The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 08:47:19 AM

Title: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 08:47:19 AM
Hey everyone,

I've been reading in this forum for a while now and quite often a subject related to geology would come along, and sometimes a lot of good information and explanations were left out. Hence this thread; any questions regarding the earth's origin, interior, magnetic field, plate tectonics, rock dating, feel free to ask. Or anything else that's related and needs clearing up, really.

PS. I'm a globe earther and feel very comfortable about it. The model works.
I aim to educate people but actively trying to destroy beliefs goes against my morals.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 17, 2016, 08:55:45 AM
I appreciate what you do, but believe me - it won't work.

People here are like 40% round earthers, 40% trolls, and 20% retards or maniacs that REALLY believe the earth is flat.

Obviously, discussion does not make sense with any of those groups. But you'll see yourself, might be I'm wrong :)


Edit: typo
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: boydster on September 17, 2016, 09:24:28 AM
I appreciate what you do, but believe me - it won't work.

People here are like 40% round earthers, 40% trolls, and 10% retards or maniacs that REALLY believe the earth is flat.

Obviously, discussion does not make sense with any of those groups. But you'll see yourself, might be I'm wrong :)

And the remaining 5% are those that aren't strong in math  ;D
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 09:26:03 AM
I appreciate what you do, but believe me - it won't work.

People here are like 40% round earthers, 40% trolls, and 10% retards or maniacs that REALLY believe the earth is flat.

Obviously, discussion does not make sense with any of those groups. But you'll see yourself, might be I'm wrong :)
Yeah I figured this place would attract a lot of trolls and people who just really really like arguing. Hopefully there's some actual interest.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: N30 on September 17, 2016, 09:45:49 AM
Hence this thread; any questions regarding the earth's origin, interior, magnetic field, plate tectonics, rock dating, feel free to ask.

How are the magnetic and gravitational fluctuations of Earth and the Moon calculated in orbital patterns?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 10:09:00 AM
Are you deliberately trying to stump me?  :(

I know how all the things in your question seperately work but the whole question makes 0 sense to me. What's the relation even between the magnetic field and orbital patterns?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: AYellowCat on September 17, 2016, 10:11:55 AM
The earth really isn't a sphere, it's a spheroid apparently
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 17, 2016, 10:57:47 AM
Welcome to FES RocksEverywhere. Good luck!
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 11:20:01 AM
The earth really isn't a sphere, it's a spheroid apparently

Absolutely, as the result of the earth's spin. It's also because of this, that Mount Everest's peak isn't the furthest mountain peak from the earth's center, but rather Chimborazo in Ecuador (6,263 m or 20,548 ft) as it is located at the equator. I also want to add this neat little wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid

Welcome to FES RocksEverywhere. Good luck!

Thank you!
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 11:41:15 AM
Hence this thread; any questions regarding the earth's origin, interior, magnetic field, plate tectonics, rock dating, feel free to ask. Or anything else that's related and needs clearing up, really.

It takes less than thirty seconds to put an end to your incursion here.

You have no answers when it comes to the origin of the granite, the isotope dating paradoxes, the comets' tails dating proofs and much more.

Imagine what would happen to you if I were to bring up the three body problem paradox, that is, the fact that the RE orbital equations of motion lead to homoclinic tangles.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Globetrotter on September 17, 2016, 11:43:45 AM
I appreciate what you do, but believe me - it won't work.

People here are like 40% round earthers, 40% trolls, and 10% retards or maniacs that REALLY believe the earth is flat.

Obviously, discussion does not make sense with any of those groups. But you'll see yourself, might be I'm wrong :)

And the remaining 5% are those that aren't strong in math  ;D

Still, the remaining 5% are those who only think they are good in math, are here just to make their fame only.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 17, 2016, 11:54:45 AM
Welcome.

Hence this thread; any questions regarding the earth's origin, interior, magnetic field, plate tectonics, rock dating, feel free to ask. Or anything else that's related and needs clearing up, really.

It takes less than thirty seconds to put an end to your incursion here.

You have no answers when it comes to the origin of the granite, the isotope dating paradoxes, the comets' tails dating proofs and much more.

Imagine what would happen to you if I were to bring up the three body problem paradox, that is, the fact that the RE orbital equations of motion lead to homoclinic tangles.

Well I was about to ask a question but I see Sandokhan is here to debate an actual scientist so now I just need to get some popcorn instead.  Hope you're hungry.  You're about to get all the copy pasta you can eat.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 12:08:16 PM
Hence this thread; any questions regarding the earth's origin, interior, magnetic field, plate tectonics, rock dating, feel free to ask. Or anything else that's related and needs clearing up, really.

It takes less than thirty seconds to put an end to your incursion here.

You have no answers when it comes to the origin of the granite, the isotope dating paradoxes, the comets' tails dating proofs and much more.

Imagine what would happen to you if I were to bring up the three body problem paradox, that is, the fact that the RE orbital equations of motion lead to homoclinic tangles.

What exactly is the problem with the theory that granite is the result of melting crustal rocks? Furthermore I'm not familiar with the isotope dating paradoxes, the comets' tails dating proofs and "much more", so... entertain me.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 12:20:26 PM
Can somebody inform our friend of what is about to happen to him?

You are actually challenging me on geology, astrophysics, physics, paleoastronomy, chronological dating, and much more?


DATING METHODS OF THE PAST: ISOTOPES VS. COMETS

Dr. Anatoly Fomenko:

We have cross-checked archaeological, astronomical, dendro-chronological, paleo-graphical and radiocarbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts. We found them ALL to be non-independent, non-exact, statistically implausible, contradictory and inevitably viciously circular because they are based or calibrated on the same consensual chronology.

Unbelievable as it may seem, there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century. Classical history is firmly based on copies made in the XV-XVII centuries of 'unfortunately lost' originals.

It just happens that there is no valid irrefutable scientific proof that ALL ‘ancient’ artefacts are much older than 1000 years contrary to the self fulfilling radiocarbon dating obligingly rubber-stamped by radiocarbon labs to the prescriptions of the mainstream historians. How heartbreaking is that the oldest ORIGINAL written documents that can be reliably, irrefutably and unambiguously dated belong only to the 11th century! All dirty and worn out originals have somehow disappeared in the Very Dark Ages, as illiterate but tidy monks kept only brand new copies. Better yet, most of the very old original document of 11th-13th tell very peculiar stories completely out of line with the consensual history.

Radio-carbon method:

Very sorry about c14 radiocarbon dating methods, the poor Nobel Libby must be turning in his grave after ‘calibration’ of his method (pity that!). By ‘calibration’ on statistically non-significant number of wood samples from Egypt with ARBITRARELY suggested alleged age of 3100 B.C. the Arizona university radiocarbon team simply smuggled the consensual chronology into c14 method of dating, turning it into a sheer fallacy.

The c14 radiocarbon dating procedure runs as follows: archaeologist sends an artefact to a radiocarbon dating laboratory with his idea of the age of the object to get a to ‘scientific’ rubber-stamp. Laboratory gladly complies and makes required radio dating, confirming the date suggested by archaeologist. Everybody’s happy: lab makes good money by making an expensive test, archaeologist by reaping the laurels for his earth shattering discovery. The in-built low precision (because of sensitivity) of this method allows cooking scientifically looking results desired by the customer archaeologist. General public doesn’t realize that it was duped again.

Just try to submit to any c14 lab a sample of organic matter and ask them to date it. The lab will ask your idea of the age of the sample, then it fiddles with the lots of knobs (‘fine-tuning’) and gives you the result as you’ve ‘expected’. With c14 dating method being so mind bogglingly precise C14 labs decline making 'black box' test of any kind absolutely. Nah, they assert that because their method is SO very sensitive they must have maximum information about the sample. This much touted method often produces reliable dating of objects of organic origin with exactitude (mistakes that) of up to plus minus 1500 years, therefore it is too crude for dating of historical events in the 3000 years timeframe!

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/cb_zps204d3736.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/cb2_zpsc5ae6cef.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/cb3_zps268ccbe2.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/cb4_zps52c7cfdf.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/cb5_zps64cbe563.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/cb6_zps9b05ac86.jpg)

History: Fiction or Science? volume I:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=history%20science%20or%20fiction&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=history%20science%20or%20fiction&f=false)

chapter 1, sections 15 and 16

Isotopic dating: science or fiction?

https://web.archive.org/web/20080514235945/http://www.atenizo.org/evolution-c14-kar.htm (https://web.archive.org/web/20080514235945/http://www.atenizo.org/evolution-c14-kar.htm)


Thermochronology/geochemical analysis errors:

http://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/dating2.html (http://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/dating2.html)

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/u-th-pb-dating-an-example-of-false-isochrons/ (https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/u-th-pb-dating-an-example-of-false-isochrons/)

https://web.archive.org/web/20110808123827/http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro14.html (https://web.archive.org/web/20110808123827/http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro14.html)

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html) (superb documentation)

http://web.archive.org/web/20110301201543/http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v8i9f.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20110301201543/http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v8i9f.htm)

http://itotd.com/articles/349/carbon-dating/ (http://itotd.com/articles/349/carbon-dating/)


http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm (http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm)
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07b.htm (http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07b.htm)
http://evolutionfacts.com/Appendix/a07.htm (http://evolutionfacts.com/Appendix/a07.htm)
(must read)

http://www.parentcompany.com/great_dinosaur_mistake/tgdm9.htm (http://www.parentcompany.com/great_dinosaur_mistake/tgdm9.htm)


Spectroscopy methods errors:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489346.html#msg1489346 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489346.html#msg1489346)

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html (http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html)


Ice core dating errors:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html (http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html)


Collapsing Tests of Time:

http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm (http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm)


The methods described above cannot be used to date anything.


The only accurate and direct method is: comets as luminous bodes MUST have limited lives.

When passing close to the sun, comets emit tails. It is assumed that the material of the tail does not return to the comet's head but is dispersed in space; consequently, the comets as luminous bodies must have a limited life. If Halley's comet has pursued its present orbit since late pre-Cambrian times, it must "have grown and lost eight million tails, which seems improbable." If comets are wasted, their number in the solar system must permanently diminish, and no comet of short period could have preserved its tail since geological times.

But as there are many luminous comets of short period, they must have been produced or acquired at some time when other members of the system, the planets and the satellites, were already in their places.

(from Worlds in Collision)


The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.

From the work Saturnian Comets:

The usual explanation for the Saturnian and Jovian families of comets is that they had originally traveled on extremely elongated or even parabolic orbits and, passing close to one of the large planets, were changed into short-period comets, traveling on ellipses—it is usual to say that they were “captured.” However, the Russian astronomer K. Vshekhsviatsky of the Kiev Observatory, one of the leading authorities on comets, has brought strong arguments to show that the comets of the solar system are very youthful bodies—only a few thousand years old—and that they originated in explosions from the planets, especially from the major planets Saturn and Jupiter or their moons. By comparing the observed luminosity of the periodic comets on their subsequent returns, he found it failing and their masses rapidly diminishing by loss of matter to the space through which they travel; the head of the comet emits tails on each passage close to the sun and then dissipates the matter of the tails without recovery. Thus Vshekhsviatsky concluded that comets of short duration originated in the solar system, were not captured from outside of that system—a point to which the majority of astronomers still adhere—and that they came into existence by explosion from Jupiter and Saturn, and to a smaller extent by explosion from the smaller planets, like Venus and Mars.


http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=282311 (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=282311) (full information on comets' tail dating)

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1962PASP...74..106V/0000107.000.html (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1962PASP...74..106V/0000107.000.html)]1962PASP...74..106V

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/vk1_zps94d113aa.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/vk2_zps6810e273.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/vk3_zps5e9ba7dd.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/vk4_zpseded4eba.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/vk5_zps2a28faf9.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/vk6_zps8646951b.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/vk7_zps5f68407e.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/vk8_zps396de28f.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/vk9_zpsc9d9e12d.jpg)


K. Vshekhsviatsky was the leading expert in comet astrophysics as his works clearly demonstrate this.

Two months after the discovery of the ring around Jupiter, the Soviet Union claimed joint credit for the discovery, contending that Vsekhsviatskii had predicted the ring’s existence as early as 1960 in a journal called Izvestia of the Armenian Academy of Sciences. The passage from the relevant paper is as follows:

‘The existence of active ejection processes in the Jupiter system, demonstrated by comet astronomy, gives grounds for assuming that Jupiter is encircled by comet and meteorite material in the form of a ring similar to the ring of Saturn.’


PAGE 107: Halley's comet, for example, could not exist as a comet for more than 120 revolutions.

120 x 75 = 9000 years


Halley's Comet, official astrophysics information

15 kilometers long, 8 kilometers wide and perhaps 8 kilometers thick.

Based strictly on this data, we have the following results:

Comet Halley, as well as other comets, may have only been orbiting in its present orbit for only a few thousand years.

Comet Halley may have been in its current orbit for as little as 3,000 years (http://creation.com/comets-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system (http://creation.com/comets-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system) )



That is, the age of the entire solar system cannot be more than 2,500-3,000 years old - an extraordinary agreement with the results of the facts that can be deduced from the new chronology subject.


However, as we have seen, the size of the Sun/Moon/planets/comets in the fixed flat earth context (see the proofs using the Solar ISS transit videos/Antarctica photographs) is much smaller than in the assumed heliocentric framework.

In the full fixed flat earth context, a comet has only some 20-30 meters in diameter: thus the dissipation rate of the material in a comet's tail (Halley's comet for example) does prove that Halley's comet has pursued its present orbit for only a few hundred years (another proof for the new radical chronology theory).


http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1567565#msg1567565 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1567565#msg1567565)



See also the Faint Young Sun Paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (it takes into account each and every factor)


ORIGIN OF GRANITE:

Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.



http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/04earth4.htm
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/04earth3.htm
http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-3a.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/catastrophic-granite-formation
(exceptionally documented)

Geologist's built the theory of an evolving earth on the premise that the basement granites formed naturally. They did this without having firm scientific evidence for their formation.

(29 Conference proceedings publications in 1947, 1988 and 1991 show that geologists continue to argue about the origin of granites (see 1947 "Origin of Granite", Geological Society of America, Memoir 28; 1988 "The Origin of Granites", Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Earth Sciences, 79, parts 2-3; 1991 "Second Hutton Symposium on the Origin of Granites and Related Rocks", Brown & Chappell eds)
(30) Rhyolite is a pale rock with tiny crystals that is said to be the result of granite cooling over a long time under the earth's surface.
(31) It is assumed that granite forms very deep under the surface, because they have larger crystals than rhyolite. But rhyolite samples said to have formed 1683 feet below the surface only have tiny crystals.
(32) Experiments were conducted in the 1960's where granite was melted, then cooled slowly under conditions similar to those believed to exist deep inside the earth. The result produced a rock identical to rhyolite.
(33) Granite halos therefore show that granites formed under unnatural conditions.
(34) Geologist Andrew Snelling examined many granite outcrops and found that there was no mixing between the granite and other rocks that formed at the same time.
(35) Mixing should occur if different types of rocks formed from molten magma that cooled over millions of years. There should not be distinct boundaries between them.

http://unmaskingevolution.com/12-radiohalos.htm

http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/icr-open-lt-2003-1-toc.htm

http://nitishpriyadarshi.blogspot.com/2008/01/did-god-created-rocks-of-our-earth-in.html

No such thing as an iron core for the earth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39361.msg982148#msg982148


By the way... you know what is coming up next: a full debate on Gauss' Easter formula applied to chronology.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 17, 2016, 12:27:19 PM
Holy wall of text batman...

As we all know, the more desperate sandhoken becomes, the longer his. Walls of text become
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 17, 2016, 12:36:33 PM
Carbon dating is no good for dating granite, you'd be laughed at for even trying.

Rhyolite is extrusive igneous material, granite is intrusive. They are essentially the same, what differs is the way they are produced.

Referencing threads on David Icke pretty much shows how desperate that self-referential godbothering nutjobbery is.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Globetrotter on September 17, 2016, 12:42:35 PM

You must be retarded. Real expert is able to explain a subject in pretty short words. Of course, to non-retarded one.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 12:47:51 PM
The subject of geological dating encompasses tens of thousands of pages: if you, a full blooded f***tard cannot take this much, you probably shouldn't be here.

It takes an expert to condense these tens of thousands of pages into a few paragraphs.



This thread is over.


Here is the FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX.

The complete demonstration that the age of the Sun cannot exceed some ten million years (that is, we find ourselves right at the beginning of the main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, when no fluctuations in luminosity could have taken place); over the past 25 years there have been several attempts made to try to explain the paradox, all such efforts have failed, see the six links below.


http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf (a classic work)

http://creation.com/young-sun-paradox#txtRef15 (takes a look at Toon and Wolf's work, it debunks their earlier work in 2010: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2010/06/03/early-earth-haze-likely-provided-ultraviolet-shield-planet-says-new-cu )


“Paradox Solved” – no, hardly, as the estimates for the young Earth CO2 levels were considerably less as pointed out by a recent paper in GRL, and this paper is based upon climate models which are unable to replicate even the Holocene, RWP, MWP, LIA, 20th and 21st centuries.

A recent paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the ‘Faint young Sun problem’ has become “more severe” because to solve the problem using conventional greenhouse theory would require CO2 to comprise 0.4 bar or about 40% of the young Earth atmosphere, far greater than CO2 partial pressures today [0.014 bar or 28 times less] or those estimated for the young Earth [0.06 bar]. According to the authors, “Our results suggest that currently favored greenhouse [gas] solutions could be in conflict with constraints emerging for the middle and late Archean [young Earth].”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054381/abstract



http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.html

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581#p149562

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/full/nature09961.html



(excerpts from two works signed Dr. Danny Faulkner and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati)

Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes.

According to evolution, about four billion years ago when life supposedly first arose on Earth, the temperature had to have been close to what the temperature is today. But if that were the case, the subsequent increase in the Sun's luminosity would have made Earth far too hot for life today. One could naively suggest that Earth began cooler than it is today and has been slowly warming with time. But this is not an option because geologists note that Earth's rock record insists that Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life. This problem is called the early faint Sun paradox.

Evolution proposes that the early atmosphere contained a greater amount of greenhouse gases (such as methane) than today. This would have produced average temperatures close to those today, even with a much fainter Sun. As the Sun gradually increased in luminosity, Earth's atmosphere is supposed to have evolved along with it, so that the amount of greenhouse gases have slowly decreased to compensate for the increasing solar luminosity.

The precise tuning of this alleged co-evolution is nothing short of miraculous. The mechanism driving this would have to be a complex system of negative feedbacks working very gradually, though it is not at all clear how such feedbacks could occur. At any point, a slight positive feedback would have completely disrupted the system, with catastrophic consequences similar to those of Venus or Mars. For instance, the current makeup of Earth's atmosphere is in a non-equilibrium state that is maintained by the widespread diversity of life. There is no evolutionary imperative that this be the case: it is just the way it is. Thus the incredibly unlikely origin and evolution of life had to be accompanied by the evolution of Earth's atmosphere in concert with the Sun.

The implausibility of such a process has caused Lovelock to propose his Gaia hypothesis. According to this, the biosphere (consisting of Earth's oceans, atmosphere, crust, and all living things) constitutes a sort of super organism that has evolved. Life has developed in such a way that the atmosphere has been altered to protect it in the face of increasing solar luminosity. Lovelock's hypothesis has not been generally accepted, largely because of the spiritual implications. Indeed, it does seem to lead to a mystical sort of view.


If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3 C. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.

The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.

A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.


Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.


As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary, laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.

This apparent contradiction, between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water, has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'


See also: http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm (collapsing tests of time)

Electrical Sun: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm


DATING METHODS OF THE PAST:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735


The Faint Young Sun Paradox remains to this day one of the most devastating proofs against the spherical earth hypothesis (not nearly enough time for the earth's formation/evolution).


We also have the Martian Faint Young Sun Paradox which, believe it or not, is much worse for the RE.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 17, 2016, 12:51:38 PM
Look at this guy ^

That's an example of the "maniac"-type.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 17, 2016, 12:52:24 PM
ain't that Sandy guy the one who bangs on about the slightly transparent extra celestial body that causes the lunar eclipse?

If so, dude, science isn't something you shouldn't be attempting as common sense hasn't even been achieved yet, let alone logic


the flat earth theory is well and truly over, there's irrefutable evidence, I've been ignored by you before, I'll not expect any difference this time


you don't need walls of text, there's very simple tests you can do to prove that we're a globe

stop trying to overcomplicate something very simple, you're fooling no one
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Globetrotter on September 17, 2016, 12:54:15 PM

You certainly are not an expert. I would see rather another one.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: frenat on September 17, 2016, 12:56:37 PM
Can somebody inform our friend of what is about to happen to him?

he's going to get spammed with articles you don't really understand and you'll never listen to criticism?  I think he'll figure that out on his own.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 01:00:12 PM
But I am an expert.

I wrote the book on the global natural logarithm formula, which by the way could be used in certain equations pertaining to geological dating.

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/lo3_zps0a03f5d0.jpg)

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/lo2_zps18e4678b.jpg)


...who bangs on about the slightly transparent extra celestial body that causes the lunar eclipse?

You are about to make my day.

You have never heard of the Allais effect, have you?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 17, 2016, 01:04:57 PM
We all know that the more desperate sand Ho Ken becomes, the longer his walls of text become.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 17, 2016, 01:08:41 PM
I don't care about 'effects', if there was a 'slightly transparent extra celestial body', it would block out the lights of other stars

it doesn't

so you need to think of another explanation, that one falls at the first hurdle

no ifs, no buts

quit yo jibber jabber
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 17, 2016, 01:13:16 PM
We all know that the more desperate sand Ho Ken becomes, the longer his walls of text become.

Yeah but usually he doesn't start off with a gish gallop this fierce though.  He must have a personal grudge against actual scientists.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 17, 2016, 01:16:50 PM
although to be fair, it's Eric Dubay's fault for manipulating people into thinking the sun and the moon being seen in the sky at the same time rules out the possibility of the lunar eclipse being our shadow..

leaving stragglers like yourself clutching at straws creating their own theories

either way, the lunar eclipse is 100% irrefutable evidence of our shape
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 17, 2016, 01:20:35 PM
But I am an expert.

I wrote the book on the global natural logarithm formula, which by the way could be used in certain equations pertaining to geological dating.

Can I get a link to that book please?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 01:25:33 PM
You need to update your knowledge on the shadowing effect of gravitons.

Perhaps I can be of help.

"What did Newton think about gravity

Note that Newton never stated that gravity is necessarily an attractive force. In fact we find that both the concept of gravitational 'pull' and that of being an inherent property of matter are specifically denied by Newton himself to whom the concept is most often erroneously ascribed.

 For we find that about fourteen years after his culminating work in gravity, this topic is addressed by Newton in four letters he sent to Doctor Bentley. In his second letter, dated January 17, 1692-3, he says in reply to one from Bentley :

You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter. Pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for the cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know, and therefore would take more time to consider of it. In his third letter, dated February 25,1692-3, he expresses himself somewhat less guardedly : It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter, without mutual contact, as it must do if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe 'innate gravity' to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another,is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.

 And again, in the conclusion of the third book of his Principia, Newton remarks :

Hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis ; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis...As soon as one frees himself from the innate force concept, it becomes obvious that the most obvious way for an external agent to move two bodies towards each other is for it to PUSH them towards each other.

"and we derive from the celestial phenomena the forces of gravity with which bodies tend to the sun and the several planets. Then from these forces, by other propositions which are also mathematical, we deduce the motions of the planets, the comets, the moon, and the sea. I wish we could derive the rest of the phenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles here laid down will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy."

Even more specifically, in Query 31 he affirms the following:"How these attractions may be performed I do not here consider. What I call attraction may be caused by impulse, or by some other means unknown to me. I use that word here to signify only in general any force by which bodies tend toward one another, whatsoever be the cause."

On page 2 of Principia, Newton wrote that gravity can be either an impelled or attractive force as follows, "A centripetal force is that by which bodies are drawn or impelled, or in any way tend, towards a point as to a center. Of this sort is gravity."

Searching in his early notebooks under the heading "Quaestiones" Newton speculates that gravity is caused by the descent of rays which strike all bodies and pushes them down. "Whither ye rays of gravity may be stopped by reflecting or refracting ..."



In fact, cosmic waves have far greater penetrating power than the man-made gamma radiation, and can even pass through a thickness of two metres of lead. The highest frequency possible, that is, the shortest wavelength limit is equal to the dimension of the unit element making up space-time itself, equal to Planck length, radiating at a frequency of 7.4E42Hz.

As you might be thinking already, the radiation pressure exerted by such high frequency radiation, in the top part of the EM spectrum, would be a perfect candidate for the gravity effect, since such radiation would penetrate ANY matter and act all over its constituent particles, not just its surface. The radiation can be visualised as a shower of high energy EM waves imparting impulses of momentum to all bodies in space. It also explains the great difficulty we have to shield anything from such force. The energy of each individual photon is a crucial component of the momentum necessary to create pressure for gravity to be possible. The shadow of incoming high energy EM wave packets can be pictured as the carriers of the gravitational force, the normal role assigned to the theoretical graviton. Hence, gravitons have been theorised due to the lack of knowledge of radiation pressure and radiation shadowing, and that's why they will never be detected. If photons represent the luminance of electromagnetic radiation, then, gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes."


The best scientists of the 19th century believed that there is ANOTHER SATELLITE/PLANET ORBITING THE EARTH, besides the Moon.


That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:--

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,--

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:--

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."


Do not forget that I can prove to you immediately using the Allais effect, that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.

From there, it is all over for you.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 17, 2016, 01:29:15 PM
the fact you expect me to read that shows your lack of intelligence

can't you just simplify?

what I said stands, if YOU want to disagree, YOU explain.. don't post loads of bullshit you know no one is going to read

if it can block out the moon, it can block out other stars..
..It never does


you've never heard of the 'logic effect' have you?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 17, 2016, 01:33:03 PM
I refuse to acknowledge someone as an expert in radiological dating who thinks you can use carbon dating on inorganic material and I refuse to acknowledge the geological expertise of someone who can not distinguish between intrusive and extrusive forms of the same material.

Adding invisible objects (which must be hiding behind the moon) to explain solar eclipses just adds to the quackjobbery.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 17, 2016, 01:38:30 PM
ok I just had a read..

didn't take long as for some reason you decided to post a load of stuff about gravity.. I just panned through to the part that was on topic

the main things I got from it were:
1. you pick and choose which scientists you believe
2. you offered to prove me wrong right at the end of your speech

so, yes please, I'd like you to attempt to prove me wrong
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 01:41:42 PM
Quote
Warning - while you were typing 16 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
LOL.


Great Wall of China text

Wow, do you really expect me to read all of that?

What immediately caught my eye is how you claim that there is no such thing as an iron core for the earth.

>those liquid layers of iron and nickel could not have attained a spherical shape in the first place at all
Ever heard of gravity? Differentiation on density is what caused the earth to be subdivided into a crust, mantle and core, rather than being a homogeneous blob.

>What is more, the presence of iron in the shell or the migration of heavy metals from the core to the shell has not been sufficiently explained. For these metals to have left the core, they must have been ejected by explosions, and in order to remain spread through the crust, the explosions must have been followed immediately by cooling.
A lack of a proper explanation does not immediately disprove it. Science is a work in progress and if you sit tight someone will sooner or later explain it to you in detail. With the shell, do you mean the crust? Your terminology is confusing me. Keep in mind that differentiation is not the only process going on in the earth and it is therefore unreasonable to expect the earth to be perfectly layered by element.

>If, in the beginning, the planet was a hot conglomerate of elements, as the nebular as well as the tidal theories assume, then the iron of the globe should have become oxidized and combined with all available oxygen. But for some unknown reasons this did not happen; thus the presence of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere is unexplained.
Source? Your post is a mess of links and I'm not going to search through it, if you were familiar with scientific writing you'd know that you should have the reference right there when you use it.
Then you get all wall-of-texty again on how a liquid outer core is not possible (even though this liquid outer core is what makes the magnetism work, and the liquid outer core is backed up by seismics, which sure isn't unscientific). Indeed, there is no proper explanation for magnetic reversals, that's still a work in progress. I'm not going to read the rest of that specific post basically because I no longer care about your magnetism ramblings.
I want to add that just because science does not have a fully working theory for something yet, that does not mean that it's false. That's the whole point of science. Develop a theory; does it not work? Develop a better one. The prevailing theory of the moment means that it may not be perfect, but better than anything else so far. And just because one aspect of it does not make complete sense does not mean that the entire theory should go out the window. Honestly I can't be arsed to read through your wall of text on magnetism but I'd like to see you come up with a better explanation, and if possible, keep it short. I'm not here to read for days.



Lets move on to granite.

>When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite.
Rhyolite is indeed the finer grained brother of granite. The crystals are smaller because it cooled more rapidly. Granite is intrusive, meaning it cools inside the already warm crust, giving it a long time to cool down and grow large crystals. I'm certain that we are talking about time scales that are unrealistic to reproduce in lab testing. I'm not giving you a source because this is like geology 101.

>Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick.
Well this is a gross overstatement.

> https://answersingenesis.org/geology/catastrophism/catastrophic-granite-formation/
The issue I have with sources like this, is that they use the Bible as a reference. I do not have anything against the Bible, but for something to be 100% the truth, you should be able to make it work without the Bible as well.

> Geologist's built the theory of an evolving earth on the premise that the basement granites formed naturally. They did this without having firm scientific evidence for their formation.
There was a time when we believed that granite formed as an evaporation product of the sea. We've come from far :)

> (30) Rhyolite is a pale rock with tiny crystals that is said to be the result of granite cooling over a long time under the earth's surface.
Wrong wrong wrong. Rhyolite is compositionally equal to granite, but cooled more rapidly, giving the crystals less time to develop, hence the smaller crystals.

> (31) It is assumed that granite forms very deep under the surface, because they have larger crystals than rhyolite. But rhyolite samples said to have formed 1683 feet below the surface only have tiny crystals.
Once again, it's about the cooling rate. Also, 1683 feet under the surface is cute. One of my recent research projects involved rocks that had been subducted to a depth of well over 50 km. It's important to be able to put things into perspective, into the right order of magnitude. Not being able to do this is probably why a lot of people do not believe what they are told, simply because it can be hard to perceive if you have no clue of the actual magnitude of our world.

> (32) Experiments were conducted in the 1960's where granite was melted, then cooled slowly under conditions similar to those believed to exist deep inside the earth. The result produced a rock identical to rhyolite.
Not slow enough dangit, also, try using more recent research.

> (33) Granite halos therefore show that granites formed under unnatural conditions.
Tell me more, I'm listening.

> (35) Mixing should occur if different types of rocks formed from molten magma that cooled over millions of years. There should not be distinct boundaries between them.
Sometimes even the ocean does not mix properly purely based on a slightly different temperature and salinity. Diffusion, sure, but it's very possible to have two liquid phases not mix properly. Or from one after the other. Or evolve slowly over time, i.e. crystallize feldspar first, and the composition of the melt changes and produces a different rock.
There's this high grade metamorphic rock type called migmatite. It's basically defined by the rock getting partially melted by the heat, resulting into intercalations of metamorphic rock that hasn't molten and granite-like layers. I'm mentioning this, because I recently came across a paper that stated the partial melt of metamorphic rocks like this to be a good potential source of granites. I also once was on an outcrop of granite, with a xenolith of wall rock in it. That means that a chunk of the wall of the magma chamber fell in and they kinda stick out, it's hard to miss. How does that happen if it formed as a solid rock? It doesn't.



Now for your isotopic dating things... I'm not going to read all of it, if you can sum it up shortly that would be great. Just some comments:

>Just try to submit to any c14 lab a sample of organic matter and ask them to date it. The lab will ask your idea of the age of the sample, then it fiddles with the lots of knobs (‘fine-tuning’) and gives you the result as you’ve ‘expected’.
You're accusing labs of fabricating data and that is a very serious allegation. Proof? I don't think C14 is that relevant even, it's just a short time scale thing, and not exactly my specialty. I'm more interested in things like zircon dating, and Ar/Ar, Rb/Sr. And I and friends of mine have first hand performed the dating and measurements and I can assure you that they are not fabricated data. Funny enough, someone I know recently had some rocks dated and the results actually were not at all expected, however still can be explained.

>Everybody’s happy: lab makes good money by making an expensive test,
The lab over here sure as hell does not make a profit. Money does play an important role in academics, exactly for this reason: they need money to be able to do research.

>"All of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as `metamorphic events' or `second' or `third events.' "
Yes, fluid-rock interactions can screw things up, but obviously scientists are aware of that and make sure to not date an altered rock. As for diffusion between minerals, there's a thing as whole rock dating, and finally there are minerals where the required elements do not just hop around. Results also tend to be remarkably consistent, which adds to the idea that we're not just dating open systems. Dating is a complex method and you're just assuming that scientists are messing around without even discussing the potential error in their methods. Not cool.

>a. In the lead-uranium systems both uranium and lead can migrate easily in some rocks,
>some rocks

Enough said, really.

>b. In the potassium/argon system argon is a gas which can escape from or migrate through the rocks.
And this is extensively mentioned in research that uses Ar/Ar and K/Ar.

>Heating can cause argon to leave a rock and make it look younger.
Well this is just an uninformed comment; Ar/Ar and K/Ar are used for cooling ages, not formation ages. Crystals have a temperature below which Argon no longer escapes (closure temperature); the cooling below this point is what you measure with Ar/Ar.

>If the minerals in the lava did not melt with the lava, one can obtain an age that is too old.
I can not see this being an issue since a partial melt will be obvious to the geologist.

>blah blah sediments can have deposited super rapidly and also eroded super rapidly
Right now you're just assuming that ALL sedimentary rocks were exceptional cases, which is downright ridiculous. The present is the key to the past, meaning that processes as they occur right now are similar to in the past, so if now one in a thousand sedimentation rates are ridiculously high, that means that it's illogical to expect all sedimentation rates in the past to have been ridiculously high.

>The methods described above cannot be used to date anything.
There's an issue with a method, and you immediately throw it out the window, even though scientists have excellent ways of dealing with said issue.

I'm done for now.



Finally, I strongly advise you to seek for information in actual scientific journals.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 01:43:13 PM
Try this for "logical effect": you are starting off from the wrong premises.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Lunar_eclipse_September_27_2015_greatest_Alfredo_Garcia_Jr.jpg)

if it can block out the moon, it can block out other stars..

Ask yourself a more important question: why doesn't the Black Sun block out any other heavenly body, with the exception of the Sun?

(http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2015/04/04/5ef1af3e-45ca-4ca1-bab8-b8dadee79c2e/16875032612e8c1fe49a5o.jpg)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 01:56:06 PM
You came here totally unprepared to debate with me on geology.

Here is what you actually had the audacity to write:

Ever heard of gravity? Differentiation on density is what caused the earth to be subdivided into a crust, mantle and core, rather than being a homogeneous blob.

What makes you think that gravity is a force of attraction?

Let us see what Newton has to say on the subject: of course, you will receive a failing grade for not knowing these important facts.

Newton certainly thought that gravity is a force of pressure.

In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:


[Gravity is the result of] “a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow.”


I. Newton, letters quoted in detail in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science by Edwin Arthur Burtt

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/


Forty two years later, in 1717-1718, at the age of 75, Newton inserted what are called the "middle Queries" into the Opticks treatise.


Newton, Opticks, Query 21 (after discussing the aetherial medium for the propagation of light, he described his thoughts on the mechanism for gravity):

Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them?  And in passing from them to great distances, does it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer?

In the official chronology of history, the middle queries were added in the last edition of Opticks, when Newton was 75 years old.


But wait, it gets even better.


Newton, Opticks, Query 19:

Doth not the Refraction of Light proceed from the different density of this athereal Medium in different places, the Light receding always from the denser parts of the Medium? And is not the density thereof greater in free and open Spaces void of Air and other grosser Bodies, than within the Pores of Water, Glass, Crystal, Gems, and other compact Bodies?


Nobody can advocate the ether pressure theory like Newton can.

A second gravity-ether hypothesis was proposed by Newton to Robert Boyle in February 1679:

The gradient extended to Earth's centre:

'from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.'

Any body suspended in this aether-gradient would ‘endeavour' to move downwards.


'Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.'

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces'.


"THIS GRAVITY ETHER DESCENDS"



"Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend."


His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.

The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, II (Cambridge, 1960)
288-295, 295 (sent 28 Feb. 1679)

‘De gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum (Newtonian text) in Hall & Hall (note 10), 121-156, 148-9.

Westfall, note 10, 91.
R.Westfall, Never at Rest (Cambridge, 1980)

T.Birch, History of the Royal Society, 4 vols (London 1756-7; reprinted Brussels 1968), 3, 1756, 248-60.


Let us now read Newton's infamous denial of the law of universal gravitation again:

“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Newton fully believed in the ether pressure gravity theory, and thrashed in no uncertain terms the supposed law of attractive gravity.


Newton, student notes on Descartes:

Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region...

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.

In the following decade, and deriving from his alchemical studies, Newton came to develop his views on the workings of the gravity-ether. As communicated to the Royal Society in December of 1675 and written up in their History, it went as follows:

Newton: in which descent it may bear down with it the bodies it pervades with a force proportional to the superficies of all their parts it acts upon...

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces.'

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'


A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY.


Granite is intrusive, meaning it cools inside the already warm crust, giving it a long time to cool down and grow large crystals.

You still don't get it.

You have perhaps at most one million years at your disposal: read the faint young sun paradox again.

If you cannot explain the faint young sun paradox, you are out of luck.


Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 01:59:36 PM
You're quoting me physics stuff from back in 1675. Science has moved on, deal with it. And I feel like the faint young sun paradox is not my field of expertise, and after reading the wikipedia page on it, I don't even see the issue.

Quote
Granite is intrusive, meaning it cools inside the already warm crust, giving it a long time to cool down and grow large crystals.

You still don't get it.
Please tell me what I don't get.


I just remembered more proof for how we know the core is iron. Meteorites are excellent for giving us insights in the internals of rocky planets.
"Stony-iron meteorites formed at the core/mantle interfaces of small asteroidal parents."
Source: Greenberg, R., Chapman, C.R., 1984, Asteroids and Meteorites: Origin of Stony-Iron Meteorites at Mantle-Core Boundaries. Icarus vol. 57 p. 267-279
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 02:08:35 PM
I have some good news and some bad news for you.

First the bad news: your diplomas on geology have started to melt away since you have had the misfortune to debate with me.

The good news is this: certainly science has come a long way since 1675.

Here is the Lamoreaux effect, experiment performed in full vacuum at Yale.

Dr. Steve Lamoreaux, Yale University

Inside this vacuum chamber are two small metal plates sitting less than the width of a human hair apart from one another.
To get them that close and not touch, the metal has to be perfectly flat, down almost to the atomic level.
The zero-point fluctuations of free space won't fit between those plates, as well, so when you bring these two plates together, there are fewer fluctuations between the plates than there are outside the plates.

The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.

Or think of it another way.
The negative energy between the plates expands space around it.
Steve's years of meticulous labor have made him the first person on Earth to have measured a force produced by negative energy.


Negative energy = effect of telluric waves/strings upon matter (see http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9803/9803039.pdf )

Terrestrial gravity IS a force of pressure as proven by the experiment carried out by Dr. Lamoreaux.


What Dr. Lamoreaux calls negative energy is the effect of ether upon matter, a force not taken into consideration by Newton or by you.


The plates ARE PUSHED together: a total defiance of the law of attractive gravity.





starts at 8:05

A total defiance of newtonian mechanics: gravity is a force of pressure and not attractive at all.


SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT performed at MIT by Dr. Bruce DePalma

One day, one of the greatest experimental physicists of the 20th century was asked a simple question, by one of his students:

If there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object verses non-rotating object?

After an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.

This became one of the most celebrated experiments in modern physics: the spinning ball experiment.


"Conceptually, the experiment could not have been much cheaper, or easier to carry out:

Two 1-inch steel balls (like those found in every pinball machine in America ...) were positioned at the business end of an ordinary power drill; one ball was in a cup attached to the drill's motor shaft, so it spun -- at a very high rate of speed; the other ball was in an identical cup, attached by a bracket to the stationary drill casing, adjusted so that it was level with the first ball.

The experiment consisted of positioning the drill vertically, cups "up," and pressing the drill switch on the motor.

The drill motor (and its associated cup, containing one of the steel balls) rapidly spun up to approximately 27,000 RPM. The cup attached to the side of the drill (with the second steel ball inside it ...) was not rotating ....

When the drill motor had attained its maximum speed, DePalma (or, more often, Ed Delvers, his assistant ...) would shove the drill into the air with a fast, upward motion -- suddenly stopping the drill it in mid-flight. This would, of course, cause both 1-inch pinballs to fly out of their retaining cups in the same upward direction -- the "spinning ball" (hence the name ...) and the non-spinning ball, right beside it.

DePalma, from his years spent working with Dr. Herald Edgerton at MIT -- the famed inventor of "stroboscopic photography" -- was an expert in such stop-motion photography as well. By positioning Delvers against a gridded black background, in a darkened laboratory (below), and then illluminating the two upward-flying steel balls with a powerful strobe light, DePalma was able to take time-exposure photographs with the camera's shutter open, the "pinballs" only illuminated (at 60 times per second) by the strobe's periodic flash ....

The result was a striking "stroboscopic, time-lapse photograph" of the parabolic arc of both steel balls -- flying upward and then downward under Earth's gravitational acceleration (below)."

(http://www.enterprisemission.com/DePalma%27s--Spinning-Ball--2-grid.jpg)

Looked at even casually, one can instantly see in the resulting time-lapse image (above) that the two pinballs did NOT fly along identical parabolic arcs (as they should have); unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!

An experimental result in direct violation of everything physicists have thought they've known about both Newton's Laws and Einstein's Relativity ... for almost (in the case of Newton ...) three full centuries!



Dr. Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation.


The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."


The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.

The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.

With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


The law of universal gravitation totally violated: FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE STEEL BALLS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING BALL WEIGHED LESS AND TRAVELED HIGHER THAN THE NON-ROTATING BALL.


More experiments performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma, one of the America's greatest physicists of the 20th century:

A prime example of this is provided by the spinning ball experiments of Bruce DePalma.

He projected two metal balls upwards inside a vacuum container, one spinning at some 20,000 rpm and the other non-spinning, and observed any differences.
He discovered that the spinning ball moved higher and further and also fell faster than the non-spinning one.


Next time, you are going to have to explain the Biefeld-Brown effect (Dr. Paul Biefeld, classmate of Einstein).
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 02:13:44 PM
Please tell me what I don't get.

What you don't get is nearly enough time for your geological fantasies to come true.

Explain the faint young sun paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.msg1823338#msg1823338

Explain the comets' tails paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.msg1823324#msg1823324
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 17, 2016, 02:17:03 PM
Sadokhann is so annoying.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 17, 2016, 02:19:14 PM
Try this for "logical effect": you are starting off from the wrong premises.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Lunar_eclipse_September_27_2015_greatest_Alfredo_Garcia_Jr.jpg)

if it can block out the moon, it can block out other stars..

Ask yourself a more important question: why doesn't the Black Sun block out any other heavenly body, with the exception of the Sun?

(http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2015/04/04/5ef1af3e-45ca-4ca1-bab8-b8dadee79c2e/16875032612e8c1fe49a5o.jpg)

why are you answering questions I've not asked?

can't you answer a simple question?

If the 'slightly transparent extra celestial body' can block out the moon (and now it seems you're claiming its the reason for the solar eclipse too?) then why does it not block out ANY OTHER stars, EVER?


Your diversion skills are terrible, your debating skills are non- existent.. I'm thinking of taking anything I've ever said to Ski and Jroa back!
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 02:21:46 PM
Even though my education has provided me with a decent knowledge of physics, I do not claim to be a physicist and this is beyond the level of physics which I want to go. I'm a geologist, not a physicist. I also do not feel the need to explain your fancy paradoxes. There are plenty more ways of dating which you have totally overlooked. We have geological records of how days got longer. Lunar cycles, etcetera. Considering the rate at which that happens right now, we can interpret the time it has taken for the current system to have evolved from those we find in the geological record (sediments).


 Like I said in my first post, I'm not here to battle your beliefs, I just want to explain geology if necessary. Plate tectonics, anyone?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 02:26:44 PM
You haven't been paying attention.

The solar eclipse and the lunar eclipse are caused by TWO different heavenly bodies.

One of them, the Black Sun, absorbs visible light.

The other one, the Shadow Moon, emits dextrorotatory gravitons/subquarks, a shadowing effect while it passes in front of the visible Moon.

It could be that this shadowing effect only comes into play due to the radiation emitted by the Moon.

What we know for sure is that the Allais effect proves that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.

As for the lunar eclipse, you have some explaining to do.

For starters, let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."


The reason for the perfect alignment is that the Shadow Moon has exactly the same diameter as that of the Moon itself.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 02:28:44 PM
I also do not feel the need to explain your fancy paradoxes.

Not my fancy paradoxes.

Both Carl Sagan and NdG Tyson have tried to explain the faint young sun paradox: they could not.

Some of the very best mainstream astrophysicists are involved in trying to explain this paradox: all of their efforts have proven to be futile.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 02:31:11 PM
And I'm sure that some day it will be solved. Meanwhile, these two problems are not even close enough to overthrow our modern ideas of geology.

And here you are claiming we have two more bodies in the solar system, which leave no trace whatsoever in the orbits of other bodies?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 17, 2016, 02:34:46 PM
the closest you've actually come to answering my question is "What we know for sure is that the Allais effect proves that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse."

well as 'being able to predict' the eclipses is absolute proof that the moon DOES cause the lunar eclipse, you still need to actually answer the question, I've only asked 1..

bear in mind this is the 3rd time I've asked now, you've not-so-discreetly avoided and diverted every time

why would said 'slightly transparent extra celestial body' not block out any other lights in the sky?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 02:40:04 PM
And I'm sure that some day it will be solved. Meanwhile, these two problems are not even close enough to overthrow our modern ideas of geology.

Unfortunately for the RE, it cannot be solved.

And as I have mentioned, the situation for the MARTIAN faint young sun paradox is much worse.


No geologist worth his degree can ignore the faint young sun paradox.

It is the most devastating argument to be used against the theory of geological evolution.


And here you are claiming we have two more bodies in the solar system, which leave no trace whatsoever in the orbits of other bodies?

Read up on the Allais effect, experiment carried out by Nobel prize winner Dr. Maurice Allais.

Do not tempt me to bring here the three body problem paradox: no astrophysicist can explain it.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581

A mathematical formulation of the planetary orbits, based on Newton's laws of motion and gravitation and Kepler's supposed elliptical orbits then will lead directly to the THREE/N BODY PROBLEM PARADOX.

This means that the entire foundation of RE/Heliocentrical mechanics/astrophysics is based on extremely false premises.

Moreover, whoever set up the entire system, had to drastically modify the diameters of all the planets, and also their distances from the Earth/Sun in order to construct a system of differential equations which led directly to nonsensical results, i.e., the n-body problem paradox.

That is, the three body problem cannot be explained using the conventional approach: attractive gravity. A system consisting of a star (Sun), a planet (Earth), and a satellite of the planet (Moon) cannot be described mathematically; this fact was discovered long ago by Henri Poincare, and was hidden from public view.

Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 02:43:12 PM
You haven't been paying attention.

The solar eclipse and the lunar eclipse are caused by TWO different heavenly bodies.

One of them, the Black Sun, absorbs visible light.

The other one, the Shadow Moon, emits dextrorotatory gravitons/subquarks, a shadowing effect while it passes in front of the visible Moon.

It could be that this shadowing effect only comes into play due to the radiation emitted by the Moon.

What we know for sure is that the Allais effect proves that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.

As for the lunar eclipse, you have some explaining to do.

For starters, let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."


The reason for the perfect alignment is that the Shadow Moon has exactly the same diameter as that of the Moon itself.

So far, you have failed to explain the Earth's shadow lunar eclipse paradox.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 17, 2016, 02:44:03 PM
We. I have never seen him post this many walls of text before. He must be extremely desperate.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 02:44:53 PM
All I see you do is throwing unsolved problems at us like it's going to take down everything we believe in. What's your point? Yes, science is not done. For now, we use the best working theory. Got a problem with that, then you should write a paper and submit it to some journal and see how the scientific community responds to it. Come up with a better theory. Basically you have like two or three paradoxes, that's all. I say, they are eventually solvable, and there is no better theory out there.

That's how science works, deal with it.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 02:48:56 PM
All I see you do is throwing unsolved problems at us like it's going to take down everything we believe in.

But they have been solved: the Lamoreaux effect, the DePalma spinning ball experiment, the Kozyrev gyroscope experiments, the Allais effect prove that there is no such thing as the law of universal attraction: it takes a single counterexample to dissolve a failed theory.


The faint young sun paradox remains the most devastating argument against the theory of geological evolution.

If we add to this the comets' tails paradox, totally unsolved by modern science, it is all over for you.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 02:53:06 PM
This specific discussion is going nowhere so I will no longer be part of it. I'm here for geology, not for senseless fighting over what you believe in. If you have actual geology questions, feel free to ask them.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 03:00:00 PM
If you have actual geology questions, feel free to ask them.

Certainly.

Can you explain why the rate of axial precession has become exponential as it has been recorded for the past 100 years (the Newcomb constant)?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776082#msg1776082


Please explain why the GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect (it is after all a basic presumption on the part of mainstream geologists, including yourself, that the Earth is orbiting the Sun):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182

Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 03:07:53 PM
Can I? Maybe. Will I? No. Once again, I want to educate, not fight someones beliefs.



PS. a short period of decrease in the rate of axial precession does not indicate a persistent trend, and the recorded fluctiation is rather insignificant. If it's proven to be a long term thing, sure, but this is nothing.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: inquisitive on September 17, 2016, 03:11:28 PM
If you have actual geology questions, feel free to ask them.

Certainly.

Can you explain why the rate of axial precession has become exponential as it has been recorded for the past 100 years (the Newcomb constant)?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776082#msg1776082


Please explain why the GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect (it is after all a basic presumption on the part of mainstream geologists, including yourself, that the Earth is orbiting the Sun):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182
You can find an explanation of Sagnac effect for GPS in volume 1 of the book by Brad Parkinson and Jim Spilker, et Al. "Global Positioning System: Theory and Applications," AIAA, 1996.  See chapter 18 "Introduction to Relativistic Effects on the Global Positioning System by Neil Ashby and Jim Spilker.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_is_the_Sagnac_effect_being_used_in_the_GPS_system
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 17, 2016, 03:16:01 PM
This specific discussion is going nowhere so I will no longer be part of it. I'm here for geology, not for senseless fighting over what you believe in. If you have actual geology questions, feel free to ask them.

It is too late for you now, you have drawn the eye of the tiger  :P

Srsly tho, don't let some of the more colorful members bug you too much. There are probably some threads already started that you could add your expertise to, just use the search. It's ok to revive an older thread.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 17, 2016, 03:16:37 PM
Srsly tho, don't let some of the more colorful members bug you too much. There are probably some threads already started that you could add your expertise to, just use the search. It's ok to revive an older thread.

Good to know, thanks :)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 17, 2016, 03:24:25 PM
Srsly tho, don't let some of the more colorful members bug you too much. There are probably some threads already started that you could add your expertise to, just use the search. It's ok to revive an older thread.

Good to know, thanks :)

Or start a new one, it doesn't really matter if the topic has been brought up before... shoot sometimes people start a new topic on a topic that is being actively discussed in several threads!
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: anangryfix on September 17, 2016, 04:10:14 PM

Do not tempt me to bring here the three body problem paradox: no astrophysicist can explain it.
HA. You call that a paradox!? That's not a paradox. This is a paradox: What's an anagram for Banach-Tarski?
Banach-Tarski Banach-Tarski. Get it? No. You do not. No one can explain it.
You will try.
You will fail.
We will weep for you.

But they have been solved: the Lamoreaux effect, the DePalma spinning ball experiment, the Kozyrev gyroscope experiments, the Allais effect prove that there is no such thing as the law of universal attraction: it takes a single counterexample to dissolve a failed theory.
You have not been doing your reading! You think you can study hard for one year and then get lazy? No. You must be constantly
vigilant if you are not to lead the parade of the foolish.
The KOZYREV EXPERIMENTS? Please be more serious and read these:
http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2012-09.pdf
http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1407.0025v1.pdf
http://www.akademiai.com/doi/abs/10.1556/AGeod.43.2008.4.7

Do not come back until you have read those. And I will know if you have cheated!


The faint young sun paradox remains the most devastating argument against the theory of geological evolution.
The FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX was solved in 2011! Sagan's student Armett is the first author. That's your idea of devastating!?
A question that has been asked and answered!? Asked and answered. You know so little about the topics you raise. Why is
this?

You have much work to do. It's not too late for you to learn. You are making many more mistakes but until you
get fundamentals down they are a lost cause. You are like toddler. So excited to run that you trip over your own feet.
Take a moment, Sandokhan, go slower and you will trip less often.

it is not over for anyone but you. Tomorrow is another day. Though it will take you much longer than that to understand.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Charming Anarchist on September 17, 2016, 07:55:42 PM
Plate tectonics, anyone?
Why would the average person care about plate tectonics? 
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 17, 2016, 08:37:28 PM
Plate tectonics, anyone?
Why would the average person care about plate tectonics?

Why would the average person care about the shape of the Earth?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Badxtoss on September 17, 2016, 08:51:59 PM
You haven't been paying attention.

The solar eclipse and the lunar eclipse are caused by TWO different heavenly bodies.

One of them, the Black Sun, absorbs visible light.

The other one, the Shadow Moon, emits dextrorotatory gravitons/subquarks, a shadowing effect while it passes in front of the visible Moon.

It could be that this shadowing effect only comes into play due to the radiation emitted by the Moon.

What we know for sure is that the Allais effect proves that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.

As for the lunar eclipse, you have some explaining to do.

For starters, let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."


The reason for the perfect alignment is that the Shadow Moon has exactly the same diameter as that of the Moon itself.
We know for sure... The moon does not cause a solar eclipse.  I'm no scientist at all, but a very quick search on Allais effect found that the concensus seems to be, when it is observed at all,  is caused by atmospheric effects from the eclipse.  Nothing about unknown bodies and certainly nothing about a black sun.  So, no it doesn't prove anything.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: N30 on September 17, 2016, 08:58:21 PM
Why would the average person care about the shape of the Earth?
That is what's in question here, thats why.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 17, 2016, 09:06:54 PM
Why would the average person care about the shape of the Earth?
That is what's in question here, thats why.
Exactly.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 11:10:12 PM
You haven't done your homework on Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev.

For those who don't know, Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev was the greatest astrophysicist of the 20th century.

Spinning Gyroscope Experiment

In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning.

N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories.

Kozyrev torsion fields: http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html

In the 1970s, in order to verify N.A.Kozyrev's theory, a major research of gyroscopes and gyroscopic systems was conducted by a member of Belarus Academy of Sciences, professor A.I.Veinik. The effect discovered earlier by N.A.Kozyrev was completely confirmed.


Dr. Kozyrev (see The Pendulum of the Universe article in the Sputnik magazine) made sure that his experiments were screened from any factors usually taken into account in such experiments: air currents, mechanical actions/causes, electrical fields, e/m fields.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields.

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


Here are the celebrated experiments carried out by Dr. Yuri Galaev, proving that it is the ether which is rotating above the surface of the Earth, exactly the effect discovered by Kozyrev (attributed at that time to the rotation of the Earth):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791


Your giddy enthusiasm is not warranted at all, given the fact that you cannot spell Arnett.

Then, you are out of luck, since he has not proven anything relating to the faint young sun paradox.

Go ahead, and provide the paper you mentioned, and cite any "proofs" brought forth by Arnett, they can be debunked in less than 30 seconds.

You have totally failed to address any of the points I raised.




As for Neil Ashby, here are two papers detailing the terrible errors committed by Ashby:


http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Clock_Behavior_and_theSearch_for_an_Underlying_Mechanism_for_Relativistic_Phenomena_2002.pdf


http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf


The supposed orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun is some 30 km/s.

TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS: the GPS satellites must incorporate both the rotational Sagnac effect AND the orbital Sagnac effect.

The second effect, the orbital Sagnac effect IS NOT recorded.


In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation.
Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf



I'm no scientist at all, but a very quick search on Allais effect found that the concensus seems to be, when it is observed at all,  is caused by atmospheric effects from the eclipse. 

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


Thus, neither the regular cyclical variation of the pendulum, nor the
anomalous behavior at the time of solar eclipse can be explained by the
presently understood theory of gravitation. Something else is at work.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity.
Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.

Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."

This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 11:23:14 PM
Modern geology cannot explain even the official chronology of history of the last 5,000 years.


THE EXTENDED ARCTANGENT SERIES AND THE GIZEH PYRAMID


(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/pyr1_zps536964c8.jpg)

The angle of slope of the Pyramid’s outer casing is 51.85 degrees (for example, see http://davidpratt.info/pyramid.htm (http://davidpratt.info/pyramid.htm) ).

However, in order to reach/know this value, the architects of the Gizeh Pyramid must have had at their disposal the extended arctangent series:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/a/6/1a65c25333063610ba7ca6aecd562356.png)

The sacred cubit is designated in the form of a horseshoe projection, known as the "Boss" on the face of the Granite Leaf in the Ante-Chamber of the Pyramid. By application of this unit of measurement it was discovered to be subdivided into 25 equal parts known now as: Pyramid inches.

ONE SACRED CUBIT = 0.6356621 meters


tan 51.8554 degrees = 2 sacred cubits

sin 72.7 degrees = 1.5 sacred cubits

sin 136.12 degrees = ln 2




72.7 / 2 = 36.35 = 100 - 100 sacred cubits

136.12 = actual height of the Gizeh Pyramid (141.347 - 5.23, 5.23 is the height of the masonry base)


The other angle of the triangle, 38.145 degrees, is also closely related to the sacred cubit, and the actual radius of the circle (38.13 meters) seen in the first image of this message.

