The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: phaseshifter on October 22, 2006, 07:16:49 PM
-
There was a discussion that involved plate tectonics, and it made me realise just how impossible the flat earth model was.
All I had to do was think about the shifting of the plates, and it became obvious.
On regular earth, earthquakes(and volcanic eruptions) are, as everyone knows, caused by the shifting of those plates. The plate movement I'm interested in here is at divergent boundaries. But the same would apply for some cases of convergent boundaries.
As the plates move away from each other they will be slowed or stopped due to either friction, or contact with another plate (of course the farther it has to move, the smaller the impact will be and vice verse). It's same scenario no matter where the shift takes place. Thre are some differences with oceanic plates, but it's still pretty much the ame thing.
Even if, for some odd reason, the earth's core never cooled down, this process could keep going indefinitely, as the plates would keep moving around the earth eon after eon. There would be nothing to prevent it, as there is nothing to limit the movement of anything moving sideways on the surface of a sphere.
On a flat earth however, it isn't that simple. Tectonic plates shift everywhere. Some would be closer to the center, some would be farther. Also, some would be at the center, other at the edge. And that is the problem. On regular earth, no matter which direction the plate is shifting towards, there will be something to slow it down and eventually stop it (until it shifts again.) But since flat earth is disc shaped, during a divergent shift, the plate that is at the edge has nowhere to go. On one side there is a plate tectonic, and on the other, outer space. So the only place for it to be pushed is out of the earth entirely. That means that flat earth would have constantly been picked apart at it's edges, while plates forming it's crust fall off in space. And the fact that it's acelerating "upwards" would not help matters.
In light of this, there is no logical reason why flat earth would have kept it's mass. There is no way that shifts would only happen in the middle and not at the edge. Even if, for some reason defying logic, it had been that way at the begining, it would have caused the plates to move and shift towards the sides anyway.
Problem # 2.
There are of course shifts that happen deeper in the earth's crust. Pockets of magma will often be violently liberated. Again, on regular earth, we mostly don't care about those. Since they are too far down to cause volcanic eruptions, the magma will simply travel latterally(it may also go up a bit, but would never reach the surface). It could go around the world a hundred times for all we care, since it will cool down as it travels and eventually stop.
Flat earthers aren't so lucky. On flat earth, when this happens, at or near the edge, the magma will eventually reach that edge (or would already be there), and your precious ice wall. I will not even reply to someone who suggests that ice will stop magma.
I would really like to know how flat earth gets away with this.
(other problems arise from this, but those 2 are the most obvious)
-
Hrm, maybe plates near the edges subduct, melt, and flow back towards the center.
Maybe there's a source of material for the Earth someplace, replacing the lost mass.
Maybe, eventually, the Earth will be destroyed by its own plate tectonics... good motivation for a government cover-up if I've ever heard one.
Maybe, eventually, plate tectonics will stop.
As usual, the problems you've cited are only problematic if you assume that everything RE scientists believe is, always has been, and always will be true. Throw away your assumptions and the problem go with them.
-
There is no reason to assume that the immense force propelling the earth would not hold it it (i.e. the plates) together. After all, it would undoubtedly have some effect on the 'sides' of the earth, and thus exert some force on them.
-
Hrm, maybe plates near the edges subduct, melt, and flow back towards the center.
Maybe there's a source of material for the Earth someplace, replacing the lost mass.
Maybe, eventually, the Earth will be destroyed by its own plate tectonics... good motivation for a government cover-up if I've ever heard one.
Maybe, eventually, plate tectonics will stop.
As usual, the problems you've cited are only problematic if you assume that everything RE scientists believe is, always has been, and always will be true. Throw away your assumptions and the problem go with them.
So basically, there is no real answer and only assumptions and ideas. Phaseshifter has just completely proven that the flat earth doesn't work because then it would be destroying itself.
As for throwing away assumptions, you can't say that without throwing away assumptions for everything. Which means assuming the world is flat should be thrown away.
or in another situation, let's say you have a daughter and she has been assumed to be kidnapped or dead, but throw the assumption away and the problem is gone.
In your mind the problem is gone, but not reality.
-
Hrm, maybe plates near the edges subduct, melt, and flow back towards the center
They cannot flow back towards the center if there is nothing to push them in that direction, AND negate the force of the shift that pushed them there in the first place. (oh and if plates tectonic melt at the edge, how would there ever be ice there? ) There is another huge flaw in your statment, but I'm gonna give you the chance to catch it before I adress it.
Also, magma is already molten rock. You can't melt magma.
Maybe, eventually, the Earth will be destroyed by its own plate tectonics... good motivation for a government cover-up if I've ever heard one
The earth being destroyed eventually, does not change what is happening now and has nothing to do with the question. Considering the rate at which earthquakes happen, and the fact that they happened a lot more frequently when the earth was younger,and the fact that there are several disturbances that we don't feel but still happen everyday. The earth would already be gone by now. Also, it's common knowledge that the earth cannot sustain life forever, it's rotation will slow down, it's core will cool down, and our sun will eventually become a red giant. There is little point in covering up a single of the many causes of our possible extinction.
Maybe, eventually, plate tectonics will stop.
That also has nothing to do with the question. They are moving NOW. And we wouldn't be around when they stopped anyway. I'm not asking about flat earth'S doomsday, I want to know how it explains this.
Maybe there's a source of material for the Earth someplace, replacing the lost mass.
...........................mass being spontanously created out of nowhere? How can you even say that? No offense, but this is the most illogical statment I saw since coming here.
As usual, the problems you've cited are only problematic if you assume that everything RE scientists believe is, always has been, and always will be true. Throw away your assumptions and the problem go with them
Yeah, except that both earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are given the same cause in both FE and RE model. And when someone asked how earthquakes happened, they were told, by FE ers that it was "the same way as in RE". Why don't you use the search function? You may find that you yourself aknowledged that before. It's also illogical to tell me that tectonic plates may one day stop moving, and deny the concept in the next sentence. Frankly, I'm getting tired of ppl using that phrase to avoid answering a question. And yes, I assume that earthquakes exist.
There is no reason to assume that the immense force propelling the earth would not hold it it (i.e. the plates) together
1.it's not possible for it to push up on the earth, recreating the effects of gravity and at the same time push at the earth on all it sides.
2.There is nothing in the FE model that points at that force also constricting the earth on all sides at the same time and at the bottom.
3.And if you decide to add it, you would have to explain why we and everything else on earth, are not also pushed towards the center, and how the sun and moon can also remain away from the center.
4.I must also mention that an outside force that would negate the force of tectonic plates would make short work of your ice wall, which would have shattered long ago, with both the plates crashing in on it, and this newfound force of yours pushing on it at all times with enough force to negate tectonic shifts.
5. The shift of plate tectonics are not all of the same force. So you would also have to explain how it matches the strenght of every shift perfectly.
6. You would also have to explain how that new force does not crush the earth at all places where plate tectonics are not shifting outward.
There is also a shitload of new problems that would arise from a planet being pushed from all sides but "up". I would advice you to consider them.
-
So basically, there is no real answer and only assumptions and ideas.
Not really. You're confusing assumptions with solutions. I provided a set of (admittedly unverified) solutions to the problems posed by phaseshifter. Any one of them solves the problems; the correct solution of course may lie outside the set.
As for throwing away assumptions, you can't say that without throwing away assumptions for everything. Which means assuming the world is flat should be thrown away.
or in another situation, let's say you have a daughter and she has been assumed to be kidnapped or dead, but throw the assumption away and the problem is gone.
You're equivocating on "problem". In that situation, the problem is not: "What do I do about my missing daughter?" but rather, "What happened to my daughter?" Assuming that my daughter is kidnapped or dead places certain restrictions (rather directly) on the possible solutions to the problem which force us to ignore other possibly correct solutions (such as, she's at her friend's house and didn't tell me). Throwing away the assumption therefore not only does not cause the problem to go away but in fact makes it in some sense harder.
In this exact case, the problem is, "How can the Flat Earth have plate tectonics without destroying itself?" In order to answer this question I must perforce assume its premises: that the Earth is flat, and that it has plate tectonics. Obviously when trying to solve a problem and throwing out assumptions, I need not throw out the information in the question itself. I need only throw out the assumptions that overly restrict the possible solution set: obviously the assumption "The Earth is round" evacuates the solution set of the stated problem, and is therefore one that I ought to get rid of; by pointing out that the questioner is making this assumption, I am hinting that perhaps he is more interested in winning acceptance for his assumption than in actually arriving at an answer.
-
Not really. You're confusing assumptions with solutions. I provided a set of (admittedly unverified) solutions to the problems posed by phaseshifter. Any one of them solves the problems; the correct solution of course may lie outside the set.
None of them were solutions erasmus. How does Maybe, eventually, plate tectonics will stop.
explain the fact that they are moving now? I'm not even sure how you think that the plates stopping in hundreds of years has anything to do with a current phenomenon.
-
How do we know they're moving now? It could just be more planted evidence from the conspiracy. Can I see these plates moving? The only time I have ever felt an "Earthquake" I thought it was just a truck driving past until the news told me otherwise. These issues are only serious problems if you believe the "science" that other people tell you.
-
Earthquakes do exist because people have been subject to the destruction they cause. There have been so many eye witnesses that it has to be true. As for the plates moving, seeing isn't believing. The whole flat earth theory is based of belief because no one has seen the flat earth itself.
As for the plates moving, history, anthropology i think, and geology tells us it happens i think.
-
You can tell me all these things but why should I believe you?
-
Why shouldn't you? Why is there doubt in everything and lack of trust in everything except what seems to go for what you would believe in? In the beginning when you first learned about the flat earth, why did you believe it so easily and when did you turn a cold cheek to everything else?
-
You can tell me all these things but why should I believe you?
Don't.
You beleive in FE, and FE theory accepts the existance of earthquakes.
Can I see these plates moving?
Can you see the underground tubes that carry water to your house for your sinkets and toilets? Do you beleive in them? That was a stupid statment, the plates are under the earth, why should you see them?
Now, is someone actually going to answer this? So far, we had some off topic comments, and 1 attempt to explain it that contradicts the basics of FE theory. I am not going to discuss earthquakes being planted by conspirators in case you were wondering beast.
-
How does Maybe, eventually, plate tectonics will stop.
explain the fact that they are moving now?
It doesn't. But it does rather nicely prevent the Earth from destroying itself, doesn't it. You seemed to think that the (alleged-by-you) fact that plate tectonics would eventually stop is a problem. I don't think it's a problem.
None of them were solutions erasmus.
