Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Joeval

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Persieds Meteor shower
« on: August 14, 2011, 02:16:20 AM »
If the sun is only 3000 miles away, Im sure we can estimate its size and mass.

What percent of its total volume do these meteors entail?  What mechanism causes them to eject?

And what causes them to hold significantly different compositions than the sun itself?  And, then, why do meteorites themselves have different properties and compositions (Iron, Stony, Chondrite, and so on...)?

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A couple of questions I have...
« on: August 13, 2011, 02:37:29 PM »

Knowing what's on the other side is difficult but seeing has how gravity doesn't exist then it is likely that the underside is simply molten rock with a thin layer of Iron.  You see the energy of the UA pushing the Earth up heats up the Iron.  The iron, being under constant pressure, doesn't melt.  However the heat of the Iron combined with the insulation of the rock above causes a large amount of molten rock to exist.

Unfortunately, that idea doesn't work with the observations from seismic studies.  The patterns of earthquake detection (and the associated S wave Shadow Zone) point clearly to a sphere, with a solid core and surrounded by liquid, then back into solid rock.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Persieds Meteor shower
« on: August 13, 2011, 02:32:56 PM »
if the Earth (as with everything above it)is accelerating at 9.8 m/sec objects from space can never hit the Earth (even is "cast off" from planets or stars they would still accelerate upwards), otherwise Universal Acceleration would be false.

Could it be possible these flashes out light are cause by our sun? Since it never really sets its possible that due to unknown phenomonon, flashes of our sun can be seen?

What about Meteorites?  We get plenty of small ones falling to earth, as well as the occasional big beastie...
The Gulf of Mexico, 65 million years ago is quite a nice example!

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did the FE form like a pancake?
« on: August 13, 2011, 02:30:30 PM »
a lot of you are forgetting that the planets you see in a telescome are very small. as the sky is only 3100 miles up the cosmos is very small. the whole physics of flat earth theory is different
Yet RE physics still work so well?

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did the FE form like a pancake?
« on: August 11, 2011, 11:34:01 AM »

"Planets are round because their gravitational field acts as though it originates from the "center of the body and pulls everything toward it. With its large body and internal heating from radioactive elements, a planet behaves like a fluid, and over long periods of time succumbs to the gravitational pull from its center of gravity. The only way to get all the mass as close to planet's center of gravity as possible is to form a sphere. The technical name for this process is "isostatic adjustment."

With much smaller bodies, such as the 20-kilometer asteroids we have seen in recent spacecraft images, the gravitational pull is too weak to overcome the asteroid's mechanical strength. As a result, these bodies do not form spheres. Rather they maintain irregular, fragmentary shapes."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-planets-round



A Flat planet is unnatural.

Isostatic readjustment is actually being recorded on earth, in the present day.  The northern parts of England, and the Scandanavian countries are rebounding, and sea level is dropping there.  Likewise, some areas are sinking - England's south coast, and the Netherlands, for example.

This is largely due to the weight of glacial loads being removed over the last 12,000 years or so.


If you'll bear with me, I'll see if I can dig up some proper sources for that, as well.

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did the FE form like a pancake?
« on: August 10, 2011, 11:06:31 PM »
Yeah, the above poster has pretty much covered the age of the earth.

With regard to the original post though.

As far as I am aware, there is no solid/accepted theory regarding the shape of the universe.  I might be wrong, I've not looked for a good while.  As for the planar solar system, that is understood.

For the life of me, I cannot recall the correct terminology for this, so I will attempt to put it in laymans terms.
The planets in our solar system orbit on a common plane (or within a few degrees of it), and in the same direction, because of the sun.  The planets all orbit in the same direction as the sun rotates, and the orbits are all aligned to the equator of the sun.

That is also why Pluto was declassified - it orbits at a right funny angle, not consistent with the rest of the planets.  Most likely, it collided with something else in the Kuiper belt or Oort Cloud and pinged off at a weird angle into a new orbit round the sun.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there any evidence for a FE?
« on: August 08, 2011, 07:25:14 AM »
TS, you're not the first person to ask this, and you certainly won't be the last!  Simply put, there are no recent, peer reviewed, scientific papers that claim the Earth is flat.

"Earth Not A Globe" was first published in 1865, so is unbelievably out of date, as well as being pretty much wrong.

