Dome theory and infinite plane theory

If the Earth is enclosed by a dome then where do meteroites come from? Obviously impossible. I do not think that meterorites are fake. If the Earth is infinite plane, then what is beyond the ice wall? The Earth would simply eliminate everything that comes into its path, and overtime, its mass increases. It would be very thick as it has travelled at almost the speed of light for billions of years. And air above Earth would be constantly compressed. Which means that the air pressure would slow down the acceleration of the Earth. I would say that there is no dome and the plane is finite, and it is possible to fall out of space.
 

If the Earth is enclosed by a dome then where do meteroites come from?

They fall from the dome, in those models.

If the Earth is infinite plane, then what is beyond the ice wall? The Earth would simply eliminate everything that comes into its path, and overtime, its mass increases. It would be very thick as it has travelled at almost the speed of light for billions of years. And air above Earth would be constantly compressed. Which means that the air pressure would slow down the acceleration of the Earth.

Infinite Earth models generally have no need to appeal to UA. Gravity functions as it does under RET.
There's also the fact UA models, for finite Earths, posit a 'shadow' in the accelerator caused by the Earth, beyond which the accelerator flows like normal so nothing would fall to us save for exceptional circumstances.

So we have consensus the dome is rock?

As siscussed in antoher thread
Infinite earth would have univform gravity everywhere at every distance.

Heavenly bodies would need rocket packs to stay up.

Impossible.

So we have consensus the dome is rock?

Partially. Why would it be made of just one thing?

As siscussed in antoher thread
Infinite earth would have univform gravity everywhere at every distance.

Heavenly bodies would need rocket packs to stay up.

Impossible.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg2117350#msg2117350
Don't confuse your wilful ignorance for a conclusion.

Infinite earth would have univform gravity everywhere at every distance.

Heavenly bodies would need rocket packs to stay up.

While they would need magic to hold them up and keep them away from each other, the gravity from the infinite Earth could have variations.

Don't confuse your wilful ignorance for a conclusion.

And don't confuse your refusal to see problems with them magically not existing.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg2117350#msg2117350
Don't confuse your wilful ignorance for a conclusion.

Don't confude you "brilliance" in mathematics with the slightest understanding of physics and especially "electromagnetic theory".

Statements like the following indicate that your understanding is zilch:

It is well established that certain frequencies of ionising radiation can affect matter, knocking electrons out of the atomic structure and as a result giving the matter a charge. It is said that this radiation affected both the discs and the metal core (one source of this radiation is said to be the source of the universal acceleration in UA models) and gave them like charges; as a result, they are repelled from one another, and so the Sun and moon are kept aloft in the sky because they cannot fall down to the Earth and come closer to its charged core.

The level of this electromagnetic radiation fluctuates, weakening or strengthening the repulsive force and allowing the Sun and moon to move and cycle around.

Quote from: Jane on January 23, 2019, 04:17:09 PM

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg2117350#msg2117350
Don't confuse your wilful ignorance for a conclusion.

Don't confude you "brilliance" in mathematics with the slightest understanding of physics and especially "electromagnetic theory".

Statements like the following indicate that your understanding is zilch:

Quote from: Jane on August 29, 2018, 07:07:03 AM

It is well established that certain frequencies of ionising radiation can affect matter, knocking electrons out of the atomic structure and as a result giving the matter a charge. It is said that this radiation affected both the discs and the metal core (one source of this radiation is said to be the source of the universal acceleration in UA models) and gave them like charges; as a result, they are repelled from one another, and so the Sun and moon are kept aloft in the sky because they cannot fall down to the Earth and come closer to its charged core.

The level of this electromagnetic radiation fluctuates, weakening or strengthening the repulsive force and allowing the Sun and moon to move and cycle around.

...You do realise that's just me quoting another model and not something I believe, right?

Also not the post I linked. But whatever. Can't expect you to stay on topic.

Then the expansion of the Earth would rip two cities thousnads of km away at a very high rate.

Making some assumptions there.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 23, 2019, 05:02:16 PM

Quote from: Jane on January 23, 2019, 04:17:09 PM

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg2117350#msg2117350
Don't confuse your wilful ignorance for a conclusion.