Having failed to show how one of my suggestions was not a solution, care to try your hand at the others?
-
They cannot flow back towards the center if there is nothing to push them in that direction,
"That direction" might just be downhill.
if plates tectonic melt at the edge, how would there ever be ice there?
You know what "subduct" means, right? It means "go underneath". You're telling me that underneath antarctica there's no molten rock?
There is another huge flaw in your statment, but I'm gonna give you the chance to catch it before I adress it.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Also, magma is already molten rock. You can't melt magma.
True! But nonmolten rock is not molten and can therefore be melted! Good thing I said "maybe plates ... melt," and not, "maybe magma ... melts," eh?
The earth being destroyed eventually, does not change what is happening now and has nothing to do with the question.
You seemed to hink that the long-term predictions of the FE model were problematic. *shrug*
...........................mass being spontanously created out of nowhere? How can you even say that? No offense, but this is the most illogical statment I saw since coming here.
Oh, how true! Those crazy meteors that keep popping into existence in our atmosphere are clearly much too illogical to be real. Pish, creation of mass. Pish, difference between open systems and closed systems!
It's also illogical to tell me that tectonic plates may one day stop moving, and deny the concept in the next sentence.
What? What concept did I deny? When? You're losing me.
-
It doesn't. But it does rather nicely prevent the Earth from destroying itself, doesn't it. You seemed to think that the (alleged-by-you) fact that plate tectonics would eventually stop is a problem. I don't think it's a problem.
If you had been paying attention to what I wrote, you would realise that this would have caused FE to have already been destroyed. plate tectonics didn't wait for humans to be around before they started shifting. But your reply does not provide an explanation even if I had not mentioned this. "eventually stopping" would not undo the damage done to a planet having lost several of it's plates.
Having failed to show how one of my suggestions was not a solution, care to try your hand at the others?
I already did, reading is tech.
"That direction" might just be downhill.
I'm not sure what your concept of downhill is, but the plates shift, as you know, by sliding upon the surface they are resting on. Since they already are resting on that surface, there is no way for them to go down.
Also, when an object is being pushed from one direction, is resting on a surface and receives no resistance from the opposite direction (which would be outerspace). Why in the world would you go and suggest that the object would move towards the path where there is the most resistance? People that get hit by cars don't magically sink into the ground. Do you realise that you are suggesting that an object would move down ,against resistence, after a LATERAL impact? Do you realise how illogical that is?
You know what "subduct" means, right? It means "go underneath". You're telling me that underneath antarctica there's no molten rock
Ok, let's talk about subduction, if you insist.
In geology, a subduction zone is an area on Earth where two tectonic plates meet and move towards one another, with one sliding underneath the other and moving down into the mantle, at a speed of several inches per year
It's a simple concept that if you are at the edge of something, and there is nothing beyond that edge, then there's equally nothing for you to achieve subduction with.
You want to know something else?
At divergent boundaries, two plates move apart from each other and the space that this creates is filled with new crustal material sourced from molten magma that forms below.
One plate is moving towards the center, the other towards the edge, subduction never takes place if you are moving away from something.
That comment about antartica is pointless, there is no edge involved. I will refute if if ppl want me to but I think we both know tha tantartica would not melt anymore than FE's northpole would.
True! But nonmolten rock is not molten and can therefore be melted! Good thing I said "maybe plates ... melt," and not, "maybe magma ... melts," eh?
Again, this is illogical. First of all, why would they melt? (again, at the edge, being pushed next to your ice wall) Second, impacts are not known to make rock melt, and shifts have never been known to make plate tectonics melt, this is something you're pulling out of your ass. Third, please, can you imagine what the world would be like if plate tectonics melted everytime they shifted? Or if even one did? Objects the size of a continent (or bigger) suddently melting on a regular basis setting up chain reactions (because other plates were being kept in place by it before it became liquid, themselves keeping other plates in place ect.) with magma at the edge of the world being compressed by the plate you said got over it, but somehow not going towards the edge? These are the conditions of the world you say we're living on? You are actually hurting FE thoery. And what about that magma, you never adressed that one.
You seemed to hink that the long-term predictions of the FE model were problematic. *shrug*
Like I said, there was no long term involved, not sure where you got that idea.
Oh, how true! Those crazy meteors that keep popping into existence in our atmosphere are clearly much too illogical to be real. Pish, creation of mass. Pish, difference between open systems and closed systems!
Meteors falling are not creation of mass, there is no such thing as creation of mass. Mass is siply being moved. I'd advise you not to use that term or you will make a fool out of yourself.
So, you think that the few meteors we get (the majority of which are not even massive enough for their fall to be noticed, and most of them are so small they desintegrate before ever reaching the ground) are enough to replace the loss of continent sized chunk of the earth that are lost on a daily basis?
Why don't you look up the average size of plate tectonics involved in earthquakes and tell me the amount of meteors we'd need to replace the mass of even one?
What? What concept did I deny? When? You're losing me.
Keep up with yourself would you.
the problems you've cited are only problematic if you assume that everything RE scientists believe is, always has been, and always will be true.
I have made 2 assumptions,
1. There are earthquakes
2. There are plate tectonics causing them.
Everything else I said is only problematic on a flat earth. WE don't worry about something reaching the edge of our planet since it has none.
You are making less and less sense.
Objects following the path of most resistence.........man, wait t'ill the guys read this.
-
plate tectonics didn't wait for humans to be around before they started shifting.
And I assume you have proof for this?
I'm not sure what your concept of downhill is, but the plates shift, as you know, by sliding upon the surface they are resting on. Since they already are resting on that surface, there is no way for them to go down.
down‧hill /adv., adj. ˈdaʊnˈhɪl; n. ˈdaʊnˌhɪl/ [adv., adj. doun-hil; n. doun-hil]–adverb
1. down the slope of a hill; downward.
That seems like a sound concept to me, and it seems that if an object is on a downward (refer to above citation) incline that any object would naturally want to go down...
Are you being discriminatory of plates?
Also, when an object is being pushed from one direction, is resting on a surface and receives no resistance from the opposite direction (which would be outerspace). Why in the world would you go and suggest that the object would move towards the path where there is the most resistance? People that get hit by cars don't magically sink into the ground. Do you realise that you are suggesting that an object would move down ,against resistence, after a LATERAL impact? Do you realise how illogical that is?
True, but if you are in San Fransisco and at the top of a very large hill, and a flat-bed truck hits you at an intersection, you know where you're going to go? Down the hill. GASP! What a concept.
That comment about antartica is pointless, there is no edge involved. I will refute if if ppl want me to but I think we both know tha tantartica would not melt anymore than FE's northpole would.
Whether or not there is an edge has absolutely no relevance to whether or not there is bubbling, broiling magma underneath Antarctica.
Again, this is illogical. First of all, why would they melt? (again, at the edge, being pushed next to your ice wall)
Perhaps, if you'll humor me, the force that is accelerating the Earth creates heat as a byproduct. This heat doesn't necessarily have to reach the Ice Wall, but it pushes on the outer edges more than the rest, making it hotter around the edges. This would also explain the creation of a convex-like shape, so that when moving toward the center, it's a gradual downhill slope.
Third, please, can you imagine what the world would be like if plate tectonics melted everytime they shifted? Or if even one did? Objects the size of a continent (or bigger) suddently melting on a regular basis setting up chain reactions (because other plates were being kept in place by it before it became liquid, themselves keeping other plates in place ect.) with magma at the edge of the world being compressed by the plate you said got over it, but somehow not going towards the edge? These are the conditions of the world you say we're living on? You are actually hurting FE thoery. And what about that magma, you never adressed that one.
I highly doubt he meant the WHOLE plate shifted. That wouldn't even make sense, albeit it would be quite a spectacle. Like hot potato, except with the Earth.
Meteors falling are not creation of mass, there is no such thing as creation of mass. Mass is siply being moved. I'd advise you not to use that term or you will make a fool out of yourself.
Again, I'll just assume that you have valid evidence and citations to prove all of this.
So, you think that the few meteors we get (the majority of which are not even massive enough for their fall to be noticed, and most of them are so small they desintegrate before ever reaching the ground) are enough to replace the loss of continent sized chunk of the earth that are lost on a daily basis?
How do you know that only the ones that fall on the TOP of the Earth are added to the Earth's mass? We have a very large cyllindrical shape, bigger than the side of a barn. I should assume that it is far more likely for things to hit the SIDES of the Earth than the top.
Why don't you look up the average size of plate tectonics involved in earthquakes and tell me the amount of meteors we'd need to replace the mass of even one?
You do like to shoot your mouth of without a lot of evidence to back it up, don't you?
I have made 2 assumptions,
1. There are earthquakes
2. There are plate tectonics causing them.
I'm sure you'd like to think that you're so modest. However, the truth still reveals its ugly face every once in a while, and I doubt you can avoid it.
Everything else I said is only problematic on a flat earth. WE don't worry about something reaching the edge of our planet since it has none.
Well, that's good that you don't have to worry. Have fun in your little bubble of ignorance. I'll see you when you get out.
Objects following the path of most resistence.........
I know, isn't gravity freaking ridiculous?
man, wait t'ill the guys read this.
What if I don't want to wait. You can't tell me what to do.
~D-Draw
-
You're equivocating on "problem". In that situation, the problem is not: "What do I do about my missing daughter?" but rather, "What happened to my daughter?" Assuming that my daughter is kidnapped or dead places certain restrictions (rather directly) on the possible solutions to the problem which force us to ignore other possibly correct solutions (such as, she's at her friend's house and didn't tell me). Throwing away the assumption therefore not only does not cause the problem to go away but in fact makes it in some sense harder.
Damn. People get pedantic when they're proved wrong.
phaseshifter wrote:
plate tectonics didn't wait for humans to be around before they started shifting.
And I assume you have proof for this?
Yes. Mountains.
Quote:
That comment about antartica is pointless, there is no edge involved. I will refute if if ppl want me to but I think we both know tha tantartica would not melt anymore than FE's northpole would.
Whether or not there is an edge has absolutely no relevance to whether or not there is bubbling, broiling magma underneath Antarctica.
good on you for agreeing with us.
Perhaps, if you'll humor me, the force that is accelerating the Earth creates heat as a byproduct. This heat doesn't necessarily have to reach the Ice Wall, but it pushes on the outer edges more than the rest, making it hotter around the edges. This would also explain the creation of a convex-like shape, so that when moving toward the center, it's a gradual downhill slope.
Thanks for helping to debunk your own argument.
