[AstralSentient]

thank you! this at least tries to make sense. Only if you accept that the matter that composes the earth exert gravity, you have to explain why local differences in density don't cause the whole shebang to collapse with time into discrete spheres

The gravitational pull and normal-unit vectors cancel out on an infinite plane (being counterbalanced), giving stability. It is based on the uniform density of the plane, with a uniform gravitational pull across it [...]

that is a rather big assumption. It's a bit like the joke of the scientist trying to be a farmer: "assuming punctiform cows..."
It's also arguable. I understand that the earth is in fact not uniformly dense, and even small variations would accrue over time. Unless you're also assuming that it was created last Wednesday. 

It's been mathematically demonstrated on an infinite plane, as shown above (with Newtonian gravitation). The resulting equation has the density of the plane interdependent with its gravitational pull. So, the density of the plane determines it's gravitational pull (with the gravitational constant and depth of course), small variations in density all across the plane will be subject to the same uniform gravitational pull across it, the plane just needs density to have this stable gravitational pull. It is infinite, it is not subject to point masses like you seem to be assuming.

Different densities = different pulls. What's keeping the denser areas to pull material away from the less dense ones?
Consider ad absurdum having a neutron star buried in your backyard... Do you think that the rest of the ground would somehow counterbalance that?

Again, you are misunderstanding it, it's the uniform pull of the plane. The infinite plane is what forms the pull in the first place.
The equation above has the density of the plane itself factored into the gravitational pull. All areas are part of the same uniform plane. It's not like point mass gravitation.
And I already answered that question, the normal unit vectors and gravitational cancel out on an infinite plane, making it stable. These vectors are infinitesimal.

According to your objection, on a spherical Earth, more dense areas will have greater gravitational pulls and less dense material will be pulled away. However, we know that the gravitational pull across Earth is a product of the entire mass and not particularly areas on its surface, as those all form the uniform mass of Earth and therefore it's uniform gravitational pull.

[Ga_x2]

Again, you are misunderstanding it, it's the uniform pull of the plane. The infinite plane is what forms the pull in the first place.
The equation above has the density of the plane itself factored into the gravitational pull. All areas are part of the same uniform plane. It's not like point mass gravitation.
And I already answered that question, the normal unit vectors and gravitational cancel out on an infinite plane, making it stable. These vectors are infinitesimal.

Please be patient, the last time I touched advanced math was 20 years ago.
The equation above has the end result of g being a function of density. If the density is higher, g will increase.
In more layman terms, are you telling me that if I bury a neutron star in my backyard nothing will happen?

According to your objection, on a spherical Earth, more dense areas will have greater gravitational pulls and less dense material will be pulled away. However, we know that the gravitational pull across Earth is a product of the entire mass and not particularly areas on its surface, as those all form the uniform mass of Earth and therefore it's uniform gravitational pull.

You can consider earth a point when calculating gravity, because it's a frickin' sphere. However, if you were to dig down, the gravity would decrease, as the earth above you pulls you "up". At the center, you would be de facto at 0 g.
Furthermore, we have slight variations of g due to different densities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly).
So no, there's nothing uniform in there.

[AstralSentient]

Please be patient, the last time I touched advanced math was 20 years ago.
The equation above has the end result of g being a function of density. If the density is higher, g will increase.
In more layman terms, are you telling me that if I bury a neutron star in my backyard nothing will happen?

It's an infinite plane, a neutron star wouldn't affect it's gravitational pull.

You can consider earth a point when calculating gravity, because it's a frickin' sphere. However, if you were to dig down, the gravity would decrease, as the earth above you pulls you "up". At the center, you would be de facto at 0 g.
Furthermore, we have slight variations of g due to different densities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly).
So no, there's nothing uniform in there.

Gravity would also recede as you dig down into an infinite plane as well.
Yes, I'm aware of gravitational anomalies, but it's still uniform as it involves the entire mass all across it, which was my point. On an infinite plane, the entire plane's density is what determines the pull, and it's gravitationally stable across because of the counteracting unit vectors. That's how the infinite plane is stable, the way it gravitates.

[J-Man]

Please be patient, the last time I touched advanced math was 20 years ago.
The equation above has the end result of g being a function of density. If the density is higher, g will increase.
In more layman terms, are you telling me that if I bury a neutron star in my backyard nothing will happen?

It's an infinite plane, a neutron star wouldn't affect it's gravitational pull.