Don't confude you "brilliance" in mathematics with the slightest understanding of physics and especially "electromagnetic theory".

Statements like the following indicate that your understanding is zilch:

Quote from: Jane on August 29, 2018, 07:07:03 AM

It is well established that certain frequencies of ionising radiation can affect matter, knocking electrons out of the atomic structure and as a result giving the matter a charge. It is said that this radiation affected both the discs and the metal core (one source of this radiation is said to be the source of the universal acceleration in UA models) and gave them like charges; as a result, they are repelled from one another, and so the Sun and moon are kept aloft in the sky because they cannot fall down to the Earth and come closer to its charged core.

The level of this electromagnetic radiation fluctuates, weakening or strengthening the repulsive force and allowing the Sun and moon to move and cycle around.

...You do realise that's just me quoting another model and not something I believe, right?

So sorry if I got the wrong impossible hypothesis. This one is no better:

Expansion of Space

This phenomenon is predominantly relied upon in the Infinite Earth model. It is used to explain how the stars, Sun and other such celestial objects remain over the Earth's surface despite the pull of gravity. The basic principle is simple: space itself is said to expand at a rate greater than the acceleration caused by gravity. Thus things over the Earth are falling, but the distance they have to fall is increasing so they never appear to get closer.
This would also result in redshift.

Not my problem if you keep posting ridiculous hypotheses.

If the earth is flat and if the dome is ''hemiplanic'' (meaning like a round bowl turned upside down over the flat earth).
Is there some point where the dome meets, or rests, on the flat earth ?
Does the dome meet , or rest , on the top of the ice wall ?
Is this ''dome'' something solid ?

(My apologies for the use of the word ''hemiplanic''.....I couldn't think of a flat earth word for ''' hemispheric'' if you get what I mean. LOL)

You mean that the expansion only acts on the up down direction. Makes sense. But this case a person on a plane would weight less that on Earth.

I think that Jane's Expansion of Space is a part of the infinite flat earth hypothesis.
If the earth is already an infinite plane then one would think that it cannot expand any further - except that would be incorrect.

But those that promote this Expansion of Space commonly uses Cosmology's expansion of epace as a justification of their hypothesis.

This is also completely incorrect because the expansion of space does not cause gravitationally bound objects even up to Galactic Groups to move apart.

This expansion of space does not "drag" objects with it in such a way that could overcome the gravitational forces between the earth and the sun, moon, planets and stars.

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 23, 2019, 02:49:54 PM

So we have consensus the dome is rock?

Partially. Why would it be made of just one thing?

Quote from: Themightykabool on January 23, 2019, 02:55:35 PM

As siscussed in antoher thread
Infinite earth would have univform gravity everywhere at every distance.

Heavenly bodies would need rocket packs to stay up.

Impossible.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg2117350#msg2117350
Don't confuse your wilful ignorance for a conclusion.

Wilful ignorance
Ha!

We discussed expanding space too.
Here would have to be many many planes of expansion to covrr all the different various heights.
And Space would have to expand per sec per sec.

Quote from: Spanky on January 23, 2019, 05:52:35 PM

Then the expansion of the Earth would rip two cities thousnads of km away at a very high rate.

Making some assumptions there.

Wow
Jane keeps going with the irony.

If the earth is flat and if the dome is ''hemiplanic'' (meaning like a round bowl turned upside down over the flat earth).
Is there some point where the dome meets, or rests, on the flat earth ?
Does the dome meet , or rest , on the top of the ice wall ?
Is this ''dome'' something solid ?

(My apologies for the use of the word ''hemiplanic''.....I couldn't think of a flat earth word for ''' hemispheric'' if you get what I mean. LOL)

It's a cell.
The dome is all attached from the ground up in a continuous gradient, towards what people think would be moving towards the edge, in my model.

What is the problem with Earth is flat and has edges and people can fall out?

If the Earth is infinitively wide, it will still expand. Mathematically concept of infinity can be applied. See the hotel paradox? Multiply every number smaller than infinity by 2 is possible.