I highly doubt he meant the WHOLE plate shifted. That wouldn't even make sense, albeit it would be quite a spectacle. Like hot potato, except with the Earth.
Yeh, when I walk to places, I only let my legs go. The rest of my stays at my house.
You do like to shoot your mouth of without a lot of evidence to back it up, don't you?
You do like to shoot your mouth when your theory has been debunked and pretty much fully disproven a number of times.
Quote:
Everything else I said is only problematic on a flat earth. WE don't worry about something reaching the edge of our planet since it has none.
Well, that's good that you don't have to worry. Have fun in your little bubble of ignorance. I'll see you when you get out.
Sorry. He's not in a bubble of ignorance. You however are in a bubble of impeding arrogance. Heres why:
Step 1: Get a sheroidal object. A basketball perhaps.
Step 2: Find an edge.
A Side you will find, and edge you will not.
Damn, this is getting rediculous.
-
phaseshifter wrote:
plate tectonics didn't wait for humans to be around before they started shifting.
And I assume you have proof for this?
Yes. Mountains.
Sorry couldn't be bothered reading past this point. Have you seen a mountain grow? Care to present some evidence that I can test myself that mountains are caused by tectonic plates?
-
phaseshifter wrote:
plate tectonics didn't wait for humans to be around before they started shifting.
And I assume you have proof for this?
Yes. Mountains.
Sorry couldn't be bothered reading past this point. Have you seen a mountain grow? Care to present some evidence that I can test myself that mountains are caused by tectonic plates?
If mountains aren't good enough for you then look at a map, south America fits into Africa. All the continents fit into each other like a puzzle, which means the world was once all together then slowly through time, we see that they separated and are the way they are today.
-
Having never mapped the world myself, why should I believe the propaganda of the RE conspiracy?
-
Use an FE map, it doesnt make a difference
-
That seems like a sound concept to me, and it seems that if an object is on a downward (refer to above citation) incline that any object would naturally want to go down...
Are you being discriminatory of plates?
Sound concept? Ok, put 2 objects of irregular form on a table. Place one at the edge and use the other to push it towards that edge. Repeat this process until the object goes down through the table instead of falling off. Good luck.
True, but if you are in San Fransisco and at the top of a very large hill, and a flat-bed truck hits you at an intersection, you know where you're going to go? Down the hill
Dude, you're making my point. All this time i've been saying that the plate would fall off the earth. It's your call, but aren't you supposed to support your theory?
Whether or not there is an edge has absolutely no relevance to whether or not there is bubbling, broiling magma underneath Antarctica
.
No, it doesn't, what's your point?
Perhaps, if you'll humor me, the force that is accelerating the Earth creates heat as a byproduct. This heat doesn't necessarily have to reach the Ice Wall, but it pushes on the outer edges more than the rest, making it hotter around the edges. This would also explain the creation of a convex-like shape, so that when moving toward the center, it's a gradual downhill slope.
It's hotter around the edges, but there is an ice wall at the edge....yeah, that makes sense. Note that when the plate is pushed towards the edge, it wouldn't care that it' hottter or that it was uphill (which also contradicts many statments about your own flat earth), the bottom line is that it's being pushed towards the edge, on one side, and there is no resistance on the other side.
I highly doubt he meant the WHOLE plate shifted. That wouldn't even make sense
An object either shifts or does not shift The plate is a single piece, it cannot have part of itself shift while the rest remains stationary. I'm sure you know what shifting means.
Everythig else by Diego was off topic flaming, or requesting evidence for known phenomenons. Like I said, you can look it up. You however have 0 evidence and nothing else than maybes, followed by situation that defy logic.
Have you seen a mountain grow? Care to present some evidence that I can test myself that mountains are caused by tectonic plates?
Well beast, why don't you enlighten us and tell us how mountains are formed? And if you'll only read a single sentence, don't bother arguing about the topic. You don't even know what's being discussed.
That being said, once again, I would like an actual explanation to be given.
-
In the interests of brevity, I'll just say
- my point about things happening the future was intended to address only your points about things happening in the future. If you weren't trying to make a point about things happening in the future, my apologized for superfluous sentences.
- My concept of "downhill" is "against the gradient of the gravitational potential, while following solid land." Underground rivers of can flow north; I'm thinking that underground rivers of magma can too.
- Subduction: outward moving plates can subduct under stationary plates forming the rim of the world.
- Why things melt: well, it's warmer underground, right? Are you suggesting that rocks that start near the surface but make their way underground never melt?
- Creation of mass is your term, but thanks for the advice. I said, "Maybe there's a source of material for the Earth someplace, replacing the lost mass." Rocks landing here from space constitute a source. The Earth is not a closed system, so conservation of mass does not apply to it.
-
You're equivocating on "problem". In that situation, the problem is not: "What do I do about my missing daughter?" but rather, "What happened to my daughter?" Assuming that my daughter is kidnapped or dead places certain restrictions (rather directly) on the possible solutions to the problem which force us to ignore other possibly correct solutions (such as, she's at her friend's house and didn't tell me). Throwing away the assumption therefore not only does not cause the problem to go away but in fact makes it in some sense harder.
Damn. People get pedantic when they're proved wrong.
I'm sorry if that paragraph was too fancy-sounding for you. I'll simplify:
Because the other person was talking about a different problem, he didn't prove me wrong. But that doesn't mean he's not a nice person and we're not still friends, okay?
-
my point about things happening the future was intended to address only your points about things happening in the future. If you weren't trying to make a point about things happening in the future, my apologized for superfluous sentences.
Indeed I was not refering to the future. Apology accepted.
My concept of "downhill" is "against the gradient of the gravitational potential, while following solid land." Underground rivers of can flow north; I'm thinking that underground rivers of magma can too.
I do not challenge that that is possible. However, it would not be logical to think that every shift that happens at the edge of FE would happen on a downhill surface, plus the fact that it would still follow the path of least resistance, which would be towards nothing/the edge. That is also why I made sure to mention pockets of magma. They do not simply flow, they only escape when an impact causes the pocket they were trapped in to open, which creates a very violent exit due to the enormous pressures that had been trapped and suddently released all at once, and they will also follow the path of least resistance.
Subduction: outward moving plates can subduct under stationary plates forming the rim of the world
.
Again, I do not pretend that that is imposible, which is why I also made sure to mention divergent shifts, where there would be no other plate for the one at the edge to perform subduction with. Also, note that when one of the plates is significantly taller the the other, there is no possibility of subduction, since the smaller plate cannot reach the top or bottom of the larger one, and thus has no room to slide so to speak.
Why things melt: well, it's warmer underground, right? Are you suggesting that rocks that start near the surface but make their way underground never melt?
The plate tectonics are part of the lithosphere, which, although very hot, is not at high enough temperature to melt plate tectonics (otherwise, there would be no plates there at all.) The asthenosphere, which is below the lithosphere is hotter, but not completely liquid, and it supports the plates. The temperature at the lithosphere would not allow plates to spontaneously melt, As I said, if it could happen, life on earth would be under much harsher conditions and we would constantly have volcanic activity. I am not sure however what phenomenon you are reffering to when talking about rocks making their way underground.
Creation of mass is your term, but thanks for the advice. I said, "Maybe there's a source of material for the Earth someplace, replacing the lost mass."
No, I was talking about the meteors. When you said.
Oh, how true! Those crazy meteors that keep popping into existence in our atmosphere are clearly much too illogical to be real. Pish, creation of mass.
It's just a difference in terms which has nothing to do with the topic, but you did use the term "creation of mass" which is impossible even on FE as far as I know.
That should clear everything up I think.
Would anyone else want to try their hand at gicing an explanation?
-
The plate tectonics are part of the lithosphere, which, although very hot, is not at high enough temperature to melt plate tectonics (otherwise, there would be no plates there at all.) The asthenosphere, which is below the lithosphere is hotter, but not completely liquid, and it supports the plates. The temperature at the lithosphere would not allow plates to spontaneously melt, As I said, if it could happen, life on earth would be under much harsher conditions and we would constantly have volcanic activity. I am not sure however what phenomenon you are reffering to when talking about rocks making their way underground.
Erasmus never said the plates melt in the lithosphere, he said they melt after being subducted into the mantle.
-
The point is that magma has to form someplace. Perhaps more fluid plates that go near the edge are subducted under more rigid plates that are stationary and run very deep. Eventually, the subducted plate enters a region where it is hot enough for the rock to melt. The molten rock makes its way back towards the divergence zone, rises, and contributes the formation of new plate material.
Like this:
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f287/PraiseOfFolly/Flat%20Earth%20Society/plates.png)
Note that this figure is not to scale. Especially, "deep, rigid plate" is likely to be very broad indeed.
As to Those crazy meteors that keep popping into existence in our atmosphere are clearly much too illogical to be real. Pish, creation of mass.
I thought the sarcasm was obvious. The point is that the Earth's mass can certainly change over time, by the addition of material from elsewhere.
-
The point is that magma has to form someplace. Perhaps more fluid plates that go near the edge are subducted under more rigid plates that are stationary and run very deep. Eventually, the subducted plate enters a region where it is hot enough for the rock to melt. The molten rock makes its way back towards the divergence zone, rises, and contributes the formation of new plate material.
Like this:
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f287/PraiseOfFolly/Flat%20Earth%20Society/plates.png)
Note that this figure is not to scale. Especially, "deep, rigid plate" is likely to be very broad indeed.
As to Those crazy meteors that keep popping into existence in our atmosphere are clearly much too illogical to be real. Pish, creation of mass.
I thought the sarcasm was obvious. The point is that the Earth's mass can certainly change over time, by the addition of material from elsewhere.
Well, the first thing I must ask you is how a plate would remain stationary indefinitely.
Also, a single plate cannot run very deep, because the density changes as you go down. That is why they are plates. Since the bottom liquefies and the top is cooler, they naturally take a (mostly) flat shape, so that eliminates that possibility.
And again, I must tell you that subduction is not involved during divergent shifts, and is sometimes simply not possible. It's all well and good that you give me examples of what happens when subduction is involved, but that is not what we are interested in for the purpose of this topic. Also, I must again point out that, since you are at the edge, subduction is less likely than if you were closer to the center.
In the image you provided ,the plate fits neatly between the edge and another plate (which is well beyond subduction, as it's going straight down), however, as we go deeper towards the botom of the earth, there is actually less room, since matter is more and more compressed the further down you go. So you would not find enough room for a whole plate to fit in. Since there is constant pressure, that empty space would have been filled long ago. And it is more than unlikely that a whole plate would manage to squeeze itself down far enough to apply no pressure at all to the edge, because even if it was melted and luquified, it is still the same mass that you have to fit somewhere.
