The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: skip on August 25, 2017, 12:33:50 PM
-
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?
-
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?
In the flat Earth hypothesis? Don't believe anyone knows or even has any real guess for either of those. There's some floating around here and there, but nothing official from the society that I've ever seen. I suppose in theory if you cut that hole you would create a geyser of the dark energy that's pushing Earth at it's constant rate of acceleration. But since dark energy can't be seen it wouldn't be all that impressive.
-
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).
-
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).
That's very interesting. Is there not consensus amongst flat earth theorists about what is or is not on the plane? Do all members of the flat earth society subscribe to Zeteticism or is it not an agreed upon set of world values?
Thank You,
CritcalThinker
-
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).
That's very interesting. Is there not consensus amongst flat earth theorists about what is or is not on the plane? Do all members of the flat earth society subscribe to Zeteticism or is it not an agreed upon set of world values?
Thank You,
CritcalThinker
FE has consensus about very, very little, and even that can vary from person to person. There's no real unified FE hypothesis, it makes discussion difficult. One would hope when on a site that has a wiki that goes over these things, the information as presented in the wiki would be what's under discussion. Unfortunately even the wiki doesn't always have just one explanation listed for things. As for Zeteticism, I believe it's supposed to be a core tenant of the FES, but that doesn't mean every FE believer on the FES website is a subscriber to it, as evidenced by J-man who is obviously a religious focused FEer.
-
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).
That's very interesting. Is there not consensus amongst flat earth theorists about what is or is not on the plane? Do all members of the flat earth society subscribe to Zeteticism or is it not an agreed upon set of world values?
Thank You,
CritcalThinker
FE has consensus about very, very little, and even that can vary from person to person. There's no real unified FE hypothesis, it makes discussion difficult. One would hope when on a site that has a wiki that goes over these things, the information as presented in the wiki would be what's under discussion. Unfortunately even the wiki doesn't always have just one explanation listed for things. As for Zeteticism, I believe it's supposed to be a core tenant of the FES, but that doesn't mean every FE believer on the FES website is a subscriber to it, as evidenced by J-man who is obviously a religious focused FEer.
How many theories of Gravity are there in RET, past and present?
-
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).
That's very interesting. Is there not consensus amongst flat earth theorists about what is or is not on the plane? Do all members of the flat earth society subscribe to Zeteticism or is it not an agreed upon set of world values?
Thank You,
CritcalThinker
FE has consensus about very, very little, and even that can vary from person to person. There's no real unified FE hypothesis, it makes discussion difficult. One would hope when on a site that has a wiki that goes over these things, the information as presented in the wiki would be what's under discussion. Unfortunately even the wiki doesn't always have just one explanation listed for things. As for Zeteticism, I believe it's supposed to be a core tenant of the FES, but that doesn't mean every FE believer on the FES website is a subscriber to it, as evidenced by J-man who is obviously a religious focused FEer.
How many theories of Gravity are there in RET, past and present?
I'm not talking about through history. I'm talking right now. I only know of one. You have two distinct ideas for how gravity exists on the FE listed in your own wiki.
-
I'm not talking about through history. I'm talking right now. I only know of one. You have two distinct ideas for how gravity exists on the FE listed in your own wiki.
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics propse two different mechanisms of Gravity. One asserts bending space and the other asserts graviton puller particles. Which one is true and why is there so much disagreement in your "known" model?
-
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).
That's very interesting. Is there not consensus amongst flat earth theorists about what is or is not on the plane? Do all members of the flat earth society subscribe to Zeteticism or is it not an agreed upon set of world values?
Thank You,
CritcalThinker
FE has consensus about very, very little, and even that can vary from person to person. There's no real unified FE hypothesis, it makes discussion difficult. One would hope when on a site that has a wiki that goes over these things, the information as presented in the wiki would be what's under discussion. Unfortunately even the wiki doesn't always have just one explanation listed for things. As for Zeteticism, I believe it's supposed to be a core tenant of the FES, but that doesn't mean every FE believer on the FES website is a subscriber to it, as evidenced by J-man who is obviously a religious focused FEer.
