Plate Tectonics?

Assuming something can create the convention currents, plate tectonic would work ok on a FE towards he centre of the earth.  However, towards the edge/ice wall we run into problems - what happens when plates are pushed out that way, or pulled in from the edge?

That, and the point that these plate boundaries are pretty well mapped.  Seismic data from plate boundaries can be used to map the boundaries out, and these fit with RE observed topography.

Plus, using seismic stations (and therefore plate tectonics) to guess where earthquakes will happen, and locating the foci/epicentre after they have occurred.

I'd be interested to see a FE explanation for this lot. 

Obama Llama, what makes you think they WOULDN'T work on a FE?

Because it requires plates to touch at and around the south pole, and react as such. If anyone tried to map them on an FE map, the problem would be immediately obvious. Again, I've got plenty of RE plate tectonics maps- you'll need to show me an FE one to prove it can work in FE, otherwise you're just spewing bullshit. "It could work!" No, it really, really couldn't. Prove it to me.

When I get home, I'll see what I can do for you.

Okay buddy?

EDIT: Actually, from a quick glance at a few tectonic plate maps, I should have little problem putting something together for you later tonight.

Wouldn't there be a subduction zone around the perimeter of Antarctica?  And lava spewing out of the North Pole?  When you make pasta in a pot, the pasta surges up at the center and goes down at the perimeter.  FE plate tectonics would work something like that, wouldn't they?

Wouldn't there be a subduction zone around the perimeter of Antarctica?  And lava spewing out of the North Pole?  When you make pasta in a pot, the pasta surges up at the center and goes down at the perimeter.  FE plate tectonics would work something like that, wouldn't they?

That assumes one big convective cell.  In (a FE) reality, an area the size of earth would have loads of convective cells, and maybe even layers of them.  Even in RE, we have convective cells in the lower mantle "feeding" those in the upper mantle, which drive our tectonics.*
As far as that goes, the problem lies with the point that FE'ers don't seen to have the slightest clue what is going on inside a FE.

EDIT
*This is hypothesised, not proven in any way, shape or form, before anyone picks up on that.  It would make sense, what with varying density, pressure, and the combination of depleted/enriched mantle.

Oops, forgot about this. Give me a minute to open up photoshop...

Based loosely on:


The plates would be moving around inside the antarctic plate instead of around it. I didn't feel like doing all the lines or adding in the arrows, but it should be visible to you how it could work.

So, Australia is shaped like a hot dog? Africa is 3x bigger than North America?

Yeah, there are some pretty obvious flaws with that map.

I didn't make the map and no-one says it's to scale.

Way to ignore that plate tectonics would work, though.

They don't. The only way to make it look like they work is to fundamentally change the shape of the map.

By the way, a map that's not to scale... isn't a map.

It's for visualization purposes.

Don't ask me, I didn't make it.

I know you didn't. Nobody did. Nobody CAN, because an accurate mapping of a flat earth is impossible. You have to deform the continents/plates to make it fit. The maps we use to examine the movements of the tectonic plates assume a round earth because otherwise the motions wouldn't make sense. Other very basic things like the shape of continents also stop making sense.

But tectonic plates on a FE would work, just it'd be tricky to have them as observed.

The point is - there is no point arguing with you about tectonics, because you are arguing Flat Earth itself... which is not what this was about. If you are not going to get over yourself and simply argue the ideas about how tectonics work, layering, pressures, etc. then your arguments are useless on this subject.

It bouls down to the fact that tectonics would work in really any scenario. Otherwise that is like saying Titan can't have tectonics, because it isn't Earth. If you have land masses, molten / hot layers, pressure and steam, oils, mineral deposits, varied strata, etc. then you will end up with motion at the surface of some kind. And, IN THEORY, it would be no problem for the Flat Earth to have land masses and 'plates' that would allow for the same kind of drifting as on a Round Earth.

Tectonics is simply just not a good argument.

End of story.

Take care,
- Optimus

But tectonic plates on a FE would work, just it'd be tricky to have them as observed.

And I suppose you don't consider this a problem for FE.

I live on a RE, I don't find it a problem at all.

Quote from: sry4mnknd on December 16, 2009, 04:28:42 PM

how does FE explain plate tectonics?

It doesn't have a proper explanation. Some sectors of the flat community try to get round it by saying plate tectonics is a myth and evidence for it is due to things like dinosaurs building boats and migrating to different countries with livestock. I'm not kidding.