But in any case, your explanation is actually more dangerous than the problem I brought up, because the edge of the earth would be under constant pressure from all sides by the plates, while at the same time, the atmosphere would be pushing down on it, and the unknown force is also pushing at the bottom, so it would have simply popped as soon as the planet was done cooling. The presence of an ice wall at the edges does not help matters, since solids are not exactly harder to break when cooled.
I thought the sarcasm was obvious. The point is that the Earth's mass can certainly change over time, by the addition of material from elsewhere
Well it's not very obvious when it's part of the answer of an intelligent discussion, specially in written form.
That "elsewhere" would have to be defined. Like I said, considering the size of plate tectonics, it would take an unholy amount of meteors to replace them, and if you assume that amount to be true, then you'd have to redefine the rest of the universe, or at the very least our galaxy. ( I hope you understand why) You would also have to explain how the ice wall survives being assaulted by that amount of meteors from all sides, or by a single meteor large enough to replace one (or several) of earth's plates.
-
Also, a single plate cannot run very deep, because the density changes as you go down. That is why they are plates. Since the bottom liquefies and the top is cooler, they naturally take a (mostly) flat shape, so that eliminates that possibility.
Run deep to where? The outer plates form the ring that is the edge of the earth.
And again, I must tell you that subduction is not involved during divergent shifts, and is sometimes simply not possible. It's all well and good that you give me examples of what happens when subduction is involved, but that is not what we are interested in for the purpose of this topic. Also, I must again point out that, since you are at the edge, subduction is less likely than if you were closer to the center.
Subduction happens at the outer ring of the earth. You said that plate movement was the end of the earth. The plates at the outer ring subduct under these plates and therefore do not threaten the planet. That makes it very on topic. Nobody is saying that the only type of plate movement is subduction. At the center of the earth, subduction would happen only in rare instances.
In the image you provided ,the plate fits neatly between the edge and another plate (which is well beyond subduction, as it's going straight down), however, as we go deeper towards the botom of the earth, there is actually less room, since matter is more and more compressed the further down you go. So you would not find enough room for a whole plate to fit in. Since there is constant pressure, that empty space would have been filled long ago. And it is more than unlikely that a whole plate would manage to squeeze itself down far enough to apply no pressure at all to the edge, because even if it was melted and luquified, it is still the same mass that you have to fit somewhere.
So how are plates recycled in the RE? There is constant pressure, no empty space and matter is more compressed as you go down.
But in any case, your explanation is actually more dangerous than the problem I brought up, because the edge of the earth would be under constant pressure from all sides by the plates, while at the same time, the atmosphere would be pushing down on it, and the unknown force is also pushing at the bottom, so it would have simply popped as soon as the planet was done cooling.
What evidence (math for instance) says this would be true?
solids are not exactly harder to break when cooled.
Harder to break than what? When they are hot? Liquid? You really need to start quantifying your comments.
-
Look, it's obvious that something special has to be going on near the rim of the Earth, something not covered by conventional understandings of "northern" plate tectonics. I suggest that this rigid plate (plate is probably a bad name for it but I'm just using the term to refer to a single continguous piece of rock) is strong enough to withstand the outward pressure of the weight above it. Magma formed from molten subducting plates would have nowhere to go except back north, forcing its way through small spaces in the rock until it is released upward through the crust.
The only extra thing that's needed is a strong, stationary, cylindrical "plate" wrapped around the Earth.
-
Look, it's obvious that something special has to be going on near the rim of the Earth, something not covered by conventional understandings of "northern" plate tectonics. I suggest that this rigid plate (plate is probably a bad name for it but I'm just using the term to refer to a single continguous piece of rock) is strong enough to withstand the outward pressure of the weight above it. Magma formed from molten subducting plates would have nowhere to go except back north, forcing its way through small spaces in the rock until it is released upward through the crust.
The only extra thing that's needed is a strong, stationary, cylindrical "plate" wrapped around the Earth.
I do not see how it is obvious erasmus. NO evidence points to it. The only things that are obvious to me right now are the facts.
If you read the statment you just made, you'll see that it doesn't make sense. If someone claimed that RE thoery was true by giving the same statment you did, you would no doubt dismiss it immediately, as that person would be making up a "special" something happening in order to fill the gap of an impossibility.
"Northern" plates are the same as any other plates, simply because plates move and shift, and those northern plates were not always there, they might have been a few hundred kilometers farther, or they could have come from the middle or farther. You already showed that you understood how subduction worked, so I'm sure you understand this concept. And I point out again that whole plates do not spontanously melt due to subduction (and why would subduction melt them at the edge and not anywhere else?). If you insist that they do, you'll have to rearange the whole planet (probably minus life on it). And of course explain how it happens.
I suggest that this rigid plate (plate is probably a bad name for it but I'm just using the term to refer to a single continguous piece of rock) is strong enough to withstand the outward pressure of the weight above it
I've already explained how this would not be possible because the temperatures as you go lower under the earth does not allow for a tall object to form a wall that would stop plate tectonics, let alone magma. But let me also add that, if flat earth was surrounded by a "rigid" "plate", then that would not allow for the shifts of plate tectonics, and we would have no earthquakes (though a lot of volcanic activity, as "up" would be the only way that all the stress within the planet could escape). Again, on RE, the plates have no boundaries and are free to shift as long and as far as they want.
Magma formed from molten subducting plates would have nowhere to go except back north, forcing its way through small spaces in the rock until it is released upward through the crust.
If you say that, then you would have to change the map so that every continent close to the edge have mountains and volcanoes on each of those respective side(being constant locations of subductions and volcanic eruptions). And again, you are weakening FE theory by asuming that the most of earth's volcanic activity would be at the edge, where the ice wall is supposed to be.
Also, pockets of magma are pockets because there is noroom for them to flow outward, so there would be equally no room for them to go "north" instead of taking the path of leas tresistance towards the edge.
No matter how thick you decide the 'plate" edge is, it could still not stop a plate from breaking through, because it cannot be as thick as the rest of the earth, which is what offers resistance on the other side.
It would be more rational to just come to the logical conclusion, rather than make up a special extraordinary phenomenon that defy phisics and logic.
-
How about replying to me?
-
So basically, there is no real answer and only assumptions and ideas. Phaseshifter has just completely proven that the flat earth doesn't work because then it would be destroying itself.
As for throwing away assumptions, you can't say that without throwing away assumptions for everything. Which means assuming the world is flat should be thrown away.
or in another situation, let's say you have a daughter and she has been assumed to be kidnapped or dead, but throw the assumption away and the problem is gone.
In your mind the problem is gone, but not reality.
Here's to ripping you to shreds:
Before you even think of anything, you assume that the information your senses provide you with is intelligible.
Assumption creates the frameworks of our arguments. Without an assumption, there is hardly an argument. It's like watching, say, the 2nd Lord of the Rings without any backstory. Assumptions are your backstory, your background information.
-
Well, basically, we don't know what's outside the Earth, and we don't know what the rim is like. It's perfectly logical (as in, it's consistent with what we know so far) to suppose that there might be a rigid cylindrical "plate" enclosing the Earth. It doesn't defy physics or logic; it just defies geology textbooks.
There's also no particular reason to believe that such a plate might be too weak to resist the expansive pressure of the rest of the Earth. It could be made of a different material -- a stronger one with a lower melting point. The ceramic of a coffee cup is certainly not thicker than the entire cup, yet it resists the pressure of the coffee and doesn't melt.
As usual, if you insist that everything RE scientists say about the Earth is true, then yes, obviously, the Earth must be round. But if you consider the possibility that some of those things must be false -- that we really don't know, for example, what's beneath Antarctica -- then there's nothing illogical about the proposition that beneath Antarctica is a thousand-mile-thick, thousand-mile deep ring of superhard superconducting carbon crystal with a superhigh melting point.
-
So basically, there is no real answer and only assumptions and ideas. Phaseshifter has just completely proven that the flat earth doesn't work because then it would be destroying itself.
As for throwing away assumptions, you can't say that without throwing away assumptions for everything. Which means assuming the world is flat should be thrown away.
or in another situation, let's say you have a daughter and she has been assumed to be kidnapped or dead, but throw the assumption away and the problem is gone.
In your mind the problem is gone, but not reality.
Here's to ripping you to shreds:
Before you even think of anything, you assume that the information your senses provide you with is intelligible.
Assumption creates the frameworks of our arguments. Without an assumption, there is hardly an argument. It's like watching, say, the 2nd Lord of the Rings without any backstory. Assumptions are your backstory, your background information.
how is that tearing me to shred? I said dont throw away assumptions lol.
-
Well, basically, we don't know what's outside the Earth, and we don't know what the rim is like. It's perfectly logical (as in, it's consistent with what we know so far) to suppose that there might be a rigid cylindrical "plate" enclosing the Earth. It doesn't defy physics or logic; it just defies geology textbooks.
Erasmus, the fact that you don't know about something doesn't make any assumption about it "logical" And I would have you notice that, until now, you were speaking as if you did knew what it was like.
It does defy logic Erasmus, and i'm sure you can see that, since you could not refute any of my points. There is nothing that points to the existence of that newly discovered cylindrical plate on FE, there has been no observations that this plate exists, there is no logical reason to assume that it does, simply because you need it to be there.
Why would it be harder than everything else on the planet? One one side you tell me you don't know what's out there, but then you say you're certain that there is an ice wall. Conflicting information.
It doesn't defy physics or logic; it just defies geology textbooks
This is a very hypocritical statment erasmus, considering you were just now using geology to justify the existence of a phenomenon that defied physics, and now geology is suddently invalid.
There's also no particular reason to believe that such a plate might be too weak to resist the expansive pressure of the rest of the Earth.
Yes Erasmus, there is logic. Your own FE theory demands it. FE has a core, and it it being pushed at the bottom by that force of yours and at the top by the pressure of atmosphere. The densest material of the planet is therefore at the center, NOT at the edges. Even if all the material originally had the same density(which it proably did) the pressure would have forced matter to compress at the center and form the densest part anyway. And since that force isn't going to stop anytime soon according to you, the dense material will never be given a chance to go around the planet, and stay there for an arbitrary reason. The height of plate tectonics is prety far from that level of density.
It could be made of a different material -- a stronger one with a lower melting point. The ceramic of a coffee cup is certainly not thicker than the entire cup, yet it resists the pressure of the coffee and doesn't melt.
Why would it be made of a different material?
Pressure of the coffe? Are you kidding me? How does that relate to a whole planet? The cup itself is hollow. Flat earth does not have sides holding a center made of 100% liquid material. The interior of the planet is very dense, coffe is not a very dense material. The pressure of coffe on the edges of a cup are almost null. The pressures of whole plate tectonics on the edge of your FE would be anything but insignificant. The plates are solid, coffee is not. They are heavy solids under constant movement, coffee is not. In the case of the planet, there are enourmous pressures involved, not so in the case of a cup of coffee. FE is under constant pressure from up and bottom ect. That anaolgy doesn't even make sense.
As usual, if you insist that everything RE scientists say about the Earth is true, then yes, obviously, the Earth must be round. But if you consider the possibility that some of those things must be false -- that we really don't know, for example, what's beneath Antarctica -- then there's nothing illogical about the proposition that beneath Antarctica is a thousand-mile-thick, thousand-mile deep ring of superhard superconducting carbon crystal with a superhigh melting point.
That getaway statment again. My points and statments do not rely on anything that is not true on FE. Like I said, FE already accepts the existence of earthquakes and plate tectonics, and phenomenons associated with it. So even If I assume that scientists are wrong about eveything, FE theory still makes it's existence impossible.
And if you want to know if there is an object that big and that dense under antartica (illogically away from where dense matter should be) then blast antartica with x-rays and find out. Not knowing about something doesn't make any assumptions about it valid. There is still logic and common sense.
I don't kow where my brother is:
Assumption: He is on the moon playing cards.= Invalid, because what I know about his nature tells me that it is illogical to expect him to travel unaided through the void of space and survive. The fact that I have no idea where he is doesn't make my illogical assmption more valid.
-
I think you're confusing what's logical with what's easy to believe given certain assumptions. Logic is based strictly on a well-known set of rules. Logic tells you whether a certain statement is just nonsense, or a certain argument's conclusion simply does not follow from it's premises. Logic doesn't say anything about what sort of crystal formations are possible, for instance. Also, logic does not say that you ought not believe something just because you haven't observed it. Logic only tells you when you ought believe or refuse to believe something based on other things you've already claimed to believe or refuse to believe.
There's nothing illogical about any of the suggestions we've made. They are not inconsistent with any made by the FE canon. They're only inconsistent with conventional scientific canon. However, we are willing to allow that conventional scientific canon is false, thus resolving the inconsistency.
As such there's nothing hypocritical about the statement that our suggestions don't defy logic. As far as we know there's no reason to think the suggestions are physically unrealizable (their existence doesn't break any laws of physics).
As for the material of the rim: you are conflating density with strength, and density with pressure. Just because the material at the Earth's core is under great pressure does not imply it is any denser at all. In general liquids and solids are incompressible -- they do not shrink when placed under pressure. Furthermore, even if the core were denser, it would not imply that the core material is stronger than the rim material.
In other words, based on the meanings of the terms "dense", "pressurized", and "strong", your arguments are illogical.
-
Logic means not to expect the 100 000 000th observation to be red, when the previous 999 999 999 were blue. Logic demands that, between a plausible situation and an implausible one, you pick the plausible one.
They are not inconsistent with any made by the FE canon. They're only inconsistent with conventional scientific canon
Since when is a rigid wall that melts tecnonic plates FE canon?
Like I said, it is based on things that have already been accepted by FE theory. Plate tectonics behavior and earthquakes. I am using no theory that lies outsied of accepted FE phenomenons.
As such there's nothing hypocritical about the statement that our suggestions don't defy logic
You know very well that's not what I said. What IS hypocritical, is you using geology to back up your claims and then say we are willing to allow that conventional scientific canon is false
. So far you are only willing when it proves you wrong. When it helps you, it's fine.
Just because the material at the Earth's core is under great pressure does not imply it is any denser at all.
Any smart person knows that it does.
Why don't you try compressing ANY material without making it denser? Even when you fold paper, the mass per cubic centimiter goes up.
Density is a measure of mass per volume. When you compress something, you reduce the volume but the mass stays the same which means mass/volume goes UP. 10/2 is higher than 10/25.
Show me a way you can raise the denominator while keeping the numerator the same, and get a higher value and I wil beleive you. Go ahead, show me if you're so sure you're right.
In general liquids and solids are incompressible
Can you tell me where you got that from? And give me an example?
-
You know very well that's not what I said. What IS hypocritical, is you using geology to back up your claims and then say we are willing to allow that conventional scientific canon is false
. So far you are only willing when it proves you wrong. When it helps you, it's fine.
Agreed.
Just because the material at the Earth's core is under great pressure does not imply it is any denser at all.
Any smart person knows that it does.
Why don't you try compressing ANY material without making it denser? Even when you fold paper, the mass per cubic centimiter goes up.
Density is a measure of mass per volume. When you compress something, you reduce the volume but the mass stays the same which means mass/volume goes UP. 10/2 is higher than 10/25.
Show me a way you can raise the denominator while keeping the numerator the same, and get a higher value and I wil beleive you. Go ahead, show me if you're so sure you're right.
Pressure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure) and compression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure) are two very different things. For example, the water at the bottom of the ocean is under very very high pressure, but it's density is not much larger than that at the surface. Pressure does not require things to change in volume, the change in volume actually depends on Young's modulus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_modulus).
Oh yeah, and the paper folding is wrong: folding paper does not increase density. Folding paper does not change the volume of the paper, it only changes the shape.
In general liquids and solids are incompressible
Can you tell me where you got that from? And give me an example?
[/quote]
Try compressing steel: I bet you'll have a very hard time. Even under enormous amounts of pressure, the density doesn't go up by very much.
-
Oh yeah, and the paper folding is wrong: folding paper does not increase density. Folding paper does not change the volume of the paper, it only changes the shape.
I'm talking about taking papaer and making into a small ball. The paper now fills a smaller volume but has the same mass.
Try compressing steel: I bet you'll have a very hard time. Even under enormous amounts of pressure, the density doesn't go up by very much.
It will take more force, but it can still be done. Otherwise, it would also be impossible to make steel sheets. Incidentally, steel has a fairly high density, and is harder to compress then most materials that have lower density.
-
You're wrong on both points.
Oh yeah, and the paper folding is wrong: folding paper does not increase density. Folding paper does not change the volume of the paper, it only changes the shape.
I'm talking about taking papaer and making into a small ball. The paper now fills a smaller volume but has the same mass.
The density doesn't increase. It falls faster because air resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_resistance) decreases. A flat piece of paper is very thin, so it's volume is small. Heck, you could even say that a paper increases in volume when you "compress" it into a ball.
Try compressing steel: I bet you'll have a very hard time. Even under enormous amounts of pressure, the density doesn't go up by very much.
It will take more force, but it can still be done. Otherwise, it would also be impossible to make steel sheets. Incidentally, steel has a fairly high density, and is harder to compress then most materials that have lower density.
Wrong. Making a steel sheet is not compressing the steel; it is changing the steel's shape. Think about "compressing" a ball of clay--it's the same concept.
-
I agree with skeptic dude although I think sometimes "compress" doesn't have to refer so much to the actual solid. For example a car can definitely be compressed and becomes a denser object - however the steal (or whatever metal cars are made out of) doesn't become compressed and remains at the same density. I don't think that typically you can compress solids or liquids although sometimes they are built into a shape where you can in one defintion compress them (like the car) - that's really irrelevent to the discussion though.
-
The density doesn't increase. It falls faster because air resistance decreases. A flat piece of paper is very thin, so it's volume is small. Heck, you could even say that a paper increases in volume when you "compress" it into a ball.
It doesn't matter wether it falls faster or not. The point is that you make it occupy less space but it's mass is the same.
Wrong. Making a steel sheet is not compressing the steel; it is changing the steel's shape. Think about "compressing" a ball of clay--it's the same concept
.
And how, pray tell do they make it take the shape of a sheet? Are you saying that coins are NOT pressed into coins from their previous forms which is more of a cylinder than a disc? Are they not made of metal?
-
And there I was thinking you had some idea you knew what you were talking about...
-
Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
The density doesn't increase. It falls faster because air resistance decreases. A flat piece of paper is very thin, so it's volume is small. Heck, you could even say that a paper increases in volume when you "compress" it into a ball.
It doesn't matter wether it falls faster or not. The point is that you make it occupy less space but it's mass is the same.
You know "space" isn't two dimensional, right?
Wrong. Making a steel sheet is not compressing the steel; it is changing the steel's shape. Think about "compressing" a ball of clay--it's the same concept
.
And how, pray tell do they make it take the shape of a sheet? Are you saying that coins are NOT pressed into coins from their previous forms which is more of a cylinder than a disc? Are they not made of metal?
Show me how you know coins look like cylinders and not discs. Anyways, even when you do push a coin into shape, it doesn't "compress", but it changes shape; some of the metal moves into the indentations in the presser-thing, so parts of the coin are lower than others. You know, it really is kind of difficult to get atoms in a solid closer to each other than they already are.
-
Okay, I'm just about through with trying to de-ignorant you, since I can see I'm getting nowhere.
Logic means not to expect the 100 000 000th observation to be red, when the previous 999 999 999 were blue.
Why don't you try compressing ANY material without making it denser? Even when you fold paper, the mass per cubic centimiter goes up.
Interestingly, it's not being compressed what that happens. I'd go into more depth on this (pun not intended) but Skeptic Listener has already done it for me: the water at the bottom of the ocean is indeed under pressure, but it isn't noticeably denser.
Can you tell me where you got that from? And give me an example?
Above. And, I don't remember where I originally got it, but I most recently got it from (1) a course in fluid dynamics and (2) going under the ocean and looking.
Feel free to educate yourself on "incompressible fluids" at your leisure.
-
Okay, I'm just about through with trying to de-ignorant you, since I can see I'm getting nowhere.
Logic means not to expect the 100 000 000th observation to be red, when the previous 999 999 999 were blue.
Why don't you try compressing ANY material without making it denser? Even when you fold paper, the mass per cubic centimiter goes up.
Interestingly, it's not being compressed what that happens. I'd go into more depth on this (pun not intended) but Skeptic Listener has already done it for me: the water at the bottom of the ocean is indeed under pressure, but it isn't noticeably denser.
Can you tell me where you got that from? And give me an example?
Above. And, I don't remember where I originally got it, but I most recently got it from (1) a course in fluid dynamics and (2) going under the ocean and looking.
Feel free to educate yourself on "incompressible fluids" at your leisure.
the water at the bottom of the ocean is indeed under pressure, but it isn't noticeably denser.
