Flat Earth Disc Model

According to Flat Earthers, Earth is merely a disc that goes up at 9.81 m/s².

However, I see some problems with this.

1) "Gravity" is not constant across earth. Examples of this variance from 9.81 m/s² include 9.7639 m/s² for the Nevado Huascarán mountain in Peru, and 9.8337 m/s2 at the surface of the Arctic Ocean.

The problem is, these variances would cause the disc to begin bending as the force is unequally distributed across the disc – it's much like me bending a styrofoam plate downwards. Certain parts of the Earth are accelerating upwards faster than others, and will cause the Earth to begin distorting. And, for differences like these, given the earth's lifespan, that much time should have caused the disc to tear apart and have large parts float off into the abyss of space.

Yet this doesn't happen. While these problems wouldn't exist for a round earth, a flat earth should have been shredded by now. If a Flat Earther could come along and explain this that would be appreciated.

2) According to Flat Earthers, the reason why the ocean doesn't pour off of the disc is because Antarctica forms an ice wall to contain it. However, there are some magma flows and groundwater that needs to be accounted for and contained by this wall. While the ice wall could contain groundwater, I don't see how it could contain magma when the magma would just melt the ice. So the magma would end up pouring out of the disc. When this happens, it will melt the ice containing the groundwater and that would pour off as well. As such, two things would happen:
a. Groundwater's quantities should have dropped considerably
b. The earth underneath shouldn't be so hot, so stuff like geothermal stations should have their effectiveness impaired.
c. Whatever magma hasn't poured off should have been cooled by the freezing temperatures of space (remember, there is no ice wall to shield it), so now the magma should be solid. However, there are no signs of this happening.

The above things should happen if the Earth was a disc. However, they haven't. If the Earth is a disc, why haven't they happened>

1) "Gravity" is not constant across earth. Examples of this variance from 9.81 m/s² include 9.7639 m/s² for the Nevado Huascarán mountain in Peru, and 9.8337 m/s2 at the surface of the Arctic Ocean.

The problem is, these variances would cause the disc to begin bending as the force is unequally distributed across the disc – it's much like me bending a styrofoam plate downwards. Certain parts of the Earth are accelerating upwards faster than others, and will cause the Earth to begin distorting. And, for differences like these, given the earth's lifespan, that much time should have caused the disc to tear apart and have large parts float off into the abyss of space.

Yet this doesn't happen. While these problems wouldn't exist for a round earth, a flat earth should have been shredded by now. If a Flat Earther could come along and explain this that would be appreciated.

You assume that these variances are static.

2) According to Flat Earthers, the reason why the ocean doesn't pour off of the disc is because Antarctica forms an ice wall to contain it. However, there are some magma flows and groundwater that needs to be accounted for and contained by this wall. While the ice wall could contain groundwater, I don't see how it could contain magma when the magma would just melt the ice. So the magma would end up pouring out of the disc. When this happens, it will melt the ice containing the groundwater and that would pour off as well. As such, two things would happen:
a. Groundwater's quantities should have dropped considerably
b. The earth underneath shouldn't be so hot, so stuff like geothermal stations should have their effectiveness impaired.
c. Whatever magma hasn't poured off should have been cooled by the freezing temperatures of space (remember, there is no ice wall to shield it), so now the magma should be solid. However, there are no signs of this happening.

I admit that ground water and magma contained within the ice makes no sense.

The above things should happen if the Earth was a disc. However, they haven't. If the Earth is a disc, why haven't they happened>

You have invented a unique Flat Earth to act as a target for your anti Flat Earth arguments.

That is a typical tactic utilized by folks who feel a need to exercise their anger at the Flat Earth Society's existence.

You assume that these variances are static.

And why does it matter if the variances are static? If anything, if they weren't static, that would just distort the disc even more.

That is a typical tactic utilized by folks who feel a need to exercise their anger at the Flat Earth Society's existence.

I doubt you can read my intents behind a screen, but no, I'm not angry. I'm merely asking how, on a disc model of Earth, such-and-such could function. I would avoid assuming people's emotions behind a screen unless there's reasonable proof for this (i.e. all caps or excessive profanity).

And even if I was wrong about "gravity's" effect on the disc, there is the middle part: the part where magma can't sensibly be contained with ice as you said. The fact that this part of the theory makes no sense should be raising some alarms among the higher-ups of the Flat Earth Society – or at the very least requires some elaboration or a modification to the disc.