You don't know what you're talking about - "some sectors"? What serious Flat Earther does not believe this theory? I can't think of a single zetetic scholar who's ever expressed dissent to it, and I can think of many who have vocally supported it. Typical of a globularist to misrepresent the theories of FE.

Anyway, all available evidence suggests that the continents were never compacted into a giant blob.

@ Joeval:  I figure that if there was an immovable Ice Wall, then when a plate pushes against it it's going to be the same as when two plates collide.

@ Optimus:  Saying "plate tectonics won't work on FE" is a bad argument, because--as you've been saying--there could be plate tectonics on FE.  But, we know how plate tectonics works on Earth and the movements of the plates, whose boundaries have been mapped out, only makes sense on a round Earth. 

When someone says "plate tectonics won't work," I believe they are making latter argument--that the observed system of plate tectonics wouldn't be possible on an FE.  You're referring to the general idea of "the movement of plates of crust material due to convection currents," which is what "plate tectonics" means.  So, I think the huff and puff going on in here is a misunderstanding.


Also note:  The "FE Map" is an azimuthal projection (I believe) of the Earth from the North Pole.  A line from the north pole (or crossing it) to any other point on that map will be to scale with a similar line.  So, if two lines are drawn in this manner, then the longer one will be a greater distance.  Otherwise it is only useful as a demonstration of the general layout of the FE.  Also, it was grabbed straight off of Wikipedia.

You don't know what you're talking about - "some sectors"? What serious Flat Earther does not believe this theory?

All the ones who didn't sign up to support your theory in the "who supports James's dinosaur theory?" thread.
If I had put "all flat earthers think this" I'd have got somebody saying that they didn't. Therefore its safer to put "some" flat earthers believe it.
I imagine there are quite a few people in this forum who are prepared to believe the earth is flat but stop short of believing your addle-pated ideas - and that includes the sun and moon being flat metal discs covered with glowing critters which migrate back and forth.

@ Joeval:  I figure that if there was an immovable Ice Wall, then when a plate pushes against it it's going to be the same as when two plates collide.

That's fair, assuming there is rock beneath the ice wall.  Regardless of density, the ice will come off worse against 7+km of solid rock.  Ice acts as a fluid over geological timescales, so although the ice may move over the top of the plate, there is not enough force to cause "true" subduction as we see in tectonics, or any orogenic effects.  It's just not strong enough.

Other than that, what would happen if a plate was to move away from the ice wall?  I'd guess the ice would follow it and grow out to fill the void, of the mantle would well up and create new crust (which may cause problems for the ice wall - melting?)


I do agree with your point that FE plate tectonics would work, assuming the mantle holds convective currents, but the way they're mapped out wouldn't.

Anyway, nice response Ejak, always good to see polite and well written posts.  They're often few and far between on these forums.

@ Joeval:  I figure that if there was an immovable Ice Wall, then when a plate pushes against it it's going to be the same as when two plates collide.

@ Optimus:  Saying "plate tectonics won't work on FE" is a bad argument, because--as you've been saying--there could be plate tectonics on FE.  But, we know how plate tectonics works on Earth and the movements of the plates, whose boundaries have been mapped out, only makes sense on a round Earth. 

When someone says "plate tectonics won't work," I believe they are making latter argument--that the observed system of plate tectonics wouldn't be possible on an FE.  You're referring to the general idea of "the movement of plates of crust material due to convection currents," which is what "plate tectonics" means.  So, I think the huff and puff going on in here is a misunderstanding.


Also note:  The "FE Map" is an azimuthal projection (I believe) of the Earth from the North Pole.  A line from the north pole (or crossing it) to any other point on that map will be to scale with a similar line.  So, if two lines are drawn in this manner, then the longer one will be a greater distance.  Otherwise it is only useful as a demonstration of the general layout of the FE.  Also, it was grabbed straight off of Wikipedia.

Hey Ejak,

I agree with you up to a point, but I don't believe I am misunderstanding anyone. My point is... that if tectonics are possible on the FE, which I believe we have established here... then how is it possible to dismiss the 'known movements' of the continents, etc. ?

