[Vsauce]

How deep can we dig without falling out the other side? because we have dug more than a mile straight down so it has to be thicker than that.

[Havonii]

How deep can we dig without falling out the other side? because we have dug more than a mile straight down so it has to be thicker than that.

Well there are two theories: the one that's like a plate (the dimensions idk) and the one were they say it's an infinite plain.
I'm no flat earther, but I do like the Idea of Infinite plain. (for reasons related to quantum physics)

[Vsauce]

How deep can we dig without falling out the other side? because we have dug more than a mile straight down so it has to be thicker than that.

Well there are two theories: the one that's like a plate (the dimensions idk) and the one were they say it's an infinite plain.
I'm no flat earther, but I do like the Idea of Infinite plain. (for reasons related to quantum physics)

But infinity is a paradox (at least to our feeble minds it is) and isn't an infinite plane that repeats itself is called a... oh I don't know, a GLOBE!

[Curious Squirrel]

How deep can we dig without falling out the other side? because we have dug more than a mile straight down so it has to be thicker than that.

Well there are two theories: the one that's like a plate (the dimensions idk) and the one were they say it's an infinite plain.
I'm no flat earther, but I do like the Idea of Infinite plain. (for reasons related to quantum physics)

But infinity is a paradox (at least to our feeble minds it is) and isn't an infinite plane that repeats itself is called a... oh I don't know, a GLOBE!

Repeats itself? Where do you get that idea? The infinite plane idea posits that we're essentially a lone dot on a giant field of finite depth and essentially infinite size. Which allows them to use 'traditional' gravity and still have it pull in the correct direction.

[Havonii]

How deep can we dig without falling out the other side? because we have dug more than a mile straight down so it has to be thicker than that.

Well there are two theories: the one that's like a plate (the dimensions idk) and the one were they say it's an infinite plain.
I'm no flat earther, but I do like the Idea of Infinite plain. (for reasons related to quantum physics)

But infinity is a paradox (at least to our feeble minds it is) and isn't an infinite plane that repeats itself is called a... oh I don't know, a GLOBE!

Everything is a wave. You and I and atoms are waves. But the waviness governs only generally at tiny subatomic levels.


Exactly, all matter, inhibits wave-like attributes. On quantum levels (extremely small and precise) these attributes are significantly more noticeable.

Each molecule in existence vibrates in specific patterns.

It's as if the universe has a favorite song and is beating to its rhythm.

And as this wave theory stands, without observation, each atom takes the form of probability waves, becoming distributed or 'smeared' across what theoretically could be an infinite distance.

Is it possible that FE could be taking this theory and placing it into another perspective of our reality?     

Saying that, until observed, our reality is infinite, that our Earth is distributed infinitely across the fabric of space?

That's from another forum ^^

[Vsauce]

How deep can we dig without falling out the other side? because we have dug more than a mile straight down so it has to be thicker than that.

Well there are two theories: the one that's like a plate (the dimensions idk) and the one were they say it's an infinite plain.
I'm no flat earther, but I do like the Idea of Infinite plain. (for reasons related to quantum physics)

But infinity is a paradox (at least to our feeble minds it is) and isn't an infinite plane that repeats itself is called a... oh I don't know, a GLOBE!

Repeats itself? Where do you get that idea? The infinite plane idea posits that we're essentially a lone dot on a giant field of finite depth and essentially infinite size. Which allows them to use 'traditional' gravity and still have it pull in the correct direction.

I get the idea of repeating itself because if you go south for a given number of miles you will end up where you started, the only way this could be possible for a flat earth is for it to repeat itself. I heard that many flat earth theorists believe that after the ice wall there is more earth that the government doesn't want us to see if this were true what would their motives be for doing this.

[Curious Squirrel]

How deep can we dig without falling out the other side? because we have dug more than a mile straight down so it has to be thicker than that.

Well there are two theories: the one that's like a plate (the dimensions idk) and the one were they say it's an infinite plain.
I'm no flat earther, but I do like the Idea of Infinite plain. (for reasons related to quantum physics)

But infinity is a paradox (at least to our feeble minds it is) and isn't an infinite plane that repeats itself is called a... oh I don't know, a GLOBE!

Repeats itself? Where do you get that idea? The infinite plane idea posits that we're essentially a lone dot on a giant field of finite depth and essentially infinite size. Which allows them to use 'traditional' gravity and still have it pull in the correct direction.

I get the idea of repeating itself because if you go south for a given number of miles you will end up where you started, the only way this could be possible for a flat earth is for it to repeat itself. I heard that many flat earth theorists believe that after the ice wall there is more earth that the government doesn't want us to see if this were true what would their motives be for doing this.

Ah, the 'going south and get back to where you start' is handled a number of different ways, depending on the model and the hypothesis being presented. Some posit that (since circumnavigation is done by instrumentation) people just don't notice going around to the other side. Or those who claim to have done pole to pole circumnavigation are lying. There are some positing a repeating map of some kind, but they are few and far between. The 'most likely' candidate for managing this is probably the non-Euclidean FE, which (to oversimplify it) is basically that instead of the Earth being curved, space/time is curved in such a way as to make the Earth *appear* curved. Interestingly enough this idea also appears to allow for space travel in some manner, or at least satellites. I'll admit most of the threads I've seen on this tend to move into discussions of the complex end of relativity and I have a hard time keeping up.

