Mining.

If the earth flat, how does things like mining, underground caves and geothermal activity happen?

The flat earth would have to be fairly thick in order to maintain its integrity, so digging down a few miles shouldn't be a problem.

If the earth flat, how does things like mining, underground caves and geothermal activity happen?

Why would the earth being flat affect any of that?

Flat doesn't necessarily mean thin disc.  The flat earth could be the flat part of a hemisphere.

But the deeper you go the hotter it is. Where does that geothermal activity come from?

The shape of Earth has pretty much nothing to do with any of that.

Regardless of if Earth is round or flat, caves can still exist, even underground. A lot are formed from water running through rock.

As for other geothermal activity, the plates can still exist and move around.

Please turn this into a diagram.

Also, this does not answer my question about geothermal activity. If the tectonic plates, (which you people believe is a myth), were to be on to molten lava, (hence tectonic movement), where is that lava? Is it contained in a petri dish-like shape made of rock?

The flat earth would have to be fairly thick in order to maintain its integrity, so digging down a few miles shouldn't be a problem.

Fun story: RE has asserted

Earth's depth varies depending on the location, but the average distance to the center of the Earth is about 3,959 miles

based upon its rotundity. That is, they assume that Earth is a sphere, and from that shape, they assume this depth.  But do you know how deep has actually been drilled? 8.5 miles. Nowhere near this supposed distance. The drills kept breaking beyond that.

That is, they assume that Earth is a sphere, and from that shape, they assume this depth.  But do you know how deep has actually been drilled? 8.5 miles. Nowhere near this supposed distance. The drills kept breaking beyond that.

No, they don't.
They CONCLUDE it is a sphere, based upon mountains of evidence.
And that evidence supporting a sphere includes seismology, and measuring reflections and transmissions of waves through Earth. Things which also allow us to measure the depth.
Sticking a rod into a hole isn't the only way to find out what is inside.

They assume it is a sphere.

Your "mountains of evidence" fall flat under the complete lack of evidence for any matter below 8.5 miles deep. You cannot prove anything at all about what is supposedly underground beyond that because it is undiggable.

They assume it is a sphere.

Repeating the same lie wont help you.
They CONCLUDE it is a sphere.

Your "mountains of evidence" fall flat under the complete lack of evidence for any matter below 8.5 miles deep.

Did you just ignore the seismology I talked about?
Have you never heard of things like ground penetrating radar?

But lets just really take your stupidity to the extreme.
Say I have a bowling ball (or any ball really), are you saying the only way I can conclude it is a sphere is by drilling into it?

Fun story: RE has asserted

Quote

Earth's depth varies depending on the location, but the average distance to the center of the Earth is about 3,959 miles

based upon its rotundity. That is, they assume that Earth is a sphere, and from that shape, they assume this depth.  But do you know how deep has actually been drilled? 8.5 miles. Nowhere near this supposed distance. The drills kept breaking beyond that.

And this is a problem because...?

And this is a problem because...?

Suppose in 1618 (before the first submarine), I told you that the ocean is layered into the Epipelagic (0-200 meters), Mesopelagic (200-1,000 meters), Bathypelagic (1,000-4,000 meters), Abyssopelagic (4,000-6,000 meters), and Hadopelagic (below 6,000 meters). And that I knew the bottom of the ocean was at 11,000 meters and that there were liparid fish down there. Even if that later turned out to be true, do I have any credibility? No.

When you haven't explored something, you literally are just spreading around bullshit.

Quote

And this is a problem because...?

Suppose in 1618 (before the first submarine), I told you that the ocean is layered into the Epipelagic (0-200 meters), Mesopelagic (200-1,000 meters), Bathypelagic (1,000-4,000 meters), Abyssopelagic (4,000-6,000 meters), and Hadopelagic (below 6,000 meters). And that I knew the bottom of the ocean was at 11,000 meters and that there were liparid fish down there. Even if that later turned out to be true, do I have any credibility? No.

When you haven't explored something, you literally are just spreading around bullshit.

The bottom of the ocean is a reachable location and limited solely by technology of the time.

According to FET you can't go beyond the Dome/Firmament, so you can't ever verify.

There is a difference between inability to reach a location due to technological limits of the time, and inability due to it no being possible at all.

When you haven't explored something, you literally are just spreading around bullshit.

Then it's a good thing that scientists have explored the innards of the earth using such tools as seismic equipment.  You do know that seismic surveying is used by the mining industry for finding deeply buried natural resources, don't you?

By the way, who explored the dome/firmament?  Or is that just FE spreading around bullshit?

So you trust a bleep on a scanner but don't trust what can be personally experienced.

You know that even police make speed limit violation detections are bogus as much as 10-20% of the time. Since one of you today demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between 9 and 99, let's spell this out. Between 1 in 10 and 1 in 5 times, the police scanner is wrong about how fast you were going.

Do you think I give two fucks about what a scanner says is underground if there's no way of proving it?  Indeed, seismic information can't even accurately predict an earthquake unless it is so big there is no way to miss it. But of course, you "know" what's under all that dirt and rock.

Why would the shape of the earth have something to do with mining?
The earth has a significant thickness.
It's not like a crepe.

Do you think I give two fucks about what a scanner says is underground if there's no way of proving it? 

You prove it by mining it and exploiting it.  How do you think they mapped the gas shale in the Appalachian basin and figured out the best places to drill?
https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/110160rebec/ndx_rebec.pdf

BTW, seismic surveys are done by using explosives or other methods to create small earthquakes rather than waiting around for natural ones to happen.
https://www.britannica.com/science/seismic-survey

When you haven't explored something, you literally are just spreading around bullshit.

Again,
Just because you like finding out what is in something by sticking your dick into it, that doesn't mean that is the only way.
We don't need to drill down.
There are other ways to investigate what is under the ground.

But that isn't even what you were objecting to. You were objecting to Earth being round, falsely claiming we are just assuming it.

Because you are assuming it.

Just as you assume the Earth's core is solid metal and there is magma section in between. You assume magma is the core because it bubbles up from underground.

But perhaps that's the exception not the rule.

You prove it by mining it and exploiting it.  How do you think they mapped the gas shale in the Appalachian basin and figured out the best places to drill?

These surveys are essentially the geological equivalent of dowsing.

Like meteorology, it's an educated guess that the public tacitly agrees to not call out as a type of magic, because they surround themselves with technological trappings, and pretend to be scientific. I know and you know that isn't how this works.


They are legit greying the line between prediction and manifestation. "I want oil, and I think it's here." "I want to see rural America destroyed, so I think climate change will give more tornadoes to Ohio." Nice try, but I don't believe in you.

Because you are assuming it.

No, we aren't.
We are concluding based upon the available evidence.
YOU are assuming, based upon your deep seeded need for Earth to be flat.

But my point, "available evidence" not proof.

But my point, "available evidence" not proof.

Because it's not possible to measure anything perfectly and completely, proof is not possible outside of math and logic (law considers convincing evidence that meets certain criteria to be "proof", but as rational people are well aware of, what law considers to be "proven" is too often woefully wrong).

This article has been around for a while. It's still true and a good explanation of why.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof