« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Down

plate tectonics

  • 235 Replies
  • 51709 Views
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
plate tectonics
« on: November 22, 2007, 03:10:05 AM »
Hi, I'm new here

I haven't had time to look at every thread on the forum, so please forgive me if I'm dragging up an old discussion...

What is the average FEers view on the REers theory of plate tectonics? For example, does an FEer believe in ancient supercontinent of Pangea?
Logged
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2007, 03:11:56 AM »
Yes. The plate tectonics are all the same as on a RE model.
Logged
Dumbshoe
*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2007, 03:40:24 AM »
I brought up FE Pangea and it's problems before here http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17403.0
Logged
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2007, 03:43:57 AM »
The ice wall was not originally part of 'pangea', it is a composite formation of glaciers and underwater mountains (which are now above the water)
Logged
Dumbshoe
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2007, 03:58:44 AM »
Quote from: paradiselost on November 22, 2007, 03:43:57 AM
The ice wall was not originally part of 'pangea', it is a composite formation of glaciers and underwater mountains (which are now above the water)

So, the ice wall is not connected to any of the RE plates?
Logged
*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2007, 04:06:09 AM »
Quote from: paradiselost on November 22, 2007, 03:43:57 AM
The ice wall was not originally part of 'pangea', it is a composite formation of glaciers and underwater mountains (which are now above the water)

in FE history the Earth would have had to have begun as frozen water which then melted as the little sun rotated above it. my question to the right honourable gentleman is this: how?
Logged
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2007, 04:08:14 AM »
this has been explained countless times.

the ice wall comes under little exposure because of the sun that is exposed to it.

Read the FAQ about how the sun works

and yes the ice wall is part of the tectonics but just not visibly (ie under water) as for the glaciers they are just temporary, over billions of years the shape of the wall will go through changes
Logged
Dumbshoe
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2007, 04:13:03 AM »
if the ice wall is part of the plate, then it wouldn't have always been where it is now. That's assuming FEers believe in continental drift, which I believe they do. So, why didn't the water fall off the edge before the ice wall moved into position?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 04:52:00 AM by lambie »
Logged
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2007, 04:19:41 AM »
the water was frozen, got melted by son, the ice wall didnt melt under the sun because the sun is never concentrated on the ice wall.
Logged
Dumbshoe
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2007, 04:22:25 AM »
but the ice wall would have been further north for a few hundred million years and would have been melted, my son.
Logged
*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2007, 04:31:35 AM »
Quote from: paradiselost on November 22, 2007, 04:08:14 AM
this has been explained countless times.

the ice wall comes under little exposure because of the sun that is exposed to it.

Read the FAQ about how the sun works

and yes the ice wall is part of the tectonics but just not visibly (ie under water) as for the glaciers they are just temporary, over billions of years the shape of the wall will go through changes

Please, don't patronise me with the 'read the FAQ'

my point is not how it formed the puddle that is the Earth where we live, but how a solid coin of ice and rock initially forms with a Univeral accelerator pushing it up and a wee sun falling into a circular patern above the Earth
Logged
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2007, 04:32:29 AM »
lol im sorry but seriously read the FAQ

all your questions will be answered.
Logged
Dumbshoe
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2007, 04:35:00 AM »
no these questions are not answered. Have YOU read them?
Logged
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2007, 04:37:27 AM »
yes. Please also read Earth Not A Globe by St. Rowbotham. And re-read some of tom bishops work. tis good
Logged
Dumbshoe
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2007, 04:42:57 AM »
Earth Not A Globe by St. Rowbotham does not mention the movement of plates in any detail. Which is the area around which my query is based.
Logged
*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2007, 04:43:54 AM »
Seriously, I've been directing newbies to the FAQ for long enough to know the basics of what it contains, just to make doubly sure it hasn't been updated recently, i checked again though and it confirms my original thoughts, there is nothing concerning the formation of the Disc.
Logged
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2007, 04:44:47 AM »
If it is not contained in the FAQ then it does not exist.

You must be talking about pseudo forces.
Logged
Dumbshoe
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2007, 04:47:23 AM »
Rowbotham believed that the contients float on an infinite ocean. Okay, so FEers don't agree with RE plate tectonics. So, somebody please enlighten me and explain what the ice wall is connected to.
Logged
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2007, 04:48:55 AM »
Hmm, im a RE believer and i just tried to fight from an FE point of view.
its easy, you just answer (bullshit) some parts of a question and just totally ignore the other parts. No wonder no-one can ever prove them wrong. Sorry i had to do it in your post but it was just a little experiment i wanted to try.
Logged
Dumbshoe
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2007, 04:51:09 AM »
Exactly, FEers also seem to read from different hymn sheets on every topic, including this one. No FEer will come on this thread and provide an answer  ::)
Logged
*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #20 on: November 22, 2007, 04:53:55 AM »
Quote from: paradiselost on November 22, 2007, 04:48:55 AM
Hmm, im a RE believer and i just tried to fight from an FE point of view.
its easy, you just answer (bullshit) some parts of a question and just totally ignore the other parts. No wonder no-one can ever prove them wrong. Sorry i had to do it in your post but it was just a little experiment i wanted to try.

I had my suspicions, but yes it's true, I created a whole account to test it. (I still use it if i need a chuckle)
Logged
*

paradiselost

  • 191
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #21 on: November 22, 2007, 04:55:40 AM »
haha they really have a formula.

Find the easiest part of the original question. Answer it.
The RE'er comes back and questions your answer.

After a while you have bamboozled them they don't know what they were asking they quietly leave.

obviously it was my first time i couldnt sustain it but others who have had more practice really could!
Logged
Dumbshoe
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2007, 07:33:48 AM »
come on, where are the FEers  ::)
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #23 on: November 22, 2007, 07:45:16 AM »
laughing behind the scenes
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #24 on: November 22, 2007, 08:07:54 AM »
no, no. I think it's normal RE believers that are laughing. Not FE freaks.
Logged
?

eric bloedow

Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2007, 08:40:30 AM »
Tom Bishop thinks the ice wall is INFINITE; that it goes on forever!
it is to laugh!
Logged
?

lambie

  • 86
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2007, 08:43:29 AM »
Quote from: eric bloedow on November 22, 2007, 08:40:30 AM
Tom Bishop thinks the ice wall is INFINITE; that it goes on forever!
it is to laugh!

I simply cannot believe that he actually thinks that. I feel very, very sorry for him if he does. Poor bloke  :(
Logged
?

SparteX

  • 411
  • +0/-0
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2007, 08:50:56 AM »
Quote from: paradiselost on November 22, 2007, 03:11:56 AM
Yes. The plate tectonics are all the same as on a RE model.
Plate tectonics cannot exist on FE due to the requirement of a luquid core.
Logged
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #28 on: November 22, 2007, 09:10:23 AM »
Quote from: lambie on November 22, 2007, 08:07:54 AM
no, no. I think it's normal RE believers that are laughing. Not FE freaks.

That's exactly why we laugh
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: plate tectonics
« Reply #29 on: November 22, 2007, 09:11:12 AM »
Quote from: SparteX on November 22, 2007, 08:50:56 AM
Quote from: paradiselost on November 22, 2007, 03:11:56 AM
Yes. The plate tectonics are all the same as on a RE model.
Plate tectonics cannot exist on FE due to the requirement of a luquid core.

LOL, you talk about FE like it's some other place. Yet we're on it right now.
Logged
Quote from: eric bloedow on January 08, 2008, 04:03:12 PM
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Up
« previous next »