[Vsauce]

How deep can we dig without falling out the other side? because we have dug more than a mile straight down so it has to be thicker than that.

Well there are two theories: the one that's like a plate (the dimensions idk) and the one were they say it's an infinite plain.
I'm no flat earther, but I do like the Idea of Infinite plain. (for reasons related to quantum physics)

But infinity is a paradox (at least to our feeble minds it is) and isn't an infinite plane that repeats itself is called a... oh I don't know, a GLOBE!

Repeats itself? Where do you get that idea? The infinite plane idea posits that we're essentially a lone dot on a giant field of finite depth and essentially infinite size. Which allows them to use 'traditional' gravity and still have it pull in the correct direction.

I get the idea of repeating itself because if you go south for a given number of miles you will end up where you started, the only way this could be possible for a flat earth is for it to repeat itself. I heard that many flat earth theorists believe that after the ice wall there is more earth that the government doesn't want us to see if this were true what would their motives be for doing this.

Ah, the 'going south and get back to where you start' is handled a number of different ways, depending on the model and the hypothesis being presented. Some posit that (since circumnavigation is done by instrumentation) people just don't notice going around to the other side. Or those who claim to have done pole to pole circumnavigation are lying. There are some positing a repeating map of some kind, but they are few and far between. The 'most likely' candidate for managing this is probably the non-Euclidean FE, which (to oversimplify it) is basically that instead of the Earth being curved, space/time is curved in such a way as to make the Earth *appear* curved. Interestingly enough this idea also appears to allow for space travel in some manner, or at least satellites. I'll admit most of the threads I've seen on this tend to move into discussions of the complex end of relativity and I have a hard time keeping up.

I see what you are saying and it makes sense if you know little about spacetime. the very concept of a flat earth is downright preposterous. Flight times closer to the north pole would be shorter and the flight times between Australia and Africa would be significantly longer the actual size of land masses is dilated to be smaller than how big it actually is. this website shows how big the countries actually are-  https://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTc1OTc4MjA.MTIxNDU1NzI   - I hope this will enlighten you and if your still convinced feel free to look up inertia.

[Curious Squirrel]

How deep can we dig without falling out the other side? because we have dug more than a mile straight down so it has to be thicker than that.

Well there are two theories: the one that's like a plate (the dimensions idk) and the one were they say it's an infinite plain.
I'm no flat earther, but I do like the Idea of Infinite plain. (for reasons related to quantum physics)

But infinity is a paradox (at least to our feeble minds it is) and isn't an infinite plane that repeats itself is called a... oh I don't know, a GLOBE!

Repeats itself? Where do you get that idea? The infinite plane idea posits that we're essentially a lone dot on a giant field of finite depth and essentially infinite size. Which allows them to use 'traditional' gravity and still have it pull in the correct direction.

I get the idea of repeating itself because if you go south for a given number of miles you will end up where you started, the only way this could be possible for a flat earth is for it to repeat itself. I heard that many flat earth theorists believe that after the ice wall there is more earth that the government doesn't want us to see if this were true what would their motives be for doing this.

Ah, the 'going south and get back to where you start' is handled a number of different ways, depending on the model and the hypothesis being presented. Some posit that (since circumnavigation is done by instrumentation) people just don't notice going around to the other side. Or those who claim to have done pole to pole circumnavigation are lying. There are some positing a repeating map of some kind, but they are few and far between. The 'most likely' candidate for managing this is probably the non-Euclidean FE, which (to oversimplify it) is basically that instead of the Earth being curved, space/time is curved in such a way as to make the Earth *appear* curved. Interestingly enough this idea also appears to allow for space travel in some manner, or at least satellites. I'll admit most of the threads I've seen on this tend to move into discussions of the complex end of relativity and I have a hard time keeping up.

I see what you are saying and it makes sense if you know little about spacetime. the very concept of a flat earth is downright preposterous. Flight times closer to the north pole would be shorter and the flight times between Australia and Africa would be significantly longer the actual size of land masses is dilated to be smaller than how big it actually is. this website shows how big the countries actually are-  https://thetruesize.com/#?borders=1~!MTc1OTc4MjA.MTIxNDU1NzI   - I hope this will enlighten you and if your still convinced feel free to look up inertia.

Not sure what inertia has to do with this to be honest. I DO hope you aren't thinking I'm a flerfer, just do my best to answer here in Q&A to help out. I've tried to learn as much as I can as I do find the idea fascinating, but more in a 'what if' sort of way. Superficially I understand the non-Euclidean 'works' at what it proposes. From what I've gathered most objections to it stem from the matter of the Earth not having enough mass to bend spacetime in the way required to make a flat plane appear round. Although I believe this one also goes with thinking about a map more in line with the South Pole azimuthal map (thus making more land and thus mass in the North) so that the bending of spacetime creates the shorter measured distances in the North that an azimuthal map normally couldn't have. Again, this one I'm less familiar with simply because the discussions tend to move into high level mathematical concepts and principals, that I just don't have the knowledge of math or physics to parse fully.