The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: some_engineer on March 27, 2019, 06:50:46 PM

Hey people, I'm wondering something when I went off and think about the interconnectedness of physics.
In the case that the earth is flat, the following must be true.
1. Gravity as a consequence of mass due to Einsteins theory can't be true because else the flat earth would collapse into a sphere. Thus Einstein's theory of relativity must be false.
2. If Relativity is false then the performed measurements on the effects of the curvature of space and time on light must be false as well.
3. If Relativity is false then there is no longer a good agreement on the interaction of electrostatic forces for moving observers due to lengthcontraction which means that maxwell's equations are wrong (moving observers looking at moving charges in a neutrally charged wire wouldn't experience any forces because there is not electrostatic force and the static magnetic field due to the flow of charges exerts no force on stationary charges which means that from the perspective of a moving charge moving at equal velocity as charges in a wire, there would be no attracting but repellant force. However, from a stationary observer the moving charge would experience lorentz forces in a stationary magnetic field caused by the moving charge in the wire which leads to contradictions. This problem is resolved by length contraction from the perspective of the moving observer but this isn't allowed since relativity was not true).
4. If maxwell doesn't work then all we know about the interaction between electric charges doesn't work and hence
5. All of chemistry is wrong
6. All of electrical engineering is wrong and thus
7. All modern day computers and electronics work only by accident and not because of the laws of physics
8. All of wireless communication which follows Maxwell's equations is wrong
9. The understanding of all atomic structures is wrong which are all based on the interaction of electric forces and quantum mechanics
10. Our understanding of mechanics is wrong
Basically everything we know about physics is wrong.
How does one get around this?

By recognising that #1 is incorrect reasoning. Gravity doesn’t mean that a plane will somehow crush itself into a ball. I mean, you own plates, right?

By recognising that #1 is incorrect reasoning. Gravity doesn’t mean that a plane will somehow crush itself into a ball. I mean, you own plates, right?
Yes, that's incorrect reasoning....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haumea
Debatable beast, particularly since it maintains a ring.
Furthermore, gravity does not necessarily work uniformly.

How does one get around this?
By not deliberately misunderstanding Flat Earth Theory and physics.

By recognising that #1 is incorrect reasoning. Gravity doesn’t mean that a plane will somehow crush itself into a ball. I mean, you own plates, right?
Yes, that's incorrect reasoning....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haumea
Debatable beast, particularly since it maintains a ring.
Furthermore, gravity does not necessarily work uniformly.
Okay thats just not how it works. An object the size of the proposed flatearth would definately collapse in on intself due to the proposed functioning of gravity as proposed by Einstein. That is what I was arguing. You can't say: gravity does not necessarily work uniformly. My argument was that IF it works according to Einsteins predictions, a flat earth would be compressed into a spherical ball (or close to a sphere) and since it doesn't either the earth isn't flat or Einsteins predictions is wrong. How am I going wrong here?

How does one get around this?
By not deliberately misunderstanding Flat Earth Theory and physics.
I'm not deliberately misunderstanding it. Lets keep it simple at the beginning.
1. If Einsteins theories of relativity is true, the gravitational attraction of matter would crush a flat earth into a sphere.
Do you disagree with that or not? If you don't then what is wrong with:
2. If the earth is flat, Einstein must be wrong.

By recognising that #1 is incorrect reasoning. Gravity doesn’t mean that a plane will somehow crush itself into a ball. I mean, you own plates, right?
Yes, that's incorrect reasoning....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haumea
Debatable beast, particularly since it maintains a ring.
Furthermore, gravity does not necessarily work uniformly.
Okay thats just not how it works. An object the size of the proposed flatearth would definately collapse in on intself due to the proposed functioning of gravity as proposed by Einstein. That is what I was arguing. You can't say: gravity does not necessarily work uniformly. My argument was that IF it works according to Einsteins predictions, a flat earth would be compressed into a spherical ball (or close to a sphere) and since it doesn't either the earth isn't flat or Einsteins predictions is wrong. How am I going wrong here?
You are wrong because Einstein never predicted this. General relativity does not predict the shapes of planets. I am a bit baffled that you think it does. Do you mean to say Newton?