38.13 = 60 sacred cubits

And 51.85/38.1 = 1.361 - therefore, all these measurements/dimensions must have been known well ahead of time to the arhitects of the Gizeh Pyramid; but in order to have the actual angle values, they needed to calculate the arctangent of two sacred cubits.

I was able to actually sum the extended arctangent series:

ARCTAN v =  2n x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ v2)}1/2)1/2]...1/2}))1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 18, 2016, 12:51:52 AM
so in short..

you've failed to answer my question directly

you pick and choose which of your favourite ancient scientists to believe

you ignore irrefutable facts when presented with them

'probably', 'must have been', 'could be'.. loads of ifs and buts, but no simple answers, just trying to confuse people by copy snd pasting a load of shit

if you actually understand it, you'd be able to explain it.. like me


- I asked why your 'slightly transparent extra celestial body' doesn't block out the lights of other stars, you failed to answer

..ignoring my point that it's blatantly a shadow, the fact we can track the sun and moon (and have been able to for a LONG time), to their positions on opposite sides of the globe, being IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE


if you haven't got the respect to speak like a human, you don't deserve me to keep asking the same questions or keep point out the evidence you're ignoring


there's other ways to prove we're a globe too, curvature can be proven, the flat earth explanation for a localised sun can be disproven in minutes, the dome can be disproven in seconds

you, just like most other flat earthers, don't cross examine YOUR findings


even Spacecowgirl has shown more respect and has acted more like a grown up than you on this thread (and that's saying something)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 18, 2016, 03:23:56 AM
Modern geology cannot explain even the official chronology of history of the last 5,000 years.

Enlighten me. Unless you mean that pyramid rambling, I'm not a mathematician or archeologist dangit.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Badxtoss on September 18, 2016, 03:47:35 AM
You haven't done your homework on Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev.

For those who don't know, Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev was the greatest astrophysicist of the 20th century.

Spinning Gyroscope Experiment

In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning.

N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories.

Kozyrev torsion fields: http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html

In the 1970s, in order to verify N.A.Kozyrev's theory, a major research of gyroscopes and gyroscopic systems was conducted by a member of Belarus Academy of Sciences, professor A.I.Veinik. The effect discovered earlier by N.A.Kozyrev was completely confirmed.


Dr. Kozyrev (see The Pendulum of the Universe article in the Sputnik magazine) made sure that his experiments were screened from any factors usually taken into account in such experiments: air currents, mechanical actions/causes, electrical fields, e/m fields.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields.

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


Here are the celebrated experiments carried out by Dr. Yuri Galaev, proving that it is the ether which is rotating above the surface of the Earth, exactly the effect discovered by Kozyrev (attributed at that time to the rotation of the Earth):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791


Your giddy enthusiasm is not warranted at all, given the fact that you cannot spell Arnett.

Then, you are out of luck, since he has not proven anything relating to the faint young sun paradox.

Go ahead, and provide the paper you mentioned, and cite any "proofs" brought forth by Arnett, they can be debunked in less than 30 seconds.

You have totally failed to address any of the points I raised.




As for Neil Ashby, here are two papers detailing the terrible errors committed by Ashby:


http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Clock_Behavior_and_theSearch_for_an_Underlying_Mechanism_for_Relativistic_Phenomena_2002.pdf


http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf


The supposed orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun is some 30 km/s.

TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS: the GPS satellites must incorporate both the rotational Sagnac effect AND the orbital Sagnac effect.

The second effect, the orbital Sagnac effect IS NOT recorded.


In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation.
Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf



I'm no scientist at all, but a very quick search on Allais effect found that the concensus seems to be, when it is observed at all,  is caused by atmospheric effects from the eclipse. 

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


Thus, neither the regular cyclical variation of the pendulum, nor the
anomalous behavior at the time of solar eclipse can be explained by the
presently understood theory of gravitation. Something else is at work.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity.
Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.

Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."

This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 18, 2016, 05:57:17 AM
Plate tectonics, anyone?
Why would the average person care about plate tectonics?
The average person may not be interested, but flat earth / globe earth debaters might find it interesting, especially in the context of antarctica.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: rabinoz on September 18, 2016, 05:58:51 AM

But I am an expert.


;D ::) Yes, we already know that you are a "Self-made man who loves nothing more than worshipping his maker".  ::) ;D

But please, you don't have to tell us mere mortals so often.

I know the gender is wrong, but the tune of
"Bow - bow - to his daughter-in-law elect"
keeps going through my head every time your royal highness posts, I wonder why?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Earth2543 on September 18, 2016, 05:59:53 AM
I have a question!

After reading about the tectonic plate and all that, I found myself can't comprehend most of the stuff written in the article due to my English skill and lack of knowledge...

So, my question is: what made up the mantle part of the earth? Is it magma? Or layer of rocks? Or both? Sorry if this question is dumb, my sorry brain just can't understand it.

If you can explain it in an easy to understand term, that'd be a great help. Thank you in advance.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 18, 2016, 07:04:13 AM
So, my question is: what made up the mantle part of the earth? Is it magma? Or layer of rocks? Or both?

The mantle is basically a massive layer of rock; it's not molten, but very hot and on long time scale can "flow", so in geological processes it can act like a liquid. It's not molten because of the high pressure of the overlying rocks. If you were to take the pressure off, it would melt. The mantle rocks are mostly made up of a green mineral named olivine (in gem form known as peridot), although the deeper down you go, some minerals change due to the pressure. We know a lot about what the mantle is made of because it sometimes comes to the surface in mountain belts, and mantle blobs can be included in volcanic rocks. Some meteorites also resemble the earth's mantle because they are from the mantle part of large asteroids or planetary bodies.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Earth2543 on September 18, 2016, 07:25:23 AM
Ah I see, thank.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 18, 2016, 11:17:27 AM
Yes, I have a geological question. I have recently read about a theory that the rise in count of wind turbines here in Oklahoma could possibly be the reason for the rise in earthquakes. Some will say fracking is the cause, and others say salt water injection sites (wells). But fracking is practically nationwide, and we don't see the frequency of earthquakes rise in states like Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, etc.
For the record, I worked on a frac crew for 2 years, so I know what goes on. I think the general public has been misled, as it's been dragged into the political arena..
Anyway, wind turbines. What do you think?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 18, 2016, 01:35:46 PM
Yes, I have a geological question. I have recently read about a theory that the rise in count of wind turbines here in Oklahoma could possibly be the reason for the rise in earthquakes. Some will say fracking is the cause, and others say salt water injection sites (wells). But fracking is practically nationwide, and we don't see the frequency of earthquakes rise in states like Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, etc.
For the record, I worked on a frac crew for 2 years, so I know what goes on. I think the general public has been misled, as it's been dragged into the political arena..
Anyway, wind turbines. What do you think?
I assume you mean the weight of the wind turbines? Not being familiar with the weight and number per area of those wind turbines, I think it's safe to say that a slightly larger overburden will not cause anything serious. The mean depth of the earthquakes is at over 5 km, at which the added pressure from the weight of the turbines is insignificant.
Apparently the earthquakes have been linked to the disposal of wastewater produced during oil extraction that has been injected more deeply into the ground. So the difference with regular fracking is that the idea is for the water to stay in the underground; this increase in pressure/volume can definitely cause earthquakes.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: UpstartPixel on September 18, 2016, 02:42:10 PM
Gravitons, quarks, Gizeh. That Sadokhan is great!

Now please tell me: why are they called neutrinos and do they exist?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 18, 2016, 03:08:31 PM
Not the added weight of the turbine itself, no. I think the article I read was referring to the force of the wind pushing horizontally, the turbine being perpendicular into the ground, and the large number of them. Make sense?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: inquisitive on September 18, 2016, 03:16:15 PM
Not the added weight of the turbine itself, no. I think the article I read was referring to the force of the wind pushing horizontally, the turbine being perpendicular into the ground, and the large number of them. Make sense?
The wind pushes against hills, mountains, buildings etc.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 18, 2016, 04:09:21 PM
Here's the article I read :

http://feedingjimmy.com/fracking-cause-earthquakes-windmills/
I'm NOT saying I buy into this, just thought it was interesting.
Thanks for your input..

Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: EarthIsRoundNotFlat on September 18, 2016, 04:37:38 PM
How does granite come to the surface if it can only form in the mantle?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 18, 2016, 04:52:50 PM
Here's the article I read :

http://feedingjimmy.com/fracking-cause-earthquakes-windmills/
I'm NOT saying I buy into this, just thought it was interesting.
Thanks for your input..

Quote
Since some of you may be English majors, let me ask you this: Have you ever seen a hoovercraft on the ocean? Have you ever seen a fan boat on the bayou? These boats float on the water and are propelled by a giant fan. What I’m saying is that windmills turn the ground they are on into a giant hoovercraft.

You know the major cause of earthquakes, right? It’s when one of the earth’s tectonic plates crashes into another? Well what do you think happens when you build a ton of windmills in western Oklahoma and the whole ground crashes into eastern Oklahoma? You get tons of earthquakes in Central Oklahoma!

I think this guy is definitely on something.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: rabinoz on September 18, 2016, 05:01:55 PM
Yes, I have a geological question. I have recently read about a theory that the rise in count of wind turbines here in Oklahoma could possibly be the reason for the rise in earthquakes. Some will say fracking is the cause, and others say salt water injection sites (wells). But fracking is practically nationwide, and we don't see the frequency of earthquakes rise in states like Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, etc.
For the record, I worked on a frac crew for 2 years, so I know what goes on. I think the general public has been misled, as it's been dragged into the political arena..
Anyway, wind turbines. What do you think?

::) ::) ::) "wind turbines" and "earthquakes" - where's the possible connection? ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 18, 2016, 05:14:22 PM
I posted the article. I also said I don't buy into it. Just that he raised an interesting view.
The whole hovercraft part was a little kooky.
But we're on the same side here, Rabinoz, just to be clear..
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 18, 2016, 05:17:30 PM
I posted the article. I also said I don't buy into it. Just that he raised an interesting view.
The whole hovercraft part was a little kooky.
But we're on the same side here, Rabinoz, just to be clear..

Don't be scared of rabinoz!
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 18, 2016, 05:26:09 PM
Haha, I'm not. I should've attached said article to the first post. It just raised some interesting  ideas. You know, outside of the box thinking, like this site tries to encourage. And I rather appreciate this site,  because it solidifies and proves over and over what I believe - the earth is round. The flat out truth..
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 18, 2016, 05:27:53 PM
Haha, I'm not. I should've attached said article to the first post. It just raised some interesting  ideas. You know, outside of the box thinking, like this site tries to encourage. And I rather appreciate this site,  because it solidifies and proves over and over what I believe - the earth is round. The flat out truth..

How could the plates skate around like hoovercraft on the round earth, tho?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 18, 2016, 05:36:06 PM
As I said, that sounded kooky to me. He kinda lost me there. My real question was, does the energy from the wind become absorbed into the ground, well, what energy isn't translated into electrical energy. The vibrations made by them, multiplied by the amount of them.
It was my best question I could ask a geological expert.
At least I tried! Haha
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Badxtoss on September 18, 2016, 06:39:16 PM

I'm no scientist at all, but a very quick search on Allais effect found that the concensus seems to be, when it is observed at all,  is caused by atmospheric effects from the eclipse. 

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


Thus, neither the regular cyclical variation of the pendulum, nor the
anomalous behavior at the time of solar eclipse can be explained by the
presently understood theory of gravitation. Something else is at work.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity.
Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.

Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."

This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.
Sorry, apparently my comments didn't post, just your quote.  I don't have a lot to add, except, again, not a scientist but everything that comes up when I search about this Allais paradox is that, the equipment today is much more precise and less prone to error.  The times it has been repeated they often do not even see this anomaly and when they do it is so small as to be easily explained by atmospheric conditions.  Perhaps some of the more scientific minds here can check me on my interpretation on that.
Another thing I notice is that you only quoted Allais himself, from like 60 years ago.  It's as if you think science stopped. 
My point on this is that there is no way you can say this proves that eclipses are not caused by shadows and the moon covering the sun.  The evidence does not even suggest that let alone prove it.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: rabinoz on September 18, 2016, 08:45:07 PM
Haha, I'm not. I should've attached said article to the first post. It just raised some interesting  ideas. You know, outside of the box thinking, like this site tries to encourage. And I rather appreciate this site,  because it solidifies and proves over and over what I believe - the earth is round. The flat out truth..

How could the plates skate around like hoovercraft on the round earth, tho?
We use "Hoovers" on the carpet here! Do you ride them in Florida? Is it more exciting than riding Alligators?

But, maybe he thinks that these wind-turbines are going to 
::) ;D be driven by the power grid and make the tectonic plates into gigantic hover-craft - now there's a ride for you.  ;D ::)

I don't think Globe or flat Earth would come into it - I tink it's "out of this world".
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: SpJunk on September 18, 2016, 09:24:22 PM
All I can see is, people who do fracking are trying to blur things
by introducing wind turbines into the whole story.

Wind turbine foundation reaches tectonic plate?
And, as rabinoz noted, are the turbines driven by the grid to work as propellers?
In some other areas you have trees that catch much more wind that the turbines.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 18, 2016, 09:35:36 PM
how much is the goverment paying you to shill against the truth?? and do you feel guilty about having to lie all the time for money?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 18, 2016, 11:36:55 PM
Enlighten me.

Gauss' Easter formula applied to chronology:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67723.msg1814080#msg1814080



Now please tell me: why are they called neutrinos and do they exist?

A subquark is composed of strings of bosons and antibosons. A boson = a neutrino = a photon and does have mass.

Let us remember that in one extension to the Standard Model, left- and right-handed neutrinos exist. These Dirac neutrinos acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism but right-handed neutrinos interact much more weakly than any other particles.

Aspden calls the neutrino ‘a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance’ and says that it simply denotes ‘the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum’.


I don't have a lot to add, except, again, not a scientist but everything that comes up when I search about this Allais paradox is that, the equipment today is much more precise and less prone to error.

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

“… the current theory of gravitation (being the result of the application, within the current theory of relative motions, of the principles of inertia and universal gravitation to any one of the Galilean spaces) complemented or not by the corrections suggested by the theory of relativity, leads to orders of magnitude [many factors of ten] for lunar and solar action (which are strictly not to be perceived experimentally) of some 100 million times less than the effects noted [during the eclipse] ... [emphasis added].”

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


Dr. Erwin Saxl, "1970 Solar Eclipse as 'Seen' by a Torsion Pendulum"

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory) for even the 180-degree, "opposite" alignment of the sun and moon ... which, as previously noted, was also directly measured via the torsion pendulum (dasned green line - above) two weeks after the March 7 eclipse!


HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/Capture_zpskd3rcykr.jpg)

Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.



I asked why your 'slightly transparent extra celestial body' doesn't block out the lights of other stars.

And you did receive the answer: it has everything to do with the DISTANCE involved.

In the first case, the Shadow Moon passes exactly in front of the Moon, perhaps less than a few hundred meters; as such, the radiation emitted by the Moon is picked up by the Shadow Moon, and its form can be seen, but only as it passes in front of the Moon.

The stars orbit much farther above: perhaps some 20-25 more kilometers in altitude. Their radiation is not nearly strong enough to make the Shadow Moon manifest itself.

Moreover, both the Black Sun and the Shadow Moon orbit at a low altitude beyond the Dome, and only cross the sky to cause the solar or the lunar eclipse (respectively).

Here is the orbit of the Black Sun described in the book of Enoch:

Enoch Chapter 23

Enoch 23:1 From there I went to another place, towards the west, unto the extremities of the earth.

Enoch 23:2 Where I beheld a fire blazing and running along without cessation, which intermitted its course neither by day nor by night; but continued always the same.

Enoch 23:3 I inquired, saying, What is this, which never ceases?

Enoch 23:4 Then Raguel, one of the holy angels who were with me, answered,

Enoch 23:5 And said, This blazing fire, which you behold running towards the west, is that of all the luminaries of heaven.


Fire = continuous emission of laevorotatory subquarks


All experts on geology must ask themselves this question: how did the elements of the periodic table come into existence?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55861.0

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55861.msg1393324#msg1393324 (Helium gap 5 paradox)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55861.msg1393326#msg1393326 (Helium flash paradox/triple alpha process paradox)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 19, 2016, 02:23:17 AM
how much is the goverment paying you to shill against the truth?? and do you feel guilty about having to lie all the time for money?

The government actually covered most of my tuition, which is pretty neat (but that's not because of lying or anything, just that my government actually cares about its students). Now my debt isn't that massive. Most researchers actually have mediocre pay, it's in oil and mining where the money is. Going into research is basically saying that you don't care for money. We actually get taught pretty early on to think critical, do not believe everything you're told because we're at the edge of knowledge and what is commonly accepted now may be debunked in the future. Keep an open mind. For example, in and before the 60s, people laughed at the idea of plate tectonics and subduction. Now it's commonly accepted. Science moves along at an amazing pace.

I wish I could lie about money; I'd lie about lying and cash in anyway.

Here's the article I read :

http://feedingjimmy.com/fracking-cause-earthquakes-windmills/
I'm NOT saying I buy into this, just thought it was interesting.
Thanks for your input..

Well that's definitely an interesting read, but I have my doubts. First of all, the graph at the bottom of earthquakes vs windmill power is not even a proper correlation, let alone that they're actually related. The earthquakes go up drastically before the wind energy does and you'd expect it the other way round.

It was actually kind of difficult to find some proper tectonic context for these earthquakes, but it looks like they're reactivating an old strike-slip fault. This paper http://profile.usgs.gov/myscience/upload_folder/ci2013May3015351271984Keranen%20etal%20Geology%202013.pdf is also a pretty good read on why it is actually related to waste injection. Before I read it, I figured another option was that there are some intraplate stresses and the injection of the waste weakened/reactivated this old fault zole, triggering earthquakes.

How does granite come to the surface if it can only form in the mantle?

Granite actually forms in the lower crust, and can migrate up. If it comes out of a volcano or settles just under the surface it turns into the finer grained rhyolite, if it settles deeper it becomes granite. It can be exposed at the surface thanks to forces like uplift/mountain building, followed by erosion. Basically, mountain chains have a "root" in the mantle. Think of it as an ice cube. You see a few kms of elevation above the surface, but it goes way down into the mantle too. If you remove the top part due to erosion, and it buoys up (isostasy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy ), slowly revealing rocks from deeper and deeper.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sokarul on September 19, 2016, 04:51:08 AM
Sandokhan came in and spamed all that crap and then I can in an posted a simple picture and made him run away crying.
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13332942_1194986063847836_4482184175555132480_n.jpg?oh=afe69e4b397e55383baedaafec7214b0&oe=5803E7C5)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 19, 2016, 08:18:50 AM
you mentioned the dome?
meteors disprove the dome, or are you gonna join the 'meteors are man made fireworks thrown from planes' chorus?

look, why are you happy to go along with scientists from hundreds of years ago, but not later ones?

you either go by scientists or you don't, you can't simply pick and choose, depending on what they're claiming

IF YOU CAN QUOTE SCIENTISTS THEN SO CAN I (I've a load of astrophysicists quotes, results, photos etc at the ready)

you're like: 'I believe this scientist because his results reflect what I believe..
..but I don't believe this scientist, because his results disprove the previous scientist'
its like saying 'the sun is in the sky at noon, if I close my eyes for 12hrs from noon, then someone tells me the sun is no longer in the sky, I already have my evidence, I've seen it, they must be wrong'

to put it simply, you're ignoring a tiny thing called 'advancement' my friend

I'm 99% sure it's because you just WANT the earth to be flat SO bad

but unfortunately, that little thorn in your side called EVIDENCE, proves you wrong
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 19, 2016, 09:43:54 AM
Haha, I'm not. I should've attached said article to the first post. It just raised some interesting  ideas. You know, outside of the box thinking, like this site tries to encourage. And I rather appreciate this site,  because it solidifies and proves over and over what I believe - the earth is round. The flat out truth..

How could the plates skate around like hoovercraft on the round earth, tho?
We use "Hoovers" on the carpet here! Do you ride them in Florida? Is it more exciting than riding Alligators?

But, maybe he thinks that these wind-turbines are going to 
::) ;D be driven by the power grid and make the tectonic plates into gigantic hover-craft - now there's a ride for you.  ;D ::)

I don't think Globe or flat Earth would come into it - I tink it's "out of this world".

They are less likely to turn around and eat you!
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 19, 2016, 10:20:46 AM
how much is the goverment paying you to shill against the truth?? and do you feel guilty about having to lie all the time for money?

The government actually covered most of my tuition, which is pretty neat (but that's not because of lying or anything, just that my government actually cares about its students). Now my debt isn't that massive. Most researchers actually have mediocre pay, it's in oil and mining where the money is. Going into research is basically saying that you don't care for money. We actually get taught pretty early on to think critical, do not believe everything you're told because we're at the edge of knowledge and what is commonly accepted now may be debunked in the future. Keep an open mind. For example, in and before the 60s, people laughed at the idea of plate tectonics and subduction. Now it's commonly accepted. Science moves along at an amazing pace.

I wish I could lie about money; I'd lie about lying and cash in anyway.

your goverment (made up of narcissist and former lawyers) doesnt care about you if you think they do you are more asleep then i thought.... you are stuck in a system of enslavement WAKE UP......
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 19, 2016, 10:24:15 AM
how much is the goverment paying you to shill against the truth?? and do you feel guilty about having to lie all the time for money?

The government actually covered most of my tuition, which is pretty neat (but that's not because of lying or anything, just that my government actually cares about its students). Now my debt isn't that massive. Most researchers actually have mediocre pay, it's in oil and mining where the money is. Going into research is basically saying that you don't care for money. We actually get taught pretty early on to think critical, do not believe everything you're told because we're at the edge of knowledge and what is commonly accepted now may be debunked in the future. Keep an open mind. For example, in and before the 60s, people laughed at the idea of plate tectonics and subduction. Now it's commonly accepted. Science moves along at an amazing pace.

I wish I could lie about money; I'd lie about lying and cash in anyway.

your goverment (made up of narcissist and former lawyers) doesnt care about you if you think they do you are more asleep then i thought.... you are stuck in a system of enslavement WAKE UP......

Oh they do care about me. Knowledge is one of the main exports of my country, they invest a lot of money in education just because of that.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: N30 on September 19, 2016, 10:30:21 AM
Hey everyone,
I aim to educate people but actively trying to destroy beliefs goes against my morals.

What does that mean exactly?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 19, 2016, 10:38:00 AM
Hey everyone,
I aim to educate people but actively trying to destroy beliefs goes against my morals.

What does that mean exactly?

There's a subtle but important difference between education and indoctrination.  The former accepts the liability that the student will draw the wrong conclusions, the latter does not.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 19, 2016, 10:42:35 AM
how much is the goverment paying you to shill against the truth?? and do you feel guilty about having to lie all the time for money?

People seem obsessed with the idea that "the government", or someone, is paying people to come here.

Seriously, you aren't that important, and your government might not be his government. Is he right or not? If you think he isn't, prove it.

Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 19, 2016, 10:51:31 AM
Hey everyone,
I aim to educate people but actively trying to destroy beliefs goes against my morals.

What does that mean exactly?
It means I'm not here to argue with flat earth believers for the sake of trying to destroy their beliefs. People can believe whatever they want (as long as it doesn't harm me). Some people here appear to seek to destroy the entire flat earth movement. I'm not one of them.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 19, 2016, 11:42:19 AM
how much is the goverment paying you to shill against the truth?? and do you feel guilty about having to lie all the time for money?

The government actually covered most of my tuition, which is pretty neat (but that's not because of lying or anything, just that my government actually cares about its students). Now my debt isn't that massive. Most researchers actually have mediocre pay, it's in oil and mining where the money is. Going into research is basically saying that you don't care for money. We actually get taught pretty early on to think critical, do not believe everything you're told because we're at the edge of knowledge and what is commonly accepted now may be debunked in the future. Keep an open mind. For example, in and before the 60s, people laughed at the idea of plate tectonics and subduction. Now it's commonly accepted. Science moves along at an amazing pace.

I wish I could lie about money; I'd lie about lying and cash in anyway.

your goverment (made up of narcissist and former lawyers) doesnt care about you if you think they do you are more asleep then i thought.... you are stuck in a system of enslavement WAKE UP......

Oh they do care about me. Knowledge is one of the main exports of my country, they invest a lot of money in education just because of that.

do they dont care about you..... they care about who know how to do their slave jobs for them... that is why they are so interested in "educating" people.... your a very naive person if you think lawyers and mass murderers care about your well being....... they view you as nothing but a tool..... and like any tool they will buy it if it does what they need..... WAKE UP!! even most globers agree that the goverment is corrupt and mass murdering psychopaths......


Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 19, 2016, 11:49:23 AM
it depends which government

USA, UK etc, very corrupt

places like Iceland etc have very good governments

look at how Gaddafi ran his country, his people were well looked after, hence the world police (USA) going in and installing their own government

the media is the devil, they only show you things to get you 'on side'

Rothschild, Rockefeller etc if you don't know, research

the massive ice shelf at Antarctica is now named 'The Rockefeller Plateau'


the whole flat earth theory is a wild goose chase to put you off the mysteries of Antarctica..
re-upped under the pretense of a study about 'Andrea Barnes'


I've said it before and I'll say it again..
RESEARCH!!

There ARE mysteries in this world, there are people indoctrinating us daily, divide and conquer has always worked, why would they stop now

(sorry for the ramblings)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 19, 2016, 12:21:04 PM
I see a lot of people saying that the government "hides the truth" as they control education; the government (I actually don't know if it's controlled by the government over here) has nothing to say about the education at universities though. The beauty of the system is that when you hear something in a lecture that you think is weird, you can look up how it was determined and even try to disprove it if you wish. That's also one of the foundations of science; proof has to be reproducible, and research that makes it to a journal has been peer reviewed. The scientific community is one on which censor and lying has no hold. It's too hard to get a lie in there and there's too much to gain by scientists who realize it and can uncover it.

If you choose to not believe me, then there is nothing I can do for you.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 19, 2016, 12:39:51 PM
There is a small problem with desperate publishers right now, but those are usually quickly dispelled.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 19, 2016, 02:20:18 PM
I see a lot of people saying that the government "hides the truth" as they control education; the government (I actually don't know if it's controlled by the government over here) has nothing to say about the education at universities though. The beauty of the system is that when you hear something in a lecture that you think is weird, you can look up how it was determined and even try to disprove it if you wish. That's also one of the foundations of science; proof has to be reproducible, and research that makes it to a journal has been peer reviewed. The scientific community is one on which censor and lying has no hold. It's too hard to get a lie in there and there's too much to gain by scientists who realize it and can uncover it.

If you choose to not believe me, then there is nothing I can do for you.

they do..... it is true....
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 19, 2016, 02:21:38 PM
It's fun to see you try to teach me about something I have a lot more experience with. Whatever floats your boat, man. As long as it's not gravity, I guess?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sokarul on September 19, 2016, 02:35:25 PM
It's fun to see you try to teach me about something I have a lot more experience with. Whatever floats your boat, man. As long as it's not gravity, I guess?
Yeah, I like to read sandokhan's posts about light not being able to be split into different wavelengths while measuring light's different wavelengths.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 19, 2016, 02:52:36 PM
It's fun to see you try to teach me about something I have a lot more experience with. Whatever floats your boat, man. As long as it's not gravity, I guess?

know it or not YOU ARE CLUELESS WAKE UP
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: N30 on September 19, 2016, 03:05:12 PM
It's fun to see you try to teach me about something I have a lot more experience with. Whatever floats your boat, man. As long as it's not gravity, I guess?

How are the magnetic and gravitational fluctuations of Earth and the Moon calculated in orbital patterns?

Are you deliberately trying to stump me?  :(
I know how all the things in your question seperately work but the whole question makes 0 sense to me.

Y'know, I'de like an answer if you're gonna start being all high and mighty.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 19, 2016, 05:50:01 PM
It's fun to see you try to teach me about something I have a lot more experience with. Whatever floats your boat, man. As long as it's not gravity, I guess?

know it or not YOU ARE CLUELESS WAKE UP
People can't be asleep and post at the same time. Also, unless this person gets loud notifications everytime someone posts in this thread, your capitol letters aren't going to help.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Earth2543 on September 19, 2016, 06:12:44 PM
Government this government that. Load of bull.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 19, 2016, 06:34:36 PM
It's fun to see you try to teach me about something I have a lot more experience with. Whatever floats your boat, man. As long as it's not gravity, I guess?

know it or not YOU ARE CLUELESS WAKE UP
People can't be asleep and post at the same time. Also, unless this person gets loud notifications everytime someone posts in this thread, your capitol letters aren't going to help.

thank you for proving your even more of a idiot......
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 19, 2016, 08:29:48 PM
It's fun to see you try to teach me about something I have a lot more experience with. Whatever floats your boat, man. As long as it's not gravity, I guess?

know it or not YOU ARE CLUELESS WAKE UP
People can't be asleep and post at the same time. Also, unless this person gets loud notifications everytime someone posts in this thread, your capitol letters aren't going to help.

thank you for proving your even more of a idiot......
First of all, I don't own an "even more of an idiot" (whatever that is.)