You mean that the expansion only acts on the up down direction. Makes sense. But this case a person on a plane would weight less that on Earth.

No it's almost pure magic. It has negligible effect on Earth and only has any effect on those celestial bodies that need to stay up there and is perfectly balanced to keep them at the right position.

What is the problem with Earth is flat and has edges and people can fall out?

It would mean all the water would have fallen off, and all the cats would have knocked everything else off.

If the Earth is infinitively wide, it will still expand. Mathematically concept of infinity can be applied. See the hotel paradox? Multiply every number smaller than infinity by 2 is possible.

But the problem is that expansion would be noticeable. By multiplying every number by 2, you move everything twice as far away from you.

But thats a good question.

Ua and inf earth were thought up to wisk away the pesky gravity will form a ball earth "problem".

What does the dome have to do with anything?

I find the dome theory acceptable though. But the infinity plane theory is not.

If the earth is flat and if the dome is ''hemiplanic'' (meaning like a round bowl turned upside down over the flat earth).
Is there some point where the dome meets, or rests, on the flat earth ?
Does the dome meet , or rest , on the top of the ice wall ?
Is this ''dome'' something solid ?

(My apologies for the use of the word ''hemiplanic''.....I couldn't think of a flat earth word for ''' hemispheric'' if you get what I mean. LOL)

In models with a physical dome, generally it and the ice wall are connected. There may be regular ice leading up to the wall proper, maybe some kind of gradient, but generally that's how it works.
Also the word is hemispherical. They use hemiplane to refer to half a plane. A dome is not half a plane.

You mean that the expansion only acts on the up down direction. Makes sense. But this case a person on a plane would weight less that on Earth.

1. They do. 2. Why? The expansion could happen at a specific height.

But those that promote this Expansion of Space commonly uses Cosmology's expansion of epace as a justification of their hypothesis.

No, they don't, you were just physically incapable of letting that straw man go despite being corrected way, way, way too many times. The only time that ever gets brought up is to point out an REer's hypocrisy in accepting sufficiently large and accelerating expansion of space in their own model, and rejecting it in someone else's. Something you are a spectacular example of, so no wonder you hear it so much.

This is also completely incorrect because the expansion of space does not cause gravitationally bound objects even up to Galactic Groups to move apart.

This expansion of space does not "drag" objects with it in such a way that could overcome the gravitational forces between the earth and the sun, moon, planets and stars.

And we went over this before too, and you also evaded it. Once again: that's not how gravity works. Gravity does not have a finite limit, the force has denominator r². That never becomes zero. You are exerting a gravitational pull on stars we can't even see, it's just tiny. If gravity magically equalled no effect from expansion, then expansion as a concept would never be noticeable.
What you in fact mean to say is that the expansion of space can overwhelm the force of gravity if it is sufficiently big. Nothing is getting dragged, falling objects just have further to fall. Gravity does not stop basic physics from working. Under RET the expansion of space is small enough in those locations for gravity to be greater than it; that is not a property of being 'gravitationally bound,' it is a property of those specific cases.
It isn't that it 'can't' it's that you 'don't want it to despite it being perfectly possible.'

If the Earth is infinitively wide, it will still expand. Mathematically concept of infinity can be applied. See the hotel paradox? Multiply every number smaller than infinity by 2 is possible.

That's finite numbers that get multiplied. You don't expand infinity, by definition.

Finite distance within infinity can still expand.

Which is relevant why?

This entire infinite  Earth idea needs to be scrapped.   The stars have 2 polar axis above the surface of the Earth.  The star trails make infinite Earth impossible.  It’s that easy.  Everyone can see this to be true as anyone can confirm this simple observation.

Why FET proponents can keep bringing it up as if it is possible without getting called out by other honest FET believers is beyond me.  In order to ever move the FET towards a working model - garbage like infinite Earth should be scrapped.  There is no magic that can make it work. 

This entire infinite  Earth idea needs to be scrapped.   The stars have 2 polar axis above the surface of the Earth.  The star trails make infinite Earth impossible.  It’s that easy.  Everyone can see this to be true as anyone can confirm this simple observation.

