The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Nayuta_Ito on May 30, 2021, 01:34:56 AM

Title: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Nayuta_Ito on May 30, 2021, 01:34:56 AM
Start with a simple (thought) experiment: Put some dirt into your hand and throw it in the sky; What happens to the dirt? Obviously, it disintegrates in the air and you get a mess.

Doesn't the same thing happen to Flat Earth? I mean, Round Earth is bounded by gravity, but since there is no gravity on Flat Earth, what keeps Earth united instead?
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 30, 2021, 09:23:01 AM
there is no gravity on Flat Earth
This statement is false.

Start with a simple (thought) experiment: Put some dirt into your hand and throw it in the sky; What happens to the dirt? Obviously, it disintegrates in the air and you get a mess.
The Earth, round or flat, does not even remotely resemble a handful of dirt. Anyone can make up a ludicrous non-sequitur, but they don't really help advance a discussion.

Consider the following thought experiment: if I put a slice of salami in my mouth and chew it, I experience a delightful medley of umami and fatty goodness. Why, oh why, doesn't the same happen to the supposedly round Earth?
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Allan S. on June 02, 2021, 08:45:21 AM

[/quote]The Earth, round or flat, does not even remotely resemble a handful of dirt. Anyone can make up a ludicrous non-sequitur, but they don't really help advance a discussion.
[/quote]
Well, im curious about this myself too. You didn't answer his question though: What holds the flat earth together? Im a flat-earther, i simply don't really know the answer to this detail, and am quite curious now, as the Perpetual motion theory doesn't give an answer to this question either (as far as im aware). (i also dont understand the how i properly quote, excuse me)
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 02, 2021, 09:00:58 AM
You didn't answer his question though
Yes - I explained why the question makes no sense under the OP's presumptions. It is only normal that I wouldn't answer a non-seq.

What holds the flat earth together?
It is currently unknown what holds matter together, regardless of what matter it is, and regardless of the shape of the Earth. There was some speculation around the Ds3* particle, but that went nowhere so far afaik.

In other words, this is a silly question, made in a poor attempt at a "gotcha". OP's preferred theory doesn't get us any closer to a meaningful answer.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Kokorikos on June 02, 2021, 02:24:53 PM
In other words, this is a silly question, made in a poor attempt at a "gotcha". OP's preferred theory doesn't get us any closer to a meaningful answer.

Well in RE Earth the main force that keeps the planet from breaking apart is gravity. In what way is this not a meaningful answer?
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 02, 2021, 05:20:12 PM
Well in RE Earth the main force that keeps the planet from breaking apart is gravity.
Even if we squint our eyes very hard and assume that you meant "gravitation", that is plainly not the case, nor is it one that would distinguish between RE and FE.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Kokorikos on June 02, 2021, 10:07:38 PM
Even if we squint our eyes very hard and assume that you meant "gravitation", that is plainly not the case, nor is it one that would distinguish between RE and FE.

Gravity causes all bodies beyond a certain mass to be spherical. Without the effect of gravity a planet would not necessarily break apart, but it would not have formed at all.
Note that I refer to gravity as it is described by "mainstream" science and not as described in the FE wiki.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-planets-round/#:~:text=Planets%20are%20round%20because%20their,and%20pulls%20everything%20toward%20it.&text=The%20only%20way%20to%20get,is%20to%20form%20a%20sphere.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: fisherman on June 03, 2021, 01:50:58 AM

Quote
Gravity causes all bodies beyond a certain mass to be spherical. Without the effect of gravity a planet would not necessarily break apart, but it would not have formed at all.
Note that I refer to gravity as it is described by "mainstream" science and not as described in the FE

Looks like according to “mainstream” science, the earth would break apart without gravity

www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160212-what-would-happen-to-you-if-gravity-stopped-working
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2021, 11:13:01 AM
Without the effect of gravity a planet would not necessarily break apart, but it would not have formed at all.
Right, but:

In other words - you have veered so far away from the original question that you somehow rendered it even less meaningful than it was in the first place.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Kokorikos on June 03, 2021, 12:21:03 PM
The OP stated that Round Earth is bound by gravity. I assumed that this statement is based on the notion that gravity is responsible for the creation of planets.
If you still believe that I am veering off topic then please correct me.

The traditional theory of gravitation is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model. At least this is what is written in the wiki on Universal Acceleration.
Therefore the mechanism by which the Earth maintains its shape under FE is not stated and needs to be defined.