8
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Creation of the earth in FET
« on: August 07, 2011, 02:16:33 PM »
If I were to hold a Cambridge style model to be true, the big bang was unidirectional, like a cone.  This would be a reasonable source of the UA;  since the earth was still "soft" at some point, the acceleration upwards by the ua flattened it, much like a pizza.

However, those who hold I am correct would be far more likely to say the Earth has always existed in some form.

Firstly, if you will forgive me, I have been absent for a while, and as such am unclear as to what the "Cambridge Model" refers to?  Would you be so kind as to clarify?


Right, now onto an actual reply...

First Point:  I am unaware of any research indicating a unidirectional "Big Bang".  Could you supply a source for this information?

Second Point:  With regard to the earth having always existed.  This runs onto problems with data, primarily from 238U -  207Pb dating, suggesting the earth was created around 4.6Ga, and data suggesting the universe itself came into being, via the big bang, around 13.9Ga.

Do you have a rebuttal?

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: James's theory on dinosaurs
« on: March 14, 2011, 07:02:26 PM »
After sixty pages, this thread is quite frankly laughable.  You have done nothing but make baseless assumptions and wildly extrapolate.

There is not a single shred of reputable evidence that dinosaurs were anything but wild animals, and not a single qualified geologist who would support your claims.

Review the physical evidence, then come back and theorise.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Volcanics on a FE?
« on: February 20, 2011, 10:17:27 AM »
There is a description of volcanoes in the Wiki:

Quote
A volcano is an opening, or rupture, in the Earth's surface, which allows hot, molten rock, ash and gases to escape from below the surface. Volcanic activity involving the extrusion of rock tends to form mountains or features like mountains over a period of time.

Volcanoes are generally found where tectonic plates are pulled apart or come together. A mid-oceanic ridge, for example the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, has examples of volcanoes caused by "divergent tectonic plates" pulling apart; the Pacific Ring of Fire has examples of volcanoes caused by "convergent tectonic plates" coming together. By contrast, volcanoes are usually not created where two tectonic plates slide past one another. Volcanoes can also form where there is stretching and thinning of the Earth's crust (called "non-hotspot intraplate volcanism"), such as in the African Rift Valley, the Wells Gray-Clearwater Volcanic Field and the Rio Grande Rift in North America and the European Rhine Graben with its Eifel volcanoes.

Volcanoes can be caused by "mantle plumes". These so-called "hotspots" , for example at Hawaii, can occur far from plate boundaries.

Also, from the FAQ:

Quote
Q: "How do volcanic eruptions happen?"

A: The Earth is thick enough to have a core of molten lava. Once there is too much of it in too confined a space, it finds its way out, just like the water will come out of a full bottle if you squeeze it too hard.

Get your terminology right, Tom.  Lava is what is found on the surface of the Earth, what has been extruded.  Magma is the stuff beneath the ground.

So, what generated this magma?  What causes it to concentrate in this confined space?  How does it move from the core to volcanoes without cooling/solidifying first?

And, back to previous questions (directed at those who would believe Plate Tectonics do not exist) - How can this happen on a world with no plate tectonics?

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Volcanics on a FE?
« on: February 10, 2011, 09:32:55 AM »
Think it through Tom.  If you want to go right back to basics, we're looking at a large scale convection circuit.  Does that exist in FE, and if so, how does it work?  

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Volcanics on a FE?
« on: February 10, 2011, 03:06:51 AM »
(Partly because LyingTruth is being a jackass about the topic...)

How would the various types of volcanoes and volcanic settings work on a FE?

We have several different types in RET, I'm not sure how they would work on a FE, what with no discernible core/mantle, and outright rejection of plate tectonics in certain circles.  As I recall, the FAQ/Wiki doesn't answer these terribly well, either.

Mid Ocean Ridge volcanism.
This is caused by depressurisation of the upper mantle as the oceanic crust is pulled apart.  The lower pressure initiates a partial melt of the upper mantle, and forms a roughly Basaltic melt.  This can be seen all over the place beneath the sea, and on land as a Mid Ocean Ridge cuts through Iceland.

Island Arc volcanism.
Found around Subduction zones, these form when a plate is subducted.  As the plate is subducted, it gives off volatiles (mostly Water, and bits and pieces from the sediment that had accumulated on top of the plate). These volatiles lower the melting point of the overlying mantle wedge, and produces a Basaltic melt, that rises through the overriding plate and becomes more acidic through fractional crystallisation and assimilation of continental crust.  When this reaches the surface, it tends to be an Andesitic or Rhyolitic lava.  Or, it can find itself unable to rise, if it becomes too acidic, and you'll get a granitic pluton.