Why FET proponents can keep bringing it up as if it is possible without getting called out by other honest FET believers is beyond me.  In order to ever move the FET towards a working model - garbage like infinite Earth should be scrapped.  There is no magic that can make it work.

Why is the star trails argument only applicable to an infinite model?

Quote from: JCM on January 24, 2019, 10:05:10 AM

This entire infinite  Earth idea needs to be scrapped.   The stars have 2 polar axis above the surface of the Earth.  The star trails make infinite Earth impossible.  It’s that easy.  Everyone can see this to be true as anyone can confirm this simple observation.

Why FET proponents can keep bringing it up as if it is possible without getting called out by other honest FET believers is beyond me.  In order to ever move the FET towards a working model - garbage like infinite Earth should be scrapped.  There is no magic that can make it work.

Why is the star trails argument only applicable to an infinite model?

Since you asked, those same trails prove the Earth to be a sphere. Or at least NOT flat.  They allow for a spinning sphere or a stationary sphere with the Stars orbiting us.

For the step by step process, infinite Earth can 100% be ruled out.  Otherwise, a geometric shape allowing for 2 axis above the flat surface  would be possible.

For the step by step process, infinite Earth can 100% be ruled out.  Otherwise, a geometric shape allowing for 2 axis above the flat surface  would be possible.

Again, why are you singling out an infinite Earth? This just seems irrelevant to the thread, I'm well aware of the argument. Non-Euclidean and DET are probably the best responses and they certain contradict the infinite model, but they also contradict the basic FE model most people hold to, from dome to generic disc. Singling out IET doesn't make sense.

(Celestial gears in some form can be appealed to in those models and function just as well for an infinite Earth).

Earth is spanky.

REer's hypocrisy in accepting sufficiently large and accelerating expansion of space in their own model, and rejecting it in someone else's.

You mean accepting a uniform, small expansion which only becomes significant over very large distances and which acts in all directions and is supported by evidence, while rejecting a highly specific expansion just to hold objects in place as an ad-hoc fix to a broken model?
That isn't hypocrisy.

Non-Euclidean and DET are probably the best responses and they certain contradict the infinite model, but they also contradict the basic FE model

Yes, with the whole issue of it not being flat.

(Celestial gears in some form can be appealed to in those models and function just as well for an infinite Earth).

Nope. Celestial gears don't explain 2 poles always 180 degrees apart, even though you can circle them.

Quote from: Jane on January 24, 2019, 03:56:31 AM

REer's hypocrisy in accepting sufficiently large and accelerating expansion of space in their own model, and rejecting it in someone else's.

You mean accepting a uniform, small expansion which only becomes significant over very large distances and which acts in all directions and is supported by evidence, while rejecting a highly specific expansion just to hold objects in place as an ad-hoc fix to a broken model?
That isn't hypocrisy.

Quote from: Jane on January 24, 2019, 11:09:19 AM

Non-Euclidean and DET are probably the best responses and they certain contradict the infinite model, but they also contradict the basic FE model

Yes, with the whole issue of it not being flat.

Quote from: Jane on January 24, 2019, 11:09:19 AM

(Celestial gears in some form can be appealed to in those models and function just as well for an infinite Earth).

Nope. Celestial gears don't explain 2 poles always 180 degrees apart, even though you can circle them.

Should relabel this thread jane doesnt get irony.

Just to preface this:
In the "Dome theory and infinite plane theory" you are quite at liberty to hypothesise that expanding space might explain things but you simply cannot use Cosmology's expansion of the universe to justify it as you have attempted in the past.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 23, 2019, 09:35:09 PM

But those that promote this Expansion of Space commonly uses Cosmology's expansion of epace as a justification of their hypothesis.

No, they don't, you were just physically incapable of letting that straw man go despite being corrected way, way, way too many times. The only time that ever gets brought up is to point out an REer's hypocrisy in accepting sufficiently large and accelerating expansion of space in their own model, and rejecting it in someone else's. Something you are a spectacular example of, so no wonder you hear it so much.

Quote from: rabinoz

This is also completely incorrect because the expansion of space does not cause gravitationally bound objects even up to Galactic Groups to move apart.