How many theories of Gravity are there in RET, past and present?
Tom, you seem to be not answering the question but you are asking a question. ???
Just tell us how deep the flat earth is.......Please !
If you don't know, just say so !
-
I'm not talking about through history. I'm talking right now. I only know of one. You have two distinct ideas for how gravity exists on the FE listed in your own wiki.
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics propse two different mechanisms of Gravity. One asserts bending space and the other asserts graviton puller particles. Which one is true and why is there so much disagreement in your "known" model?
You presume they can't both be true. Quantum level is weird stuff. All the same, let's try not to get too off topic here. Does FE have any ideas on the thickness of the Earth? Or what one might find if someone burrowed underneath it?
-
I'm not talking about through history. I'm talking right now. I only know of one. You have two distinct ideas for how gravity exists on the FE listed in your own wiki.
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics propse two different mechanisms of Gravity. One asserts bending space and the other asserts graviton puller particles. Which one is true and why is there so much disagreement in your "known" model?
Hello! New here, been lurking for a while.
Even if the proposed mechanisms are different, the working equations are the same. There is a huge consensus on how gravity works at a basic level, and there has been for centuries. So comparing the theory of gravity to the mishmash of opinions on the depth of the flat earth is absurd.
And you don't happen to be willing to share your own opinion, it seems ;D
-
I'm not talking about through history. I'm talking right now. I only know of one. You have two distinct ideas for how gravity exists on the FE listed in your own wiki.
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics propse two different mechanisms of Gravity. One asserts bending space and the other asserts graviton puller particles. Which one is true and why is there so much disagreement in your "known" model?
Hello! New here, been lurking for a while.
Even if the proposed mechanisms are different, the working equations are the same. There is a huge consensus on how gravity works at a basic level, and there has been for centuries. So comparing the theory of gravity to the mishmash of opinions on the depth of the flat earth is absurd.
And you don't happen to be willing to share your own opinion, it seems ;D
Ga_x2,
I find that the reluctance to answer questions often relates to an intense fear of being wrong or having to say "I don't know." You can see this in many settings like schools, healthcare facilities and even casual conversations at parties with friends. We all want to be right and there's nothing wrong with that, it just isn't possible for any normal person to be right 100% of the time. Being able to say that "I don't know for sure but here's my best guess," is very difficult for some. I work in a private practice and there are times where I have to try to explain complex neurological functions that researchers and healthcare providers simply don't fully understand today. I can't actually demonstrate that you perceive the color green the same way that I do, because we don't have the ability to experience the senses of others. I can point at a green item and state that it is green and you will likely agree because that particular refraction of light has been taught to us as green. However, if I were to be able to look directly through your eyes and brain, I might see what I would have otherwise labeled as red. This inability to look through someone else's eyes or feel through their skin makes philosophical debates that much harder. Our individual existence is filtered through the complex neurological collection and processing system of our consciousness and we take it at face value because we can't compare it to another's reality.
Tom,
I truly don't know enough about quantum mechanics to compare the two different hypotheses for inconsistencies. I can say that the mechanism for calculating terminal velocity of a falling object towards the earth has remained consistent and repeatable. While there may be two proposed underlying mechanisms to explain gravitational pull but the force of gravity on earth is not calculated two different ways. There aren't exactly wars being fought over the two different frameworks. While there may be unresolved ideas about the minute mechanics of it, there isn't a disagreement in the method of calculation, observation or application.
I would hope that flat earth scientists could come to at least some general consensus about how the earth functions. You ask many questions of those of us that believe the earth is round, make very stringent demands of what you will accept and won't accept as evidence to back up our statements. However, the flat earth community seems to disregard most questions, make unsupported declarations and turn to insulting others when they ask uncomfortable questions. When I joined this forum, I had hoped to find a place for open and polite debate, but so far have been disappointed by the atmosphere.