You can consider earth a point when calculating gravity, because it's a frickin' sphere. However, if you were to dig down, the gravity would decrease, as the earth above you pulls you "up". At the center, you would be de facto at 0 g.
Furthermore, we have slight variations of g due to different densities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly).
So no, there's nothing uniform in there.

Gravity would also recede as you dig down into an infinite plane as well.
Yes, I'm aware of gravitational anomalies, but it's still uniform as it involves the entire mass all across it, which was my point. On an infinite plane, the entire plane's density is what determines the pull, and it's gravitationally stable across because of the counteracting unit vectors. That's how the infinite plane is stable, the way it gravitates.

I thought Neil the mic dropper didn't know exactly what gravity was. How can you be so sure it's real? Could you place the facts here and a formula please.

[AstralSentient]

Please be patient, the last time I touched advanced math was 20 years ago.
The equation above has the end result of g being a function of density. If the density is higher, g will increase.
In more layman terms, are you telling me that if I bury a neutron star in my backyard nothing will happen?

It's an infinite plane, a neutron star wouldn't affect it's gravitational pull.

You can consider earth a point when calculating gravity, because it's a frickin' sphere. However, if you were to dig down, the gravity would decrease, as the earth above you pulls you "up". At the center, you would be de facto at 0 g.
Furthermore, we have slight variations of g due to different densities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly).
So no, there's nothing uniform in there.

Gravity would also recede as you dig down into an infinite plane as well.
Yes, I'm aware of gravitational anomalies, but it's still uniform as it involves the entire mass all across it, which was my point. On an infinite plane, the entire plane's density is what determines the pull, and it's gravitationally stable across because of the counteracting unit vectors. That's how the infinite plane is stable, the way it gravitates.

I thought Neil the mic dropper didn't know exactly what gravity was. How can you be so sure it's real? Could you place the facts here and a formula please.

This infinite plane model only relies on:
Gravitational force = (G * m1 * m2) / (d2)
F = mg

Basics as you see. Assuming it is real, we get the results I was talking about.

[Ga_x2]

[...] if I bury a neutron star in my backyard nothing will happen?

It's an infinite plane, a neutron star wouldn't affect it's gravitational pull.[...]

[...]Yes, I'm aware of gravitational anomalies[...]

you know, these two sentences don't get together very well...
Are you really willing to be on record saying that I can keep a neutron star under my toolshed, and I won't feel a thing? Not even a bit heavier? Like that apres BBQ heaviness?

[J-Man]

Please be patient, the last time I touched advanced math was 20 years ago.
The equation above has the end result of g being a function of density. If the density is higher, g will increase.
In more layman terms, are you telling me that if I bury a neutron star in my backyard nothing will happen?

It's an infinite plane, a neutron star wouldn't affect it's gravitational pull.

You can consider earth a point when calculating gravity, because it's a frickin' sphere. However, if you were to dig down, the gravity would decrease, as the earth above you pulls you "up". At the center, you would be de facto at 0 g.
Furthermore, we have slight variations of g due to different densities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly).
So no, there's nothing uniform in there.

Gravity would also recede as you dig down into an infinite plane as well.
Yes, I'm aware of gravitational anomalies, but it's still uniform as it involves the entire mass all across it, which was my point. On an infinite plane, the entire plane's density is what determines the pull, and it's gravitationally stable across because of the counteracting unit vectors. That's how the infinite plane is stable, the way it gravitates.

I thought Neil the mic dropper didn't know exactly what gravity was. How can you be so sure it's real? Could you place the facts here and a formula please.

This infinite plane model only relies on:
Gravitational force = (G * m1 * m2) / (d2)
F = mg

Basics as you see. Assuming it is real, we get the results I was talking about.

Klondike proved that calculation completely bogus, next.

[TheSchwa1337]

Yeah, no one knows for sure. It's hard to dig down there, and a fundamental tenant of Zeteticism is confirmation via direct observation. That said, we can speculate!

In AW theory, the aethric wind's push against the Earth would theoretically provide sufficient energy to melt the bottom of our Plane. Therefore, in this model the bottom of the Earth would probably be quite similar to the outer core in RET. This seems to be supported by available evidence, since there appears to be some mysterious heat source deep inside the Earth that is not fully explained by radioactive decay.

Looking past that (ignoring the fact that the Wind would melt your face off), you'd most likely see an abyss that stretches forever. That's not necessarily true; for all we know, there's a second Earth directly below us that thinks we're some kind of celestial ceiling. Or turtles. I've always been a fan of the turtle theory.

I believe there are some sects of FET who believe that Australia is actually on the other side of the plane (which they use as a probably racist explanation for the physical characteristics of Aboriginal peoples and the apparent mass psychosis that characterizes modern Australian society and governance).