Hot-Spot Volcanism.
As found in Hawaii, and (if you look on topographic/bathymetric maps, the Emperor Seamount Chain) a rising plume of heat from the mantle, bringing with it deep mantle material, intersects with the crust and a volcano erupts.  A basaltic melt is produced, with markedly different geochemistry to the basalt of Mid Ocean Ridge basalt.

Thanks guys


(tl;dr - different types of Volcano and volcanic setting aren't described in the FAQ or Wiki, and I can't see how they'd work on a FE.)

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: February 08, 2011, 04:12:25 PM »
A monument?  Are you being serious? 

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: February 08, 2011, 12:11:48 AM »
This argument still falls apart when faced with simple stratigraphy.  You find corals where you would have found warm, sub tropical environments.  In the same place, you tend to find limestones, not mudstones/sandstones, and Geochemical data in Oxygen Isotopes can be used to track the temperature, so we know it was warm.
When we find coral fragments halfway up metamorphic mountain range, you might have a case...

Your argument still doesn't explain entire reefs in mountainous regions.  I've been up a big old hill (not tall enough to be a mountain) in Spain to find a huge reef system, and as you walk up the side, you can track the growth of the reef as sea level changes.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: February 07, 2011, 04:00:07 PM »
A pigeon is a species of modern dinosaur, but you are right, our discussions of geological antiquity concern only the ancient dinosaurs. Their culture and society was responsible for the spread of corals and sea-animals all around the place, even on dry land, and their maritime explorations are responsible for the distribution of their corpses over different continents.

I'm afraid I have yet to see any real evidence for this so called "civilisation" aside from your entries on this forum.
The theory of continental drift, on the other hand, is pretty airtight.
Corals are found, geologically, in areas that appear to have been climatically and environmentally similar to the places they're found today.  I would expect to find them all over the place if they'd been transported by dinosaurs.
The distribution of both land and sea creatures can be explained perfectly well with continental drift, especially over geological time.  Creatures living on a large landmass, dying out, and the landmass splitting apart, so millions of years later they are found on two separate continents.  Coincidentally, the geological strata match up as well, regardless of the present day depositional environments.
Your explanation does not explain the presence of Laagerstatten (the Burgess Shale is a good example)
Or simple things like large scale thrust zones and subduction zones formed as continents collide (the coast of west USA, the Moyne Thrust in Scotland)
The list goes on...

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Quick Moon Question
« on: February 07, 2011, 06:18:22 AM »
Though widely known since antiquity, the harmful effects of Moonlight are well-catalogued in Rowbotham, 1881: pp. 141-150.
Here's a web link to the relevant chapter: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

Since then, several newer papers have been published on the subject; if you'd like I will collate them and provide citations in this thread - but ENaG is a good starting point.

Those newer articles would be nice.  I'd rather read something relatively recent.  It would seem much has changed in the scientific world since 1881....

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: February 07, 2011, 06:15:53 AM »
What do birds have to do with plate tectonics?

On page two, New Earth was asking about the corals which ancient dinosaurs used to carry with them as talismans, in the hills in America. A bird is a type of dinosaur.

Since a bird is not an ancient dinosaur, they are irrelevant to the discussion.

Some birds are very ancient dinosaurs, for example the dodo and the terror bird.

I despair, I really do...

The point you so expertly avoid, is that the pigeon flying round outside certainly isn't a dinosaur.

Now, can we cease with off the topic discussion of birds, and back to the plate tectonics question at hand?

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Formation Of The Earth
« on: February 07, 2011, 02:20:34 AM »
Quote
Wow, that went off topic fast!

It would appear here at the FES, that RE'ers must provide proof for everything we say.  We only ask here for the same.

If Tom believes the world always has been, then we must ask for proof.

It is not possible to prove the origins of the earth just as it is not possible to prove that the universe is infinite. Many RE'ers believe that their universe is infinite in extent, but you don't see me stamping my feet demanding evidence of the unprovable. I expect the same courtesy in return.
The difference is, even with RET creation of the universe there are bits and pieces of work floating around that go some way to justifying the belief.  Largely theoretical physics, plenty of Stephen Hawkings stuff, which confuses the hell out of me.  Point is, the belief is justified to some extent with scientific research, which FET does not appear to have.

True, it is not possible to know the origin of the Earth, not until we have foolproof evidence for it.  However, one can theorise, and come up with the best possible guess as to the formation.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Formation Of The Earth
« on: February 06, 2011, 04:36:36 PM »
Wow, that went off topic fast!