I don't think I really need to refute this.
Fluids cannot be compressed..ok, so neutron stars and black holes do not exist?
Also, I really would like that example of compressed mass not becoming more dense. And also for you to Show me a way you can raise the denominator while keeping the numerator the same, and get a higher value.
If you are correct, and denser matter is not at the bottom with less dense material on top, by all means show me how you make oil sink at the bottom of water instead of floating on top.
-
Show me a way you can raise the denominator while keeping the numerator the same, and get a higher value.
...negative numbers
oh and if you were compressing something wouldnt it be amount per area, thus if you are compressing, you would make the denominator smaller... thus getting a larger value.
-
Solids and liquids are basically incompressible. This means that there is no appreciable change in specific volume for an increase in pressure. Solids are already in their most dense form. They are formed in a crystalline structure and any extra energy goes to decreasing the bond length, which takes ever increasing energy with no perceptible change in length. Liquid water at 210 atm (3100 psi) undergoes a density change of 1%. GASSES are extremely compressible as a pressure change of just 0.01 atm (0.147 psi) changes the density by 1%.
-
Fluids cannot be compressed..ok, so neutron stars and black holes do not exist?
We're talking a slightly different scale of pressures here. A teaspoonful of material from the surface of a neutron star weighs as much as the largest mountains on Earth... and there's a lot more than a teaspoonful of it. Nowhere on the Earth -- flat or round -- do pressures come anywhere near that. If they did... well, probably the Earth would become a neutron star. Pressure inside a neutron star is high enough to force more than one particle to be in the same quantum state (i.e. forces them to violate the Pauli exclusion principle) and pressure inside a black hole essentially crushes matter out of existence -- or at least into a region of zero volume. I don't see you how can seriously make the comparison. Really, it's beyond silly.
Also, I really would like that example of compressed mass not becoming more dense.
I'm telling you. Liquids, under pressures reproducible naturally on the Earth, do not become significantly denser.
If you are correct, and denser matter is not at the bottom with less dense material on top, by all means show me how you make oil sink at the bottom of water instead of floating on top.
Oil and water -- fluids. The rigid thingy surrounding the flat Earth? Rocks in general? Not fluid. Yes, I know that even rock, especially rock under pressure, is somewhat fluid, but not over time scales short enough for them to "mix" accidentally.
-
We're talking a slightly different scale of pressures here
The scale doesn't matter. We're talking about whether or not it is possible, if it's possible at a higher scale, then it is possible. You say that it is impossible to compress liquids, then you say that then can be compressed on a higher scale, that is NOT an impossibility.
I don't see you how can seriously make the comparison.
When did I make a comparison?
If you know about Neutron stars and black holes then you know about electronic fluid, and you know fluids can be compressed.
I'm telling you. Liquids, under pressures reproducible naturally on the Earth, do not become significantly
denser.
Not significantly is not the same as not at all. Why would we make the precision if there was an abscence of the phenomenon? It's either possible or it's not.
Oil and water -- fluids. The rigid thingy surrounding the flat Earth? Rocks in general? Not fluid. Yes, I know that even rock, especially rock under pressure, is somewhat fluid, but not over time scales short enough for them to "mix" accidentally
Fluids are still matter. And it behaves as I said it would.
-
The scale doesn't matter. We're talking about whether or not it is possible, if it's possible at a higher scale, then it is possible. You say that it is impossible to compress liquids, then you say that then can be compressed on a higher scale, that it NOT an impossibility.
Don't be asinine. The whole point of this misguided discussion is to consider the possibility of a material which you said was too dense to be in the position it was in. In order for that to make sense, its density would have to differ signifcantly from that of the material around it. The pressure inside a neutron star or black hole is obviously enough to compress the material to the required density; the pressures available on Earth not not enough.
On the Earth's, the compressibility of rock is zero to within as many decimal places as you are capable of measuring.
Not significantly is not the same as not at all. Why would we make the precision if there was an abscence of the phenomenon? It's either possible or it's not.
Do you have a point? If all you want to say is that fluids can be compressed, then fine, you're right. If you want to actually disagree with something that's been brought up elsewhere in this thread -- for example, my assertion that liquids are incompressible under conditions naturally attainable on Earth -- then please stop talking about black holes and neutron stars.
-
Phaseshifter has just completely proven that the flat earth doesn't work because then it would be destroying itself.
Many people have, but flat earth believers usually will ignore it, or throw out random solutions for how it could be on a flat earth. I could say that maybe the plates are thrown back to the middle of the earth by superman when they get near the edge, and he uses his breath to keep the ice wall from melting. That theory is just as retarded as Erasmus'.
-
Phaseshifter has done such only in his delusional mind. Same with other RE'ers who have claimed to have 'won'.
-
The whole point of this misguided discussion is to consider the possibility of a material which you said was too dense to be in the position it was in
And you have yet to show how it is possible and why it would just be there, and more improtantly, why it didn't exists up to this point. If you are going to mention a phenomnon that has plate tectonics suddently luquify whole, then you had better have an explanation for it. Like I said, subduction is not known to liquify plates, and that super dense edge plus that liquification contradicts a lot of FE theory.
If you want to actually disagree with something that's been brought up elsewhere in this thread -- for example, my assertion that liquids are incompressible under conditions naturally attainable on Earth -- then please stop talking about black holes and neutron stars.
It was necessary to refute your statment of the phenomenon being impossible. As for the added statment you made of it being impossible on earth specificly. Consider that the earth's core IS liquid, and has the weight of the planet on it. Pockets of magma, which I mentioned earlier are also a good example of this.
You must understand that it's natural to be sceptical of a statment that explains a phenomenon by saying that "something special" is happening.
The FE model is unlikely even at first glance, because it has too many exceptions to it's own rules, exceptions that aren't exactly a minority.
-
Like I said, subduction is not known to liquify plates
Phaseshifter, your problem is that you do a lot of talking, but no research.
If you had actually bothered to look up what subduction is and how plates are recycled, you would have seen that you were wrong, yet again.
The jerky movement, as well as the friction between the plates causes much heat, and together with the heat from the mantle and from radioactive decay, causes the subducted plate to melt. Magma is produced by the melting plate.
http://library.thinkquest.org/17457/platetectonics/5.php
-
And you have yet to show how it is possible
As for the added statment you made of it being impossible on earth specificly. Consider that the earth's core IS liquid, and has the weight of the planet on it. Pockets of magma, which I mentioned earlier are also a good example of this.
I seem to recall it being the case that I claimed that rock, deep underground, could become liquid. What are you trying to prove here?
You must understand that it's natural to be sceptical of a statment that explains a phenomenon by saying that "something special" is happening.
The FE model is unlikely even at first glance, because it has too many exceptions to it's own rules, exceptions that aren't exactly a minority.
I understand that it's natural for you to be sceptical. I also understand that statements about the "likelihood" form the core of anti-FE arguments, and really have no logical weight behind them at all. It's unlikely that the fundamental constants of the universe would have the precise values that they do and that allow life as we know it to form; it doesn't mean that the Standard Model is wrong.
-
I seem to recall it being the case that I claimed that rock, deep underground, could become liquid. What are you trying to prove here?
We are talking about the plates that cause common earthquakes. What's with the attitude?
I also understand that statements about the "likelihood" form the core of anti-FE arguments, and really have no logical weight behind them at all
Most people will find it logical to expect likely events to happen, and unlikely events not to.
It's unlikely that the fundamental constants of the universe would have the precise values that they do and that allow life as we know it to form; it doesn't mean that the Standard Model is wrong.
The exsistence of earth does not contradict anything we know. The other planets of the solar system do not have the requirements to support life, (too hot, too cold, ect). So they don't. The earth does, so it does.
And I don't see how this qualifies as an explanation to the phenomenon.
-
phaseshifter unfortunately ur argument refferring to the compressability of liquids and solids to form black holes is irrelevant. when reverting to a black hole, the seperate pieces of atoms go their seperate ways, there is no longer a Li atom, or an Fe...they revert to single protons and neutrons and electrons, and theory has it that these in turn break down further into quarks.
-
Most people will find it logical to expect likely events to happen, and unlikely events not to.
Yes, but, whether you believe in RE or FE, you believe in something unlikely:
The other planets of the solar system do not have the requirements to support life, (too hot, too cold, ect). So they don't. The earth does, so it does.
I'm talking about more fundamental requirements. If for example the nuclear force were a bit weaker, stable stars would not form. There would be no processes that could create heavier elements. If it were a bit stronger, all the hydrogen in the universe would be quickly converted into helium and there would be no water. There's a very delicate balance that, if it were even slighly upset, would render the universe (not just one planet) inhospitable to life as we know it.
Point is, our universe is not one that you'd want to bet one. Just because the FE universe is "unlikely", doesn't make it impossible.
*edit* For more information on the unlikelihood of the universe as we know it, see Wikipedia's article on the fine-tuned universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe).
-
That actually links to a picture I've been meaning to ask about. Do you think that picture taken by Hubble is a fake? I don't think it's possible to take that clear a picture from earth, due to the atmosphere...
-
That actually links to a picture I've been meaning to ask about. Do you think that picture taken by Hubble is a fake? I don't think it's possible to take that clear a picture from earth, due to the atmosphere...
Allegedly Hubble is in space where there is no atmosphere.
-
Do you believe we launched a telescope up there though? I'm gonna guess no?
-
Do you believe we launched a telescope up there though? I'm gonna guess no?
People seem to rarely ask what I believe, being much more comfortable presuming it. In any case, I hardly see how what I believe is relevant to a discussion of what is true, or even to one of what other people believe.
-
Gotcha :D
-
Yes, but, whether you believe in RE or FE, you believe in something unlikely:
The spherical model is not unlikely, seing as every other planet is also spherical.
Point is, our universe is not one that you'd want to bet one. Just because the FE universe is "unlikely", doesn't make it impossible.
That would be true IF our universe did not exist and we were somehow sentient to ponder about the possibility of its existence. But since our universe is the only one we know of, and those constants and fundamental laws are the same everywhere in it, then we can't say that it's unlikely, it's all over the place. it IS the place actually.
But this is completely off topic. I'll assume that you are ot going to give any explanations and wait for another FE'er to adress this issue, as I'm sure they must have a different point of view.
-
The spherical model is not unlikely, seing as every other planet is also spherical.
The Earth isn't a planet.
Also, every "other" planet doesn't support life. There's still that's plenty different about Earth.
-
The spherical model is not unlikely, seing as every other planet is also spherical.
The Earth isn't a planet.