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Ga_x2 and Tom
On the subject of gravity: After some rather quick and dirty researching this weekend, it appears QM and Relativity actually jive in 99.9% of cases. The only two cases the two aren't able to hold hands and work properly together as of right now, is during the moments right after the Big Bang, and within the event horizon of a black hole. Everywhere else my research was showing there's no problem or argument between the two. That also is a level much deeper than we're looking at with the current discussion.
The wiki however still lists both UA, and the infinite plane idea with actual gravity. Plus of course both have the stars/sun/moon exhibiting a gravitational force upon the world, or at least parts of it. Infinite plane accepts and explains this (since standard gravity exists), UA doesn't that I've seen (beyond claiming they exhibit a special form of gravity that the Earth doesn't have for reasons).
-
Ga_x2 and Tom
On the subject of gravity: After some rather quick and dirty researching this weekend, it appears QM and Relativity actually jive in 99.9% of cases.[...]
Of course they do. People have been calculating where their cannonballs would land for centuries now. that's why it's ludicrous to compare these minutia with not knowing whether Australia and Canada are on the same frigging plane...
-
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?
Would be unknown, and varies by model.
However, on the infinite plane gravitational model, there is an estimate if we assume we know the average density of the plane.
The infinite plane all boils down to g = 2πGp,
where:
g- gravitational pull (9.81 m/s/s)
G- gravitational constant (6.754×10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2)
p- average density of Earth (5.51 g/cm³ by modern estimates)
If we accept this, it comes down to a 4,195 kilometer depth.
Given it also has depth we are looking at the case of m = (density * Area * depth). This gives us instead g = 2πG p d, where d is depth.
g = 9.81 m/s/s
G = 6.754×10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2
p = 5.51 g/cm³ , the average density of earth
Giving us d = g / (2πG p). This evaluates to around 4 195.43 kilometers deep, thus showing false my early hypothesis of 9000 km deep.
- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics
As for the other side, could be infinite space, which would be nothing worth getting excited about.
I don't hold to this model, but I like how it can give an estimate of the depth of Earth.
-
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?
Would be unknown, and varies by model.
However, on the infinite plane gravitational model, there is an estimate if we assume we know the average density of the plane.
The infinite plane all boils down to g = 2πGp,
where:
g- gravitational pull (9.81 m/s/s)
G- gravitational constant (6.754×10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2)
p- average density of Earth (5.51 g/cm³ by modern estimates)
If we accept this, it comes down to a 4,195 kilometer depth.
Given it also has depth we are looking at the case of m = (density * Area * depth). This gives us instead g = 2πG p d, where d is depth.
g = 9.81 m/s/s
G = 6.754×10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2
p = 5.51 g/cm³ , the average density of earth
Giving us d = g / (2πG p). This evaluates to around 4 195.43 kilometers deep, thus showing false my early hypothesis of 9000 km deep.
- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics
As for the other side, could be infinite space, which would be nothing worth getting excited about.
I don't hold to this model, but I like how it can give an estimate of the depth of Earth.
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 :P
-
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 :P
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.
This is the basics written out:
(https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/9314/6126/7140/math.png)
-
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 :P
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. ;D
-
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 :P
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. ;D
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.
-
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 :P
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. ;D
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? ;D
-
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 :P
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. ;D
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? ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
[...] 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? ;D
-
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.
-
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
-
Is this entire 'Flat Earth' thing a joke?! Are people serious about this?!
Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
-
To Tom Bishop
You said --- General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics propse two different mechanisms of Gravity..... :-B
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. :D
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. :P
-
To Tom Bishop
You said --- General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics propse two different mechanisms of Gravity..... :-B
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. :D
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. :P
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
-
[...] 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? ;D
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.
-
[...]
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.)
-
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:
(https://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/earth_grav/earth_grav_med.jpg)
...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!
-
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.