It would appear here at the FES, that RE'ers must provide proof for everything we say.  We only ask here for the same.

If Tom believes the world always has been, then we must ask for proof.
On the RE side, there is a fair bit floating around in scientific papers and on the net that seek to prove the theory of the Big Bang.  I would have a look for some, but it goes far beyond my understanding very quickly.  I'm a Geologist, not a Physicist.  

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I'm back! And I have a question...
« on: February 03, 2011, 12:16:49 AM »
On the contrary, I would be happy to write a discourse in defence of infinite FET. But I would do it only on the not unreasonable condition that you try to put aside your cynicism (that life-blood and defence-mechanism of RET belief), and keep your mind open to the wonderful, intuitive truths with which you find yourself confronted.

Now that I would be interested in reading.
Even though I'm strictly RE, I have said before the best thing for FET would be some properly written papers to try and provide evidence.  Not just ramblings on a website.

Should you decide to write, I will happily review prior to publication.  I must note, that as a scientist, personal beliefs do not factor into a professional review.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 23, 2011, 06:01:44 PM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45392.0

Topic from a few days ago.

But yeah, plate tectonics can be pretty damning for a FE.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 17, 2011, 04:08:37 AM »
I do apologise, I never got my head round splitting a great load of quotes up...

Still, the existence of the Wilson cycle and movement of geological plates has been measured.  Present day oceans are opening and closing, the Himalayas are still growing, and part of California is breaking off due to the movement along the San Andreas Fault.
(I shall clarify, the "beautiful" comment applies to the flawless correlation of major earthquake zones and location of plate boundaries.  Look at a map of the Pacific Ring of Fire, for example!)
Movement of the plates can be observed onland in Iceland.


One must conclude the topography of Earth has changed drastically throughout geological time.
You cannot ignore the environment of deposition of rock units, even on a FE.  Present day, reef systems are building, muds are being deposited on the sea floor, etc.  To get the rocks produced from those sentiments, change must have occurred.  A good example is the White Cliffs of Dover.  Chalk, deposited in relatively shallow water, made up primarily of coccolithophores (microscopic algae shells) is now found reaching many meters above sea level.
The Cyprus Ophiolite is probably a better example - it shows rock from the very Mantle exposed at the top of Mount Olympus. 
I shall also clarify "Or perhaps the fact that one can correlate the same rock unit and fossil bed across miles of ocean?".  Poor wording on my part.  The same rock unit can be found exposed above sea level an ocean apart (often with the same fossils contained within).  How can this be without the movement of geological plates?


You appear to have avoided that last question somewhat.  Never mind.
"But in every age, dinosaurs had to eat. We are specifically discussing evidence of their seafood consumption."
I do not dispute for one second dinosaurs fed on seafood.  I do, however, dispute the idea that dinosaurs collected shells/animals and brought them inland for consumption.  Simply, there is no evidence for it.  As I have stated, this would mean shells would be found in environments they would never be found in naturally. 

(Many thanks for a well written and polite reply.  Always nice to see on these forums, too often a rarity)

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?
« on: January 17, 2011, 03:17:16 AM »
As I'm in my final year of a Geology degree, I feel qualified to have a go at this one...

James, come back when you have some physical evidence.
Continental drift/Plate Tectonics is essentially proven.  Movement rates have been measured (a swift google image search will supply a plate tectonic map with movement rates marked on).  The plates themselves can be seen as bathymetric or topographic features, and align beautifully with earthquakes.
As for fossils inland, it must be noted that the fossils are only found in rocks where you would expect the creatures to have lived.  There is no evidence whatsoever for anything carrying shells and what have you inland.
Do you dispute the techniques used to date these fossils?  Or perhaps the fact that one can correlate the same rock unit and fossil bed across miles of ocean?  Or than one can trace the evolution of a species by moving upward through the rock record?
If dinosaurs had been a civillised society, one would expect to find evidence of their settlements primarily on unconformities in the rock record, rather than scattered throughout. 


I've never seen a huge difficulty between tectonic plates and FET, but I suppose that is just me. I would think any Pangea-like construct would be far more damning to RET -- Imagine how the uneven distribution of weight would effect a globular world spinning at some one thousand miles per hour.
Thank you Ski, for some (relative) sanity!  A point well made.
Any supercontinent is, inevitably, geologically unstable, and as such they usually don't last too long before they rift apart.
As for the weight balance, I suspect it does have an effect on the Milankovitch cycles (although I've not read any literature to support/refute).
Isostatic readjustment plays a role in equalising the densities of the planet.  In simple terms, a big continent squeezes plastic mantle out of the way and sinks a bit.  Plus, oceanic crust has a higher density than continental.