But secondly, thank you for letting me know that I somehow proved my "even more of an idiot" because I sure didn't realize I had.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 20, 2016, 12:47:31 AM
Y'know, I'de like an answer if you're gonna start being all high and mighty.
I can't help you with a question that makes no sense to me.

Edit: my answer is going to be "numerical modeling" anyway.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: wise on September 20, 2016, 12:58:31 AM
How do you convince yourself with which lie that diffusion don't cause to atmospher scattered to the space.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 20, 2016, 01:33:56 AM
Gravity. The earth does lose some helium to space though.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: wise on September 20, 2016, 01:43:03 AM
Gravity. The earth does lose some helium to space though.

Gravity is not enought to poise the atmospher. Because there is a balance between centrifugal forces and gravity on the all of the atmospher and diffusion causes sudden changes on the balance on the edge. There is no power can equalize this imbalance.

It is good you accept to loosing the helium. Because most of rounders does not mention it. So; show us a calculation about the helium move. What it causes in millions of the years.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: wise on September 20, 2016, 01:57:35 AM
Actually it is imposible to be a balance between centrifugal forces and gravitation. Because on the more altitudes, gravitation decreases but centrifugal forces increases.

Although there is no balance, we'll pre accept that there is a balance between centrifugal forces and gravitation. Because if there isn't a balance, it should be all of heavy gases Adhere to the ground or all of the light gases hurles to the space. So we pre accept there is a balance. But on the edge of the atmospher the balance changes suddenly in favor of scatterer forces. So for the atmospher it is impossible to avoid to be scattered to the space.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 20, 2016, 02:15:36 AM
Because on the more altitudes, gravitation decreases
That's why the atmosphere gets thinner and thinner. As for your imbalance; wouldn't centrifugal forces force heavier gases outward? It's only the lightest gases that manage to escape in small amounts (helium, hydrogen).

So have you considered the same system but then on Mars? Mars has significantly lower gravity (0.4g iirc) and does have an atmosphere but it's way thinner than that of earth.

As for you asking me to do the math on helium loss - nah. You can do that yourself, the data is probably available somewhere on Google (ever tried scholar.google.com?).
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: wise on September 20, 2016, 03:23:28 AM
Because on the more altitudes, gravitation decreases
That's why the atmosphere gets thinner and thinner. As for your imbalance; wouldn't centrifugal forces force heavier gases outward? It's only the lightest gases that manage to escape in small amounts (helium, hydrogen).

So have you considered the same system but then on Mars? Mars has significantly lower gravity (0.4g iirc) and does have an atmosphere but it's way thinner than that of earth.

As for you asking me to do the math on helium loss - nah. You can do that yourself, the data is probably available somewhere on Google (ever tried scholar.google.com?).

In your accepted atmospheric system, all of the light gases should be dispersed to the atmosphere. because light gases move to the top, and heavy gases move to the bottom. Then light gases Dissipates into space with a high speed. Same time the heavy gases adhesion to the ground with a high speed. So there is no reason to save the light gases. All of light gases should continuously moving up to the heavy gases. So what causes to they don't do that? Cmon, there is no reason except something saves the atmosphere to disintegration to the space. Something surrounded and saving the earth atmosphere. Look no vain ,take it easy.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 20, 2016, 05:45:13 AM
You do realise that you can't simply put it that easy, right? There's a lot more going on in the atmosphere. It's impossible for the atmosphere to differentiate by weight because of processes like convection/wind, coriolis effect, etcetera. It's in constant movement. I'll admit that meteorology/the atmosphere aren't my specialties but you are either way oversimplifying things, or you have one or two statements wrong, or both. Besides, even if the lighter gases were pushed to the higher parts of the atmosphere, that doesn't immediately mean that they get lost to space.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: wise on September 20, 2016, 05:55:04 AM
You do realise that you can't simply put it that easy, right? There's a lot more going on in the atmosphere. It's impossible for the atmosphere to differentiate by weight because of processes like convection/wind, coriolis effect, etcetera. It's in constant movement. I'll admit that meteorology/the atmosphere aren't my specialties but you are either way oversimplifying things, or you have one or two statements wrong, or both. Besides, even if the lighter gases were pushed to the higher parts of the atmosphere, that doesn't immediately mean that they get lost to space.

You are closing your eyes to the truth. You can't answer my question by convincing way. Think the gravitation is decrease on the high altitudes and centrifugal forces are on the maximum value. howbeit as otherwise diffusion forcing everything to get in to the space. So almost all gases moves to the space. This is science. wind, coriolis effect and etcetera can't save anything. We are talking about a place stay here millions (!) of years. Open your mind, wake up.

Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sokarul on September 20, 2016, 06:10:11 AM
You do realise that you can't simply put it that easy, right? There's a lot more going on in the atmosphere. It's impossible for the atmosphere to differentiate by weight because of processes like convection/wind, coriolis effect, etcetera. It's in constant movement. I'll admit that meteorology/the atmosphere aren't my specialties but you are either way oversimplifying things, or you have one or two statements wrong, or both. Besides, even if the lighter gases were pushed to the higher parts of the atmosphere, that doesn't immediately mean that they get lost to space.

You are closing your eyes to the truth. You can't answer my question by convincing way. Think the gravitation is decrease on the high altitudes and centrifugal forces are on the maximum value. howbeit as otherwise diffusion forcing everything to get in to the space. So almost all gases moves to the space. This is science. wind, coriolis effect and etcetera can't save anything. We are talking about a place stay here millions (!) of years. Open your mind, wake up.
You are making up physical properties that don't exist.

If an object feels weight, then forces aren't balanced. Gravity and centrifugal force are not balanced.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: bob_the_skywatcher on September 20, 2016, 06:16:47 AM
You do realise that you can't simply put it that easy, right? There's a lot more going on in the atmosphere. It's impossible for the atmosphere to differentiate by weight because of processes like convection/wind, coriolis effect, etcetera. It's in constant movement. I'll admit that meteorology/the atmosphere aren't my specialties but you are either way oversimplifying things, or you have one or two statements wrong, or both. Besides, even if the lighter gases were pushed to the higher parts of the atmosphere, that doesn't immediately mean that they get lost to space.

You are closing your eyes to the truth. You can't answer my question by convincing way. Think the gravitation is decrease on the high altitudes and centrifugal forces are on the maximum value. howbeit as otherwise diffusion forcing everything to get in to the space. So almost all gases moves to the space. This is science. wind, coriolis effect and etcetera can't save anything. We are talking about a place stay here millions (!) of years. Open your mind, wake up.
Regarding centrifugal forces, do you know that the gases so high up are travelling at the same speed?
If the air gets thinner higher up, would not friction decrease, and therefore the gases also move slower = less cetrifugal force?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: N30 on September 20, 2016, 06:18:38 AM
"how much is the goverment paying you"

The government actually covered most of my tuition, which is pretty neat (but that's not because of lying or anything, just that my government actually cares about its students)
I wish I could lie about money;I'd lie about lying and cash in anyway.
"I'll admit that meteorology/the atmosphere aren't my specialties"

"You do realise that you can't simply put it that easy, right?"

People can't be asleep and post at the same time.


(http://youfail.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/they-live-alien.jpg)


"You are closing your eyes to the truth." "...wake up."
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 20, 2016, 06:35:28 AM
N30 I'm delighted that we can have such a constructive conversation.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: wise on September 20, 2016, 06:59:42 AM
You do realise that you can't simply put it that easy, right? There's a lot more going on in the atmosphere. It's impossible for the atmosphere to differentiate by weight because of processes like convection/wind, coriolis effect, etcetera. It's in constant movement. I'll admit that meteorology/the atmosphere aren't my specialties but you are either way oversimplifying things, or you have one or two statements wrong, or both. Besides, even if the lighter gases were pushed to the higher parts of the atmosphere, that doesn't immediately mean that they get lost to space.

You are closing your eyes to the truth. You can't answer my question by convincing way. Think the gravitation is decrease on the high altitudes and centrifugal forces are on the maximum value. howbeit as otherwise diffusion forcing everything to get in to the space. So almost all gases moves to the space. This is science. wind, coriolis effect and etcetera can't save anything. We are talking about a place stay here millions (!) of years. Open your mind, wake up.
You are making up physical properties that don't exist.

If an object feels weight, then forces aren't balanced. Gravity and centrifugal force are not balanced.

First i want to answer your objection. You don't amaze me and you've been another false appeal. You are saying that Gravity and centrifugal force are not balanced but we are talking about the gases airborne. If you stay on the ground, yes then you can say this mismatch is your weight. But if you fliyng on the air, i can tell the forces effecting you are on the balance!

get a test tube and get all of the air in it. Then open a hole Underside of it. You'll see the air will fill in quickly. This shows the power of the diffusion is greater then gravitation when a part on the land, and gravitation is in the maximum value.

Atmospher on the edge there is no any other way to diffuses to the sky.

The other issue is your quote.

I ignored you before by interrupting a conversation. Later i clear the list. Now you are ignored by interrupting a conversation again. So bye.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sokarul on September 20, 2016, 07:29:48 AM
You do realise that you can't simply put it that easy, right? There's a lot more going on in the atmosphere. It's impossible for the atmosphere to differentiate by weight because of processes like convection/wind, coriolis effect, etcetera. It's in constant movement. I'll admit that meteorology/the atmosphere aren't my specialties but you are either way oversimplifying things, or you have one or two statements wrong, or both. Besides, even if the lighter gases were pushed to the higher parts of the atmosphere, that doesn't immediately mean that they get lost to space.

You are closing your eyes to the truth. You can't answer my question by convincing way. Think the gravitation is decrease on the high altitudes and centrifugal forces are on the maximum value. howbeit as otherwise diffusion forcing everything to get in to the space. So almost all gases moves to the space. This is science. wind, coriolis effect and etcetera can't save anything. We are talking about a place stay here millions (!) of years. Open your mind, wake up.
You are making up physical properties that don't exist.

If an object feels weight, then forces aren't balanced. Gravity and centrifugal force are not balanced.

First i want to answer your objection. You don't amaze me and you've been another false appeal. You are saying that Gravity and centrifugal force are not balanced but we are talking about the gases airborne. If you stay on the ground, yes then you can say this mismatch is your weight. But if you fliyng on the air, i can tell the forces effecting you are on the balance!

get a test tube and get all of the air in it. Then open a hole Underside of it. You'll see the air will fill in quickly. This shows the power of the diffusion is greater then gravitation when a part on the land, and gravitation is in the maximum value.

Atmospher on the edge there is no any other way to diffuses to the sky.

The other issue is your quote.

I ignored you before by interrupting a conversation. Later i clear the list. Now you are ignored by interrupting a conversation again. So bye.
I would run away like a coward too if I was you.

Draw a force diagram on an air molecule and you can see its unbalanced. Any two year old can.

Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Charming Anarchist on September 20, 2016, 09:45:31 AM
Plate tectonics, anyone?
Why would the average person care about plate tectonics?
The average person may not be interested, but flat earth / globe earth debaters might find it interesting, especially in the context of antarctica.
You have not offered anything interesting yet. 

Are the continents in the same place as they were a guzzillion years ago?? 
Do you expect your flight path to Antarctica to be the same for your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grand-children as it is for you today? 

Can you tell us something about "plate tectonics" that nobody knows?  that is interesting?  that matters to real people with real jobs? 

I can appreciate studying "science" for its entertainment value but at some point, bills have to be paid or money has to be stolen.  How does an honest man make a living studying plate tectonics???  Who employs plate technicians and why?  How are "plate tectonics" sold? 
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 20, 2016, 10:08:11 AM
Plate tectonics, anyone?
Why would the average person care about plate tectonics?
The average person may not be interested, but flat earth / globe earth debaters might find it interesting, especially in the context of antarctica.
You have not offered anything interesting yet. 

Are the continents in the same place as they were a guzzillion years ago?? 
Do you expect your flight path to Antarctica to be the same for your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grand-children as it is for you today? 

Can you tell us something about "plate tectonics" that nobody knows?  that is interesting?  that matters to real people with real jobs? 

I can appreciate studying "science" for its entertainment value but at some point, bills have to be paid or money has to be stolen.  How does an honest man make a living studying plate tectonics???  Who employs plate technicians and why?  How are "plate tectonics" sold?

Geology =/= Plate tectonics
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 20, 2016, 10:10:30 AM
You have not offered anything interesting yet.
Well since you asked for it, here we go.
Quote
Are the continents in the same place as they were a guzzillion years ago?? 
Do you expect your flight path to Antarctica to be the same for your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grand-children as it is for you today? 
Good question. Antarctica will move (it was once stuck together with Australia). When looking through the entire history of the earth, we can distinguish six to seven cycles of the continents forming one supercontinent (pangaea, etc) and breaking up again. Right now we're at the point where the continents will start moving together again and this means that Antarctica will also be moving around, as the Indian Ocean will slowly start disappearing. This video: gives an idea of how this is expected to go.

Quote
Can you tell us something about "plate tectonics" that nobody knows?  that is interesting?  that matters to real people with real jobs?
Is the whole flat earth movement relevant to real people with real jobs? What do you think qualifies as "matters to real people with real jobs?" Mr. Average Joe may not care about plate tectonics but he will not be interested in nanomaterials or astronomy either. Or if the earth is flat or round.

Quote
I can appreciate studying "science" for its entertainment value but at some point, bills have to be paid or money has to be stolen.  How does an honest man make a living studying plate tectonics???  Who employs plate technicians and why?  How are "plate tectonics" sold?
You seem to underestimate the importance of plate tectonics. They are a driving force behind a lot of processes on this earth. They cause earthquakes (not all earthquakes are related to fracking or oil industry), they are behind a lot of ore deposits, which we need for the fancy metals in your phones and computers. They are a major cause of volcanism and tsunamis. They are related to a couple of processes that may have been behind the very origin of life. It's for a large portion research interest and education, but there's also mining, natural hazards etcetera linked to it. What idiot would build a nuclear power plant on top of a subduction zone? Cough Japan Cough Fukushima Cough. I'm not confident that I will be able to work in a plate tectonics related job forever but I'll sure try and if I can't, there are enough other fields I can get a job in.

And in the end, like User324 said, there's more in geology besides plate tectonics.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Charming Anarchist on September 20, 2016, 11:05:48 AM
And in the end, like User324 said, there's more in geology besides plate tectonics.
You have not shared ANYTHING new. 
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 20, 2016, 11:15:24 AM
And in the end, like User324 said, there's more in geology besides plate tectonics.
You have not shared ANYTHING new.
Neither have you?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2016, 11:26:53 AM
When looking through the entire history of the earth, we can distinguish six to seven cycles of the continents forming one supercontinent (pangaea, etc) and breaking up again.

You cannot distinguish anything, since there could not have been any Pangeea continent.

Here is the Pangeea continent:

(http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/students/pangea/pangea_files/image003.jpg)

The position of the centre of gravity varies according to the shape of the object.

And, according to the official theory we do have an applied external force:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)

You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.

Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).


"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."


The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.

At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.


For the Pangeea continent the situation is much worse: such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth.


BASIC NEWTONIAN PHYSICS: we have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.


Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 20, 2016, 11:29:03 AM
Plate tectonics, anyone?
Why would the average person care about plate tectonics?
The average person may not be interested, but flat earth / globe earth debaters might find it interesting, especially in the context of antarctica.
You have not offered anything interesting yet. 

Can you tell us something about "plate tectonics" that nobody knows?  that is interesting?  that matters to real people with real jobs? 

I can appreciate studying "science" for its entertainment value but at some point, bills have to be paid or money has to be stolen.  How does an honest man make a living studying plate tectonics???  Who employs plate technicians and why?  How are "plate tectonics" sold?

RocksEverywhere,

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a deep understanding of the earth, including plate tectonics, critical in discovering oil supplies?  Wouldn't that constitute a clear argument for the usefulness of geology in economic terms?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 20, 2016, 11:48:05 AM
Plus they are needed for geothermal probe, building tunnels, buildings in general and especially high towers/sky scrapers etc.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 20, 2016, 01:17:59 PM
RocksEverywhere,

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a deep understanding of the earth, including plate tectonics, critical in discovering oil supplies?  Wouldn't that constitute a clear argument for the usefulness of geology in economic terms?
Yes, absolutely! The oil industry would be nowhere without geology, locating it can be quite hard and then extracting it is something else entirely. Since faults play a big role in locating oil, it is important to know the geologic history of the area which involves plate tectonics.

Plus they are needed for geothermal probe, building tunnels, buildings in general and especially high towers/sky scrapers etc.
All of those. Some of my friends from uni now work in fields like that. Don't check the stability of the area and you end up with a leaning tower of Pisa. Or this one time when they built a dam in Italy, the new lake saturated one side of a mountain so much that it collapsed, caused a flood in the valley below and killed tons of people. Because they didn't check the geology. Once again referring to the Fukushima nuclear plant which got hit by a tsunami because it is located on an active subduction zones; said zones are prone to triggering tsunamis and massive earthquakes.

Blah blah blah I act like I am so smart
Tectonic plates have no influence whatsoever on gravity. Are you familiar with isostasy? Imagine the mantle to be water with the crust being a thin film on top of it; mountain ranges, cratons and tectonic plates are ice cubes. They float. Crust is lighter than mantle.

(http://explanet.info/images/Ch08/08_22.png)

Measured from core to surface, the mass of a part of the earth with ocean is the same as a part of the earth with mountains, except for some local temporary differences, which will be evened out by tectonics.



Edit: Thanks for all the interest :)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2016, 01:24:47 PM
Tectonic plates have no influence whatsoever on gravity. Are you familiar with isostasy?

Your courses on geology are woefully inadequate to have prepared you for a debate with me.

There is no such thing as isostasy.


Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance. The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much. (G. B. Airy.) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.


In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted. Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eotvos in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent fifth force. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.

The majority of the experiments failed to find any evidence of a composition-dependent force; one or two did, but this is generally attributed to experimental error. Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition. His work was not taken seriously by the scientific community, and the very precise spark photography technique he used in his free-fall experiments has never been used by other investigators. Experiments by Victor Cremieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth's surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory.


On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.


You got anymore bright ideas?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 20, 2016, 01:31:47 PM
Tl; dr.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2016, 01:35:36 PM
You don't stand a chance with me here.

You haven't even done your homework on seismic waves.

In fact, seismic waves turn out to be one of the most ingenious proofs that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.


The discontinuities of the seismic waves assumed by modern science to occur at the crust mantle boundary are actually a network of huge caverns and large underground bodies of water and that they would match perfectly the seismic data.

Great masses of water are interpreted as molten rock.

Seismic waves travel faster north-south than east-west for a full four seconds.

"The S-wave shadow zone is larger than the P-wave shadow zones; direct S waves are not recorded in the entire region more than 103° away from the epicentre. It therefore seems that S waves do not travel through the core at all, and this is interpreted to mean that it is liquid, or at least acts like a liquid. The way P waves are refracted in the core is believed to indicate that there is a solid inner core. Although most of the earth's iron is supposed to be concentrated in the core, it is interesting to note that in the outer zones of the earth, iron levels decrease with depth.

Seismologists sometimes draw contradictory conclusions from the same seismic data. For instance, two groups of geophysicists produced completely different pictures of the core-mantle boundary, where there are believed to be 'mountains' and 'valleys' as high or deep as 10 km. The two groups used virtually the same data but used different equations to process them. Seismologists also disagree on the rate of rotation of the inner core: some say it is rotating faster than the rest of the planet, others that it is rotating more slowly, and yet others that it rotates at the same speed!

    It is becoming increasingly evident that the earth model presented by the reigning theory of plate tectonics is seriously flawed. The rigid lithosphere, comprising the crust and uppermost mantle, is said to be fractured into several 'plates' of varying sizes, which move over a relatively plastic layer of partly molten rock known as the asthenosphere (or low-velocity zone). The lithosphere is said to average about 70 km thick beneath oceans and to be 100 to 250 km thick beneath continents. A powerful challenge to this model is posed by seismic tomography, which shows that the oldest parts of the continents have deep roots extending to depths of 400 to 600 km, and that the asthenosphere is essentially absent beneath them. Seismic research shows that even under the oceans there is no continuous asthenosphere, only disconnected asthenospheric lenses.

    The more we learn about the crust and uppermost mantle, the more the models presented in geological textbooks are exposed as simplistic and unrealistic. The outermost layers of the earth have a highly complex, irregular, inhomogeneous structure; they are divided by faults into a mosaic of separate, jostling blocks of different shapes and sizes, generally a few hundred kilometres across, and of varying internal structure and strength. This fact, in conjunction with the existence of deep continental roots and the absence of a global asthenosphere, means that the notion of huge rigid plates moving thousands of kilometres across the earth is simply untenable. Continents are about as mobile as a brick in a wall!

    The plate-tectonic hypothesis that the present oceans have formed by seafloor spreading since the early Mesozoic (within the last 200 million years) is also becoming increasingly implausible. Numerous far older continental rocks have been discovered in the oceans, along with 'anomalous' crustal types intermediate between standard 'continental' and 'oceanic' crust (e.g. plateaus, ridges, and rises), and the evidence for large (now submerged) continental landmasses in the present oceans continues to mount.

At the Kola hole, scientists expected to find 4.7 km of metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rock, then a granitic layer to a depth of 7 km (the 'Conrad discontinuity'), with a basaltic layer below it. The granite, however, appeared at 6.8 km and extends to more than 12 km; no basaltic layer was ever found! Seismic-reflection surveys, in which sound waves sent into the crust bounce back off contrasting rock types, have detected the Conrad discontinuity beneath all the continents, but the standard interpretation that it represents a change from granitic to basaltic rocks is clearly wrong. Metamorphic changes brought about by heat and pressure are now thought to be the most likely explanation.

The superdeep borehole at Oberpfälz, Germany, was expected to pass through a 3-to-5-km-thick nappe complex into a suture zone formed by a supposed continental collision. The borehole reached a final depth of 9101 m in 1994, but no evidence supporting the nappe concept was found. What the scientists did find was a series of nearly vertical folds that had failed to show up on seismic-reflection profiles.

 Rock density is generally expected to increase with depth, as pressures rise. Results from the Kola hole indicated that densities did increase with depth initially, but at 4.5 km the drill encountered a sudden decrease in density, presumably due to increased porosity. The results also showed that increases in seismic velocity do not have to be caused by an increase in rock basicity. The Soviet Minister of Geology reported that 'with increasing depth in the Kola hole, the expected increase in rock densities was therefore not recorded. Neither was any increase in the speed of seismic waves nor any other changes in the physical properties of the rocks detected. Thus the traditional idea that geological data obtained from the surface can be directly correlated with geological materials in the deep crust must be reexamined.'

    The results of superdeep drilling show that seismic surveys of continental crust are being systematically misinterpreted. Much of the modelling of the earth's interior depends on the interpretation of seismic records. If these interpretations are wrong at depths of only a few kilometres, how much reliance can be placed on interpretations of the earth's structure at depths of hundreds or thousands of kilometres beneath the surface?!

    Contrary to expectations, signs of rock alteration and mineralization were found as deep as 7 km in the Kola well. The hole intercepted a copper-nickel ore body almost 2 km below the level at which ore bodies were thought to disappear. In addition, hydrogen, helium, methane, and other gases, together with strongly mineralized waters were found circulating throughout the Kola hole. The presence of fractures open to fluid circulation at pressures of more than 3000 bars was entirely unexpected. The drillers at Oberpfälz discovered hot fluids in open fractures at 3.4 km. The brine was rich in potassium and twice as salty as ocean water, and its origin is a mystery.

Another surprise at the Kola hole was that lifeforms and fossils were discovered several kilometres down. Microscopic fossils were found at depths of 6.7 km. 24 species were identified among these microfossils, representing the envelopes or coverings of single-cell marine plants known as plankton. Unlike conventional shells of limestone or silica, these coverings were found to consist of carbon and nitrogen and had remained remarkably unaltered despite the high pressures and temperatures to which they had been subjected.

The oceanic crust is commonly divided into three main layers: layer 1 consists of ocean-floor sediments and averages 0.5 km in thickness; layer 2 consists largely of basalt and is 1.0 to 2.5 km thick; and layer 3 is assumed to consist of gabbro and is about 5 km thick. A drillhole in the eastern Pacific Ocean has been reoccupied four times in a 12-year span, and has now reached a total depth of 2000 m below the seafloor. Seismic evidence suggested that the boundary between layers 2 and 3 would be found at a depth of about 1700 m, but the drill went well past that depth without finding the contact between the dikes of layer 2 and the expected gabbro of layer 3. Either the seismic interpretation or the model of layer 3's composition must be wrong.

If the earth's interior were homogeneous, consisting of materials with the same properties throughout, seismic waves would travel in a straight line at a constant velocity. In reality, waves reach distant seismometers sooner than they would if the earth were homogeneous, and the greater the distance, the greater the acceleration. This implies that the waves arriving at the more distant stations have been travelling faster. Since seismic waves travel not only along the surface but also through the body of the earth, the earth's curvature will clearly result in stations more distant from an earthquake focus receiving waves that have passed through greater depths in the earth. From this it is inferred that the velocity of seismic waves increases with depth, due to changes in the properties of the earth's matter.

    Seismic velocity in different media depends not just on the substance's density but also on its elastic properties (i.e. rigidity and incompressibility). In the case of solids and liquids, for instance, there is no correlation between sound-wave velocity and density. Here are some examples involving metals:

Substance      Density (g/cm³)         Velocity of longitudinal waves (km/s)
       aluminium         2.7      6.42
       zinc      7.1      4.21
       iron      7.9      5.95
       copper      8.9      4.76
       nickel      8.9      6.04
       gold      19.7      3.24
There is a correlation between density and seismic velocity in the case of gases: velocity decreases with increasing density due to the increased number of collisions.

    According to the relevant equations, the velocity of seismic waves will become slower, the denser the rocks through which they pass, if the rocks' elastic properties change in the same proportion as density. Since seismic waves accelerate with depth, this would imply that density decreases. However, scientists are convinced that the density of the rocks composing the earth's interior increases with depth. To get round this problem, they simply assume that the elastic properties change at a rate that more than compensates for the increase in density. As one textbook puts it:

Since the density of the Earth increases with depth you would expect the waves to slow down with increasing depth. Why, then, do both P- and S-waves speed up as they go deeper? This can only happen because the incompressibility and rigidity of the Earth increase faster with depth than density increases.

Thus geophysicists simply adjust the values for rigidity and incompressibility to fit in with their preconceptions regarding density and velocity distribution within the earth! In other words, their arguments are circular.

Drilling results at the Kola borehole revealed significant heterogeneity in rock composition and density, seismic velocities, and other properties. Overall, rock porosity and pressure increased with depth, while density decreased, and seismic velocities showed no distinct trend. In the Oberpfälz pilot hole, too, density and seismic velocity showed no distinct trend with increasing depth. Many scientists believe that at greater depths, the presumed increase in pressures and temperatures will lead to greater homogeneity and that reality will approximate more closely to current models. But this is no more than a declaration of faith.

    Scientists' conviction that density increases with depth is based on their belief that, due to the accumulating weight of the overlying rock, pressure must increase all the way to the earth's centre where it is believed to reach 3.5 million atmospheres (on the earth's surface the pressure is one atmosphere). They also believe that they know by how much rock density increases towards the earth's centre. This is because they think they have accurately determined the earth's mass (5.98 x 1024 kg) and therefore its average density (5.52 g/cm³). Since the outermost crustal rocks -- the only ones that can be sampled directly -- have a density of only 2.75 g/cm³, it follows that deeper layers of rock must be much denser. At the centre of the earth, density allegedly reaches 13.5 g/cm³.

Pari Spolter casts doubt on this model:

About 71% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans at an average depth of 3795 m and mean density of 1.02 g cm-3. The average thickness of the crust is 19 km and the mean crustal density is 2.75 g cm-3. From studies of seismic wave travel time, geophysicists have outlined a layered structure in the interior of the earth. There is no accurate way currently known of estimating the density distribution from seismic data alone. To come up with a mean density of 5.5, earth models assuming progressively higher density values for the inner zones of the earth have been devised. . . .
    Except for the ocean and the crust, direct measurements of the density of the inner layers of the earth are not available. This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the law of sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for some 4.5 billion years. When it was first formed, the earth was in a molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest density of matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Except for the inner core, . . . the density of the other layers of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.
    Also, heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could so much of materials with such low stellar abundances have concentrated in the earth's interior?