By recognising that #1 is incorrect reasoning. Gravity doesn’t mean that a plane will somehow crush itself into a ball. I mean, you own plates, right?
Yes, that's incorrect reasoning....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haumea
Debatable beast, particularly since it maintains a ring.
Furthermore, gravity does not necessarily work uniformly.
Okay thats just not how it works. An object the size of the proposed flatearth would definately collapse in on intself due to the proposed functioning of gravity as proposed by Einstein. That is what I was arguing. You can't say: gravity does not necessarily work uniformly. My argument was that IF it works according to Einsteins predictions, a flat earth would be compressed into a spherical ball (or close to a sphere) and since it doesn't either the earth isn't flat or Einsteins predictions is wrong. How am I going wrong here?
You are wrong because Einstein never predicted this. General relativity does not predict the shapes of planets. I am a bit baffled that you think it does. Do you mean to say Newton?
No? The general theory of relativity predicts the curvature of spacetime via the Einstein Field equation which is a function of in part the metric tensor which in its term carries the effects of mass and energy inside space. Newtons law of gravity are a lowspeed almostflat approximation of General Relativity.

By recognising that #1 is incorrect reasoning. Gravity doesn’t mean that a plane will somehow crush itself into a ball. I mean, you own plates, right?
Yes, that's incorrect reasoning....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haumea
Debatable beast, particularly since it maintains a ring.
Furthermore, gravity does not necessarily work uniformly.
Okay thats just not how it works. An object the size of the proposed flatearth would definately collapse in on intself due to the proposed functioning of gravity as proposed by Einstein. That is what I was arguing. You can't say: gravity does not necessarily work uniformly. My argument was that IF it works according to Einsteins predictions, a flat earth would be compressed into a spherical ball (or close to a sphere) and since it doesn't either the earth isn't flat or Einsteins predictions is wrong. How am I going wrong here?
You are wrong because Einstein never predicted this. General relativity does not predict the shapes of planets. I am a bit baffled that you think it does. Do you mean to say Newton?
No? The general theory of relativity predicts the curvature of spacetime via the Einstein Field equation which is a function of in part the metric tensor which in its term carries the effects of mass and energy inside space. Newtons law of gravity are a lowspeed almostflat approximation of General Relativity.
No. The metric tensor tells you how distances are calculated. The stress energy tensor deals with energy.
Nowhere in the field equations does it say that a planet has to be spherical. That isn’t what the field equations do.

By recognising that #1 is incorrect reasoning. Gravity doesn’t mean that a plane will somehow crush itself into a ball. I mean, you own plates, right?
Come now you should know better, plates aren't as massive as planets and likely wouldn't collapse under their own weight.

By recognising that #1 is incorrect reasoning. Gravity doesn’t mean that a plane will somehow crush itself into a ball. I mean, you own plates, right?
Come now you should know better, plates aren't as massive as planets and likely wouldn't collapse under their own weight.
Interesting observation. Asteroids are bigger than plates, but also apparently not big enough to collapse under their own weight.
What is stopping them from doing so?
In fact, one of the criteria for being classified as a planet is that it must have sufficient mass to gravitationally form a sphere.
Would it do this if it wasn’t rotating?
Lastly, Einstein’s GR does not address this criteria, nor does it explain how a protoplanet does this. There is physics that does, of course, but not GR.

By recognising that #1 is incorrect reasoning. Gravity doesn’t mean that a plane will somehow crush itself into a ball. I mean, you own plates, right?
Yes, that's incorrect reasoning....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haumea
Debatable beast, particularly since it maintains a ring.
Furthermore, gravity does not necessarily work uniformly.
Okay thats just not how it works. An object the size of the proposed flatearth would definately collapse in on intself due to the proposed functioning of gravity as proposed by Einstein. That is what I was arguing. You can't say: gravity does not necessarily work uniformly. My argument was that IF it works according to Einsteins predictions, a flat earth would be compressed into a spherical ball (or close to a sphere) and since it doesn't either the earth isn't flat or Einsteins predictions is wrong. How am I going wrong here?
You are wrong because Einstein never predicted this. General relativity does not predict the shapes of planets. I am a bit baffled that you think it does. Do you mean to say Newton?
No? The general theory of relativity predicts the curvature of spacetime via the Einstein Field equation which is a function of in part the metric tensor which in its term carries the effects of mass and energy inside space. Newtons law of gravity are a lowspeed almostflat approximation of General Relativity.
No. The metric tensor tells you how distances are calculated. The stress energy tensor deals with energy.
Nowhere in the field equations does it say that a planet has to be spherical. That isn’t what the field equations do.
You are right I fucked up there.
But on the last part, sure it doesn't directly tell you that a planet HAS to be spherical but that is the result you get if large heavy objects get too heavy and collapse in on themselves under their own gravity. And maybe they won't collapse into a perfect sphere but they definately don't stay the shape of a disk unless you introduce some extra material that account for the forces that keep its shape which don't exist.

