Offline skip

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
depth of Earth
« 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?

Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2017, 12:42:45 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?
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.

*

Offline Tau

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 911
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2017, 04:27:15 AM »
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).
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 03:45:11 PM by Tausami »
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2017, 07:00:06 PM »
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
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2017, 07:03:42 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7363
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2017, 10:12:59 PM »
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?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2017, 11:46:57 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7363
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2017, 01:50:50 AM »
Quote from: Curious Squirrel
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?
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 01:53:08 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

geckothegeek

Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2017, 02:01:26 AM »
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 !

Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2017, 03:00:40 AM »
Quote from: Curious Squirrel
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?

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2017, 10:18:12 AM »
Quote from: Curious Squirrel
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

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2017, 01:20:39 PM »
Quote from: Curious Squirrel
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
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2017, 01:33:45 PM »
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).

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2017, 03:58:19 PM »
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...

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2017, 09:18:48 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?
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.

Quote
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.
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2017, 11:27:03 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?
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.

Quote
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

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2017, 04:23:29 AM »
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:
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2017, 05:55:03 AM »
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

*

Offline AstralSentient

  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Planarist
    • View Profile
Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2017, 07:40:22 AM »
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.
Proud advocate of the Relativity Non-Euclidean plane

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7191.0

Offline Ga_x2

  • *
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: depth of Earth
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2017, 08:19:39 AM »
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