The seismic radiation of deep earthquakes is similar to that of shallow earthquakes. It used to be said that deep-focus earthquakes were followed by fewer aftershocks than shallow ones, but there are indications that many of the aftershocks are simply difficult to detect, and that there is much more activity at such depths than is currently believed. The fact that deep earthquakes share many characteristics with shallow earthquakes suggests that they may be caused by similar mechanisms. However, most earth scientists are incapable of entertaining the notion that the earth could be rigid at such depths. One exception is E.A. Skobelin, who draws the logical conclusion that since deep-focus earthquakes cannot originate in plastic material but must be linked to some kind of stress in solid rock, the solid, rigid lithosphere must extend to depths of up to 700 km.

On 8 June 1994, one of the largest deep earthquakes of the 20th century, with a magnitude of 8.3 on the Richter scale, exploded 640 km beneath Bolivia. It caused the whole earth to ring like a bell for months on end; every 20 minutes or so, the entire planet expanded and contracted by a minute amount. A significant feature of the Bolivian earthquake was that it extended horizontally across a 30- by 50-km plane within the 'subducting slab'. This undermines the hypothesis that such quakes are caused by olivine within the 'cold' centre of a slab suddenly being transformed into spinel in a runaway reaction when the temperature rises above 600°C. It also undermines the theory that gravity increases with depth; if this were true, the motion of earthquakes at such depths should be nearly vertical. There appears to be something very wrong with scientific theories about what exists and what is happening deep within the earth.

    The acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s² at the earth's surface and the prevailing view is that it rises to a maximum of 10.4 m/s² at the core-mantle boundary (2900 km), before falling to zero at the earth's centre. But not all earth scientists agree. Skobelin argues that the normal, downwardly-directed gravitational force may be replaced by a reversed, upwardly-directed force at depths of 2700 to 4980 km, and that the widely-accepted figure of 3500 kilobars for the pressure at the earth's centre, may be an order of magnitude too high."

David Pratt

see also: http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#s5 (http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#s5)


As we have seen, none of the assumptions made by geologists are true about the composition of inner earth, therefore no one at the present time has any idea how actually seismic waves propagate at very large depths.

In order to make claims about the shape of the Earth based on seismic waves, you must know exactly the composition of inner earth: I have given you plenty of examples which do show that this composition is very different than what was assumed to be true.

Please read:

The oceanic crust is commonly divided into three main layers: layer 1 consists of ocean-floor sediments and averages 0.5 km in thickness; layer 2 consists largely of basalt and is 1.0 to 2.5 km thick; and layer 3 is assumed to consist of gabbro and is about 5 km thick. A drillhole in the eastern Pacific Ocean has been reoccupied four times in a 12-year span, and has now reached a total depth of 2000 m below the seafloor. Seismic evidence suggested that the boundary between layers 2 and 3 would be found at a depth of about 1700 m, but the drill went well past that depth without finding the contact between the dikes of layer 2 and the expected gabbro of layer 3. Either the seismic interpretation or the model of layer 3's composition must be wrong.

If the earth's interior were homogeneous, consisting of materials with the same properties throughout, seismic waves would travel in a straight line at a constant velocity. In reality, waves reach distant seismometers sooner than they would if the earth were homogeneous, and the greater the distance, the greater the acceleration. This implies that the waves arriving at the more distant stations have been travelling faster. Since seismic waves travel not only along the surface but also through the body of the earth, the earth's curvature will clearly result in stations more distant from an earthquake focus receiving waves that have passed through greater depths in the earth. From this it is inferred that the velocity of seismic waves increases with depth, due to changes in the properties of the earth's matter.

There is a correlation between density and seismic velocity in the case of gases: velocity decreases with increasing density due to the increased number of collisions.


NOW, I CAN PROVE TO YOU THAT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH IS FLAT BASED STRICTLY ON SEISMIC WAVES.

SINCE THE EARTH'S INTERIOR STRUCTURE IS MARKEDLY DIFFERENT THAN WAS ASSUMED, THE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING CURVATURE AND VELOCITY ARE SIMPLY WRONG.

THAT IS, THE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING MORE DISTANT STATIONS NO LONGER HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CURVATURE: THE VELOCITY INCREASES DUE TO THE CHANGES IN THE PROPERTIES OF THE EARTH'S MATTER, AND NOT DUE TO CURVATURE.

Since the interior structure is completely different, the assumed calculations made taking curvature into consideration are wrong.

Once we exclude the curvature, we can simply explain the velocity of the seismic wave strictly based on the newly discovered properties of earth's matter, on A FLAT SURFACE OF THE EARTH.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 20, 2016, 01:37:51 PM
I'm not even going to read that. If you can't summarize your arguments and conclusions, you're not suited for science.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 20, 2016, 01:39:54 PM
*/


Somebody tell me.if you get the joke.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Woody on September 20, 2016, 01:57:34 PM
I'm not even going to read that. If you can't summarize your arguments and conclusions, you're not suited for science.

I stopped reading his post shortly after finding this site. 

He copies and paste the majority of the time.  I do not think I have seen anything from him arguing in his own words.  I also noticed he will include copy and paste from sources that have nothing to do with what is being discussed.  His sources also tend to be rather dated and he ignores any newer discoveries proving them wrong.

Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 20, 2016, 02:06:56 PM
You don't stand a chance with me here.

You haven't even done your homework on seismic waves.

In fact, seismic waves turn out to be one of the most ingenious proofs that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.


The discontinuities of the seismic waves assumed by modern science to occur at the crust mantle boundary are actually a network of huge caverns and large underground bodies of water and that they would match perfectly the seismic data.


and right there is where it turned to bullshit...
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: N30 on September 20, 2016, 02:16:38 PM
How does an honest man make a living studying plate tectonics?

"The government actually covered most of my tuition" LIES


"...plate tectonics, critical in discovering oil supplies?"

"Yes, absolutely! The oil industry would be nowhere without geology."

Most researchers actually have mediocre pay, it's in oil and mining where the money is.

"...earthquakes have been linked to the disposal of wastewater produced during oil extraction..."

As for you asking me to do the math on helium loss - nah. You can do that yourself.

I'm not a mathematician or archeologist dangit.



You sure like that oil money in your pocket don't you, Mr. Government funded Rockseverywhere!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXQ5r6IWwAEhutJ.jpg)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 20, 2016, 02:23:07 PM
You sure like that oil money in your pocket don't you, Mr. Government funded Rockseverywhere!

You sure like to dismiss stuff purely on prejudice doncha.

If it wasn't for government funded geology you'd have no tinfoil.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 20, 2016, 02:45:22 PM


You sure like that oil money in your pocket don't you, Mr. Government funded Rockseverywhere!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXQ5r6IWwAEhutJ.jpg)

First off your Walmart looks very depressing.  Try shopping at Target.

Second, yes, research institutes are partially subsidized by energy companies.  Because they get a return on their investment.  Actually forget it.  Here's a link that explains the error in your thinking.

http://www.theonion.com/video/slow-witted-conspiracy-theorist-convinced-governme-34750
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 20, 2016, 02:50:08 PM
You don't stand a chance with me here.

You haven't even done your homework on seismic waves.

In fact, seismic waves turn out to be one of the most ingenious proofs that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.


The discontinuities ...

Do you seriously need 20,000 characters to make your point?  You couldn't do it in 4 paragraphs like %99 percent of everyone else on this forum?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: rabinoz on September 20, 2016, 04:16:28 PM
You don't stand a chance with me here.

;D ;D All hail the King!  ;D ;D

Stop being such a puffed up, know-it-all prig!
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 20, 2016, 05:23:01 PM
I will GLADLY admit I like to line my pockets with money from the oilfield! The problem is the price of oil is too low right now, causing that lining in my pocket to be quite  thin.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 21, 2016, 12:11:42 AM
Someone's gotta take the oil money, right? (not me actually, I never found it that interesting)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: fliggs on September 21, 2016, 01:04:36 AM
it depends which government

USA, UK etc, very corrupt

places like Iceland etc have very good governments

look at how Gaddafi ran his country, his people were well looked after, hence the world police (USA) going in and installing their own government

the media is the devil, they only show you things to get you 'on side'

Rothschild, Rockefeller etc if you don't know, research

the massive ice shelf at Antarctica is now named 'The Rockefeller Plateau'


the whole flat earth theory is a wild goose chase to put you off the mysteries of Antarctica..
re-upped under the pretense of a study about 'Andrea Barnes'


I've said it before and I'll say it again..
RESEARCH!!

There ARE mysteries in this world, there are people indoctrinating us daily, divide and conquer has always worked, why would they stop now

(sorry for the ramblings)

Gadaffi was a good government?  Are you serious? He killed his opponents and the country was poor despite oil.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 21, 2016, 01:52:08 AM
it depends which government

USA, UK etc, very corrupt

places like Iceland etc have very good governments

look at how Gaddafi ran his country, his people were well looked after, hence the world police (USA) going in and installing their own government

the media is the devil, they only show you things to get you 'on side'

Rothschild, Rockefeller etc if you don't know, research

the massive ice shelf at Antarctica is now named 'The Rockefeller Plateau'


the whole flat earth theory is a wild goose chase to put you off the mysteries of Antarctica..
re-upped under the pretense of a study about 'Andrea Barnes'


I've said it before and I'll say it again..
RESEARCH!!

There ARE mysteries in this world, there are people indoctrinating us daily, divide and conquer has always worked, why would they stop now

(sorry for the ramblings)

Gadaffi was a good government?  Are you serious? He killed his opponents and the country was poor despite oil.

of course the media painted him to be the bad guy, to round up the support, remember that first video, of the school with all the burn victims? ask the locals who dropped it, they'll tell you it was the US, NOT Gadaffi

'The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.' - Malcolm X

here's a few from his time as leader:

1. There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.

2. There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.

3. Housing is considered a human right in Libya – Gaddafi vowed that his parents would not get a house until everyone in Libya had a home. Gaddafi’s father died while him, his wife and his mother were still living in a tent.

4. All newlyweds in Libya receive $60,000 Dinar (US$50,000) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.

5. Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. Today the figure is 83%.

6. Should Libyans want to take up farming careers, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipments, seeds and livestock to kick-start their farms – all for free.

7. If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only free, but they also get US$2,300/month for accommodation and car allowance.

8. If a Libyan buys a new car from Libya, the government subsidized 50% of the price.

9. The price of petrol in Libya is only $0.14 per liter.

10. Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – now frozen globally.

11. If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation, the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed, until employment is found.

12. A portion of Libyan oil sale is credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.

13. A mother who gives birth to a child receives US$5,000 ;

14. 40 loaves of bread in Libya costs only $0.15 ;

15. 25% of Libyans have a University degree;

16. Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country. The water is free of charge.


The list goes on, but I think I've made my point, stop getting your information from Israeli ran Media ;)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Woody on September 21, 2016, 02:30:27 AM
To add to the above:

Really look into who the US supports around the world.  Who gets money and weapons.

US tax dollars have supported and continues to support some really horrible people and groups.
The reason being those groups and people are willing to make deals like disband unions.

I bit tired may add a list of who US tax dollars supported later.

Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 21, 2016, 02:35:57 AM
I certainly don't pay any tax, I'm in the UK..

as far as I'm aware, it's still illegal to fund terrorism in the UK, and my tax goes to the government

in turn, my money is MY money, if they want it, they can come and try to take it, I'm not paying anyone for my right to live on the planet, it's as much my planet as it is theirs
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Woody on September 21, 2016, 02:43:53 AM
I certainly don't pay any tax, I'm in the UK..

as far as I'm aware, it's still illegal to fund terrorism in the UK, and my tax goes to the government

in turn, my money is MY money, if they want it, they can come and try to take it, I'm not paying anyone for my right to live on the planet, it's as much my planet as it is theirs

It really irks me that my tax dollars go to support these groups.  Then to listen to the US politicians saying how evil this or that group is as they make sure another group doing the same shit gets money, weapons and training.

I really wish more US citizens paid attention to stuff happening outside the US.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 21, 2016, 02:49:50 AM
Since I'm now bored, I'll take a crack at sandokhan's great wall of China text.

You don't stand a chance with me here.
Come at me bro.

Quote
You haven't even done your homework on seismic waves.
Who are you, my professor?

Quote
The discontinuities of the seismic waves assumed by modern science to occur at the crust mantle boundary are actually a network of huge caverns and large underground bodies of water and that they would match perfectly the seismic data.
You have got to be kidding me. Those caverns would never survive the pressure at that depth. There also is zero geological evidence for it, while we have plenty of mantle rocks on the surface. Even old crust-mantle boundary.

Quote
Great masses of water are interpreted as molten rock.
There actually isn't that much molten rock in the earth. There is a lot of water down there but it's incorporated in mineral structures or in the pores of rocks.

Quote
Seismic waves travel faster north-south than east-west for a full four seconds.
You mention no distance, so I'm going to assume it's all the way; let's not forget that the earth is not a perfect sphere; north to south is actually less distance than "east to west".

Quote
A powerful challenge to this model is posed by seismic tomography, which shows that the oldest parts of the continents have deep roots extending to depths of 400 to 600 km, and that the asthenosphere is essentially absent beneath them.
Bullshit. 200km: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/23/3/205.abstract
200-300km: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n10/full/ngeo2525.html?message-global=remove
150km: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation41.html
300km: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.526.3932&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Quote
Seismic research shows that even under the oceans there is no continuous asthenosphere, only disconnected asthenospheric lenses.
Source?

Quote
Continents are about as mobile as a brick in a wall!
Whoever wrote this, whether it was you or someone you copied, is clueless about the timescale on which geological processes take place. Plates move with 1 to 10 cm per year and this has been verified by GPS.

Quote
The plate-tectonic hypothesis that the present oceans have formed by seafloor spreading since the early Mesozoic (within the last 200 million years) is also becoming increasingly implausible. Numerous far older continental rocks have been discovered in the oceans, along with 'anomalous' crustal types intermediate between standard 'continental' and 'oceanic' crust (e.g. plateaus, ridges, and rises), and the evidence for large (now submerged) continental landmasses in the present oceans continues to mount.
Ocean formation isn't always as simple as just pulling apart a continent. There are definitely a few anomalies in the oceanic crust, possibly remnants from an old continent. This can happen if you don't cut a continent clean in half but some parts end up in the rift zone. Besides, you can literally see ocean spreading happening. And then date it back with both rock dating and magnetic reversals in the oceanic crust.

Quote
Blah blah seismics are hard and have been misinterpreted in the past
Which is why it's important to drill to depth so we can test hypotheses on how to interpret seismics. Make mistakes, learn from them, move on.
Your whole argument here is that because some errors were made over 20 years ago, the entire field is now worthless. And your argument is worthless.

Quote
Either the seismic interpretation or the model of layer 3's composition must be wrong
Since we found entire sections of ophiolite on the surface, I'm going with another learning opportunity for seismics.

Quote
*ramblings on seismics* In other words, their arguments are circular.
In other words, it's a best-fit model and working theory and we have yet to improve it, if possible.

Quote
Overall, rock porosity and pressure increased with depth, while density decreased, and seismic velocities showed no distinct trend.
First of all, the crust is strongly heterogeneous. "but at 4.5 km the drill encountered a sudden decrease in density" from earlier in your ramblings, they found one occasion of finding a lower density with depth and you conclude that therefore, the whole world must have a decreasing density with depth. Nice try.

Quote
Pari Spolter casts doubt on this model:
Pari Spolter can suck it.

Quote
There is no accurate way currently known of estimating the density distribution from seismic data alone.
Actually I know someone who's working on that. Besides, we have more than just seismic data. We have data from meteorites which show the exact progression from core to mantle that we expect from the earth. Iron meteorites have a composition similar to what we expect from the core; stony meteorites have that of the mantle. Stony iron meteorites are a combination of the two, also known as pallasites, look them up because they are gorgeous. Oh right another reason why the universe is really freaking old, iron meteorites often show Widmanstätten patterns which can only have originated through super slow cooling, we're talking millions of years here.

Quote
Except for the ocean and the crust, direct measurements of the density of the inner layers of the earth are not available.
False. Once again, meteorites are an approximation, and we have plenty of mantle material to work with.

Quote
This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the law of sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for some 4.5 billion years. When it was first formed, the earth was in a molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest density of matter should have migrated to the outer layers.
If this rotation was more powerful than gravity, earth would never have accreted in the first place. Nice try.

Quote
One exception is E.A. Skobelin, who draws the logical conclusion that since deep-focus earthquakes cannot originate in plastic material but must be linked to some kind of stress in solid rock, the solid, rigid lithosphere must extend to depths of up to 700 km.
Nope. The mantle is actually not homogeneous, as tomographics already tell us, but are being invaded (woo spooky!) by subducting slabs, which stall at around 600km (gee I wonder why, maybe because of a density change in the mantle?). Go read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadati%E2%80%93Benioff_zone

Quote
This undermines the hypothesis that such quakes are caused by olivine within the 'cold' centre of a slab suddenly being transformed into spinel in a runaway reaction when the temperature rises above 600°C.
No it doesn't undermine it. Where would you get that idea?

Quote
I have given you plenty of examples which do show that this composition is very different than what was assumed to be true.
Actually just two, without source, and of an extremely heterogeneous crust, which is already what we expected. Nothing new here, move along.

Quote
SINCE THE EARTH'S INTERIOR STRUCTURE IS MARKEDLY DIFFERENT THAN WAS ASSUMED
Nooooooope.

Nope.

Nope nope nope.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 21, 2016, 11:38:04 AM
You still don't get it.

No wonder you came up with these catastrophic references, all of which FAIL to address the faint young sun paradox, the comets' tails paradox, the dating by isotopes paradoxes.

Site #1

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/23/3/205.abstract

We divided old continents into two age provinces: 800–1700 Ma (Middle Proterozoic) and older than 1700 Ma (Archean and Early Proterozoic).

Site #2

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n10/full/ngeo2525.html?message-global=remove

Stable continental cratons are the oldest geologic features on the planet. They have survived 3.8 to 2.5 billion years of Earth’s evolution.

Site #3

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation41.html

In the geologic time scale, the oldest eon is called the Archean, with an assigned age of 2.5 billion years ago and older.

Site #4

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.526.3932&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The Superior Province of the Canadian Shield, the world’s largest region of Archean (actually 3.0–2.7 Ga) rocks...


The basic assumptions/hypotheses stated by the authors you quoted are CATASTROPHICALLY WRONG.

Here are the best proofs that the dating methods used in these papers couldn't be more erroneous.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.msg1823324#msg1823324


Let me remind you of a very basic fact of astrophysics:

When passing close to the sun, comets emit tails. It is assumed that the material of the tail does not return to the comet's head but is dispersed in space; consequently, the comets as luminous bodies must have a limited life. If Halley's comet has pursued its present orbit since late pre-Cambrian times, it must "have grown and lost eight million tails, which seems improbable." If comets are wasted, their number in the solar system must permanently diminish, and no comet of short period could have preserved its tail since geological times.

But as there are many luminous comets of short period, they must have been produced or acquired at some time when other members of the system, the planets and the satellites, were already in their places.

(from Worlds in Collision)


The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/vk2_zps6810e273.jpg)

PAGE 107: Halley's comet, for example, could not exist as a comet for more than 120 revolutions.

120 x 75 = 9000 years


Collapsing Tests of Time:

http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm

A total debunking of the papers you quoted.


If we add to this the Faint Young Sun Paradox, totally unsolved to this present day, your understanding of geology falls apart.


You have TOTALLY FAILED to address the main points of my message.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.


Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.


According to the relevant equations, the velocity of seismic waves will become slower, the denser the rocks through which they pass, if the rocks' elastic properties change in the same proportion as density. Since seismic waves accelerate with depth, this would imply that density decreases. However, scientists are convinced that the density of the rocks composing the earth's interior increases with depth. To get round this problem, they simply assume that the elastic properties change at a rate that more than compensates for the increase in density. As one textbook puts it:

Since the density of the Earth increases with depth you would expect the waves to slow down with increasing depth. Why, then, do both P- and S-waves speed up as they go deeper? This can only happen because the incompressibility and rigidity of the Earth increase faster with depth than density increases.

Thus geophysicists simply adjust the values for rigidity and incompressibility to fit in with their preconceptions regarding density and velocity distribution within the earth! In other words, their arguments are circular.

Drilling results at the Kola borehole revealed significant heterogeneity in rock composition and density, seismic velocities, and other properties. Overall, rock porosity and pressure increased with depth, while density decreased, and seismic velocities showed no distinct trend. In the Oberpfälz pilot hole, too, density and seismic velocity showed no distinct trend with increasing depth. Many scientists believe that at greater depths, the presumed increase in pressures and temperatures will lead to greater homogeneity and that reality will approximate more closely to current models. But this is no more than a declaration of faith.

We have data from meteorites which show the exact progression from core to mantle that we expect from the earth.

You can't use anything relating to meteorites since then I will invoke the Comets' Tails Paradox; any argument you might raise will be debunked in less than 30 seconds.


If this rotation was more powerful than gravity, earth would never have accreted in the first place.

You haven't done your homework on accretion, have you?

Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit’s research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another. Think about it a minute; don’t those facts make sense?

This point is so important (for it devastates the origin of stars theory) that *Harwit’s research should be mentioned in more detail:

*Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved Series (which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).


As I said, you came here totally unprepared: you should be giving alms and prayers for actually having the chance to learn the missing 90% of basic geology/astrophysics that is lacking from your curriculum.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: onebigmonkey on September 21, 2016, 11:47:56 AM
A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 21, 2016, 01:47:22 PM
You keep hanging on to those few paradoxes; the fact that they're a paradox means that at least one statement in each paradox is wrong or missing. Not which one it is that's wrong or missing. You say it's proof that the earth is way younger than it actually is; I say something else in your statements is wrong. For example for your comets it would mean that perhaps there's a mechanism of tail regrowth, or else, the age of the solar system does not have to be less than the oldest comet. Honestly you're a poor scientist if you go in biased to assume one specific statement is wrong without checking the others properly or seeing if you missed anything.

Quote
Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.
This is complete bullshit, read up on the geoid.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 21, 2016, 02:34:41 PM
Sandhokhan, make sure you add "/*" before you start typing, and "*/" after you are done.

Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 21, 2016, 04:07:11 PM
Haha, this is great! I do enjoy watching sandokhan's endless bullcrap get smacked down. Also, I have learned a lot about rocks! Win win.

Kudos RockDude.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 21, 2016, 06:22:11 PM
You still don't get it.

No wonder you came up with these catastrophic references, all of which FAIL to address the faint young sun paradox, the comets' tails paradox, the dating by isotopes paradoxes.

Site #1

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/23/3/205.abstract

We divided old continents into two age provinces: 800–1700 Ma (Middle Proterozoic) and older than 1700 Ma (Archean and Early Proterozoic).

Site #2

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n10/full/ngeo2525.html?message-global=remove

Stable continental cratons are the oldest geologic features on the planet. They have survived 3.8 to 2.5 billion years of Earth’s evolution.

Site #3

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation41.html

In the geologic time scale, the oldest eon is called the Archean, with an assigned age of 2.5 billion years ago and older.

Site #4

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.526.3932&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The Superior Province of the Canadian Shield, the world’s largest region of Archean (actually 3.0–2.7 Ga) rocks...


The basic assumptions/hypotheses stated by the authors you quoted are CATASTROPHICALLY WRONG.

Here are the best proofs that the dating methods used in these papers couldn't be more erroneous.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.msg1823324#msg1823324


Let me remind you of a very basic fact of astrophysics:

When passing close to the sun, comets emit tails. It is assumed that the material of the tail does not return to the comet's head but is dispersed in space; consequently, the comets as luminous bodies must have a limited life. If Halley's comet has pursued its present orbit since late pre-Cambrian times, it must "have grown and lost eight million tails, which seems improbable." If comets are wasted, their number in the solar system must permanently diminish, and no comet of short period could have preserved its tail since geological times.

But as there are many luminous comets of short period, they must have been produced or acquired at some time when other members of the system, the planets and the satellites, were already in their places.

(from Worlds in Collision)


The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/vk2_zps6810e273.jpg)

PAGE 107: Halley's comet, for example, could not exist as a comet for more than 120 revolutions.

120 x 75 = 9000 years


Collapsing Tests of Time:

http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm

A total debunking of the papers you quoted.


If we add to this the Faint Young Sun Paradox, totally unsolved to this present day, your understanding of geology falls apart.


You have TOTALLY FAILED to address the main points of my message.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.


Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.


According to the relevant equations, the velocity of seismic waves will become slower, the denser the rocks through which they pass, if the rocks' elastic properties change in the same proportion as density. Since seismic waves accelerate with depth, this would imply that density decreases. However, scientists are convinced that the density of the rocks composing the earth's interior increases with depth. To get round this problem, they simply assume that the elastic properties change at a rate that more than compensates for the increase in density. As one textbook puts it:

Since the density of the Earth increases with depth you would expect the waves to slow down with increasing depth. Why, then, do both P- and S-waves speed up as they go deeper? This can only happen because the incompressibility and rigidity of the Earth increase faster with depth than density increases.

Thus geophysicists simply adjust the values for rigidity and incompressibility to fit in with their preconceptions regarding density and velocity distribution within the earth! In other words, their arguments are circular.

Drilling results at the Kola borehole revealed significant heterogeneity in rock composition and density, seismic velocities, and other properties. Overall, rock porosity and pressure increased with depth, while density decreased, and seismic velocities showed no distinct trend. In the Oberpfälz pilot hole, too, density and seismic velocity showed no distinct trend with increasing depth. Many scientists believe that at greater depths, the presumed increase in pressures and temperatures will lead to greater homogeneity and that reality will approximate more closely to current models. But this is no more than a declaration of faith.

We have data from meteorites which show the exact progression from core to mantle that we expect from the earth.

You can't use anything relating to meteorites since then I will invoke the Comets' Tails Paradox; any argument you might raise will be debunked in less than 30 seconds.


If this rotation was more powerful than gravity, earth would never have accreted in the first place.

You haven't done your homework on accretion, have you?

Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit’s research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another. Think about it a minute; don’t those facts make sense?

This point is so important (for it devastates the origin of stars theory) that *Harwit’s research should be mentioned in more detail:

*Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved Series (which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).


As I said, you came here totally unprepared: you should be giving alms and prayers for actually having the chance to learn the missing 90% of basic geology/astrophysics that is lacking from your curriculum.

it really is funny how provided these irrefutable facts so the globers just have to avoid it all and name call.......
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 21, 2016, 09:32:25 PM
You haven't actually read any of it. So please don't artificially increase the length of pages by quoting that mess.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 21, 2016, 09:42:08 PM
You haven't actually read any of it. So please don't artificially increase the length of pages by quoting that mess.

i have.......
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 21, 2016, 09:43:13 PM
Oh! Then please explain how magma fits into your model, since you claim rocks burn.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 21, 2016, 09:48:54 PM
You haven't actually read any of it. So please don't artificially increase the length of pages by quoting that mess.

i have.......

Aha! That's how we know you're lying. Not even sandokhan reads his own posts.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 21, 2016, 11:25:18 PM
For example for your comets it would mean that perhaps there's a mechanism of tail regrowth, or else, the age of the solar system does not have to be less than the oldest comet.

There is no mechanism of tail regrowth for the comets: that is why the dispersion of material from a comet's tail constitutes the very best dating method, unsurpassed by any other.


The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets: this is a very basic fact of astrophysics.

If you do not agree with your own scientists, then write to your local university about this, and wait for a response.

Comets are supposed to be as old as the age of the solar system itself, you should know that by now.


The official theory of paleogeology is totally contradicted by the proofs which come from genetics and molecular biology.

"Robert Wesson (Beyond Natural Selection): "By Mayr's calculation, in a rapidly evolving line an organ may enlarge about 1 to 10 percent per million years, but organs of the whale-in-becoming must have grown ten times more rapidly over 10 million years. Perhaps 300 generations are required for a gene substitution. Moreover, mutations need to occur many times, even with considerable advantage, in order to have a good chance of becoming fixed.
Considering the length of whale generations, the rarity with which the needed mutations are likely to appear, and the multitude of mutations needed to convert a land mammal into a whale, it is easy to conclude that gradualist natural selection of random variations cannot account for this animal" (p. 52). Wesson’s book is a catalogue of biological improbabilities—-from bats' hypersophisticated echolocation system to the electric organs of fish—and of the gaping holes in the fossil record.

"By what devices the genes direct the formation of patterns of neurons that constitute innate behavioral patterns is entirely enigmatic. Yet not only do animals respond appropriately to manifold needs; they often do so in ways that would seem to require something like forethought" (p. 68). R. Wesson adds: "An instinct of any complexity, linking a sequence of perceptions and actions, must involve a very large number of connections within the brain or principal ganglia of the animal. If it is comparable to a computer program, it must have the equivalent of thousands of lines. In such a program, not merely would chance of improvement by accidental change be tiny at best. It is problematic how the program can be maintained without degradation over a long period despite the occurrence from time to time of errors by replication" (p. 81).


Antoine Tremolilre (La vie plus tetue que les etoiles): "We know that more than 90% of the changes affecting a letter in a word of the genetic message lead to disastrous results; proteins are no longer synthesized correctly, the message loses its entire meaning and this leads purely and simply to the cell’s death. Given that mutations are so frequently highly unfavourable, and even deadly, how can beneficial evolution be attained?" (p. 43).