What I am saying is, that most FEers agree that although there is a good idea of what the flat earth map should be, there is nothing set in stone. Therefore, I do not see how - at least with perhaps a mild possibility of Antartica, which there is not much movement these days and could still be viewed as one of if not the southern plate - we can just arbitrarily say 'no, it is not possible for tectonics to be laid out, and shift / move the same way as on a round earth'.

Saying this presumes we all know exactly how tectonics work on a grand scale, also without any references or proofs in this regard.

So again I propose that although it may not seem likely, I do think that give the right configuration of a flat earth map, plate layouts, pressure systems, etc. that it could very well mimic the round earth models movements.

That's all I was attempting to point out, and am happy to receive any proofs or references otherwise. I'm not attempting to derail anyone here - just debate the topic at hand. Not quite sure why I am being misinterpreted here?

Take care,
- Optimus

Quote from: Ejak2021 on December 20, 2009, 10:58:24 AM

@ Joeval:  I figure that if there was an immovable Ice Wall, then when a plate pushes against it it's going to be the same as when two plates collide.

@ Optimus:  Saying "plate tectonics won't work on FE" is a bad argument, because--as you've been saying--there could be plate tectonics on FE.  But, we know how plate tectonics works on Earth and the movements of the plates, whose boundaries have been mapped out, only makes sense on a round Earth.  

When someone says "plate tectonics won't work," I believe they are making latter argument--that the observed system of plate tectonics wouldn't be possible on an FE.  You're referring to the general idea of "the movement of plates of crust material due to convection currents," which is what "plate tectonics" means.  So, I think the huff and puff going on in here is a misunderstanding.


Also note:  The "FE Map" is an azimuthal projection (I believe) of the Earth from the North Pole.  A line from the north pole (or crossing it) to any other point on that map will be to scale with a similar line.  So, if two lines are drawn in this manner, then the longer one will be a greater distance.  Otherwise it is only useful as a demonstration of the general layout of the FE.  Also, it was grabbed straight off of Wikipedia.

Hey Ejak,

I agree with you up to a point, but I don't believe I am misunderstanding anyone. My point is... that if tectonics are possible on the FE, which I believe we have established here... then how is it possible to dismiss the 'known movements' of the continents, etc. ?

What I am saying is, that most FEers agree that although there is a good idea of what the flat earth map should be, there is nothing set in stone. Therefore, I do not see how - at least with perhaps a mild possibility of Antartica, which there is not much movement these days and could still be viewed as one of if not the southern plate - we can just arbitrarily say 'no, it is not possible for tectonics to be laid out, and shift / move the same way as on a round earth'.

Saying this presumes we all know exactly how tectonics work on a grand scale, also without any references or proofs in this regard.

So again I propose that although it may not seem likely, I do think that give the right configuration of a flat earth map, plate layouts, pressure systems, etc. that it could very well mimic the round earth models movements.

That's all I was attempting to point out, and am happy to receive any proofs or references otherwise. I'm not attempting to derail anyone here - just debate the topic at hand. Not quite sure why I am being misinterpreted here?

Take care,
- Optimus

You can't map out a sphere on a flat surface, and thus you can never, ever map out plate tectonics in relation to a flat earth. I don't have to prove that, because I'm not making a positive assertion. The flat earthers are going to need to show us they know how their own model is shaped, because the maps they have are hilariously inadequate. There is no flat earth map, and thus no flat earth mapping of the movements of plates.

Also- the Antarctic plate would have to be a giant ring. It does not act like a giant ring.

I guess there is no way for me to illustrate my point without some sort of animation. I can attempt some sort of flash I guess, but I don't really think it is worth the effort since you don't appear to want to think about this from a different perspective.

I'll try this explanation and if it is not good enough then I will just leave it be...

Flat plane - shapes (continents) - *different* movements than what you are proposing - get it? you are going off of information that is theoretical as it stands anyway as tectonics are not absolute - now apply rotations, and upward / downward drift, not just drifting away from one another, and I think you would end up with continents equidistant from one another.

Yes, Antarctica is a puzzler, but you would in fact still have the same possibilities as above, and need to completely disprove that rotation, "upward" and "sideways" drift could not account for distance and position of continents.

Does it prove FE? No.. Can it prove RE? No.. It is a *theory* not an exact science no matter which model you choose. That is my whole point. It simply is not possible to use a theoretical science which has no real solid base at this time to prove any model from... you see?

