[WendyDomino]

Hello I am almost afraid to ask any questions. I joined another flat earth forum and asked this question as my first post and was immediately banned. I want to write a story with the flat earth model in it and portray it fairly and accurately as much as possible. I am on the fence about whether it's true in the real world or not to be honest, but I am open minded and willing to learn about it.

Please don't instaban me.

Anyway here is my question.

If in the flat earth model, there is no gravity, how do you account for the directional nature of up and down?

If things sink because they are denser than the medium around them or rise because they are less dense, what determines the directionality of the sinking and rising without gravity? What makes up "up" and why is down in the direction of the earth?

In the globe model, this is accounted for by gravity, but in the flat earth model, what causes up and down to be what they are?

I am looking forward to a better and deeper understanding of the flat earth model. I'm not here to debate, merely to understand. Thank you.

[Disgraced_Shield]

Hello I am almost afraid to ask any questions. I joined another flat earth forum and asked this question as my first post and was immediately banned. I want to write a story with the flat earth model in it and portray it fairly and accurately as much as possible. I am on the fence about whether it's true in the real world or not to be honest, but I am open minded and willing to learn about it.

Please don't instaban me.

Anyway here is my question.

If in the flat earth model, there is no gravity, how do you account for the directional nature of up and down?

If things sink because they are denser than the medium around them or rise because they are less dense, what determines the directionality of the sinking and rising without gravity? What makes up "up" and why is down in the direction of the earth?

In the globe model, this is accounted for by gravity, but in the flat earth model, what causes up and down to be what they are?

I am looking forward to a better and deeper understanding of the flat earth model. I'm not here to debate, merely to understand. Thank you.

You won't get insta-banned. Not here. Hell, they let ME stay, and I'm a round-earther who jousts with these guys on a daily basis

The concept of gravity is widely debated here. Some assert there is a universal acceleration model of the flat-earth theory, that the earth-disc is RISING through space at an accelerating rate, which could account for the illusion of gravity.

Others will assert that gravity does exist, but isn't as an exact science or theory as we have been led to believe.

The point of my post is two-fold. One as a welcome, the other as a warning that the answer you seek might be more complicated than you're bargaining for.

I highly encourage you to look around this forum and get an idea of what 'flat-earth' theory entails. The reality of the situation is that there are a lot of 'unknowns' and varying theories out there. There isn't anything concrete.

Good luck!

[WendyDomino]

Hello I am almost afraid to ask any questions. I joined another flat earth forum and asked this question as my first post and was immediately banned. I want to write a story with the flat earth model in it and portray it fairly and accurately as much as possible. I am on the fence about whether it's true in the real world or not to be honest, but I am open minded and willing to learn about it.

Please don't instaban me.

Anyway here is my question.

If in the flat earth model, there is no gravity, how do you account for the directional nature of up and down?

If things sink because they are denser than the medium around them or rise because they are less dense, what determines the directionality of the sinking and rising without gravity? What makes up "up" and why is down in the direction of the earth?

In the globe model, this is accounted for by gravity, but in the flat earth model, what causes up and down to be what they are?

I am looking forward to a better and deeper understanding of the flat earth model. I'm not here to debate, merely to understand. Thank you.

You won't get insta-banned. Not here. Hell, they let ME stay, and I'm a round-earther who jousts with these guys on a daily basis

The concept of gravity is widely debated here. Some assert there is a universal acceleration model of the flat-earth theory, that the earth-disc is RISING through space at an accelerating rate, which could account for the illusion of gravity.

Others will assert that gravity does exist, but isn't as an exact science or theory as we have been led to believe.

The point of my post is two-fold. One as a welcome, the other as a warning that the answer you seek might be more complicated than you're bargaining for.

I highly encourage you to look around this forum and get an idea of what 'flat-earth' theory entails. The reality of the situation is that there are a lot of 'unknowns' and varying theories out there. There isn't anything concrete.

Good luck!

Thanks for the reply. I've gotten the impression that there are many different flat earth models, and some of them are more robust than others.

I have always been a big fan of mainstream science but I feel like it's important to at least entertain the possibility that the standard model might not be correct.

I still like the globe model better on an emotional level if only because I like the idea of a big beautiful universe full of stars and planets and galaxies, etc. a lot better than a relatively tiny universe with only one world.

However, I want to understand on a human level where the flat earthers are coming from and also understand various aspects of flat earth theory much better than I do now.

I don't want to unfairly represent it if I talk about the topic whether I agree or disagree.

[Disgraced_Shield]

What I would do if I were you, is to avoid writing about the Universal Acceleration model. It'd be EASIER to write about, because there's a lot of "We really don't know about X, Y, and Z" and you could take a lot of creative liberties, but it's really so watery a theory that it's nearly laughable, and your writing would have to do a LOT of explanation which could dry up the story you're trying to tell- depending on the overall nature of it. From a literary stance, if you're writing about something with a flat-earth as a backdrop, I'd avoid UA. It'll be too much of a detractor from the body of your work, and there are too many 'unknowns' to dance around...unless of course the flat-earth is a central point to your story, then go ahead and take a swing at it.

You'll also find that there are variances in opinion regarding what's on the 'edge' of the earth-disc. Here again, nobody seems to know for sure. "Nobody's ever been there." "Nobody's ever survived a trip there" "NASA is guarding it." "There is no ice wall, but we don't know what IS there."

You've got some work ahead of you in terms of picking what model you care to go with. Start reading some of the threads. Check out the FAQ they've got posted here, and ask specific questions.

Good luck- and I'd love to see what you're working on when you have some of it fleshed out. 

[WendyDomino]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'm working on a MY Little Pony fan fiction in which the main character (who ascended to a leadership role a couple of seasons ago) is being let in on the secret of their world being flat. A flat earth model makes a lot more sense than a globe model within the context of that fictional universe, but the show has globes in it, including one in a stained glass window next to the throne that's shown in the opening sequence.

This creates an interesting contradiction.

I think the show developers meant the window as a symbolic representation of the royal's power over their world, which makes it interesting. There's a surprising amount of depth between the lines of that show which is fun to explore with different writings. The G rating of the show keeps some canon storylines from going too deep of course but they're basically human equivalents.

The main character is now considered one of the four ruling elite whereas before she was simply a student of one of the others. As such, in my story, she's going to be let in on the secret that all of Coltpernicus' ideas were complete nonsense.

I'm having a good time writing it but even if it's just fan fiction I still want to portray flat earth in a respectful way. It might help some of my readers think outside the box a little bit even if it's not something they would seriously entertain for the real world.

I want to put as many credible sounding flat earth arguments into the story as I can without making it too dry.

I don't like the idea of universal acceleration because to be a little blunt about it, that sounds stupid to me.

I think that if the flat earth model is correct, then I would go with a motionless earth. The main problem with gravity is that if it's true as science now understands it, it would crush anything the size of the earth into a ball. So a flat earth has to either have no gravity (but something to account for the directionality of the sinking/rising) or a gravity with different properties than is currently understood.

[sandokhan]

Many FE models have been proposed; however, only one of them actually works.

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1948.msg45022#msg45022 (two pages)

[Disgraced_Shield]

Many FE models have been proposed; however, only one of them actually works.

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1948.msg45022#msg45022 (two pages)

I was hoping you'd show up- if anyone could give OP something to work with, it's you.

Even if I don't agree with what you're saying, you can provide enough substantive material that they can get to work.