Regarding the use of terms gravity and gravitation, in my native language there is only one word that covers both. Therefore it is very difficult for me to understand the difference between the two.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2021, 01:04:39 PM
The OP stated that Round Earth is bound by gravity.
And I explained very early on that this is not the case.

If you still believe that I am veering off topic then please correct me.
I did so twice.

The traditional theory of gravitation is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model.
This is incorrect.

At least this is what is written in the wiki on Universal Acceleration.
Not true. It sounds like you only read the lede of the article, and thus ended up with an overly simplistic understanding of the subject.

Therefore the mechanism by which the Earth maintains its shape under FE is not stated and needs to be defined.
Even if your assumptions held (they don't), this "need" would not logically follow.

Regarding the use of terms gravity and gravitation, in my native language there is only one word that covers both. Therefore it is very difficult for me to understand the difference between the two.
The difference is crucial for this discussion. Gravity is a phenomenon specific to the Earth, which you could simply describe as "things fall". Think F=mg, where g is roughly 9.8ms-2.
Gravitation is the supposed mechanism of attraction between all mass. Think F=Gm1m2x-2

Generally, you will find no FE'ers who will disagree with you that things fall. You are, however, likely to find ones who dispute the magnitude of gravitation, or, more rarely, its existence at all.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: fisherman on June 03, 2021, 01:40:59 PM
At least this is what is written in the wiki on Universal Acceleration.
Not true. It sounds like you only read the lede of the article, and thus ended up with an overly simplistic understanding of the subject.

Its a direct quote from the wiki that traditional theories of gravitation are incompatible with FE.  Are you suggesting that those theories are compatible with FE?  That's a pretty blatant contradiction.


Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2021, 01:52:10 PM
Its a direct quote from the wiki that traditional theories of gravitation are incompatible with FE.
I only just finished explaining this, together with a speculation for how you could have ended up with this misunderstanding. Perhaps reading my post will help?
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: fisherman on June 03, 2021, 01:58:15 PM
Its a direct quote from the wiki that traditional theories of gravitation are incompatible with FE.
I only just finished explaining this, together with a speculation for how you could have ended up with this misunderstanding. Perhaps reading my post will help?

Quote
The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.

That's direct from the wiki page.  https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Traditional theories of gravitation can't be both compatible and incompatible with FE at the same time.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2021, 01:59:03 PM
That's direct from the wiki page.  https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
Yes, this has been stated three times now, and I successfully read it the first time around. Once again, this has already been addressed. I don't know how to best help you beyond that.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: fisherman on June 03, 2021, 02:04:48 PM
That's direct from the wiki page.  https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
Yes, this has been stated three times now, and I successfully read it the first time around. Once again, this has already been addressed. I don't know how to best help you beyond that.

You can explain how traditional theories of gravitation can be both compatible and incompatible with FE at the same time.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2021, 11:11:42 AM
You can explain how traditional theories of gravitation can be both compatible and incompatible with FE at the same time.
Why would I do that? I already told you (this marks the fourth time) that this is not what's being claimed. If you're going to waste our time with low-effort strawmen, do so in the appropriate section of the forum.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: fisherman on June 04, 2021, 11:59:47 AM
Quote
Why would I do that? I already told you (this marks the fourth time) that this is not what's being claimed. If you're going to waste our time with low-effort strawmen, do so in the appropriate section of the forum.

Then what is being claimed?  Are traditional theories of gravitation compatible with FE or not?  The wiki says that they are not, clearly and explicitly.  You seem to be suggesting that they are.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2021, 12:26:17 PM
The wiki says that they are not, clearly and explicitly.
For the fifth time: you misunderstood this, because you hyperfixated on a single sentence in the lede. The reason I cannot help you is that I cannot force you to read further, or to exercise basic reading comprehension.

Are traditional theories of gravitation compatible with FE or not?
This strictly depends on what you mean by "compatible" - you have been using the term in two distinct meanings, seemingly interchangeably, but presumably with some awareness. Standardising this would be a good first step.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: fisherman on June 04, 2021, 12:43:41 PM
Quote
This strictly depends on what you mean by "compatible" - you have been using the term in two distinct meanings, seemingly interchangeably, but presumably with some awareness. Standardising this would be a good first step.

The standard dictionary definition will do.

1: capable of existing together in harmony
compatible theories
compatible people

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compatible

Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2021, 01:03:45 PM
The standard dictionary definition will do.
Perhaps I was too quick to assume the "awareness"... But sure. There exists such a definition of "harmony" under which the two exist in harmony, and since you chose to replace one ambiguous definition with another, you should be pretty content with that answer.