Does that make any more sense now? I am not dissing your reasoning - but I think you are losing the concept of what I'm trying to provide you by your intense desire to prove the RE side of the debate.

Take care,
- Optimus

Let me put it this way. We only know about plate tectonics from observing the phenomenon in motion and coming up with reasons why. Thus, our map of the plates is based on EVIDENCE. If you're going to say that there might be A plate tectonics system in a flat earth, you're still saying that plate tectonics AS WE KNOW IT is false. Changing the map is making up a new plate tectonics system which is NOT founded on evidence. The REAL plate tectonics system can not be applied to a flat earth.

Does THAT make sense?

Let me put it this way. We only know about plate tectonics from observing the phenomenon in motion and coming up with reasons why. Thus, our map of the plates is based on EVIDENCE. If you're going to say that there might be A plate tectonics system in a flat earth, you're still saying that plate tectonics AS WE KNOW IT is false. Changing the map is making up a new plate tectonics system which is NOT founded on evidence. The REAL plate tectonics system can not be applied to a flat earth.

Does THAT make sense?

As I said I'll just leave it here. You are still basing tectonics as observable fact or current 'plate maps' as 'evidence' - when it is still under heavy debate in current circles already. You are still choosing what is 'REAL' and 'FAKE'. I am saying that a tectonic system under either a Flat Earth OR a Round Earth is plausible. It is up to the geologists to someday come to a conclusion or agree on what the actual mechanisms and maps are. Maybe then we could really sit down and discuss it further eh?

You've not looked or you would see that there are more than one proposal for what the plate maps look like on the RE model even these days... so - where are we going here? Nowhere. That's my last post on this.

I'm not saying you are nuts or something, I see your logic, but I am not going to simply concede on the subject since you are refusing to look at both sides of your own 'real evidence'. Feel free to claim whatever wins or pwns you like. I'm simply tired of this.

Take care, and I'll see you on another topic.
- Optimus

...the ice will come off worse against 7+km of solid rock.

Now that is a very good point and one I can't believe I didn't think about.  So, even if plate tectonics happened like it would on an FE, it still qouldn't work because the Ice Wall would be eventually destroyed.

I do agree with your point that FE plate tectonics would work, assuming the mantle holds convective currents, but the way they're mapped out wouldn't.

Anyway, nice response Ejak, always good to see polite and well written posts.  They're often few and far between on these forums.

You rage, you lose.  The point of this site is to get a rise out of anyone expecting an easy win.  This site is a great place to get yourself thinking about things you've never really thought about before, and it's good for a few laughs too.  Oh, and thank you!

@Optimus:  Okay, I did not understand that you were proposing that.  Well, there is one very obvious obstacle to FE tectonics being the same as they are in RE:  Pangea.  If you trace back the movements of the plates, you get this one giant landmass.  Antarctica was a part of Pangea, but FE requires the Ice Wall (Antarctica) hold in the oceans.  These two things are exclusive, only one can be true.

Excuse me, have you seen Pangea? Also, how can we trace back thing we don't properly understand?

And what stop Antarctica from being there all along, even when/if Pangea was there?

Excuse me, have you seen Pangea? Also, how can we trace back thing we don't properly understand?

And what stop Antarctica from being there all along, even when/if Pangea was there?

No, I haven't, because it hasn't existed for 250 million years.  If you take areas where plates are separating and move them back together, and do the opposite with areas where plates are meeting, you get one big landmass.  The continents even fit together!  Also, there exists fossil evidence that the continents were once joined--the fossilized remnants of the same types of animals on two separate continents.  An ocean crossing would be impossible for for these creatures. (No Dinosaur-Pirates)

Also, I thought the mechanisms of plate tectonics were well-understood, at least at a basic level.  Regardless, the plates--and where they are converging, separating, or sliding past one another--have been mapped out.  That information alone is enough to conclude that there used to be a super-continent.  And Pangaea wasn't the first, nor will it be the last super-continent;  the formation and break-up of super-continents is cyclic.

And I mapped out a FE equivalent.

Can you show me some of these land masses fitting together perfectly?

Did you draw the vectors showing the movements of the plates on there, too?

Here's a very good picture of Pangaea, and please note that I did not say "perfectly.":

I would've used a different font for the title, or at least made it not bold.

Now, would you like to address anything else from my post?  If you want to argue against Pangaea, you're going to have to explain the fossils and such.