Anyways, that's all for the matter. I do welcome discussion and would like to hear more about this matter.

I'm merely asking how, on a disc model of Earth, such-and-such could function.

You did not ask a single question.

Quote from: Questioner on May 30, 2018, 10:53:13 PM

I'm merely asking how, on a disc model of Earth, such-and-such could function.

You did not ask a single question.

"If the Earth is a disc, why haven't they happened>" There's my question, though with a typo.

And even if I didn't end my sentence in a question mark, I'd appreciate if they were still addressed, namely the "If a Flat Earther could come along and explain this that would be appreciated." which although isn't a question still asks for elaboration.

Though if you do insist, I will ask an additional question if one isn't enough for you (and this doesn't regard the additional question I asked which was "And why does it matter if the variances are static?"):

If "gravity" isn't constant across a disc of Earth why hasn't the earth turned into mincemeat yet?

You assume that these variances are static.

Nope. That isn't needed.
All that is needed is for them to not be rapidly fluctuating random variation around a constant mean which is equal across Earth.

If the variations apply for a small time, Earth would tear itself apart.

The variation provided (~ 0.07 m/s^2) over the course of a day would result in a separation of ~260 000 km, much greater than the diameter of the alleged FE disc (or the known regions).

The variation provided (~ 0.07 m/s^2) over the course of a day would result in a separation of ~260 000 km, much greater than the diameter of the alleged FE disc (or the known regions).

Yikes.

Sounds like noticeable discrepancy.

Quote from: Questioner on May 30, 2018, 10:04:14 PM

1) "Gravity" is not constant across earth. Examples of this variance from 9.81 m/s² include 9.7639 m/s² for the Nevado Huascarán mountain in Peru, and 9.8337 m/s2 at the surface of the Arctic Ocean.

The problem is, these variances would cause the disc to begin bending as the force is unequally distributed across the disc – it's much like me bending a styrofoam plate downwards. Certain parts of the Earth are accelerating upwards faster than others, and will cause the Earth to begin distorting. And, for differences like these, given the earth's lifespan, that much time should have caused the disc to tear apart and have large parts float off into the abyss of space.

Yet this doesn't happen. While these problems wouldn't exist for a round earth, a flat earth should have been shredded by now. If a Flat Earther could come along and explain this that would be appreciated.

You assume that these variances are static.

Quote from: Questioner on May 30, 2018, 10:04:14 PM

2) According to Flat Earthers, the reason why the ocean doesn't pour off of the disc is because Antarctica forms an ice wall to contain it. However, there are some magma flows and groundwater that needs to be accounted for and contained by this wall. While the ice wall could contain groundwater, I don't see how it could contain magma when the magma would just melt the ice. So the magma would end up pouring out of the disc. When this happens, it will melt the ice containing the groundwater and that would pour off as well. As such, two things would happen:
a. Groundwater's quantities should have dropped considerably
b. The earth underneath shouldn't be so hot, so stuff like geothermal stations should have their effectiveness impaired.
c. Whatever magma hasn't poured off should have been cooled by the freezing temperatures of space (remember, there is no ice wall to shield it), so now the magma should be solid. However, there are no signs of this happening.

I admit that ground water and magma contained within the ice makes no sense.

Quote from: Questioner on May 30, 2018, 10:04:14 PM

The above things should happen if the Earth was a disc. However, they haven't. If the Earth is a disc, why haven't they happened>

You have invented a unique Flat Earth to act as a target for your anti Flat Earth arguments.

That is a typical tactic utilized by folks who feel a need to exercise their anger at the Flat Earth Society's existence.

a) Variance in gravity alone disproves the constant acceleration theory.

b) If the ground water and ice are not contained within an ice wall, isn't that just further evidence that the flat earth theory is completely incorrect?

c) Nobody is mad that FES exists.  It is more like people being drawn to look at animals in a zoo. 

Also, he did not "create a flat earth to act as a target for his arguments".  He took a summary of common flat earth beliefs and then questioned them with real world observations (ie science, empirical, or zetetic).  You on the other hand created a false situation in order to shield yourself from having to answer a question you obviously don't know how to answer (and then lied about a question never being asked).  Wouldn't it have made more sense to just not answer the question?  Or maybe take it a step further and actually consider the information and draw a more intelligent conclusion?