M. Frank-Kamenetskii (Unraveling DNA): "It is clear, therefore, that you need a drastic refitting of the whole of your machine to make the car into a plane. The same is true for a protein. In trying to turn one enzyme into another, point mutations alone would not do the trick. What you need is a substantial change in the amino acid sequence. In this situation, rather than being helpful, selection is a major hindrance. One could think, for instance, that by consistently changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually prove possible to change the entire sequence substantially and thus the enzyme's spatial structure. These minor changes, however, are bound to result eventually in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but it has not yet begun its 'new duties.' It is at this point that it will be destroyed—together with the organism carrying it" (p. 76).

In the early 1980s, researchers discovered that certain RNA molecules, called "ribozymes," could cut themselves up and stick themselves back together again, acting as their own catalysts. This led to the following speculation: If RNA is also an enzyme, it could perhaps replicate itself without the help of proteins. Scientists went on to formulate the theory of the "RNA world," according to which the first organisms were RNA molecules that learned to synthesize proteins, facilitating their replication, and that surrounded themselves with lipids to form a cellular membrane; these RNA-based organisms then evolved into organisms with a genetic memory made of DNA, which is more stable chemically. However, this theory is not only irrefutable, it leaves many questions unsolved. Thus, to make RNA, one must have nucleotides, and for the moment, no one has ever seen nucleotides take shape by chance and line up to form RNA. As microbiologist James Shapiro writes, the "experiments conducted up until now have shown no tendency for a plausible prebiotic soup to build bricks of RNA. One would have liked to discover ribozymes capable of doing so, but this has not been the case. And even if one were to discover any, this would still not resolve the fundamental question: where did the first RNA molecule come from?". He adds: "After ten years of relentless research, the most common and remarkable property of ribozymes has been found to be the capacity to demolish other molecules of nucleic acid. It is difficult to imagine a less adapted activity than that in a prebiotic soup where the first colony of RNA would have had to struggle to make their home".


The contents of this famous soup are problematic. In 1952. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did an experiment that was to become famous; they bombarded a test tube containing water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane with electricity, supposedly imitating the atmosphere of the primitive earth with its permanent lightning storms; after a week, they had produced 2 of the 20 amino acids that nature uses in the construction of proteins. This experiment was long cited as proof that life could emerge from an inorganic soup. However, in the 1980s, geologists realized that an atmosphere of methane and ammoniac would rapidly have been destroyed by sunlight and that our planet’s primitive atmosphere most probably contained nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and traces of hydrogen. When one bombards the latter with electricity, one does not obtain biomolecules. So the prebiotic soup is increasingly considered to be a "myth".

Microbiologist James Shapiro writes: "In fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject—evolution—with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."

During the 1980s, it became possible to determine the exact sequence of amino acids in given proteins. This revealed a new level of complexity in living beings. A single nicotinic receptor, forming a highly specific lock coupled to an equally selective channel, is made of five juxtaposed protein chains that contain a total of 2,500 amino acids lined up in the right order. Despite the improbability of the chance emergence of such a structure, even nematodes, which are among the most simple multicellular invertebrates, have nicotinic receptors.

Confronted by this kind of complexity, some researchers no longer content themselves with the usual explanation. Robert Wesson writes in his book Beyond natural selection: "No simple theory can cope with the enormous complexity revealed by modern genetics."
Other researchers have pointed out the improbability of the mechanism that is supposed to be the source of variation — namely, the accumulation of errors in the genetic text. It seems obvious that "a message would quickly lose all meaning if its contents changed continuously in an anarchic fashion." How, then, could such a process lead to the prodigies of the natural world, of which we are a part?


Another fundamental problem contradicts the theory of chance-driven natural selection.
According to the theory, species should evolve slowly and gradually, since evolution is caused by the accumulation and selection of random errors in the genetic text. However, the fossil record reveals a completely different scenario. J. Madeleine Nash writes in her review of recent research in paleontology: "Until about 600 million years ago, there were no organisms more complex than bacteria, multicelled algae and single-celled plankton.... Then, 543 million years ago, in the early Cambrian, within the span of no more than 10 million years, creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom.

Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geological time all around the world.
Throughout the fossil record, species seem to appear suddenly, fully formed and equipped with all sorts of specialized organs, then remain stable for millions of years. For instance, there is no intermediate form between the terrestrial ancestor of the whale and the first fossils of this marine mammal. Like their current descendants, the latter have nostrils situated atop their heads, a modified respiratory system, new organs like a dorsal fin, and nipples surrounded by a cap to keep out seawater and equipped with a pump for underwater suckling. The whale represents the rule, rather than the exception. According to biologist Ernst Mayr, an authority on the matter of evolution, there is "no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty."


In the middle of the 1990s, biologists sequenced the first complete genomes of free-living organisms. So far, the smallest known bacterial genome contains 580,000 DNA letters. This is an enormous amount of information, comparable to the contents of a small telephone directory. When one considers that bacteria are the smallest units of life as we know it, it becomes even more difficult to understand how the first bacterium could have taken form spontaneously in a lifeless, chemical soup. How can a small telephone directory of information emerge from random processes?
The genomes of more complex organisms are even more daunting in size. Baker’s yeast is a unicellular organism that contains 12 million DNA letters; the genome of nematodes, which are rather simple multicellular organisms, contains 100 million DNA letters. Mouse genomes, like human genomes, contain approximately 3 billion DNA letters."
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 22, 2016, 01:00:19 AM
snip
Will you stop with the endless posts?

Okay so let's assume the solar system's age must be less than the estimated upper age of comets. You say that Halley's comet's age is the estimated upper age of comets, and that therefore the earth must be younger. I say you're insane and that not all comets are as old as the solar system.

Quote
If you do not agree with your own scientists
Scientists disagreeing with one another is very common actually, they resolve it by doing more proper research until one team emerges victorious.

Quote
blah blah fossils
You probably included another illogical assumption or conclusion in there, or blatant misinformation but I gotta get back to work now.


Haha, this is great! I do enjoy watching sandokhan's endless bullcrap get smacked down. Also, I have learned a lot about rocks! Win win.

Kudos RockDude.
I aim to please! If you look closely you see he moves on to a new subject every time, he'll run out of shit to post soon.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 22, 2016, 01:39:50 AM
Nasa website

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast20oct98_1

They say that Halley's comet "was formed in the primordial Solar Nebula at about the same time as the sun."


Solar nebula origin for volatile gases in Halley's comet

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Icar...85..380E


Scientists believe Halley's and other comets and the sun formed at about the same time in the early solar nebula.

https://www.reference.com/science/halley-s-comet-made-69b094997d542ddc


Solar system formation

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/distance/exploring/course/strobel/solarsys/solsysd.htm

Comets are primitive objects which means they are unchanged since they first solidified from the solar nebula about 4.6 billion years ago. Comets are frozen relics of the early solar system holding valuable information about the formation of the planets.



But Halley's comet could not possibly have orbited the solar system for more than 9,000 years.

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/vk2_zps6810e273.jpg)

PAGE 107: Halley's comet, for example, could not exist as a comet for more than 120 revolutions.

120 x 75 = 9000 years


The usual explanation for the Saturnian and Jovian families of comets is that they had originally traveled on extremely elongated or even parabolic orbits and, passing close to one of the large planets, were changed into short-period comets, traveling on ellipses—it is usual to say that they were “captured.” However, the Russian astronomer K. Vshekhsviatsky of the Kiev Observatory, one of the leading authorities on comets, has brought strong arguments to show that the comets of the solar system are very youthful bodies—only a few thousand years old—and that they originated in explosions from the planets, especially from the major planets Saturn and Jupiter or their moons. By comparing the observed luminosity of the periodic comets on their subsequent returns, he found it failing and their masses rapidly diminishing by loss of matter to the space through which they travel; the head of the comet emits tails on each passage close to the sun and then dissipates the matter of the tails without recovery. Thus Vshekhsviatsky concluded that comets of short duration originated in the solar system, were not captured from outside of that system—a point to which the majority of astronomers still adhere—and that they came into existence by explosion from Jupiter and Saturn, and to a smaller extent by explosion from the smaller planets, like Venus and Mars.


Dr. D. Russell Humphreys:

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.


Dr. Danny Faulkner:

The standard model of a comet is one in which all of the material observed is released by an icy nucleus only a few kilometres across. This model strongly suggests that comets are very fragile, losing much of their material during each close pass to the Sun. Most comets follow orbits that take them vast distances from the Sun. If a comet’s orbit takes it too far from the Sun, then the comet could easily be captured by the gravitational attraction of other stars and thus would be lost to the Solar System. This places a maximum distance from the Sun that a comet may orbit. If this maximum distance can be estimated, Kepler's third law of planetary motion can be used to deduce the greatest possible orbital period that a comet may possess (about 11 million years). When combined with an estimate of how many trips around the Sun that a comet can survive, we can estimate the maximum age of comets. This figure is far less than the adopted 4.6 Ga age of the Solar System. Because no source of creation for comets has been identified, comets are assumed to be primordial. If this is true, then the age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.


Comet Halley, as well as other comets, may have only been orbiting in its present orbit for only a few thousand years. While the planets follow nearly circular orbits, comets follow very elliptical orbits. This causes them to cross the orbits of most of the planets, and result in a very real possibility of passing close to one or more planets eventually. Such a pass may cause a gravitational interaction (called a perturbation) that changes the orbit of a comet. This is particularly true of Jupiter, which has more mass than all of the other planets combined. Perturbations can cause huge changes in a comet’s orbit. A good example was Comet Shoemaker-Levi, which collided with Jupiter in the summer of 1994. The collision was caused by a near miss of Jupiter which the comet had experienced about two years earlier that had placed the comet in a radically different and doomed orbit.

It is believed that periodic comets like Halley’s Comet once followed a much larger, more elliptical orbit. Chance encounters with Jupiter, and to a lesser extent the other planets, have changed its orbit to the present one. If this is true, Comet Halley may have been in its current orbit for as little as 3,000 years.

Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 22, 2016, 02:15:45 AM
I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.

When did the Earth's spin axis become tilted at an angle of approximately 23.5 degrees?

Modern astronomy is eager to tell us that it was the collision with Theia, with the debris gathered around the Earth to form the early Moon.


That is, no other collision with Earth has taken place since.


But then we have a huge problem.

Because there are ample geological and documentary proofs that the Earth, in the heliocentrical setting, did undergo a collision some thousands of years ago, in the age of modern man.

How did the Earth manage to regain its orbital speed?


One day, in 1849, a certain archaeologist made an important discovery at Nineveh.

Once these tablets were brought to England, they wished they had never found them in the first place.


And that is because the Ammizaduga Venus tables show that the orbit followed by Venus in the past was markedly different from that observed in the present.


http://www.skepticfiles.org/neocat/ammi.htm

Charles Ginenthal (Sagan and Velikovsky) has a great deal to
say about the Ammizaduga tablets, pp 281 - 284, quoting Livio C.
Stecchini's "The Velikovsky Affair":

     "The Venus tablets of Ammizaduga is the most striking document
     of early Babylonian astronomy.  These tablets, of which we
     possess several copies of different origin, report the dates
     of the helical rising and setting of the planet Venus during
     a period of 21 years...

     "Since the first effort at explanation of Archibald Henry
     Sayce in 1874, these figures have challenged the wit of a
     score of experts of astronomy and cuneiform philology.
     (Father Franz Xavier) Kugler (1862 - 1929), a recognized major
     authority on Babylonian and biblical astronomy, chronology and
     mythology, opposed the contention of those who claim that
     these documents must be dismissed as nonsense."  [because they
     do not conform to present orbital patterns for Venus]

 "Let me give some typical passages from the tablet:

 
     "In the month of Sivan, on the twenty fifth day, Ninsianna
     [that is, Venus] disappeared in the east; she remained absent
     from the sky for two months, six days; in the month Ulul on
     the 24'th day, Ninsianna appeared in the West - the heart of
     the land is happy. In the month Nisan on the 27'th day,
     Ninsianna disappeared in the West; she remained absent from
     the sky for seven days; in the month Ayar on the third day,
     Ninsianna appeared in the east - hostilities occur in the
     land, the harvest of the land is successful.


     "The first invisibility mentioned in these lines involves a
     disappearance in the east, an invisibility of two months, six
     days, and a reappearance in the west.  This seems to be a
     superior conjunction. The second invisibility involves a
     disappearance in the west, an invisibility of seven days, and
     a reappearance in the east.  This seems to be an inferior
     conjunction.  Most of the data in groups one and three on the
     tablet are of this form.  But the lengths and spacings of
     these invisibilities have a certain irregularity about them,
     and they do not conform to the manner in which Venus moves at
     present.

     "The data given in the second group on the tablet do have
     regularity - even too much regularity to be believable, - but
     they do not conform to the present state of affairs
     either.....


'How explain these observations of the ancient astronomers, modern astronomers and historians have asked. Were they written in a conditional form ("If Venus disappeared on the 11th of Sivan . . .") ? No, they were expressed categorically.
The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months.

The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months. "The invisibility of Venus at superior conjunction is given as 5 months 16 days instead of the correct difference of 2 months 6 days," noted the translators of the text, wonderingly."


If the tables are true, then both the attractive law of gravity AND Kepler's third law of motion are completely wrong; if they have been falsified, then we have another extraordinary proof of how the "ancient" history has been forged, confirming the findings of Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110720184710/http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html



In Jaiminiya-Upanisad-Brahmana it is written that the center of the sky, or the point around which the firmament revolves, is in the Great Bear.

Hindu astronomical tablets composed by the Brahmans in the first half of the first millennium before the present era show a uniform deviation from the expected position of the stars at the time the observations were made (the precession of the equinoxes being taken into consideration). Modern scholars wondered at this, in their opinion inexplicable, error. In view of the geometrical methods employed by Hindu astronomy and its detailed method of calculation, a mistake in observation equal to even a fraction of a degree would be difficult to account for.

Could it be that the precession of equinoxes shifted the direction of the axis so that, three or four thousand years ago, the polar star was among the stars of the Great Bear?  No. If the earth moved all the time as it moves now, four thousand years ago the star nearest the North Pole must have been a-Draconis. The change was sudden; the Great Bear "came bowing down." In the Hindu sources it is said that the earth receded from its wonted place by 100 yojanas,10 a yojana being five to nine miles. Thus the displacement was estimated at from 500 to 900 miles. The origin of the polar star is told in many traditions all over the world. The Hindus of the Vedas worshiped the polar star, Dhrura, "the fixed" or "immovable." In the Puranas it is narrated how Dhrura became the polar star. The Lapps venerate the polar star and believe that if it should leave its place, the earth would be destroyed in a great conflagration.


The length of the longest day in a year depends on the latitude, or the distance from the pole, and is different at different places. Gnomons or sundials can be built with great precision. The Babylonian astronomical tablets of the eighth century provide exact data, according to which the longest day at Babylon was equal to 14 hours 24 minutes, whereas the modern determination is 14 hours 10 minutes and 54 seconds. "The difference between the two figures is too great to be attributable to refraction, which makes the sun still visible over the horizon after it has set. Thus, the greater length of the day corresponds to latitude 34° 57', and points to a place 2/2° further to the north; we stand therefore before a strange riddle [vor einem merkwiirdigen Ratsel]. One tries to decide: either the tablets of System II do not originate from Babylon [though referring to Babylon], or this city actually was situated far [farther] to the north, about 35° away from the equator."


Claudius Ptolemy, who, in his Almagest, made computation for contemporaneous and ancient Babylon, arrived at two different estimates of the longest day at that city, and consequently of the latitude at which it was located, one of his estimates being practically of the present-day value, the other coinciding with the figure of the ancient Babylonian tables, 14 hours 24 minutes. The Arabian medieval scholar Arzachel computed from ancient codices that in more ancient times Babylon was situated at a latitude of 35° 0' from the equator, while in later times it was situated more to the south. Johannes Kepler drew attention to this calculation of Arzachel and to the fact that between ancient and modern Babylon there was a difference in latitude. Thus Ptolemy, and likewise Arzachel, computed that in historical times Babylon was situated at latitude 35°. Modern scholars arrived at identical results on the basis of ancient Babylonian computations. "This much, therefore, is certain: our tables [System II, and I also], and the astronomers mentioned as well, point to a place about 35° north latitude. Is it possible that they were mistaken by 2° to 2M°? This is scarcely believable."


Why did the glaciers of the Ice Age cover the greater part of North America and Europe, while the north of Asia remained free? In America the plateau of ice stretched up to latitude 40° and even passed across this line; in Europe it reached latitude 50°; while northeastern Siberia, above the polar circle, even above latitude 75°, was not covered with this perennial ice.

If we look at the distribution of the ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere, we see that a circle, with its center somewhere near the east shore of Greenland or in the strait between Greenland and Baffin Land near the present north magnetic pole, and a radius of about 3,600 kilometers, embraces the region of the ice sheet of the last glacial age. Northeastern Siberia is outside the circle; the valley of the Missouri down to 39° north latitude is within the circle. The eastern part of Alaska is included, but not its western part. Northwestern Europe is well within the circle; some distance behind the Ural Mountains, the line curves toward the north and crosses the present polar circle. Now we reflect: Was not the North Pole at some time in the past 20° or more distant from the point it now occupies—and closer to America? In like manner, the old South Pole would have been roughly the same 20° from the present pole.

Billions of tons of ice would have fallen on the polar regions, flash-freezing everything in little more than an instant.
 
This, at last, would explain the mystery of the mammoths found frozen where they stood. The mammoth, contrary to belief, was not a cold region animal, but one which lived in temperate grasslands.
 
Somehow those temperate regions were frozen in a moment. Some mammoths have been found frozen in the middle of eating! There you are munching away and the next thing you know you’re an ice lolly. If this ionized ice did rain down, the biggest build up would have been nearest to the magnetic poles because they would have had the most powerful attraction. Again, that is the case. The ice mass in the polar regions is greater at the poles than at the periphery and yet there is less snow and rain at the poles to create such a build up.


It is proposed that the carefully documented proofs of the catastrophe actually describe the end of the last Ice Age, which occurred some 3.500 years ago (and not 5.200 years ago) - [official chronology, of course; in the new radical chronology, the last Ice Age ended around 1740 AD, exactly the period discovered by Christopher Pfister, the great Swiss historian: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg998158#msg998158 ]


http://www.immanuelvelikovsky.com/mammoth.pdf (THE EXTINCTION OF THE MAMMOTH) PAGES 382, 389-390

"The sudden extermination of mammoths was caused by a catastrophe
and probably resulted from asphyxiation or electrocution. The immediately
subsequent movement of the Siberian continent into the polar region is probably
responsible for the preservation of the corpses.

"It appears that the mammoths, along with other animals, were killed by
a tempest of gases accompanied by a spontaneous lack of oxygen caused by fires
raging high in the atmosphere. A few instances later their dying or dead bodies
were moving into the polar circle. In a few hours northeastern America moved
from the frigid zone of the polar circle into a moderate zone; northeastern Siberia
moved in the opposite direction from a moderate zone to the polar circle. The
present cold climate of northern Siberia started when the glacial age in Europe
and America came to a sudden end."

http://asis.com/users/stag/starchiv/transcriptions/ST110Velikovsky.html (exceptionally documented)

The sudden shift in the direction of the axis of Earth would have meant a slowing down of the velocity of the diurnal rotation of the Earth, and there would have no way for the Earth to regain the same velocity of the diurnal rotation as before, after Venus departed to a different orbit.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140221011512/http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_2.htm (superb documentation)


Ovid, Metamorphoses (transl. F. J. Miller), Book II:

"The chariot of the sun, driven by Phaethon, moved "no longer in the same
course as before." The horses "break loose from their course" and "rush aimlessly, knocking against the stars set deep in the sky and snatching the chariot along through uncharted ways."
The constellations of the cold Bears tried to plunge into the forbidden sea, and the sun's chariot roamed through unknown regions of the air. It was "borne along just as a ship driven before the headlong blast, whose pilot has let the useless rudder go and abandoned the ship to the gods and prayers."

"The earth bursts into flame, the highest parts first, and splits into deep cracks, and its moisture is all dried up. The meadows are burned to white ashes; the trees are consumed, green leaves and all, and the ripe grain furnishes fuel for its own destruction. . . . Great cities perish with their walls, and the vast conflagration reduces whole nations to ashes."

"The woods are ablaze with the mountains. . . . Aetna is blazing boundlessly . . . and twin-peaked Parnassus. . . . Nor does its chilling clime save Scythia; Caucasus burns . . . and the heaven-piercing Alps and cloud-capped Apennines."
The scorched clouds belched forth smoke. Phaethon sees the earth aflame. "He can no longer bear the ashes and whirling sparks, and is completely shrouded in the dense, hot smoke. In this pitchy darkness he cannot tell where he is or whither he is going." "It was then, as men think, that the peoples of Aethiopia became black-skinned, since the blood was drawn to the surface of their bodies by the heat."
"Then also Libya became a desert, for the heat dried up her moisture. . . . The Don's waters steam; Babylonian Euphrates burns; the Ganges, Phasis, Danube, Alpheus boil; Spercheos' banks are aflame. The golden sands of Tagus melt in the intense heat, and the swans . . . are scorched. .

. . The Nile fled in terror to the ends of the earth . . . the seven mouths lie empty, filled with dust; seven broad channels, all without a stream. The same mischance dries up the Thracian rivers, Hebrus and Strymon; also the rivers of the west, the Rhine, Rhone, Po and the Tiber. . . . Great cracks yawn everywhere. . . . Even the sea shrinks up, and what was but now a great watery expanse is a dry plain of sand. The mountains, which the deep sea had covered before, spring forth, and increase the numbers of the scattered Cyclades."


A well-known student of S. Freud and roommate of A. Einstein at Princeton had the following comments:

How could the poet have known that a change in the movement of the sun across the firmament must cause a world conflagration, blazing of volcanoes, boiling of rivers, disappearance of seas, birth of deserts, emergence of islands, if the sun never changed its harmonious journey from sunrise to sunset?

How the Roman poet Ovid could have known of the relation between the interrupted movement of the sun and a world fire unless such a catastrophe had really occurred?


Adam Maloof (Princeton) and Lonnie Thompson (Ohio State University) confirm that a stupendous catastrophy occurred some 5200 years ago:


http://web.archive.org/web/20131216205151/http://www.mayanendoftheworldplanetx.com/Pages/videostudio.html

Princeton University geoscientist, Adam Maloof investigates 2012 Maya prognostications, in response to the many queries he has received concerning the possibility of an upcoming geographical poleshift. Dr. Maloof's specialities include paleogeography, the study of continental plate transmigrations. In these National Geographic video clips, he travels from the frigid Arctic to the scorching outbacks of Australia to the dense forrest of Central America, to investigate geologic evidence and traditions of any pass geographic poleshift.

His research revealed not one but two important discoveries; one poleshift transpired slowly over a million years( posing no threat to life on earth) while the other happened abruptly some 5200 years ago(approximately the end of the Maya's last Great Cycle, when the last "world" ended.) Perhaps a coincidence, but it was enough for Dr. Maloof to pursue and study the ancient Maya legacy in greater depth. A journey that would take him from Dresden Germany, home of the famous Dresden Codex (one of four codices that survived the Inquisition) to the ancient ruins of Chi'chen Itza.

To understand how these ancient people with such remarkable mathematical and astronomical skills, were inclined to prognosticate the future with such conviction. Their obsession with cycles and climate change, their beliefs that all major cycles began and ended with global destruction.

With the aid of notable Paleoclimatologist, Lonnie Thompson from Ohio State University, they venture to the summit of the Quelccaya ice caps of the Peruvian Andes at sixteen thousand feet, to unlock secrets trapped in the glaciers for over five thousands years. While continents apart, from ice core samples at Mt. Kilimanjaro, Africa to "Otzi The Iceman" from the Austrian Alps, all corroborate a global disaster at the end of the last Long Count cycle and provide possible insight on what may happen at the end of this current Great Cycle.

Full video can be seen in the National Geographic 2012 The Final Prophecy documentary.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 22, 2016, 02:34:31 AM
Quote
But Halley's comet could not possibly have orbited the solar system for more than 9,000 years.
You don't see the flaw in your logic, do you? You have one piece of potential evidence that Halley's comet is not as old as people think it is, so all the other thousand pieces of evidence on how old the solar system and by extension also Halley's comet, are wrong? That's not how science works. Ever heard of crater counting as a method of dating planets, moons and certain areas on those? I quote: "The method is based upon the assumptions that a new surface forms with zero impact craters, and that impact craters accumulate at some constant rate." Yet another piece of evidence that rips your wall of text to shreds. You can quote all the sceptic websites that you want but that does not make you right.

Quote
When did the Earth's spin axis become tilted at an angle of approximately 23.5 degrees?

Modern astronomy is eager to tell us that it was the collision with Theia, with the debris gathered around the Earth to form the early Moon.


That is, no other collision with Earth has taken place since.
No other collision anywhere near the size of Theia, hence not of significance for the tilt angle.


Why do people on this website always swear by ancient knowledge? I don't get it. If modern scientists find 100 pieces of evidence for something, and an ancient tablet or book or cave painting states something else, then everyone clames that the modern scientists are wrong. Seriously? This is not just about your Venus jibberjabber, but about pretty much everything. "Ancient civilizations thought the earth was flat so the earth must be flat." That's your best argument? Useless.

Quote
Blah blah mammoths
This is the most far-fetched theory I have ever seen. Did you ever wonder why the theories you spread around have never actually been published in scientific journals (at least recently)? It's cause they're insane and no one accepts them. Besides, the magnetic north pole is all over the place:
(https://planetearth2017.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/figure-9-the-closer-to-the-magnetic-pole-the-colder-it-gets2.png)

Quote
How could the poet have known that a change in the movement of the sun across the firmament must cause a world conflagration, blazing of volcanoes, boiling of rivers, disappearance of seas, birth of deserts, emergence of islands, if the sun never changed its harmonious journey from sunrise to sunset?

How the Roman poet Ovid could have known of the relation between the interrupted movement of the sun and a world fire unless such a catastrophe had really occurred?
Well we can theorize at most, asking the poor dead guy is kind of tricky. I'd stick with; he tried to explain a volcanic eruption, or has a good sense of fantasy.


Quote
one poleshift transpired slowly over a million years( posing no threat to life on earth) while the other happened abruptly some 5200 years ago(approximately the end of the Maya's last Great Cycle, when the last "world" ended.)
Do you mean polar wander or geomagnetic reversal?

Quote
Perhaps a coincidence
There's the magic word. Correlation =/= causation.

I wonder why I still bother, there's probably an endless supply of pseudo-scientific websites and news articles.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: sandokhan on September 22, 2016, 02:52:08 AM
 "The method is based upon the assumptions that a new surface forms with zero impact craters, and that impact craters accumulate at some constant rate."

Brilliant.

In fact, those craters could not have possibly accumulated at some constant rate, since by their very definition, cosmic collisions include highly nonlinear factors, the rate at which craters might have occurred during the collision itself, the intensity, the fact that an earlier collision might have produced far fewer craters than a later, more powerful cataclysm, and so on.


The proofs that Halley's comet could not possibly have orbited the solar system for more than 9,000 years are based on its FUNDAMENTAL geological/thermodynamical features: dispersion of material + luminosity.

And the basic calculations DEFY and DESTROY what modern astrophysics, and implicitly paleogeology, has to say on the subject.


Magnetism is not a subject you want to get into a debate with me, since this is what I have in store for you:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332


The paleomagnetic dating of the artefacts found at Pompeii and Herculaneum indicate that they belong to the 17TH century AD:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683846#msg1683846

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1685184#msg1685184

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1690028#msg1690028
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 22, 2016, 03:02:09 AM
Before you spew around your far fetched theories and probably already debunked pseudoscience, I have a challenge for you. Give it your best shot to try to debunk it yourself. Don't just use your fancy pseudoscience websites as source, but do actual research. It'll save me a shitload of time and if you do a good job you'll realise how silly it is of you to believe all the stuff you've posted, most of which is so easy to debunk, I'm surprised you didn't do it yourself. Science is not based on a belief, it is based on progression. You're standing still, holding on to your scraps of mediocre sceptics opinions. Let it go.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 22, 2016, 05:17:50 AM
Before you spew around your far fetched theories and probably already debunked pseudoscience, I have a challenge for you. Give it your best shot to try to debunk it yourself. Don't just use your fancy pseudoscience websites as source, but do actual research. It'll save me a shitload of time and if you do a good job you'll realise how silly it is of you to believe all the stuff you've posted, most of which is so easy to debunk, I'm surprised you didn't do it yourself. Science is not based on a belief, it is based on progression. You're standing still, holding on to your scraps of mediocre sceptics opinions. Let it go.

stop projecting.....
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 22, 2016, 07:38:34 AM
Well, he can't.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: AYellowCat on September 22, 2016, 11:12:12 AM
Question: What causes meteors? c; (I think you know where I'm going with this).
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 22, 2016, 11:14:09 AM
Question: What causes meteors? c; (I think you know where I'm going with this).

they are rocks they break off of fire creatures that simple.....
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: AYellowCat on September 22, 2016, 11:17:12 AM
Question: What causes meteors? c; (I think you know where I'm going with this).

they are rocks they break off of fire creatures that simple.....