Talking about what you said last, that mostly comes up as an explanation around how their lamp sun and moon work... somehow it explains that.. I think.. maybe. It is a floating and moves. Not clear exactly, but the wiki is really as clear as it gets, and outlandish theorists are just that... ha

[juner]

Is this entire 'Flat Earth' thing a joke?! Are people serious about this?!

Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.

[Terry50]

To Tom Bishop
You said  ---  General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics propse two different mechanisms of Gravity..... 

I say:
Gravity is a myth.  There is no observable proof.   You would have to have a huge mass; put a smaller mass underneath it; and watch it fall upward from the pull of the larger Mass.   
All the evidence there is for gravity is similar to the evidence of evolution....    Billions of years which you cannot observe scientifically compared to billions of pounds of mass which cannot be replicated in a scientific lab.

Sorry to break your brain.   

[Ga_x2]

To Tom Bishop
You said  ---  General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics propse two different mechanisms of Gravity..... 

I say:
Gravity is a myth.  There is no observable proof.   You would have to have a huge mass; put a smaller mass underneath it; and watch it fall upward from the pull of the larger Mass.   
All the evidence there is for gravity is similar to the evidence of evolution....    Billions of years which you cannot observe scientifically compared to billions of pounds of mass which cannot be replicated in a scientific lab.

Sorry to break your brain.   

What do you think of the Cavendish experiment?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
This is gravity in a lab, and way  before any NASA cover-up nonsense

[3DGeek]

[...] if I bury a neutron star in my backyard nothing will happen?

It's an infinite plane, a neutron star wouldn't affect it's gravitational pull.[...]

[...]Yes, I'm aware of gravitational anomalies[...]

you know, these two sentences don't get together very well...
Are you really willing to be on record saying that I can keep a neutron star under my toolshed, and I won't feel a thing? Not even a bit heavier? Like that apres BBQ heaviness?

Not at all.  If you kept a neutron star buried (say) 50 feet under your toolshed - then when you were inside the toolshed - it would pull you down onto the floor.  But...if you stood 50 feet off to the left of the toolshed - then gravity would be pulling at an angle of 45 degrees to the ground!   You'd feel like you were standing on a 45 degree hillside rather than on level ground.

At 500 feet to the left of the toolshed - gravity would be pulling almost parallel to the ground, and it would be like standing on a very steep cliff-face.  Rocks and dirt would slide sideways across the ground towards the toolshed.   There would be massive avalanches of dirt and rock as objects fell towards the neutron star.

Pretty soon a large mound of stuff would accumulate around the neutron star.   Because it pulls towards itself, this mound would become spherical - and before you know it, you'd have a round ball of stuff with the neutron star in the middle.

So if FE is true and there is gravity - it can only be that the flat earth is infinite in extent so that the center of gravity is infinitely far below your feet so it always pulls you "downwards".

Hence the FE'ers came up with the idea of "universal acceleration" to function instead of gravity.   This still doesn't explain what we see in the real world.

[Ga_x2]

[...]
So if FE is true and there is gravity - it can only be that the flat earth is infinite in extent so that the center of gravity is infinitely far below your feet so it always pulls you "downwards".

Hence the FE'ers came up with the idea of "universal acceleration" to function instead of gravity.   This still doesn't explain what we see in the real world.

yes, this particular poster opted apparently for the former, that's why I was asking for clarification, but he disappeared. If you have an infinite plane, it has to be of uniform density, otherwise you'll have problems on the long run. (Hence my neutron star example.)

[3DGeek]

According to your objection, on a spherical Earth, more dense areas will have greater gravitational pulls and less dense material will be pulled away. However, we know that the gravitational pull across Earth is a product of the entire mass and not particularly areas on its surface, as those all form the uniform mass of Earth and therefore it's uniform gravitational pull.

Actually, that is PRECISELY what happens.  Here is a map of the Earth's gravitational field:



...it shows regions of greater and lesser gravity due to different densities of subsurface rocks and height above sea level.  The measurements are in "milligals" - meaning thousandth's of a 'g'...so the changes are not huge - but they definitely exist.

3DGeek's diet plan:  If you want to lose weight - travel to one of the blue places on the map!

[J-Man]

How thick is the Earth? If I drill a hole straight down through it, and look through the hole, what will I see on the other side?

Hey one shot fallen angel.

Yes is the answer. You may even see a picture of Jesus on the other side as he condemn you to fire. Like the band wind and fire.