If you are just trolling and you somehow get your jollies off of watching people try so hard to explain something everyone already knows...isn't that also a sign that you are completely screwed up in the head?

There doesn't seem to be a realistic scenario where you turn out to be the "good guy" here.

How is it possible to believe in flat earth and agree about the existence of gravity? If you believed in gravity, and also agree that other planetary objects are spherical, you’re giving credit to the idea that they’re spherical primarily because of their mass and the existence of gravity. How do these arguments hold in the community?

FEers do not assert it is a disc, they think it is a rectangle shape.

I think you meant, "inverted cone shaped."

I think you meant, "inverted cone shaped."

Explain your basis for choosing this shape over any other.

FEers do not assert it is a disc, they think it is a rectangle shape.

Put 100 flat earthers in a room, and you will get 100 different flat earth theories.

See https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76144.0

I admit that ground water and magma contained within the ice makes no sense.

b) If the ground water and ice are not contained within an ice wall, isn't that just further evidence that the flat earth theory is completely incorrect?

If groundwater was contained within the ice wall it would not be groundwater.
If ice was contained within the ice wall it would be part of the ice in the wall.
If magma was contained within the ice wall it would melt the ice wall.

That is why I said that ground water and magma contained within the ice makes no sense.

Quote from: jroa on June 01, 2018, 06:00:37 AM

I think you meant, "inverted cone shaped."

Explain your basis for choosing this shape over any other.

What shape would you prefer?  A circle?  lol

Quote from: Bullwinkle on May 30, 2018, 10:42:11 PM

I admit that ground water and magma contained within the ice makes no sense.

Quote from: Questioner on May 30, 2018, 10:04:14 PM

b) If the ground water and ice are not contained within an ice wall, isn't that just further evidence that the flat earth theory is completely incorrect?

If groundwater was contained within the ice wall it would not be groundwater.
If ice was contained within the ice wall it would be part of the ice in the wall.
If magma was contained within the ice wall it would melt the ice wall.

That is why I said that ground water and magma contained within the ice makes no sense.

Oooooo what a business idea!  I could set up a popsicle stand and call it "Flathead Popsicles", made from the GREAT ice wall that surrounds us all!  I could sell popsicles to all the men and give all the girls, donkey rides!

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 01, 2018, 06:13:16 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 01, 2018, 06:00:37 AM

I think you meant, "inverted cone shaped."

Explain your basis for choosing this shape over any other.

What shape would you prefer?  A circle?  lol

Your inability to answer the question is glaringly obvious.

Quote from: jroa on June 01, 2018, 06:24:31 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 01, 2018, 06:13:16 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 01, 2018, 06:00:37 AM

I think you meant, "inverted cone shaped."

Explain your basis for choosing this shape over any other.

What shape would you prefer?  A circle?  lol

Your inability to answer the question is glaringly obvious.

Your inability to make an interesting post has been know for many years. 

Oooooo what a business idea!  I could set up a popsicle stand and call it "Flathead Popsicles", made from the GREAT ice wall that surrounds us all!  I could sell popsicles to all the men and give all the girls, donkey rides!

The only thing stopping you is your own fear of doing anything involving risk.

Quote from: Really on June 01, 2018, 07:36:26 PM

Oooooo what a business idea!  I could set up a popsicle stand and call it "Flathead Popsicles", made from the GREAT ice wall that surrounds us all!  I could sell popsicles to all the men and give all the girls, donkey rides!

The only thing stopping you is your own fear of doing anything involving risk.

Don’t forget the UN/NASA extermination squads patrolling the wall?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 02, 2018, 04:14:13 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 01, 2018, 06:24:31 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on June 01, 2018, 06:13:16 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 01, 2018, 06:00:37 AM

I think you meant, "inverted cone shaped."

Explain your basis for choosing this shape over any other.

What shape would you prefer?  A circle?  lol

Your inability to answer the question is glaringly obvious.

Your inability to make an interesting post has been know for many years.

Your putdown, regardless of its feeble nature, is too late. An impartial observer reading this thread would see the notable feature as you boldly stating that the earth is an inverted cone, being asked to explain what evidence there is for that, and refusing to do so. They would conclude that you're talking out of an orifice other than your mouth. By the time you have thought up your sad little insult, you have already damaged your own credibility - and what's really pathetic is that you aren't even aware how your posts look to other people. You're actually helping the RE side a great deal with your cretinous behaviour.