Also, every "other" planet doesn't support life. There's still that's plenty different about Earth.
How is earth not a planet? The presence of life on earth does not make it a different entity from other celestial bodies. A table with food on it isn't any less a table then if there was nothing on it.
Saturn has rings wich Jupiter doesn't, one of them isn't a planet? Mars has a red surface and neptune doesn't, one of them isn't a planet?
And that is still beside the point, wether WE choose to call earth a planet or not, every other celestial body is still spherical, so spherical objects are not unlikely in the universe .
-
I think the point is probably that planets are round and the Earth is flat.
Also logically I think saying that because 8 objects are round the 9th must be is a little presumptious. There are plenty of times in nature where there are exceptions like that. For example all mammels give birth to live young - apart from the Echidna and the Platypus- which lays eggs.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3b/Long-beakedEchidna.jpg/250px-Long-beakedEchidna.jpg)
-
I think the point is probably that planets are round and the Earth is flat.
Also logically I think saying that because 8 objects are round the 9th must be is a little presumptious. There are plenty of times in nature where there are exceptions like that. For example all mammels give birth to live young - apart from the Echidna and the Platypus- which lays eggs.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3b/Long-beakedEchidna.jpg/250px-Long-beakedEchidna.jpg)
Also logically I think saying that because 8 objects are round the 9th must be is a little presumptious.
Not it's just common sense. What reason would you have NOT to beleive the 9th object would be spherical after witnessing the first 8 occurances?
For example all mammels give birth to live young - apart from the Echidna and the Platypus- which lays eggs
So from this, YOU would see a mammal and assume that it would lay eggs because TWO species out of thousands does?
-
No that's not what I'm saying. Obviously if the other 8 planets are round it makes it likely that the Earth is round but it doesn't make it a fact. It's pretty meaningless evidence.
If I just said that saying the Earth is round because 8 other objects are round is presumptious than do you really think I would assume anything about seeing an unknown mammal? Wouldn't that contradict myself?
-
Planet:
(a) is in orbit around the Sun;
(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape; and
c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit;
(Jupiter has rings btw)
-
So clearly a flat Earth does not fit that definition of a planet :)
-
yes, if the earth was flat, it certainly would not.
edit- a rant, ignore if you wish, not much in it anyway. i love astronomy so.
Earth, not too unique, again this is using evidence that FE's would probably deny being true, which is fine.
There are oceans. What other planets have oceans? Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. They are not oceans made of water, but they are oceans nonetheless, Jupiter having the deepest obviously.
Europa, a moon of Jupiter, has a crust made of ice, it is theorized there is an ocean of water underneath, hence a possibility of supporting life.
What other bodies in the solar system have an atmosphere alike earth?
Not many, the only observable object that is theorized to have a similar atmosphere is Titan, the largest moon of Saturn.
I largely dislike the idea of the earth being anything special. I mean yes it is because it can support life.
imo it goes back to the self-centered view that Christianity believed in the middle ages, and since it's us, we ARE in fact the center of everything.
Volcanic activity... Venus, Io, moon of Jupiter.
There's a theory the Earth is simply a young Venus, before global warming completely destroyed the atmosphere, this of course is just a theory.
Again, all of this can be simply denied by FE's, which is fine.
I don't understand how everything can have gravity but the earth doesn't. And I'm never going to understand that concept.
I think that everything about FE falls apart when it goes to explain the other planet's relationships to the earth. I looked at the moon for three hours tonight. Why is the moon important? Our month is based on the moon's synodic period around the earth. How did we figure that out? When a moon goes from new to new, that's it's synodic period. It goes through phases, I just don't understand how that's explained by FE.
Lunar eclipes is basically one of the most obvious ways to say, hey the earth is round, the moon is within the umbra/penumbra/both of the earth, and it got darker. how would this happen otherwise? it is said that a random object passes in front of it. What object passes in front of the moon so often? A lunar eclipse can occur no times in a year, and up to two or three I believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lunareclipses2003.jpg
What can produce a shadow on the moon like that? What is big enough besides the earth. As far as I know there's not another big object up there that goes in front of the moon every so often. You can't deny that's not very convincing.
what about solar eclipses? although I think i alrdy know the answer to that one in FE so forget that.
I'm sorry, there's just too much not explained for this to be an aceptable theory in my opinion, which is, just my own opinion.
/end rant you can just ignore this.
-
No that's not what I'm saying. Obviously if the other 8 planets are round it makes it likely that the Earth is round but it doesn't make it a fact. It's pretty meaningless evidence.
If I just said that saying the Earth is round because 8 other objects are round is presumptious than do you really think I would assume anything about seeing an unknown mammal? Wouldn't that contradict myself?
If it's evidence, then it's not meaningless. The concept of evidence means that the object or information serves a purpose.
So what was your statment about mammals for? We are not talking about 8 other objects, we are talking about ALL other planets. There are more than 8 celestial bodies in our solar system if you hadn't noticed.
-
There are 9 planets (or 8 if you don't count pluto, but I do). You said and I quote:
The spherical model is not unlikely, seing as every other planet is also spherical.
And I'm simply saying that 8 models is not a lot to go on. When you brought up this issue you were only talking about planets. If you were talking about moons and the Sun as well, why did you use the word "planet"? Do you know what a planet is?
-
That definition of planet is made by your friendly neighborhood super-government-conspiracy dudes. The ancient definition of planet is a star that wanders across the sky, instead of being "fixed" in relation to the other stars.
The Earth is not a planet because it's the Earth; planets are things that are in the Earth's sky.
-
In that case there are too many planets to count then, but they got smart and changed the definition from that. every asteroid can't be a planet!
-
In that case there are too many planets to count then, but they got smart and changed the definition from that. every asteroid can't be a planet!
Hmm.. no I think there's just the five.
-
There are 9 planets (or 8 if you don't count pluto, but I do). You said and I quote:
If you don't include earth why did you say 9? Or did you just mistype.
In that case there are too many planets to count then, but they got smart and changed the definition from that. every asteroid can't be a planet!
Hmm.. no I think there's just the five.
Only five planets?
-
Only five planets?
Classically, yes. They are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. With the advent of the conspiracy, astronomers felt a need to make a name for themselves by adding more :)
-
Well classically yes. So Uranus is not a planet?
I'm not gonna argue but if Uranus isn't a planet then Saturn isn't because Uranus is Saturn's daddy. And Neptune is Saturn's grandson.
Or some mixed marriage going on!
-
I'm not gonna argue but if Uranus isn't a planet then Saturn isn't because Uranus is Saturn's daddy. And Neptune is Saturn's grandson.
So planethood is inherited along the male line?
-
Hmm who knows. I'll ask Chaos.
-
Well actually Uranus produced Saturn with Gaiea, the earth, his mommy. So if Uranus isn't a planet and neither is the earth, how is Saturn a planet?
Bam, some Roman/Greek logic right there... :shock:
Must've been a mutation, like x-men.
lol um.
-_-
-
Well actually Uranus produced Saturn with Gaiea, the earth, his mommy. So if Uranus isn't a planet and neither is the earth, how is Saturn a planet?
I really don't see any justification for this assertion that one's parents must be planets in order for one to be a planet. I can be a cobbler even if both of my parents were tailors, for example.
-
Well is being a planet a profession? Or is it an identity.
Hehe this is a funny topic :D, considering it makes no sense :)
-
Well is being a planet a profession? Or is it an identity.
I think planethood is membership in the set { Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn }, as those terms refer to bright dots in the sky.
-
Hmm.
Well I suppose there must have been a tough screening process, so I'm sure Saturn is a planet then.
-
Well I suppose there must have been a tough screening process, so I'm sure Saturn is a planet then.
Definitely. We're talking hundreds of generations of dudes in robes and tall hats looking up into the sky and telling which blips of light move.
-
Ahah robes and tall hats, nice.
-
It doesn't matter what name humans choose to call them, they are still all spherical.
-
Well? How does FE account for this?
-
Well? How does FE account for this?
Account for what? The fact that the Earth and the planets don't resemble one another? It doesn't account for it; there's nothing to account for.
-
Well? How does FE account for this?
Account for what? The fact that the Earth and the planets don't resemble one another? It doesn't account for it; there's nothing to account for.
The Earth is special?
-
Well? How does FE account for this?
Account for what? The fact that the Earth and the planets don't resemble one another? It doesn't account for it; there's nothing to account for.
"points to topic of the thread"
-
Well? How does FE account for this?
Account for what? The fact that the Earth and the planets don't resemble one another? It doesn't account for it; there's nothing to account for.
The Earth is special?
absoultely, and I have proof that noone can argue with that shows the Earth is fundamentally different than all the other planets. The Earth has life!
-
Well? How does FE account for this?
Account for what? The fact that the Earth and the planets don't resemble one another? It doesn't account for it; there's nothing to account for.
The Earth is special?
absoultely, and I have proof that noone can argue with that shows the Earth is fundamentally different than all the other planets. The Earth has life!
That is a baseless argument, for many reasons; the main argument is that you have no proof that there isn't life elsewhere, making it an untestable hypothesis on your account. Secondly, recall the small fossils of microbial life in the meteorites found in Antartica from Mars (A weaker argument, because it can be countered by "it was faked"; hence the first argument).
-
There is no proof either way, but the fact that no life has been on meteors or anything of the sort is a good start. Beside that, there has been nothing to convince me, such as fires on Mars (2 points if you get the book reference), or anything of the sort. Good guess on how I was going to disprove the second thing, since FE claims NASA is in on the conspiracy, we can not trust anything they say.
-
There is no proof either way, but the fact that no life has been on meteors or anything of the sort is a good start. Beside that, there has been nothing to convince me, such as fires on Mars (2 points if you get the book reference), or anything of the sort. Good guess on how I was going to disprove the second thing, since FE claims NASA is in on the conspiracy, we can not trust anything they say.
Eh, my mind is so open, it's torn in two; it's like Relativity, but instead of "all inertial reference frames are on equal footing", it's "all ideas are on equal footing".
-
"points to topic of the thread"
Sorry, what does the planethood of the Earth have to do with whether "FE prevents itself from existing" (a nonsensical sentence, if you ask me)?
-
"points to topic of the thread"
Sorry, what does the planethood of the Earth have to do with whether "FE prevents itself from existing" (a nonsensical sentence, if you ask me)?
He's getting at that, if the Earth is a planet, and other planets are round, then the Earth is round too.
-
He's getting at that, if the Earth is a planet, and other planets are round, then the Earth is round too.