Fricking ridiculous. Have any proof of this? Or is your IQ so low you just come up something random?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 22, 2016, 11:20:26 AM
Question: What causes meteors? c; (I think you know where I'm going with this).

they are rocks they break off of fire creatures that simple.....

Fricking ridiculous. Have any proof of this? Or is your IQ so low you just come up something random?

call it ridiclulous all you like there is alot of proof for it......
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: AYellowCat on September 22, 2016, 01:47:12 PM
Question: What causes meteors? c; (I think you know where I'm going with this).

they are rocks they break off of fire creatures that simple.....

Fricking ridiculous. Have any proof of this? Or is your IQ so low you just come up something random?

call it ridiclulous all you like there is alot of proof for it......
These what you call "proofs" look like bad reasoning. Like saying potatoes dont have seeds because they were mutated that way. And the other I just hear random pictures fromm google, that shit game of Sim City 2013 which Cities Skylines beat by far (Even though I don't have the game, My friend does know). These earth creatures are highly unbelievable and no one is going to believe you.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 22, 2016, 02:00:03 PM
Question: What causes meteors? c; (I think you know where I'm going with this).

they are rocks they break off of fire creatures that simple.....

Fricking ridiculous. Have any proof of this? Or is your IQ so low you just come up something random?

call it ridiclulous all you like there is alot of proof for it......
These what you call "proofs" look like bad reasoning. Like saying potatoes dont have seeds because they were mutated that way. And the other I just hear random pictures fromm google, that shit game of Sim City 2013 which Cities Skylines beat by far (Even though I don't have the game, My friend does know). These earth creatures are highly unbelievable and no one is going to believe you.

who are you to say no one will believe me?? you cant even understand the simple fact that we live on a flat infinite plane........

go big or go home

glober!
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: AYellowCat on September 22, 2016, 02:07:03 PM
Question: What causes meteors? c; (I think you know where I'm going with this).

they are rocks they break off of fire creatures that simple.....

Fricking ridiculous. Have any proof of this? Or is your IQ so low you just come up something random?

call it ridiclulous all you like there is alot of proof for it......
These what you call "proofs" look like bad reasoning. Like saying potatoes dont have seeds because they were mutated that way. And the other I just hear random pictures fromm google, that shit game of Sim City 2013 which Cities Skylines beat by far (Even though I don't have the game, My friend does know). These earth creatures are highly unbelievable and no one is going to believe you.

who are you to say no one will believe me?? you cant even understand the simple fact that we live on a flat infinite plane........

go big or go home

glober!

I tried to understand. It isn't a bad theory, but your reasoning is so paper thin and dull, there's no limit of how much of an ignoramus you are. You are literally brainwashed. Like no joke, you need to go to some insane asylum. I can't understand why Earth is flat because YOU can't even provide any evidence! THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT STRONG. You can't even understand how stupid you are and that us so called 'Glovers' have much for evidence than you. So you can just admit now the Earth is a globe- No wait, spheroid, because that's what it REALLY is. Oh wait, I forgot, you're brainwashed by the internet and this site.

Also what kind of insult is that? 'Go big or go home. GLOBER!'? That actually makes me feel good because I know that I am smart enough to know what the earth is.
Here is something that I need to tell your deteriorating brain; Grow big, or go home, and stay there.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 22, 2016, 02:09:01 PM
Give us one experiment that can without a doubt prove weather the earth is a ball or flat.

I say a Foucault pendulum. Sincerity works on a globe, but not a flat earth.

I have seen over a dozen, and even helped build one in my astronomy class. They definitely work.

Your turn.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 22, 2016, 03:43:16 PM
Give us one experiment that can without a doubt prove weather the earth is a ball or flat.

I say a Foucault pendulum. Sincerity works on a globe, but not a flat earth.

I have seen over a dozen, and even helped build one in my astronomy class. They definitely work.

Your turn.

i did watch my videos kiddo........
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: EarthIsRoundNotFlat on September 22, 2016, 05:20:43 PM
Yes, a fifth grader can call someone "kiddo". Your videos are complete and utter garbage.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 22, 2016, 06:15:09 PM
Yes, a fifth grader can call someone "kiddo". Your videos are complete and utter garbage.
He can call me kiddo if he wants. It makes the whole situation even more funny.

In fact, call me whatever the hell you want. Call me "immature fuck ugly penguin" again, that was fun.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Woody on September 22, 2016, 06:16:36 PM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 22, 2016, 08:24:19 PM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?

yes they could.....
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Earth2543 on September 22, 2016, 08:54:12 PM
When the plate move, do every continents move relatively to each other? Or independently to each other? (Hope you get what I'm asking  :-X)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 23, 2016, 01:27:18 AM
If you do not agree with your own scientists, then write to your local university about this, and wait for a response.

where's all your responses from local universities agreeing with your findings?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 23, 2016, 09:20:09 AM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?

I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.

Also, I'd love it if everyone would stop helping "Flat Earth Scientist" derail threads into pointless arguments. /forum mom
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 23, 2016, 09:26:27 AM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?

I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.

Also, I'd love it if everyone would stop helping "Flat Earth Scientist" derail threads into pointless arguments. /forum mom
Space chick I agree. I have become bored with his "science", and I know he in no way represents FET whatsoever. I do enjoy the back and forth with the more educated ones though. I really enjoy the fact I'm learning a ton. But this  flat head guy has had just gone too far. I will no longer engage him. I call on others to do the same. She has a good point!
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: UpstartPixel on September 23, 2016, 09:27:52 AM
Yes, a fifth grader can call someone "kiddo". Your videos are complete and utter garbage.
He can call me kiddo if he wants. It makes the whole situation even more funny.

In fact, call me whatever the hell you want. Call me "immature fuck ugly penguin" again, that was fun.

Can I call you that too, or is that limited to FE folk?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: UpstartPixel on September 23, 2016, 09:31:02 AM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?

I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.

Also, I'd love it if everyone would stop helping "Flat Earth Scientist" derail threads into pointless arguments. /forum mom
Space chick I agree. I have become bored with his "science", and I know he in no way represents FET whatsoever. I do enjoy the back and forth with the more educated ones though. I really enjoy the fact I'm learning a ton. But this  flat head guy has had just gone too far. I will no longer engage him. I call on others to do the same. She has a good point!

Nah, I suspect FE Scientist is just hitting his stride.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 23, 2016, 09:37:54 AM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?

I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.

Also, I'd love it if everyone would stop helping "Flat Earth Scientist" derail threads into pointless arguments. /forum mom
Space chick I agree. I have become bored with his "science", and I know he in no way represents FET whatsoever. I do enjoy the back and forth with the more educated ones though. I really enjoy the fact I'm learning a ton. But this  flat head guy has had just gone too far. I will no longer engage him. I call on others to do the same. She has a good point!

That is one of the wonderful things about this forum. No matter which side of the debate you fall on, if you stick around you always learn interesting things. 
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 23, 2016, 09:44:21 AM
The guy's using pure fantasy and minecraft video game mentality on the sun & moon & stars. Fire creatures? Yeah, you might expect this from a child, but certainly not from any clear thinking adult. He's not even remotely representing science, provides no evidence or facts, just links to his sub 2 minute videos (the comments section having more entertainment) that SUCK - just look at the thumbs up and down, that says something.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 23, 2016, 10:17:23 AM
The guy's using pure fantasy and minecraft video game mentality on the sun & moon & stars. Fire creatures? Yeah, you might expect this from a child, but certainly not from any clear thinking adult. He's not even remotely representing science, provides no evidence or facts, just links to his sub 2 minute videos (the comments section having more entertainment) that SUCK - just look at the thumbs up and down, that says something.


it says there is alot of shills with alt accounts that is all.....
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: AYellowCat on September 23, 2016, 10:26:12 AM
The guy's using pure fantasy and minecraft video game mentality on the sun & moon & stars. Fire creatures? Yeah, you might expect this from a child, but certainly not from any clear thinking adult. He's not even remotely representing science, provides no evidence or facts, just links to his sub 2 minute videos (the comments section having more entertainment) that SUCK - just look at the thumbs up and down, that says something.


it says there is alot of shills with alt accounts that is all.....

No one would waste their time disliking your videos via alts. It probably means you have a one celled brain and probably you go to your computer in the basement and play Minecraft all day. You're  a kid, you can't outsmart us Teens and Adults. You lose all the fights because we've been in school a lot longer than a 4th grader.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 23, 2016, 10:57:39 AM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?
I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.
You have summoned me.

Talking purely plate tectonics, with the plates moving around, driven by the creation of new oceanic crust at spreading ridge, and subduction, I see no issue with a flat earth. In fact, schematic drawings of these systems are usually done with a "flat" earth, as the curvature has no significant effect on these processes. I.e.:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/93/e3/bc/93e3bc2ef7cb323f434ca53208c4a9ad.jpg)

One thing, however, is a slight issue and that would be the border of the flat earth. There are no recorded "fixed" points of crust and this means that plates would be able to slip off the edge. BRB writing a new Hollywood disaster movie. Should I let Australia slip off the edge? Get rid of all those nasty spiders.

Anyway, I guess in the geographical model of the flat earth, Antarctica would be assumed to be fixed anyway (its actually semi stable atm, moving only 1 cm per year toward the Atlantic Ocean) and then it would be a non issue.

PS. For the globers among us who get excited from curvature:

(http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/ACSGT/EReports/eR.2003/GroupD/Report1/images/subduction.jpg)

PPS. Today I learned there's a Shetland Plate and a Sandwich Plate (LOL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Plate#/media/File:AntarcticPlate.png
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 23, 2016, 11:17:56 AM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?
I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.
You have summoned me.

Talking purely plate tectonics, with the plates moving around, driven by the creation of new oceanic crust at spreading ridge, and subduction, I see no issue with a flat earth. In fact, schematic drawings of these systems are usually done with a "flat" earth, as the curvature has no significant effect on these processes. I.e.:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/93/e3/bc/93e3bc2ef7cb323f434ca53208c4a9ad.jpg)

One thing, however, is a slight issue and that would be the border of the flat earth. There are no recorded "fixed" points of crust and this means that plates would be able to slip off the edge. BRB writing a new Hollywood disaster movie. Should I let Australia slip off the edge? Get rid of all those nasty spiders.

Anyway, I guess in the geographical model of the flat earth, Antarctica would be assumed to be fixed anyway (its actually semi stable atm, moving only 1 cm per year toward the Atlantic Ocean) and then it would be a non issue.

PS. For the globers among us who get excited from curvature:

(http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/ACSGT/EReports/eR.2003/GroupD/Report1/images/subduction.jpg)

PPS. Today I learned there's a Shetland Plate and a Sandwich Plate (LOL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Plate#/media/File:AntarcticPlate.png

there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 23, 2016, 11:27:52 AM
I suddenly got the image of continents falling off the edge. For some reason I couldn't stop laughing.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 23, 2016, 11:45:57 AM
Thanks RocksEverywhere! That's very interesting.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: AYellowCat on September 23, 2016, 12:45:55 PM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?
I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.
You have summoned me.

Talking purely plate tectonics, with the plates moving around, driven by the creation of new oceanic crust at spreading ridge, and subduction, I see no issue with a flat earth. In fact, schematic drawings of these systems are usually done with a "flat" earth, as the curvature has no significant effect on these processes. I.e.:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/93/e3/bc/93e3bc2ef7cb323f434ca53208c4a9ad.jpg)

One thing, however, is a slight issue and that would be the border of the flat earth. There are no recorded "fixed" points of crust and this means that plates would be able to slip off the edge. BRB writing a new Hollywood disaster movie. Should I let Australia slip off the edge? Get rid of all those nasty spiders.

Anyway, I guess in the geographical model of the flat earth, Antarctica would be assumed to be fixed anyway (its actually semi stable atm, moving only 1 cm per year toward the Atlantic Ocean) and then it would be a non issue.

PS. For the globers among us who get excited from curvature:

(http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/ACSGT/EReports/eR.2003/GroupD/Report1/images/subduction.jpg)

PPS. Today I learned there's a Shetland Plate and a Sandwich Plate (LOL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Plate#/media/File:AntarcticPlate.png

there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

How about you learn your facts?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Charming Anarchist on September 23, 2016, 07:51:11 PM
The thread should be more accurately re-titled I am your asshole high school geography teacher, ask me anything.

There is NOTHING new here and most certainly NOTHING that requires a degree. 
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 23, 2016, 08:00:55 PM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?
I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.
You have summoned me.

Talking purely plate tectonics, with the plates moving around, driven by the creation of new oceanic crust at spreading ridge, and subduction, I see no issue with a flat earth. In fact, schematic drawings of these systems are usually done with a "flat" earth, as the curvature has no significant effect on these processes. I.e.:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/93/e3/bc/93e3bc2ef7cb323f434ca53208c4a9ad.jpg)

One thing, however, is a slight issue and that would be the border of the flat earth. There are no recorded "fixed" points of crust and this means that plates would be able to slip off the edge. BRB writing a new Hollywood disaster movie. Should I let Australia slip off the edge? Get rid of all those nasty spiders.

Anyway, I guess in the geographical model of the flat earth, Antarctica would be assumed to be fixed anyway (its actually semi stable atm, moving only 1 cm per year toward the Atlantic Ocean) and then it would be a non issue.

PS. For the globers among us who get excited from curvature:

(http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/ACSGT/EReports/eR.2003/GroupD/Report1/images/subduction.jpg)

PPS. Today I learned there's a Shetland Plate and a Sandwich Plate (LOL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Plate#/media/File:AntarcticPlate.png

there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

How about you learn your facts?

i know my facts all you know is lies.......
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Earth2543 on September 23, 2016, 08:30:40 PM
^ I use my commonsense to deduce that all you say is bullcrap.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: rabinoz on September 23, 2016, 09:49:56 PM
there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

Evidence? Your words mean nothing.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 23, 2016, 10:09:12 PM
You have summoned me.

Finally. I've been dancing and chanting for hours. For future reference, are you a bonfire/dancing/chanting kinda guy or a pentagram and dead goat kinda guy?

Ok, I have an actual question that might be related to the round/flat earth thing:

The continental plates are slowly shifting around, right? Given the unofficial but most commonly cited flat earth "map" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg), is there any evidence that the continental plates used to be in contact with each other in a way that is hard to explain on either a flat or round earth (or both)? For example, the southern tip of South America and India, or something?

Quote
PS. For the globers among us who get excited from curvature:

Mmmmm... don't we all though?

#RealEarthsHaveCurves
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 23, 2016, 10:26:38 PM
there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

Evidence? Your words mean nothing.

the proof is in the air......
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: rabinoz on September 23, 2016, 10:30:50 PM
there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

Evidence? Your words mean nothing.

the proof is in the air......

That's wrong!  the proof is in the pudding......

It makes just as much sense! Maybe we should rename you FLAT_EARTH_69, maybe not, he had better grammar and made more sense.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 23, 2016, 10:33:29 PM
there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

Evidence? Your words mean nothing.

the proof is in the air......

That's wrong!  the proof is in the pudding......

It makes just as much sense! Maybe we should rename you FLAT_EARTH_69, maybe not, he had better grammar and made more sense.

the proof is in the air I WILL NOT REPEAT MYSELF
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 23, 2016, 11:16:55 PM
there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

Evidence? Your words mean nothing.

the proof is in the air......

That's wrong!  the proof is in the pudding......

It makes just as much sense! Maybe we should rename you FLAT_EARTH_69, maybe not, he had better grammar and made more sense.

the proof is in the air I WILL NOT REPEAT MYSELF

Jrowesceptic?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: rabinoz on September 24, 2016, 06:01:32 AM
there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

Evidence? Your words mean nothing.

the proof is in the air......

That's wrong!  the proof is in the pudding......

It makes just as much sense! Maybe we should rename you FLAT_EARTH_69, maybe not, he had better grammar and made more sense.

the proof is in the air I WILL NOT REPEAT MYSELF

Well, maybe "the proof is in the air" or maybe "the proof is in the mail", but whichever it is, it hasn't been delivered to me yet!

Is one of these your proof?
Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist
1. proof this exist?? none thought so a claim with no evidence so typical of you globers.....
What are you talking about? Certainly not a proof of any Flat Earth!
Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist
2. you can see a curve from a plane sometimes but it is just a hill like last year i went into a plane and i saw a curve and was ready to give up flat earth but then the curve ended and it turned out to be a hill.......
::) So you thought it was a curve and it was a hill  ::), certainly NOT a proof of the Flat Earth
Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist
3. its all cgi.......
But cgi or not, it is still NOT a proof of the Flat Earth
Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist
4. im not just going to trust you...... your probably a paid goverment shill......
So what, it certainly is NOT a proof of the Flat Earth
Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist
5. yes it is responsable...... until space travel started globe earth was considered a mere theory that some people believed and it would be washed away later through real scientific process and then nasa went to space and took a picture and everyone believed the earth was a globe and that is proof.......
It may have been proof of the Globe, but lack of those photos is certainly NOT a proof of the Flat Earth
Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist
6. WHY DONT THEY WANT TO USE ALL THESE RESOURCES??
No connection with proof of the Flat Earth
Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist
7. another lie...... but please do tell me where i can find these satellites that sit perfectly still cause magic and see them with my telescope......
Your NOT seeing something is certainly NOT a proof of the Flat Earth, don't be silly
Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist
8. no it is not......
Whateverever is or is not is still certainly NOT a proof of the Flat Earth
Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist
9. they would have to factor in the curve on a long railway line otherwise the track would go into space if we lived on a globe......
Railway lines go around curves and over hills much more curved than the earth. So NOT a proof!
Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist
10. yes but it would be the perfect place to escape predators.....
The lack of birds in space has nothing to do with a proof of the Flat Earth
Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist

None look like proof to me!

So where is this magnificient proof?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 24, 2016, 06:33:31 AM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?
I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.
You have summoned me.

Talking purely plate tectonics, with the plates moving around, driven by the creation of new oceanic crust at spreading ridge, and subduction, I see no issue with a flat earth. In fact, schematic drawings of these systems are usually done with a "flat" earth, as the curvature has no significant effect on these processes. I.e.:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/93/e3/bc/93e3bc2ef7cb323f434ca53208c4a9ad.jpg)

One thing, however, is a slight issue and that would be the border of the flat earth. There are no recorded "fixed" points of crust and this means that plates would be able to slip off the edge. BRB writing a new Hollywood disaster movie. Should I let Australia slip off the edge? Get rid of all those nasty spiders.

Anyway, I guess in the geographical model of the flat earth, Antarctica would be assumed to be fixed anyway (its actually semi stable atm, moving only 1 cm per year toward the Atlantic Ocean) and then it would be a non issue.

PS. For the globers among us who get excited from curvature:

(http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/ACSGT/EReports/eR.2003/GroupD/Report1/images/subduction.jpg)

PPS. Today I learned there's a Shetland Plate and a Sandwich Plate (LOL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Plate#/media/File:AntarcticPlate.png

there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

So how does the sun go DOWN below the horizon without getting any smaller?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: AYellowCat on September 24, 2016, 07:37:21 AM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?
I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.
You have summoned me.

Talking purely plate tectonics, with the plates moving around, driven by the creation of new oceanic crust at spreading ridge, and subduction, I see no issue with a flat earth. In fact, schematic drawings of these systems are usually done with a "flat" earth, as the curvature has no significant effect on these processes. I.e.:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/93/e3/bc/93e3bc2ef7cb323f434ca53208c4a9ad.jpg)

One thing, however, is a slight issue and that would be the border of the flat earth. There are no recorded "fixed" points of crust and this means that plates would be able to slip off the edge. BRB writing a new Hollywood disaster movie. Should I let Australia slip off the edge? Get rid of all those nasty spiders.

Anyway, I guess in the geographical model of the flat earth, Antarctica would be assumed to be fixed anyway (its actually semi stable atm, moving only 1 cm per year toward the Atlantic Ocean) and then it would be a non issue.

PS. For the globers among us who get excited from curvature:

(http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/ACSGT/EReports/eR.2003/GroupD/Report1/images/subduction.jpg)

PPS. Today I learned there's a Shetland Plate and a Sandwich Plate (LOL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Plate#/media/File:AntarcticPlate.png

there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

How about you learn your facts?

i know my facts all you know is lies.......
Other way around kiddo.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 24, 2016, 09:46:16 AM
Finally. I've been dancing and chanting for hours. For future reference, are you a bonfire/dancing/chanting kinda guy or a pentagram and dead goat kinda guy?

I prefer my goats alive and prancing around. They're magnificent.

Ok, I have an actual question that might be related to the round/flat earth thing:

The continental plates are slowly shifting around, right? Given the unofficial but most commonly cited flat earth "map" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg), is there any evidence that the continental plates used to be in contact with each other in a way that is hard to explain on either a flat or round earth (or both)? For example, the southern tip of South America and India, or something?

A different projection should not matter, distances and angles get skewed but Mexico is still next to the USA, if you get what I mean. However this does mean that if a continent moves over a large distance, projected in the "top view", it would get warped a lot. For example how  Only the proposed edge of the flat earth will be a cause of issues. For example how Australia looks massive, and if it would move northward it would "shrink". Expect Flat Earthers to say that paleogeographical reconstructions are a shill lie and that any continent warping is due to tectonics.

The thread should be more accurately re-titled I am your asshole high school geography teacher, ask me anything.

There is NOTHING new here and most certainly NOTHING that requires a degree.
Why thank you. This thread is not named "I have a degree in Earth Sciences and I'll prove it", in case you're confused.

PS. Geography sucks.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 24, 2016, 10:14:35 AM
Rabinoz, I certainly applaud your effort to discredit this flathead "scientist", but he's made it quite clear, multiple times throughout this forum that he knows nothing. The only answers he gives are links to his weak, low content, fantasy YouTube videos. Nowhere on this forum has he stated in his own words ANYTHING of value.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Charming Anarchist on September 24, 2016, 11:40:43 AM
PS. Geography sucks.
Anything more folks need to know about tectonic plates??
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 24, 2016, 11:46:14 AM
RocksEverywhere, what is your favorite geological phenomenon?
Title: why is it making me add a subject?
Post by: johnnyorbital on September 24, 2016, 12:29:27 PM
poor dude came here offering help.. shit he didn't even say it was only for one side

..and all he gets is abuse?


that's quite disrespectful if you ask me
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 24, 2016, 12:33:16 PM
It seems most FE'rs agree that if you have an education, it somehow is connected to the government and or NASA. Therefore you must be in on the conspiracy.
That's how I see it anyway.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Flat Earth Scientist on September 24, 2016, 12:37:59 PM
It seems most FE'rs agree that if you have an education, it somehow is connected to the government and or NASA. Therefore you must be in on the conspiracy.
That's how I see it anyway.

that is not true many people even working for nasa dont know the truth only the higher ups do......
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 24, 2016, 12:58:09 PM
It seems most FE'rs agree that if you have an education, it somehow is connected to the government and or NASA. Therefore you must be in on the conspiracy.
That's how I see it anyway.

Who are these "most FE'ers" you are referring to? The ones who are obviously here to troll the site? You guys keep on feeding them, though. Then you can blame most FEers when the threads turn to shit.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: origamiscienceguy on September 24, 2016, 03:16:59 PM
It seems most FE'rs agree that if you have an education, it somehow is connected to the government and or NASA. Therefore you must be in on the conspiracy.
That's how I see it anyway.

that is not true many people even working for nasa dont know the truth only the higher ups do......
And the astronauts...
And the operators...
And the physicists...
And the astrodynamicists...
And the scientists...
And the programmers...
And the roboticists...
And the engineers...

They would very quickly figure out that physics wasn't working the way it should.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 24, 2016, 03:55:00 PM
PS. Geography sucks.
Anything more folks need to know about tectonic plates??

Uhm. Do you even know the difference between geography and geology or are you just here to try to piss me off?

RocksEverywhere, what is your favorite geological phenomenon?

That's the hardest question you could possibly ask. I think I'll go with subduction. The thought of a thick slab of crust slowly moving down into steamy hot mantle makes me happy. It's incredible what kinds of rocks you get by putting them under great pressure through a process like this. A few examples:

I like to call this "christmas tree rock" but the actual name is eclogite
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Tsh5GakSSC4/VeqtWMZZXYI/AAAAAAAAKnQ/UHPXzrWZDB8/s720/01434%252520IMG_5581%252520eclogite.jpg)

Blueschist, the name speaks for itself.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d3/5d/8b/d35d8b449ff9e87c1baa1652c4e2ede6.jpg)

Thrusting is pretty great too, huehuehue
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/geology.png)
Source: XKCD.com

PS drunk while posting this.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 24, 2016, 03:58:29 PM
Those are great  ;D

My favorite is liquefaction, I don't know if that qualifies as a geological phenomenon by itself, but I like it. Also, I'm glad it's not something I have to worry about where I live!
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 24, 2016, 04:05:29 PM
It definitely counts! Quite fascinating too, you never see it coming but it's quite dangerous.

Thanks for the interest everyone :)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 24, 2016, 05:03:54 PM
It seems most FE'rs agree that if you have an education, it somehow is connected to the government and or NASA. Therefore you must be in on the conspiracy.
That's how I see it anyway.

Who are these "most FE'ers" you are referring to? The ones who are obviously here to troll the site? You guys keep on feeding them, though. Then you can blame most FEers when the threads turn to shit.
Well in my defense, as I haven't been here that long, like 2 weeks if that, that's the kind of logic I'm seeing. As far as FE'rs go, you happen to be the only one who makes any sense at all. So until I see otherwise, what else am I to think? It's like there's this massive conspiracy going on, and only FE'rs know the truth.
Maybe I joined at the wrong time? Or simply have yet to see any real discussion.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Space Cowgirl on September 24, 2016, 05:22:45 PM
It seems most FE'rs agree that if you have an education, it somehow is connected to the government and or NASA. Therefore you must be in on the conspiracy.
That's how I see it anyway.

Who are these "most FE'ers" you are referring to? The ones who are obviously here to troll the site? You guys keep on feeding them, though. Then you can blame most FEers when the threads turn to shit.
Well in my defense, as I haven't been here that long, like 2 weeks if that, that's the kind of logic I'm seeing. As far as FE'rs go, you happen to be the only one who makes any sense at all. So until I see otherwise, what else am I to think? It's like there's this massive conspiracy going on, and only FE'rs know the truth.
Maybe I joined at the wrong time? Or simply have yet to see any real discussion.

Yeah, I know you're kinda new. Sorry if I was a bit crabby  :P

This site has always attracted trolls, it makes it fun sometimes! Anyone can join and claim to be anything. Usually they claim to be a RE scientist so they can appeal to their own authority, sometimes they claim to be FE so they can post ridiculous stuff to make us all look bad. Eventually you can tell when someone is full of shit. Like I think RocksEverywhere is not lying when he says he's a geologist, but recently there was a guy claiming to be a physics teacher who didn't know basic physics. Plus there are FE who are kinda weird, but it doesn't seem like they are faking the weirdness (that is hard to explain). If you stick around you'll get the hang of it. 


Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 24, 2016, 05:32:02 PM
It seems most FE'rs agree that if you have an education, it somehow is connected to the government and or NASA. Therefore you must be in on the conspiracy.
That's how I see it anyway.

Who are these "most FE'ers" you are referring to? The ones who are obviously here to troll the site? You guys keep on feeding them, though. Then you can blame most FEers when the threads turn to shit.
Well in my defense, as I haven't been here that long, like 2 weeks if that, that's the kind of logic I'm seeing. As far as FE'rs go, you happen to be the only one who makes any sense at all. So until I see otherwise, what else am I to think? It's like there's this massive conspiracy going on, and only FE'rs know the truth.
Maybe I joined at the wrong time? Or simply have yet to see any real discussion.

I haven't been here that long but honestly, this is far and away the least ridiculous AMA I've seen on this site.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: boydster on September 24, 2016, 05:57:57 PM
The AMA threads seem like a recent phenomenon, I think. At least, to the degree that they are showing up right now.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: IonSpen on September 24, 2016, 07:01:21 PM
-googles "what is AMA" real quick...
Ah! OK.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 24, 2016, 07:28:41 PM
The AMA threads seem like a recent phenomenon, I think. At least, to the degree that they are showing up right now.

The first one I saw was started by iWitness. It seems like a very masochistic thing to do. On this forum I don't know how you aren't setting yourself up as a punching bag whenever you start one.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Charming Anarchist on September 25, 2016, 12:38:14 AM
I bought a 30-year-old high school geography textbook for $0.50 at a garage sale, ask me anything.

P.S.:  The book has an index at the back!!!
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on September 25, 2016, 12:51:56 AM
I bought a 30-year-old high school geography textbook for $0.50 at a garage sale, ask me anything.

