Round earther with a few questions
« on: October 04, 2020, 11:31:13 AM »
I have a few questions in regards to the spherical or flat nature of the globe. I know that gravity is explained in the FAQ as the perpetual acceleration of the flat plane on the UA. Okay so let's say that gravity is not reasoned (on earth) to be G(m1m2/r²)=Fg which is the gravitational constant multiplied by the mass of one object and the mass of another both divided by the squared distance between eachother to equal the gravitational force. But what about the magnetic bond or atomic bonds?

If you were to take several of those dish shaped fridge magnets and connect them into a grid they seem to lay flat until one is disrupted, changing its magnetic orientation from parallel to the rest to being askew to its neighbor. Now it has a stronger attraction or repulsion to its neighbor which could potentially askew it, causing a chain reaction. Eventually the magnets will be jumbled up into a messy ball.

In my analogy above, the large disk magnets represent the rigid molecules of the land surfaces of the earth. The solid material of the earth is not spherical nor "flat, but very in even and not level. Now to continue with the analogy. The new lumpy ball isnt perfectly spherical. But if we use something like iron sand or iron dust the sphere would be a little more apparent. The sand/dust represents the water on the earth's surface.
Now obviously the earth isn't a single layer thick, so a disturbance would not be effective unless the trigger was something large like the massive meteor that has crashed into earth as some point in its history.

If this were the case do you think the earth would be able to "colapse" into a sphere.

Re: Round earther with a few questions
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2020, 11:58:30 AM »
The quick answer is that there is no consensus on the actual shape of a flat earth - whether it’s like a pizza, or a cylinder (where we live on one end), or the shell of a ginormous turtle or an upside-down cone or whatever. So your question presumes one possibility out of many. From a round earth perspective, you may be also overstating the strength of gravity.