By recognising that #1 is incorrect reasoning. Gravity doesn’t mean that a plane will somehow crush itself into a ball. I mean, you own plates, right?
Come now you should know better, plates aren't as massive as planets and likely wouldn't collapse under their own weight.
Well first it depends on how deep they are but they definitely don't keep their shape as a disk. You'd have to reexplain a lot. Not only does the shape not make sense, the predicted direction of gravity on continents farther from the center would start to point sideways towards the middle the farther you go south. This is true UNLESS the plate is much bigger than the area that we walk on in which case it definitely IS too big to not deform.

By recognising that #1 is incorrect reasoning. Gravity doesn’t mean that a plane will somehow crush itself into a ball. I mean, you own plates, right?
Come now you should know better, plates aren't as massive as planets and likely wouldn't collapse under their own weight.
Interesting observation. Asteroids are bigger than plates, but also apparently not big enough to collapse under their own weight.
What is stopping them from doing so?
In fact, one of the criteria for being classified as a planet is that it must have sufficient mass to gravitationally form a sphere.
Would it do this if it wasn’t rotating?
Lastly, Einstein’s GR does not address this criteria, nor does it explain how a protoplanet does this. There is physics that does, of course, but not GR.
I think you are not understanding what I'm getting at. First of all, the bigger an object gets the 'rounder' it gets due to its own gravity. A plate earth would definitely be of sufficient size so as to NOT stay in the shape of a disk.
Astroids that aren't spherical aren't spherical because they are not heavy enough.
As I said in another post, no Einstein's GR doesn't directly tell you that planets form into spheres but its what happens if you use it. You can derive those conclusions from the equations. Or in other words, if you take the physics of structural mechanics and combine them with GR you can't get away from this prediction.
And even IF the plate had some extra magical material inside it so as to not form into a sphere, under its mass, gravity would tilt the further you go south on a flat disk which we absolutely don't experience so that would also suggest GR to be wrong.

I would love to see you begin with the field equations, incorporate structural mechanics, and derive the condition that planets must form spheres. That would impress me, and it would justify your claim!
In fact, I’d wager you could publish that feat.
And don’t spare the formalism, I can follow it.

I would love to see you begin with the field equations, incorporate structural mechanics, and derive the condition that planets must form spheres. That would impress me, and it would justify your claim!
In fact, I’d wager you could publish that feat.
And don’t spare the formalism, I can follow it.
If you could follow the formalism you would know what comes out. I don't think you'd be surprised to know that I can't. Not because I think its not true but mostly because I'm not trained in General Relativity. All I know is that its a generalization model of gravity that in a lot of cases linearizes well to Newtons laws of motion but of course if we simplify the math that way I'd suspect you'd argue that it doesn't count?
I mean there are sufficient sources that explain mathematical ways to derive the maximum height of objects: http://quarksandcoffee.com/index.php/2015/10/29/whyaresomemoonssphericalbutothersareshapedlikepotatoes/
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.1091.pdf
And even then I doubt an analytical path without linearization or approximation from the Einstein field equations is possible wouldn't you think>
So if you don't accept that part of the argument (the radius part), then lets go back to my other problem which is equally valid, namely the fact that further south gravity would act under an angle if the flat earth is of finite size. Or it would be infinitely large which I doubt you believe.

The potato radius is derived from Newtonian gravity, as both of your links demonstrate.
Here’s the point dude: you don’t have the training or knowledge to understand what the field equations say or do, so just don’t pretend otherwise. Because I’ll call you on it.
It’s important that both FEers and RErs alike discuss evidence correctly.
The field equations say nothing about the shapes of planets. Now, as you suggested, let’s move on. You wish to revise #1, so do that, and let’s see if we can trace a path through your numbered arguments that’s cogent.