(may come back and edit when I've read the rest of this thread...)

24
Why is the Scientific Method so bad?  Why is it unsuitable for FET, when it works successfully for everyone else?
It is an internationally accepted method, to show one has thought about the question at hand, and experimented to test the hypothesis.

I would appreciate an answer to these, and for you to cease evading the question in the OP.

The scientific method is bunk.

The scientific method is responsible for our understanding of the world today. Without the scientific method we would not understand quantum mechanics ergo microprocessors would be impossible to produce ergo your ridiculously misinformed accusation of the 'bunkness' of the scientific method would be read by nobody because the internet would not exist.

Scientific method is responsible for:
Computers/electronics
Medicine
Modern transportation
Material science (plastic anybody?)
innumerable other modern wonders

The scientific method is not responsible for those.

I suspect what was meant was, the scientific method was used to produce computers, medicine, etc.  Not the scientific method is directly responsible for creating those things.  Let us not be so picky.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tectonic Plates
« on: December 16, 2010, 02:42:01 PM »
Why wouldn't they be read from various points on the earth?

I think the point is a FE would have considerable trouble explaining the S wave Shadow zone, explained easily by RET.

(Edited for grammar)

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Question
« on: December 11, 2010, 05:30:43 AM »
So if I understand your FE theory correctly, it seems that gravity doesn't exist or is very minor in the FE theory. However, gravity is what scientists think created the earth by causing asteroids and the like to form  together and create a spherical planet. But if you don't believe in gravity, how did the earth come to be?

Are you asking us, The Flat Earth Society, how we cannot accept gravity because you say it's the only way a spherical planet could form?....  I want you to think long and hard about that question until you see the blaring flaw in it.  

I think the question is more about how the Flat Earth would form.
RE has gravity, which pulled mass together creating planets between 13 and 5 billion years ago (roughly.  The age of the universe in RET is 13.9 billion years, and age of the Earth is 4.6 billion).
As I understand it, FET has some funky force pushing the world up all the time (apologies for my gross generalisation and misunderstanding of current FET), and that doesn't account for the original formation of the FE.

27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: bible
« on: December 11, 2010, 04:54:53 AM »
I would assume the "Bible says the Earth is flat" somewhere in Genesis.  It should be noted, that the large majority of Christians take Genesis to be a work of fiction, or a metaphor.  Very few are Creationists who take Genesis to be truth. 

I'd hazard a guess the Pope isn't a creationist. 

28
As much as I'd love to see a proper paper written about it, it wouldn't get past the peer review.  It's doubtful anyone in the scientific community would even read it if the author(s) don't hold a degree in the subject (Geology would be best, in this case).

Nevertheless, it is surely worth writing one and hosting it on this site.  A proper paper is worth far more than rambling forum posts and pages of arguments.  Certainly, it would be interesting to read, and may help FET to gather a (generally) accepted theory.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« on: October 26, 2010, 04:37:11 PM »
Yeah, this one does seem to be tricky to sort out for a flat earth.  Plus, I'm a final year Geology undergraduate, even though I'm specialising in igneous petrology rather than civil engineering where seismics are used all the time.

The S wave shadow zone is the big one I've never seen a good explanation for in a FE model, whereas there are plenty of good books available explaining it very nicely for a RE.
Seismics (including earthquake waves) are used fairly well (and moderately accurately) to give us information about the internal structure of the earth.  It's why we can estimate the thickness of the mantle, place the Moho on a section through the earth, and how we know the size of the core.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate tectonics
« on: February 13, 2010, 12:10:55 PM »

And when molten rock cools, the magnetic alignment of the magnetically sensitive material is literally set in stone.  This makes it easy to track magnetic reversals and other changes in the magnetic field in which the rocks are formed.  Given enough samples, one can calculate the movement of the continents.

Hey, that's fascinating.  We'd love to see your samples and your calculations.

Ask Tom, he's the geologist.

It's common geological knowledge.  I'm sure a quick search will give you plenty of data.  People first looked at it during WW2, submarines picked up the anomalies.  It's also backed up by measured movements of the plates, geochronological data and so on...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8