A laughable claim. If the Earth is a planet and all planets are round, then the Earth is round too. That's quite clear.
Observer: if Erasmus is a member of these forums and other members of these forums are not named Erasmus, then Erasmus is not named Erasmus. Same argument form, different meanings of predicates, obviously nonsense; therefore you argument is also, obviously, nonsense.
I won't even bother updating your score for this one; you would just have to be disqualified and I don't like to do that.
-
I won't even bother updating your score for this one; you would just have to be disqualified and I don't like to do that.
You've been disqualified for misunderstanding that I was merely a translator. I neither defended nor attacked his position, I just typed what I thought his point was; just because I believe the Earth is round, doesn't automatically mean I'm going to force my opinion onto someone unwilling to receive it. Your current theory has near-perfect logical backing, and I am perfectly fine with it. All I can do is try to strengthen it for you. How? By helping you to prepare for the fights with the over-zealous bastards.
Good game. Rematch soon?
-
I just typed what I thought his point was;
So you're saying his point is invalid? Probably that is something that should be addressed to him, not to me.
-
I just typed what I thought his point was;
So you're saying his point is invalid? Probably that is something that should be addressed to him, not to me.
No, I'm telling you that your first post (before this little conversation) should have been directed at HIM, not me.
-
"points to topic of the thread"
Sorry, what does the planethood of the Earth have to do with whether "FE prevents itself from existing" (a nonsensical sentence, if you ask me)?
"Points to original post." No planethood involved.
-
"Points to original post."
We finished addressing your original questions several pages ago.
-
"Points to original post."
We finished addressing your original questions several pages ago.
No we didn't. I asked you to explain how that new "special something" of yours could work 4 times already and you did not, you also ignored evrery statment I made that refuted it and then went off topic. And As I said, I'd like someone else's opinion. Preferably offering an explanation rather than making up their own phenomenons.
-
I asked you to explain how that new "special something" of yours could work 4 times already and you did not,
What "special something"? That sounds like something that nubile debutantes have.
you also ignored evrery statment I made that refuted it
I didn't. I read it, realized it was not a refutation, and moved on.
Look, you've clearly got this preconceived notion that any proposed process that addressed and invalidates your "refutations" of the FE theory can't possibly be right, because you know that the Earth is round. Unfortunately that's now how logic works. You don't get to say that you've "refuted" my suggestions just because you don't like what they imply.
-
I asked you to explain how that new "special something" of yours could work 4 times already and you did not,
What "special something"? That sounds like something that nubile debutantes have.
you also ignored evrery statment I made that refuted it
I didn't. I read it, realized it was not a refutation, and moved on.
Look, you've clearly got this preconceived notion that any proposed process that addressed and invalidates your "refutations" of the FE theory can't possibly be right, because you know that the Earth is round. Unfortunately that's now how logic works. You don't get to say that you've "refuted" my suggestions just because you don't like what they imply.
Divergent shifts do not involve subduction. That's called refuting an argument.
What "special something"?
Your explanmation was:
Look, it's obvious that something special has to be going on near the rim of the Earth
Which is kind of lacking.
I asked you twice how there would be empty space so deep undergound to fit an entire plate into, and why matter in the earth's interior isn't filling that space. You never gave any explanation to that.
Look, you've clearly got this preconceived notion that any proposed process that addressed and invalidates your "refutations" of the FE theory can't possibly be right, because you know that the Earth is round.
Please quote me and show me how. I gave reasons and explained why they didn,t work, and YOU switched to a new phenomenon afterwards. I have made no claim of any of my argument being true because the earth was a sphere, I never even mentioned that. I'm not sure what you base this on. I have NEVER started one of my statments with "if the earth is a sphere" or "Since the earth is a sphere" I have seen YOU do it on many occasions however with the flat earth concept.
-
Divergent shifts do not involve subduction.
And I pointed out that geologists who are wrong about the shape of the Earth might not know everything there is to know about its composition.
I asked you twice how there would be empty space so deep undergound to fit an entire plate into, and why matter in the earth's interior isn't filling that space. You never gave any explanation to that.
Explanation: the space isn't empty; it contains the plate. Other stuff moved out of the way to make way for the plate.
I have NEVER started one of my statments with "if the earth is a sphere" or "Since the earth is a sphere"
You're clearly assuming that any argument you present againt our suggestions is automatically a refutation.... that's far enough from the truth that it reveals your biases and unwillingness to argue objectively.
-
Explanation: the space isn't empty; it contains the plate. Other stuff moved out of the way to make way for the plate
That's something you never elaborated on. If "stuff moves out of the way", then that "stuff" needs empty space to fill so the the plate then takes it's place. And you were saying the plate was going down, you haven't explained either how there would be room for matter to move around enough to fit a plate when you actually go deeper and deal with more compact matter.
You're clearly assuming that any argument you present againt our suggestions is automatically a refutation.... that's far enough from the truth that it reveals your biases and unwillingness to argue objectively
I said it before QUOTE ME. Show me that bias. If I wasn't refuting you by presenting counterarguments then what do you call it?
and unwillingness to argue objectively
Dude, you have some nerve. I've been arguing objectively all this time, but YOU have not.
.And I pointed out that geologists who are wrong about the shape of the Earth
THAT, is bias. YOU are doing it, not me. You can look through the whole thread and you'll never see me doing something like this.
Plus, you had no problem with geologists when you explained the phenomenon on FE with subduction. Now, after I explained that subduction isn't possible during divergent shifts, all of a sudden, geology is wrong.
Furthermore, I have maintained the same position since the beginning of the argument, your position changed at least 4 times already.
Man.
-
phaseshifter, how do you explain subduction on the RE? It's not some made up property of the FE. By your reasoning, subduction can't happen on the RE because there is no 'empty space' for an entire plate to fit. Can you explain how it works then?
-
That's something you never elaborated on. If "stuff moves out of the way", then that "stuff" needs empty space to fill so the the plate then takes it's place.
I didn't realize it demanded elaboration. Have you ever stirred a thick soup? or a bucket of sand and water? The material deep below the Earth's surface is fluid, and can therefore flow. I did mention this in one of my earlier posts.
You're clearly assuming that any argument you present againt our suggestions is automatically a refutation....
I said it before QUOTE ME. Show me that bias.
I don't think I really need to refute this.
It was necessary to refute your statment
you also ignored evrery statment I made that refuted it
Suffice it to say, at no point did you robustly refute any of my suggestions. Just saying that you did only has the effect of, as I've already mentioned, revealing your bias.
Plus, you had no problem with geologists when you explained the phenomenon on FE with subduction. Now, after I explained that subduction isn't possible during divergent shifts, all of a sudden, geology is wrong.
I didn't say all of geology is wrong. I said geologists might not know everything there is to know about the nature of plate tectonics. Do you think that that's untrue?
-
That's something you never elaborated on. If "stuff moves out of the way", then that "stuff" needs empty space to fill so the the plate then takes it's place.
I didn't realize it demanded elaboration. Have you ever stirred a thick soup? or a bucket of sand and water? The material deep below the Earth's surface is fluid, and can therefore flow. I did mention this in one of my earlier posts.
A theory is said to be weak if it can't explain/elaborate on it's workings/composition. You should know this already.
-
I didn't realize it demanded elaboration. Have you ever stirred a thick soup? or a bucket of sand and water? The material deep below the Earth's surface is fluid, and can therefore flow. I did mention this in one of my earlier posts.
If it's fluid and flows, it is still taking all the available space where it is. You are STILL not explaining where it goes so that the plate can takes its place.
Suffice it to say, at no point did you robustly refute any of my suggestions. Just saying that you did only has the effect of, as I've already mentioned, revealing your bias
You, again, conveniently left out critical parts.
I don't think I really need to refute this.
#1. Since you were not satisfied with the words I put in bold (that you left out), I gave you an explanation in the following reply. Which was:
Not significantly is not the same as not at all. Why would we make the precision if there was an abscence of the phenomenon? It's either possible or it's not
Which you conceded. So don't try to tell me I ignored it.
#2.It was necessary to refute your statment
I'm not sure why you quoted this. Where's the bias here? You asked me why I was talking about neutron stars and black holes and I replied. That sentence was my reply to your question (which you left out) What is this biased towards? if you can answer that.
#3 you also ignored every statment I made that refuted it
Again, where is the bias here? If you really want me to, I can show you the senences I used to refute your statments that you did not respond to.
You often switched to a new theory instead of adressig them, so how does that show bias on my part?
I didn't say all of geology is wrong. I said geologists might not know everything there is to know about the nature of plate tectonics. Do you think that that's untrue?
You based that statment on the assumption that they were wrong about the shape of the earth, which made it invalid since the shape of the planet is what is being debated. And my question still stands. Since you obviously beleive that geology is not precise enough that I can use it to back up my statments, why use it to back up yours? And why did you not mention that when you mentionned your subduction explanation?
And you haven't adressed this either.
And I pointed out that geologists who are wrong about the shape of the Earth
THAT, is bias. YOU are doing it, not me. You can look through the whole thread and you'll never see me doing something like this.
As you can see, everytime I reply to you, I adress each of your statments and explain why I agree/disagre. The least you could do is do the same rather than go off topic or fall back on sarcasm.
If you don't want to debate in good faith, you don,t have to. I'll just wait for someone else.
-
As you can see, everytime I reply to you, I adress each of your statments and explain why I agree/disagre.
Oh, I don't doubt it... I merely doubt that the very act of disagreeing is good for a refutation.
-
As you can see, everytime I reply to you, I adress each of your statments and explain why I agree/disagre.
Oh, I don't doubt it... I merely doubt that the very act of disagreeing is good for a refutation.
I used the term agree/disagree so that you'd understand what I meant without me having to actually say "I adress each of your statments and explain why they are invalid" which would have seemed arrogant in the context.(but is nevertheless what I think) You know very well, that I didn't just say that I didn't agree. You may quote one of my replies where I merely state I disagree with no explanation, but we both know you're not going to find it.
Once again, everytime I reply to you, I adress each of your statments,the least you could do is do the same. If you don't want to debate in good faith, you don't have to.
I asked you very simple questions which you didn't answer.
-
As you can see, everytime I reply to you, I adress each of your statments and explain why I agree/disagre.
Oh, I don't doubt it... I merely doubt that the very act of disagreeing is good for a refutation.
phaseshifter, don't take Erasmus seriously. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Believe me, in any debating competition he would've lost a long, long time ago. His only incentive to keep posting is the presence of his lackeys TheEngineer, thebeast, DDraw and a few others who make him feel like he actually has a point.