Yes, this problem will persist until you've actually read beyond the lede and understood the piece of writing you're impotently trying to "gotcha". Nobody can help you there but yourself.

I repeat (only for the second time, so I appreciate this might not have sunk in just yet): you will not be allowed to derail this thread any further. If you want to carry on shitposting, do so in the right place.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: fisherman on June 04, 2021, 02:09:10 PM
Quote
But sure. There exists such a definition of "harmony" under which the two exist in harmony, and since you chose to replace one ambiguous definition with another, you should be pretty content with that answer.

I don’t see how the standard dictionary definition can be considered “ambiguous”. If there is a sense in which the two theories can coexist, then it is misleading to say they are incompatible.

Quote
Yes, this problem will persist until you've actually read beyond the lede and understood the piece of writing you're impotently trying to "gotcha". Nobody can help you there but yourself.

There is nothing else in the article that suggests there is any sense in which the two theories are compatible.  Instead, it goes on to offer an entirely different and entirely incompatible theory. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to state that in some ways traditional theories of gravity are consistent with FE and then to on to explain how?

Quote
I repeat (only for the second time, so I appreciate this might not have sunk in just yet): you will not be allowed to derail this thread any further. If you want to carry on shitposting, do so in the right place.

When it was suggested earlier in the thread that FE and gravity weren’t not compatible, you were the one who said that was not true.  I don’t see how pointing out that your wiki says otherwise is derailing the thread or shitposting.  It was a direct response to a comment you made.


If there is some sense in which traditional theories of gravity are compatible, in what way are they?  And directly to the point of the OP, is that limited compatibility responsible for maintaining the shape of the earth (whether RE or FE)?
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 05, 2021, 06:53:15 AM
I don’t see how the standard dictionary definition can be considered “ambiguous”
Conveniently, I already provided you with the source of the ambiguity. I can't force you to see it, let alone to read it, but it's easily available to you should you choose to address it.

it is misleading to say they are incompatible.
That continues to be something you misread/misunderstood because you didn't bother to read on. I already asked you to move on, so now I'm warning you instead. If you can't stay focused enough to finish reading the article, or if you lack the common sense to simply ask questions about things you don't understand, then you're gonna have to take your posting to AR.

There is nothing else in the article that suggests there is any sense in which the two theories are compatible. 
This statement is false, and after the amount of wilfully obtuse behaviour from you above, I am convinced that this is completely deliberate. One way or another, this ends now.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: fisherman on June 05, 2021, 05:10:33 PM
I don’t see how the standard dictionary definition can be considered “ambiguous”
Conveniently, I already provided you with the source of the ambiguity. I can't force you to see it, let alone to read it, but it's easily available to you should you choose to address it.

it is misleading to say they are incompatible.
That continues to be something you misread/misunderstood because you didn't bother to read on. I already asked you to move on, so now I'm warning you instead. If you can't stay focused enough to finish reading the article, or if you lack the common sense to simply ask questions about things you don't understand, then you're gonna have to take your posting to AR.

There is nothing else in the article that suggests there is any sense in which the two theories are compatible. 
This statement is false, and after the amount of wilfully obtuse behaviour from you above, I am convinced that this is completely deliberate. One way or another, this ends now.

I’m not being deliberately obtuse.  I’m trying to figure out where in FET there is room for traditional theories of gravitation.

The wiki says they are incompatible because they require a spherical earth.  That doesn’t seem to leave a lot of room.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 05, 2021, 06:59:18 PM
The wiki says they are incompatible because they require a spherical earth.  That doesn’t seem to leave a lot of room.
It does say that, in a sense. It's just that you chose to hyperfixate on the completely wrong interpretation of these words. Since this was pointed out multiple times to you, there is no longer any doubt that you're doing so deliberately.

With that in mind, we'll see you in 5 days, hopefully you'll stop shitposting when you're back.
Title: Re: Why hasn't Earth broken apart so far?
Post by: Nayuta_Ito on June 06, 2021, 09:02:25 PM
Oh no, the discussion is going super wrong...

I rephrase the question.

What keeps Flat Earth united? If you say it's gravity or gravitation, just say which and how it works. The first few posts said we don't know, and if we really don't have a theory for that, please stick to "we don't know" and try no to go off-topic.


This is not a thread for gravity/gravitation thing on Flat Earth in any way.