This expansion of space does not "drag" objects with it in such a way that could overcome the gravitational forces between the earth and the sun, moon, planets and stars.

And we went over this before too, and you also evaded it. Once again: that's not how gravity works. Gravity does not have a finite limit, the force has denominator r². That never becomes zero. You are exerting a gravitational pull on stars we can't even see, it's just tiny. If gravity magically equalled no effect from expansion, then expansion as a concept would never be noticeable.
What you in fact mean to say is that the expansion of space can overwhelm the force of gravity if it is sufficiently big. Nothing is getting dragged, falling objects just have further to fall. Gravity does not stop basic physics from working. Under RET the expansion of space is small enough in those locations for gravity to be greater than it; that is not a property of being 'gravitationally bound,' it is a property of those specific cases.
It isn't that it 'can't' it's that you 'don't want it to despite it being perfectly possible.'

No, I didn't evade it. I simply gave up trying to tell that, according to Cosmologists, "gravitationally bound objects" are not being separated by the "expansion of the universe".

But since you raised it, I'll try again.

There is absolutely no "REer's hypocrisy in accepting sufficiently large and accelerating expansion of space in their own model, and rejecting it in someone else's" for two extremely valid reasons:

• There is no "sufficiently large and accelerating expansion of space in their own model" because even if local space were expanding (it isn't claimed to) the local expansion would be minute:
  Quote from: rabinoz on August 31, 2018, 05:51:10 AM

  Quote

  Hubble's Constant: H₀ = 67.15 ± 1.2 (km/s)/Mpc. For every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 67 kilometers per second

  Now 1 parsec is about 3.086 x 10¹³ km so the expansion of the universe is about 2.20 x 10^-18 km/sec per km or 2.20 x 10^-12 mm/sec per km.
  Now the FE sun is supposedly about 5000 km above the earth so the expansion between the sun and the earth would be about 1.10 x 10^-08 mm/sec.
  You might check my sums, but the expansion of the universe is really very very slow over distances in our solar system.
  
• But according to modern cosmology there is absolutely no expansion within gravitationally bound objects such as our galaxy, the Milky Way, and Andromeda. In fact And Andromeda is approaching us, not receding.
  
  I've posted this before and last you you accused me of quoting "pop science" but do you claim to be more qualified than "Cosmologist Tamara Davis, an associate of the Dark Cosmology Center in Denmark"?
  
  Quote from: Cosmologist Tamara Davis, an associate of the Dark Cosmology Center in Denmark, pulls together an answer

  If galaxies are all moving apart, how can they collide?
  "If galaxies are all moving apart at ever increasing speed, how can they collide?"
   —J. Gow, Fairfax, Va.
  Cosmologist Tamara Davis, a research fellow at the University of Queensland in Australia and  an associate of the Dark Cosmology Center in Denmark, brings together an answer:
  The dynamics of the universe are governed by competing forces whose influence varies with scale, so local forces can override universal forces in discrete regions. On scales larger than galaxy clusters, all galaxies are indeed moving apart at an ever increasing rate. The mutual gravitational attraction between two galaxies at that distance is too small to have a significant effect, so the galaxies more or less follow the general flow of the expansion. But it is a different story in a galaxy's local neighborhood. There the gravitational attraction can be very significant and the interactions much more exciting.
  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  Our local group comprises Andromeda, the Magellanic Clouds and about 35 other galaxies, all of which lie in an even larger cluster called Virgo. Together we will travel through the expanding universe, and we had better learn to like the company any galaxies that have not yet won the gravity war have missed their chance. The universe is now split into pockets of interaction that will drift alone through the expanding cosmos.
  
  From: If galaxies are all moving apart, how can they collide?

I don't care how much you wriggle and squirm but there is no expansion of space between gravitational bound objects.
That is not my opinion. It is what is claimed by Cosmologists what know far more about the expansion of space than you or I.

So, Jane, go and fight it out with the Cosmologists, not me!
But simply accept that there is no expansion of the universes in our vicinity.

Do your own search on, "If the Universe Is Expanding, Why Are the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies on a Collision Course?"