that maybe, the earth is curved, as in its slightly concave, but still flat... just a though not sure

you mean the fact that the world would cave in if it was flat?

Why would that happen?

Why would that happen?

Because of the pressure at the surface, caused by your dark force. Since the earth is not completely flat in your model, the pressure is not distributed equally.

Quote from: "GeoGuy"

Why would that happen?

Because of the pressure at the surface, caused by your dark force. Since the earth is not completely flat in your model, the pressure is not distributed equally.

oh SNAP! that was actually a very good argument!!!

The Earth is hundreds of miles thick. I doubt the force of acceleration would cause it to break apart.

The Earth is hundreds of miles thick. I doubt the force of acceleration would cause it to break apart.

nah im gonna jump on phase's bandwagon here.

I think that as there is no gravity, there would be nothing to truly counter this unequality of force. Inertia is not a logical argument, as inertia would not in any way stop this misdistribution! Following on: if inertia does exist (which FE strongly agrees with), than the unequal forces would "use" this to break the Earth apart...or atleast mishape it somewhat.

We must also suggest that as F=ma, the velocities at different points of this unequal force would vary, and it would be this that causes the Earth to break apart

Why would there be an unequal distribution of force?

This universal accelerant would be of varied distance from the curved sections of the Earth, hence in some places the force it exerts would be slightly greater than others...just a reminder that all fundamental forces of the universe (exclude gravity if u wish) depend on the distances two objects are from one another. even dark energy/matter is assumed to act similarly, because if not, we would all be acted upon by a huge force equal to that of standing right next to a "black hole" or ANY object, when over the other side of the universe.

This universal accelerant would be of varied distance from the curved sections of the Earth, hence in some places the force it exerts would be slightly greater than others...

Not really, the UA is still in contact with Earth even where it is uneven.

Quote from: "woopedazz"

This universal accelerant would be of varied distance from the curved sections of the Earth, hence in some places the force it exerts would be slightly greater than others...

Not really, the UA is still in contact with Earth even where it is uneven.

yes this is my point exactly! the UA is in contact with the earth even when it is uneven! But with it being uneven...the distance from the Earth to the UA will vary will it not? and if F is proportional to r (which there is no use denying, because this would contradict every fundamental force in the universe) then the force exerted on the earth, at different regions, by the UA will be different.

hence as F=ma, a is proportional to delta v, THEREFORE: the speed at which the Earth is moving at different points would vary, and as such it would break apart! now im off to learn for my math exam, ill talk about this later!

You're making an assumption that the earth would be too weak to withstand these forces.  Perhaps it is only the surface that is dirt, and underneath there is some unknown substance of incredible strength.

yes this is my point exactly! the UA is in contact with the earth even when it is uneven! But with it being uneven...the distance from the Earth to the UA will vary will it not?

No, the UA is not a rigid plane, it's more like a jet of water pushing everything from "underneath".

So what's the likelyhood that the earth would become a little tilted relative to the direction of the UA and start spinning violently, throwing everyone and everything to their immediate doom?

Quote from: "woopedazz"

yes this is my point exactly! the UA is in contact with the earth even when it is uneven! But with it being uneven...the distance from the Earth to the UA will vary will it not?

No, the UA is not a rigid plane, it's more like a jet of water pushing everything from "underneath".

He wasn't impliying that it was rigid. And we have yet another new material with incredible properties to add to the FE basket.

He wasn't impliying that it was rigid. And we have yet another new material with incredible properties to add to the FE basket.

What did he mean to imply then? I wasn't entirely sure what he was trying to say.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

He wasn't impliying that it was rigid. And we have yet another new material with incredible properties to add to the FE basket.

What did he mean to imply then? I wasn't entirely sure what he was trying to say.

he may correct me If I got this wrong, but he never mentioned the UA being rigid. He was saying that since the earth is irregular, the UA is not in contact with it on a perfectly flat surface, which means the the pressure it applies at different heights is irregular.

But I don't see how the UA could bend to accomodate the earth's shape and at the same time accelerate everything in the universe in synchronicity. If the UA does behave that way, we should see stars going up and down from their original position.

Quote from: "GeoGuy"

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

He wasn't impliying that it was rigid. And we have yet another new material with incredible properties to add to the FE basket.

What did he mean to imply then? I wasn't entirely sure what he was trying to say.

he may correct me If I got this wrong, but he never mentioned the UA being rigid. He was saying that since the earth is irregular, the UA is not in contact with it on a perfectly flat surface, which means the the pressure it applies at different heights is irregular.

But I don't see how the UA could bend to accomodate the earth's shape and at the same time accelerate everything in the universe in synchronicity. If the UA does behave that way, we should see stars going up and down from their original position.

no u r right, this is wat i was saying.

bumpety bump

He may correct me If I got this wrong, but he never mentioned the UA being rigid. He was saying that since the earth is irregular, the UA is not in contact with it on a perfectly flat surface, which means the the pressure it applies at different heights is irregular.

I still don't see how that would cause it to break apart.

the shape of the earth isn't flat. the end

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

He may correct me If I got this wrong, but he never mentioned the UA being rigid. He was saying that since the earth is irregular, the UA is not in contact with it on a perfectly flat surface, which means the the pressure it applies at different heights is irregular.

I still don't see how that would cause it to break apart.

Exactly.  The pressure on a dam is irregular, yet they don't break apart.

Quote from: "GeoGuy"

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

He may correct me If I got this wrong, but he never mentioned the UA being rigid. He was saying that since the earth is irregular, the UA is not in contact with it on a perfectly flat surface, which means the the pressure it applies at different heights is irregular.

I still don't see how that would cause it to break apart.

Exactly.  The pressure on a dam is irregular, yet they don't break apart.

Definition of static friction.
...
BUUUUUUURNED!

Definition of static friction.
...
BUUUUUUURNED!

 :?:

:?:

For efficiency I think it best to assume that the default response to any of BOGWarrior's posts is stunned incredulity, followed by "Anyway, where were we?"

That sounds like a very good plan of action.

Quote from: "GeoGuy"

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

He may correct me If I got this wrong, but he never mentioned the UA being rigid. He was saying that since the earth is irregular, the UA is not in contact with it on a perfectly flat surface, which means the the pressure it applies at different heights is irregular.

I still don't see how that would cause it to break apart.

Exactly.  The pressure on a dam is irregular, yet they don't break apart.

Fine, I'll explain: so long as the pressure on the dam doesn't exceed the maximum amount of pressure the dam wall can withstand, it will not break, regardless of deviations in pressure.

so long as the pressure on the dam doesn't exceed the maximum amount of pressure the dam wall can withstand, it will not break

Wow, that's some great insight there...

BTW, what does that have to do with static fiction?

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

so long as the pressure on the dam doesn't exceed the maximum amount of pressure the dam wall can withstand, it will not break

Wow, that's some great insight there...

BTW, what does that have to do with static fiction?

There are similarities that I turned into connections.  So long as the dam pressure stays below or at a certain number, the dam doesn't break (and the wall doesn't move/break apart).  It was perhaps an error on my part to state what I did with so little words; people would have been unable to come up with the connection, due to the "not enough information" block.  I apologize.

Static friction and static equilibrium are not the same thing.