How thick is the FE?

I will ask this question with as much sincerity as I can.

If Earth is flat as this forum suggests, then how far down does one have to dig before he falls into space? A mile? A thousand miles? I assume many of you disagree on the answer, but I'd like an idea of the general consensus.

Thank you.

What makes you think that any of us have this in order to know the answer?

What makes you think that any of us have this in order to know the answer?

Could you please rephrase your question? It makes little grammatical sense to me, thank you.

jroa's trying to say: "I don't know and I don't care enough to even BS an answer at this point".

But to give an honest answer; it has to be at least about 7 or 8 miles deep to accommodate for the deepness of the Earth's oceans.

I will ask this question with as much sincerity as I can.

If Earth is flat as this forum suggests, then how far down does one have to dig before he falls into space? A mile? A thousand miles? I assume many of you disagree on the answer, but I'd like an idea of the general consensus.

Thank you.

No won knows.

jroa's trying to say: "I don't know and I don't care enough to even BS an answer at this point".

But to give an honest answer; it has to be at least about 7 or 8 miles deep to accommodate for the deepness of the Earth's oceans.

Perhaps this is why so many bottom feeders appear strangely peculiar; in fact, they are extraterrestrial beings that have dug their way into the ocean through the underside of the planet, and have evolved to survive in their new environment!

Brilliant.

Who has the means to know?

If the Davis Model is correct there is a mathematical minimum thickness of 9000km.

Who has the means to know?

If the Davis Model is correct there is a mathematical minimum thickness of 9000km.

According to this paper,  the flat earth model is a cylinder 4200 km high.

 https://ia801001.us.archive.org/18/items/arxiv-1305.0393/1305.0393.pdf

Patrons of the round Earth movement have the resources* to perform such a dig. By doing so, they can make an attempt at disproving FET. 

Opportunity is knocking so let's hope that one more chance of proving FET wrong is not ignored.

(*did someone mention mapping)

Patrons of the round Earth movement have the resources* to perform such a dig. By doing so, they can make an attempt at disproving FET. 

Opportunity is knocking so let's hope that one more chance of proving FET wrong is not ignored.

(*did someone mention mapping)

"The round Earth movement". Movement? The Earth's size and spheroidal shape are simply well-understood, well-documented, and well-accepted (because they're so well-understood and well-documented) facts. There's no need to expend vast sums, or anything, really, on "one more chance of proving FET wrong" when it's already so well established that the Earth isn't flat. The rest of humanity has already moved on to more interesting questions.

Instead, if you guys really think this conclusion is incorrect, let's see some data that backs up your claims. A coherent set of ideas would be a great start, then some experiments to test the ideas would be the obvious next step. So get cracking! Or, it's cheaper and far easier to idly ruminate on an obscure web forum, and whine about how everyone else should pay to disprove your ideas. I expect you'll opt for the lazy way.

Quote from: Ski on June 19, 2015, 06:49:28 PM

Who has the means to know?

If the Davis Model is correct there is a mathematical minimum thickness of 9000km.

According to this paper,  the flat earth model is a cylinder 4200 km high.

 https://ia801001.us.archive.org/18/items/arxiv-1305.0393/1305.0393.pdf

That paper gives a seemingly arbitrary (and demonstrably not accurate) value for average density of rock. I'm sure you knew that, though, free-thinker and fact-checker that you are, accepting nothing at face value, but instead researching for yourself before advocating a position.

The Ruskies tried to drill through to the other side.  Guess what?  Their drill bits melted.  They made it to something like 13 km.  I suppose this is a satisfactory answer as to why we at the FES have never done it? 

The Ruskies tried to drill through to the other side.

Actually they just did it to see what would happen, they didn't have any specific goal in mind as far as I know.

Quote from: jroa on June 23, 2015, 08:49:15 PM

The Ruskies tried to drill through to the other side.

Actually they just did it to see what would happen, they didn't have any specific goal in mind as far as I know.

You believe that the pinko commies were smart enough to send satellites and men into orbit back in the 50s when a computer would take up the entire square footage of a building and require a team of operators to use, yet the ruskies did not have an adgenda for drilling through the Earth and spent a decade drilling just for shits and giggles?  Oh, wait, you also believe that we could fly to the moon back in the 60s using the computing power of a modern wrist watch, yet today, SpaceX and Virgin Galactic can barely get a rocket into space.  Sometimes I forget just how gullible you are.

Is that really what you think the earth looks like?

What makes you think that any of us have this in order to know the answer?

A figure of 17km has previously been quoted by FE'ers, that's why.

Sandokhan trumps iWitness with his copypasta !

Is that really what you think the earth looks like?

Stick around. You will get used to sandokhan if you stay on this website very long. LOL. He is the king of copypasta. Just enjoy this website for the fun and foolishness that it is. Cheers !