P.S.:  The book has an index at the back!!!

@rocksEverywhere,

Meet Charming Anarchist.  I know the question on your mind.  Has he ever said anything even slightly interesting to anyone ever?  The answer is no, no he has not.  You could block him if you wish.  Best thing really. 

I wouldn't recommend having  conversation with him.  He'll just drop a lame one liner like "you shills are terrible", leave and never read any of your responses and in his mind declare victory.

The worst part is that he's mistakenly under the impression that this is somehow clever.

Try not to judge FE by his behavior.  They do get better.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 25, 2016, 02:19:56 AM
I bought a 30-year-old high school geography textbook for $0.50 at a garage sale, ask me anything.

P.S.:  The book has an index at the back!!!

First of all, you formulate your questions in a very strange way and secondly, my education has not prepared me for this kind of question. Sorry I can't help you, try Flat Earth Scientist.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: UpstartPixel on September 25, 2016, 07:13:26 AM

I haven't been here that long but honestly, this is far and away the least ridiculous AMA I've seen on this site.

True dat. But then the bar is quite low to begin with.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Charming Anarchist on September 25, 2016, 10:40:27 AM
I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, 2 + 2 = ?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 25, 2016, 10:51:32 AM
You're a poor troll, go bother your parents or something.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 28, 2016, 09:24:49 AM
You're a poor troll, go bother your parents or something.

Why are you so concerned with his financial stability?  Are you a stalker? 
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on September 28, 2016, 12:09:25 PM
I'm always concerned by the low amount of jobs in trolling. It's a serious problem. So many trolls, so little money. Honestly if the career prospects in trolling were better, I might've gone for a degree in that field instead.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Empirical on September 28, 2016, 02:37:55 PM
You're a poor troll, go bother your parents or something.
Why are you so concerned with his financial stability?  Are you a stalker?
ba boom tish
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: rabinoz on October 14, 2016, 06:15:54 AM
I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, 2 + 2 = ?
Thanks! I'm going over this old thread and finally found something I can get right!

I don't have a Ph.D. in mathematics (or in anything else), 2 + 2 = 3.999999

See I'm a edicated injuneer!
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: science-guy on October 17, 2016, 05:48:33 AM
ou please.. take some lessons in mineralogy and/or geology before you write just absolute bullshit about granite!
I cant even begin to critizes.. the whole section about granite is just wrong!
1. granite is not a very unique rock. it is a topic name for a group of rocks! there are alot of different granite rocks and to distinguish them is actually pretty hard!
2. a lot of granites are not in light color!
3. if it has Hornblende in it.. its a granodiorite!
4.of course granite can have cracks.. they usualy have huge ones!
5. of course granite doesnt contain fossiles.. its a plutonic rock and it forms some 10 to 100 miles below ground!!
6. the whole section about rhyolite its just bullshit! and if you melt anykind of rock and harden it again it will always be different than the first rock!! absolute bullshit are you taking here..
7. and ofcourse granite has solidified from molten magma.. thats exactly why you see all the different minerals in there!
8. granite is not the bedrock shell of the whole planet.. whatever that is!!
9. and seriously what the fuck does granite rock has to do with evolution theory.. I really tried to make this connection but this is just bullshit..
10. do you even geology? no seriously.. this is just one big bullshit that is not observed like that on the planet!



ORIGIN OF GRANITE:

Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.

Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Penguins_Are_Evil on January 05, 2017, 07:16:04 AM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?
I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.
You have summoned me.

Talking purely plate tectonics, with the plates moving around, driven by the creation of new oceanic crust at spreading ridge, and subduction, I see no issue with a flat earth. In fact, schematic drawings of these systems are usually done with a "flat" earth, as the curvature has no significant effect on these processes. I.e.:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/93/e3/bc/93e3bc2ef7cb323f434ca53208c4a9ad.jpg)

One thing, however, is a slight issue and that would be the border of the flat earth. There are no recorded "fixed" points of crust and this means that plates would be able to slip off the edge. BRB writing a new Hollywood disaster movie. Should I let Australia slip off the edge? Get rid of all those nasty spiders.

Anyway, I guess in the geographical model of the flat earth, Antarctica would be assumed to be fixed anyway (its actually semi stable atm, moving only 1 cm per year toward the Atlantic Ocean) and then it would be a non issue.

PS. For the globers among us who get excited from curvature:

(http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/ACSGT/EReports/eR.2003/GroupD/Report1/images/subduction.jpg)

PPS. Today I learned there's a Shetland Plate and a Sandwich Plate (LOL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Plate#/media/File:AntarcticPlate.png

there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

How about you learn your facts?

i know my facts all you know is lies.......

Right, we live on an INFINITE plane. Explain how that could be even remotely feasible.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: FalseProphet on January 05, 2017, 07:39:41 AM

9. and seriously what the fuck does granite rock has to do with evolution theory.. I really tried to make this connection but this is just bullshit..


 At least some paleologists seem to see a connection between granite and the evolution of complex life.

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-critical-role-granite-evolution-life.html (http://phys.org/news/2012-06-critical-role-granite-evolution-life.html)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: bolts on January 05, 2017, 09:22:11 AM
*/


Somebody tell me.if you get the joke.

The joke. The anagram joke. Can someone explain the current theory on it?

Seriously, explain the joke. I shall not google it to inform myself you bunch of shills.

What is an anagram of whatever that word was?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: bolts on January 07, 2017, 09:05:04 AM
What would you estimate the long term (1000 year) effect to be on a parcel of land that was once prime agricultural and was turned into an open cut coal mine, and subsequently 'rehabilitated' ? (I'll clarify that qu at the end)

I work in open cut coal mining in a tech/support field, we work regularly with the 'geotechs'. They care more about slump, dykes and overburden heights etc etc to answer my inane questions.

Clarification : I guess that when I see prime agricultural land have the top soil cleared, the next 30-70mt drilled, pumped full of anfo, detonated, removed and then the coal stripped out I try consider that in terms of millenia at a minimum. it took at least 6 😅 of those pesky millenia to get the earth here in the first place.

The rehabilitation appears to amount to shoving the freshly exploded rock into the old hole you have finished with - in any particular order - then find whatever top soil you can and placing approx 3mt of it on top. ensure gradient is to spec, throw down 40 trees per ha and some grass seed.

The qu :

Could you please try and explain the long term effects on this parcel of land, directly compared/referenced to how it originally/naturally was in the areas of :

-long term geo 'stabililty'
-long term effect on the ability for that land to perform as the fertile grasslands it was (Bowen Basin QLD Australia)
-long term effect on water tables
-expected long term effect on native flora and fauna returning?

(please dont infer any political or idealogical beliefs here. I am super inquisitive and I feel these questions are relative regardless of your particular swagger.... i.e. please read as neutral, sciencish questions, not meant to be edgy to anybodies sensibilties)

Thankyou in advance if you take the time. I hope the question isn't too vague to answer
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: bolts on January 07, 2017, 09:19:19 AM
for the record my assumption is 500+ years after rehab it would be +/-5% compared to the original (except, of course, the missing coal) but prior to that it would be an absolute clusterfuck.

It doesn't work like '5% different' but thats just me trying to give you a better idea of what I'm wondering about
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 07, 2017, 10:20:36 AM
I spent a stupid amount of time on a colliery spoil heap during my first degree for my dissertation, and one of the subjects it covered was land reclamation.

Colonisation of raw colliery spoil can be fairly rapid, but it isn't by what you'd call agriculturally desirable species, and it can take a few decades for the highly acid spoil and compacted environment to be ameliorated by an accumulation of organic matter. Once you get plants in you get in things that eat the plants then things that eat the things that eat the plants and so on and so on.

The main issue with recovery is what kind of effort you put into the top soil and the surface topography. Things that make even out the particle size distribution and make it less acid are good, pile enough fertiliser on, then get the slope grades right so they water doesn't just run straight off and erode it all away and make sure the drainage is right and you can get recovery pretty quickly. All depends on how much money you want to spend.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Lonegranger on January 07, 2017, 03:24:14 PM
Can somebody inform our friend of what is about to happen to him?
You are actually challenging me on geology, astrophysics, physics, paleoastronomy, chronological dating, and much more?


Impressive! So what actually are your credentials in;
Geology
Astrophysics
Physics
Paleoastronomy
chronological dating

And of course ...much much more!

You are of course master of the cut and paste...but come on let's hear about your academic record.

By the way I thought you would suit pink.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: bolts on January 08, 2017, 12:12:05 AM
I spent a stupid amount of time on a colliery spoil heap during my first degree for my dissertation, and one of the subjects it covered was land reclamation.

Colonisation of raw colliery spoil can be fairly rapid, but it isn't by what you'd call agriculturally desirable species, and it can take a few decades for the highly acid spoil and compacted environment to be ameliorated by an accumulation of organic matter. Once you get plants in you get in things that eat the plants then things that eat the things that eat the plants and so on and so on.

The main issue with recovery is what kind of effort you put into the top soil and the surface topography. Things that make even out the particle size distribution and make it less acid are good, pile enough fertiliser on, then get the slope grades right so they water doesn't just run straight off and erode it all away and make sure the drainage is right and you can get recovery pretty quickly. All depends on how much money you want to spend.

Thanks for your time.

Ok, with that info in mind and somewhat accepted (I feel you are a reasonably trustworthy source, but you could be a SHILL XD nah seriously I haven't checked you or info but will tentatively accept this blindly atm) what about the stabilty/structure from say 'RL -50mt' up to 'RL -3mt'?

Does the shattering and willy-nilly (nimbly-pimpbly XD) redistribution of rock affect long term 'geo stabilty' (like foundation stability) of the area.... and does the shattering, mixing and redistribution affect the ability for the top soil to perform in that area as it historically did?

(also, love to hear Rocks answer so I have another educated answer/opinion/not-sure-what-to-call-it-to-not-offend)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: JackBlack on January 08, 2017, 12:27:16 AM
While I don't have any degree in that field, I don't think it would affect the ability of the topsoil.

The topsoil is primarily just a bunch of dead life and nutrients sitting on top of rock or clay or other soil.
It doesn't really matter what is below it unless it is leaching something toxic out.

The only potential issue I could see is problems with drainage where water flows into the crushed up rock depleting the topsoil of its nutrients.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: rabinoz on January 08, 2017, 12:28:14 AM
I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, 2 + 2 = ?
I have an Electrical Engineering Degree, so I know that 10.000000000 x 10.000000000 = 99.999999999.
If I worked in Computer Science, I would ask, "What base is that?"
If I were a checkout assistant, I would say, "Wait till I get my calculator."
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: bolts on January 08, 2017, 12:39:55 AM
I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, 2 + 2 = ?
I have an Electrical Engineering Degree, so I know that 10.000000000 x 10.000000000 = 99.999999999.
If I worked in Computer Science, I would ask, "What base is that?"
If I were a checkout assistant, I would say, "Wait till I get my calculator."

99.96 = 100.00 too. I have a degree in Australian. Ask any aussie. 99.96 averages out to 100, 60% of the time, everytime XD
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: bolts on January 08, 2017, 08:10:21 AM
While I don't have any degree in that field, I don't think it would affect the ability of the topsoil.

The topsoil is primarily just a bunch of dead life and nutrients sitting on top of rock or clay or other soil.
It doesn't really matter what is below it unless it is leaching something toxic out.

The only potential issue I could see is problems with drainage where water flows into the crushed up rock depleting the topsoil of its nutrients.

Likely a reasonable outcome. A large part of me assumes the same.

I guess that some part of me seeing the highwalls* makes me want to attach some superstitious significance to that precise structure. Thinking as though altering it will become 'chaos theory' for lack of a better description.

I'm about to fuck up here, sorry geotech terminology is not my strongsuit. When I see two sheets of rock 30mt down run into one another, and one goes over, one goes under the other...... detonating that and shoving it back on top any old how must create more than just a dramatic long term change in drainage charateristics? Even just rearranging the rock from 70mt down to just under topsoil must create drastic change?

It may not be logical or rational. I have just attached value to that structure it doesn't deserve perhaps.

Interesting the pace at which the top soil 'turns itself over' - that I did not expect.

*50-70mt approx 'cutaway' where you can see every layer of earth layed down over eons in fine detail.




I could google this, but I struggle not to be frustrated with inadequate answers to similar questions if I can find any. I must be too lazy to pour over literature I won't properly understand for hours to answer for myself : )

edit : gramer
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on January 08, 2017, 08:58:00 AM
What would you estimate the long term (1000 year) effect to be on a parcel of land that was once prime agricultural and was turned into an open cut coal mine, and subsequently 'rehabilitated' ? (I'll clarify that qu at the end)

I work in open cut coal mining in a tech/support field, we work regularly with the 'geotechs'. They care more about slump, dykes and overburden heights etc etc to answer my inane questions.

Clarification : I guess that when I see prime agricultural land have the top soil cleared, the next 30-70mt drilled, pumped full of anfo, detonated, removed and then the coal stripped out I try consider that in terms of millenia at a minimum. it took at least 6 😅 of those pesky millenia to get the earth here in the first place.

The rehabilitation appears to amount to shoving the freshly exploded rock into the old hole you have finished with - in any particular order - then find whatever top soil you can and placing approx 3mt of it on top. ensure gradient is to spec, throw down 40 trees per ha and some grass seed.

The qu :

Could you please try and explain the long term effects on this parcel of land, directly compared/referenced to how it originally/naturally was in the areas of :

-long term geo 'stabililty'
-long term effect on the ability for that land to perform as the fertile grasslands it was (Bowen Basin QLD Australia)
-long term effect on water tables
-expected long term effect on native flora and fauna returning?

(please dont infer any political or idealogical beliefs here. I am super inquisitive and I feel these questions are relative regardless of your particular swagger.... i.e. please read as neutral, sciencish questions, not meant to be edgy to anybodies sensibilties)

Thankyou in advance if you take the time. I hope the question isn't too vague to answer
Well this certainly is not the kind of answer I would have expected on a flat earth forum, and in all honesty, this (soils, flora/fauna) is not my expertise, so I'll mostly be making educated guesses.

-long term geo 'stabililty'

I guess you meant this: "Does the shattering and willy-nilly (nimbly-pimpbly XD) redistribution of rock affect long term 'geo stabilty' (like foundation stability) of the area.... and does the shattering, mixing and redistribution affect the ability for the top soil to perform in that area as it historically did?"

After the gravel/crushed rock or however that is done, is placed, it probably still can compact a bit further. Don't expect this to be a hazardous event, but just something that occurs slowly, over a long time. In the end you may end up with a slight depression in the landscape (assuming it's initially filled to the brim). But yeah, this also depends on: grain size distribution, shape, if they actually try to make it compact, material used (I'm guessing it's mostly sandstones, quartz is really resistant stuff).

-long term effect on the ability for that land to perform as the fertile grasslands it was (Bowen Basin QLD Australia)

onebigmonkey covered this pretty well. It really depends in the effort you put in it. If you just dump gravel or pulverized rock or whatever in a pit, it will take a very long time, but it's possible to try to restore the top soil to a certain level.

-long term effect on water tables

I'd say that this really depends on the scale that we are talking about. What kind of surface area and depth are we talking about? The local geology is also very relevant.

-expected long term effect on native flora and fauna returning?

Long term, no issue. Nature is good at restoring stuff, it ususally just takes a lot of time.
In the end, it really depends on how much effort is put into reclaiming the mining site.



I figured I'd add some stuff to read:

http://cornerstonemag.net/case-studies-of-successfully-reclaimed-mining-sites/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation

Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Round Earth Scientist on January 10, 2017, 01:31:44 AM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?
I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.
You have summoned me.

Talking purely plate tectonics, with the plates moving around, driven by the creation of new oceanic crust at spreading ridge, and subduction, I see no issue with a flat earth. In fact, schematic drawings of these systems are usually done with a "flat" earth, as the curvature has no significant effect on these processes. I.e.:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/93/e3/bc/93e3bc2ef7cb323f434ca53208c4a9ad.jpg)

One thing, however, is a slight issue and that would be the border of the flat earth. There are no recorded "fixed" points of crust and this means that plates would be able to slip off the edge. BRB writing a new Hollywood disaster movie. Should I let Australia slip off the edge? Get rid of all those nasty spiders.

Anyway, I guess in the geographical model of the flat earth, Antarctica would be assumed to be fixed anyway (its actually semi stable atm, moving only 1 cm per year toward the Atlantic Ocean) and then it would be a non issue.

PS. For the globers among us who get excited from curvature:

(http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/ACSGT/EReports/eR.2003/GroupD/Report1/images/subduction.jpg)

PPS. Today I learned there's a Shetland Plate and a Sandwich Plate (LOL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Plate#/media/File:AntarcticPlate.png

there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

How about you learn your facts?

i know my facts all you know is lies.......

Right, we live on an INFINITE plane. Explain how that could be even remotely feasible.

So if we life on a infitnat plane why do i say earth are round  :o
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: bolts on January 12, 2017, 07:49:54 PM
What would you estimate the long term (1000 year) effect to be on a parcel of land that was once prime agricultural and was turned into an open cut coal mine, and subsequently 'rehabilitated' ? (I'll clarify that qu at the end)

I work in open cut coal mining in a tech/support field, we work regularly with the 'geotechs'. They care more about slump, dykes and overburden heights etc etc to answer my inane questions.

Clarification : I guess that when I see prime agricultural land have the top soil cleared, the next 30-70mt drilled, pumped full of anfo, detonated, removed and then the coal stripped out I try consider that in terms of millenia at a minimum. it took at least 6  of those pesky millenia to get the earth here in the first place.

The rehabilitation appears to amount to shoving the freshly exploded rock into the old hole you have finished with - in any particular order - then find whatever top soil you can and placing approx 3mt of it on top. ensure gradient is to spec, throw down 40 trees per ha and some grass seed.

The qu :

Could you please try and explain the long term effects on this parcel of land, directly compared/referenced to how it originally/naturally was in the areas of :

-long term geo 'stabililty'
-long term effect on the ability for that land to perform as the fertile grasslands it was (Bowen Basin QLD Australia)
-long term effect on water tables
-expected long term effect on native flora and fauna returning?

(please dont infer any political or idealogical beliefs here. I am super inquisitive and I feel these questions are relative regardless of your particular swagger.... i.e. please read as neutral, sciencish questions, not meant to be edgy to anybodies sensibilties)

Thankyou in advance if you take the time. I hope the question isn't too vague to answer
Well this certainly is not the kind of answer I would have expected on a flat earth forum, and in all honesty, this (soils, flora/fauna) is not my expertise, so I'll mostly be making educated guesses.

-long term geo 'stabililty'

I guess you meant this: "Does the shattering and willy-nilly (nimbly-pimpbly XD) redistribution of rock affect long term 'geo stabilty' (like foundation stability) of the area.... and does the shattering, mixing and redistribution affect the ability for the top soil to perform in that area as it historically did?"

After the gravel/crushed rock or however that is done, is placed, it probably still can compact a bit further. Don't expect this to be a hazardous event, but just something that occurs slowly, over a long time. In the end you may end up with a slight depression in the landscape (assuming it's initially filled to the brim). But yeah, this also depends on: grain size distribution, shape, if they actually try to make it compact, material used (I'm guessing it's mostly sandstones, quartz is really resistant stuff).

-long term effect on the ability for that land to perform as the fertile grasslands it was (Bowen Basin QLD Australia)

onebigmonkey covered this pretty well. It really depends in the effort you put in it. If you just dump gravel or pulverized rock or whatever in a pit, it will take a very long time, but it's possible to try to restore the top soil to a certain level.

-long term effect on water tables

I'd say that this really depends on the scale that we are talking about. What kind of surface area and depth are we talking about? The local geology is also very relevant.

-expected long term effect on native flora and fauna returning?

Long term, no issue. Nature is good at restoring stuff, it ususally just takes a lot of time.
In the end, it really depends on how much effort is put into reclaiming the mining site.



I figured I'd add some stuff to read:

http://cornerstonemag.net/case-studies-of-successfully-reclaimed-mining-sites/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation

Thanks to all! The answers have sorted me out XD

I'm pretty confident that I was placing some made up 'superstition' on how important the structure of the top 100mt of the Earth is. Thinking that re-arranging that would be detrimental to most natural procceses.

Kinda like trying to put a car back together after a 100kmhr crash and expecting it to perform to >95% of original would be nearly impossible was my train of thought.

Thanks for straightening me out and giving me a bit more to follow on from guys.

And yeah, weird qu for a FE forum. Something I have queried in the past an been unhappy with the answer... saw my chance so I took a shot. Also you did a AMA and from what I seen nobody engaged you realistically, I wasn't going to waste the chance.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 13, 2017, 04:40:32 PM
Hey RocksEverywhere, colleague, thanks for sharing some good points. I did a similar thing when I came here, a year ago.

Will search for the topic and share it here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65123.0 - I addressed geological impossibilities of the FE idea here, also climate and trigonometry/apparent size. Has some geology in it.

Also curious to see what you as fellow Earth scientist think about this  thread:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65140.0
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: wise on January 21, 2017, 05:43:19 AM
Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?
I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.
You have summoned me.

Talking purely plate tectonics, with the plates moving around, driven by the creation of new oceanic crust at spreading ridge, and subduction, I see no issue with a flat earth. In fact, schematic drawings of these systems are usually done with a "flat" earth, as the curvature has no significant effect on these processes. I.e.:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/93/e3/bc/93e3bc2ef7cb323f434ca53208c4a9ad.jpg)

One thing, however, is a slight issue and that would be the border of the flat earth. There are no recorded "fixed" points of crust and this means that plates would be able to slip off the edge. BRB writing a new Hollywood disaster movie. Should I let Australia slip off the edge? Get rid of all those nasty spiders.

Anyway, I guess in the geographical model of the flat earth, Antarctica would be assumed to be fixed anyway (its actually semi stable atm, moving only 1 cm per year toward the Atlantic Ocean) and then it would be a non issue.

PS. For the globers among us who get excited from curvature:

(http://www.geosci.usyd.edu.au/users/prey/ACSGT/EReports/eR.2003/GroupD/Report1/images/subduction.jpg)

PPS. Today I learned there's a Shetland Plate and a Sandwich Plate (LOL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Plate#/media/File:AntarcticPlate.png

there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

How about you learn your facts?

i know my facts all you know is lies.......

Right, we live on an INFINITE plane. Explain how that could be even remotely feasible.

So if we life on a infitnat plane why do i say earth are round  :o

because you are an idiot.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Gumby on January 22, 2017, 12:17:58 PM
Try this for "logical effect": you are starting off from the wrong premises.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Lunar_eclipse_September_27_2015_greatest_Alfredo_Garcia_Jr.jpg)

if it can block out the moon, it can block out other stars..

Ask yourself a more important question: why doesn't the Black Sun block out any other heavenly body, with the exception of the Sun?

(http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2015/04/04/5ef1af3e-45ca-4ca1-bab8-b8dadee79c2e/16875032612e8c1fe49a5o.jpg)

Perhaps because they are a product of your imagination?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Gumby on January 22, 2017, 12:38:14 PM
Gravity. The earth does lose some helium to space though.

Gravity is not enought to poise the atmospher. Because there is a balance between centrifugal forces and gravity on the all of the atmospher and diffusion causes sudden changes on the balance on the edge. There is no power can equalize this imbalance.

Inti accepts that the earth is spinning! Look he mentioned centrifugal forces and, brace yourselves, gravity!

Oh dear how does the flat eart spin?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Gumby on January 22, 2017, 01:01:20 PM
I suddenly got the image of continents falling off the edge. For some reason I couldn't stop laughing.


If you lived near the edge you wouldn't laugh!
Think about property devaluation.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: RocksEverywhere on January 22, 2017, 01:21:36 PM
Hey RocksEverywhere, colleague, thanks for sharing some good points. I did a similar thing when I came here, a year ago.

Will search for the topic and share it here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65123.0 - I addressed geological impossibilities of the FE idea here, also climate and trigonometry/apparent size. Has some geology in it.

Also curious to see what you as fellow Earth scientist think about this  thread:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65140.0
Sorry, I completely missed this post.

There are definitely geological features that are not compatible with FET; meteorites, seismics, planetary geology, radiometric dating, all the good stuff. Plate tectonics is such a broad concept that with the magic that FET needs anyway, you can bend and twist it to fit. See the other thread we discussed this in.

Second thread, very interesting, and even though I'm bound to educated guesses and wishful thinking on this subject, I do agree that it's very unlikely for us to encounter another intelligent life form. What I do consider possible however, is at some point encountering very basic alien life forms, be it on comets/meteorites, or on not too distant plantes. Think bacteria, archaea, algae or such.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on January 24, 2017, 08:17:00 AM
Try this for "logical effect": you are starting off from the wrong premises.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Lunar_eclipse_September_27_2015_greatest_Alfredo_Garcia_Jr.jpg)

if it can block out the moon, it can block out other stars..

Ask yourself a more important question: why doesn't the Black Sun block out any other heavenly body, with the exception of the Sun?

(http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2015/04/04/5ef1af3e-45ca-4ca1-bab8-b8dadee79c2e/16875032612e8c1fe49a5o.jpg)

Perhaps because they are a product of your imagination?

Because starlight and moonlight are not the same thing. Therfore whatever substance the black sun is made of only reacts with certain types of light. Nature is already known to abound with such devices.
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Badxtoss on January 24, 2017, 09:20:26 AM
Try this for "logical effect": you are starting off from the wrong premises.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Lunar_eclipse_September_27_2015_greatest_Alfredo_Garcia_Jr.jpg)

if it can block out the moon, it can block out other stars..

Ask yourself a more important question: why doesn't the Black Sun block out any other heavenly body, with the exception of the Sun?

(http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2015/04/04/5ef1af3e-45ca-4ca1-bab8-b8dadee79c2e/16875032612e8c1fe49a5o.jpg)

Perhaps because they are a product of your imagination?

Because starlight and moonlight are not the same thing. Therfore whatever substance the black sun is made of only reacts with certain types of light. Nature is already known to abound with such devices.
but we arent really talking about reacting so much as physically blocking aren't we?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: JackBlack on January 24, 2017, 01:40:54 PM
Try this for "logical effect": you are starting off from the wrong premises.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Lunar_eclipse_September_27_2015_greatest_Alfredo_Garcia_Jr.jpg)

if it can block out the moon, it can block out other stars..

Ask yourself a more important question: why doesn't the Black Sun block out any other heavenly body, with the exception of the Sun?

(http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2015/04/04/5ef1af3e-45ca-4ca1-bab8-b8dadee79c2e/16875032612e8c1fe49a5o.jpg)

Perhaps because they are a product of your imagination?

Because starlight and moonlight are not the same thing. Therfore whatever substance the black sun is made of only reacts with certain types of light. Nature is already known to abound with such devices.

They are both forms of electromagnetic radiation. They are both broad spectrum.

Nature is known to have various systems which do react somewhat differently to different parts of the spectrum.
For example, some things only absorb at particular points and produce "coloured" light.
Others will absorb broad spectrum light, or all wavelengths and appear black or opaque.
Then there are some things which interact with light across the spectrum but do so differently, such as the atmosphere which scatters blue light more than red.

There is nothing which can magically block out the sun, but not the moon or other stars.
There is nothing which can magically block out the moon (or make it appear much more orange) but not do the same to stars (including the sun).
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Crouton on April 16, 2017, 10:32:58 AM
Here is a question maybe you can answer.

How do we know that North Korea has actually test detonated nuclear bombs?

It looks like we're looking at seismic events and an earthquake has a different signature than an explosion. But how do we know it was nuclear and not a bunch of tnt?
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: JackSchitt on April 16, 2017, 03:05:04 PM
Question for OP, so I touched on this in my own post if you want to check it out
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70140.0

But since you are a globe earther, actual scientist and actively disprove FE theory, then according to FE you must be part of the conspiracy.
Given this I want to know who told you that you were learning a lie, when did they tell you this, and how did you and everyone else (assuming it was a group thing) process this whole conspiracy part.
PS if it's NASA or anyone important, don't worry I won't tell them
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Bullwinkle on April 16, 2017, 03:07:14 PM
Here is a question maybe you can answer.

How do we know that North Korea has actually test detonated nuclear bombs?

It looks like we're looking at seismic events and an earthquake has a different signature than an explosion. But how do we know it was nuclear and not a bunch of tnt?


Surveillance shows there were not hundreds of truck loads of TNT being moved on site.

Subsequent flyovers sniff out radiation. (some always leaks. instruments are sensitive.)
Title: Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
Post by: Kami on April 16, 2017, 04:17:15 PM
Here is a question maybe you can answer.

How do we know that North Korea has actually test detonated nuclear bombs?

It looks like we're looking at seismic events and an earthquake has a different signature than an explosion. But how do we know it was nuclear and not a bunch of tnt?


Surveillance shows there were not hundreds of truck loads of TNT being moved on site.

Subsequent flyovers sniff out radiation. (some always leaks. instruments are sensitive.)
Gamma-rays can only be weakened and never completely be blocked. Those can be tracked by satellites.