Magma beeing "squeezed"?

Okay, I've been posting for only a short while, but I was thinking of asking this question, based on the answer from the FAQ.'

"A: The Earth is thick enough to have a core of molten lava. Once there's 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"


First, the core is not composed of "molten lava". There is solid proof that the core is solid, since it is so dense. The outer core is molten.

Second, that does not apply for andesitic volcanoes (those with sharp slopes). Neither does it apply for mid-ocean ridges, where oceanic crust is created.
The rock erupted by andesitic volcanoes, or stratovolcanoes, or any other kind of volcano, is identical to that certain type of volcano. For instance, the shield volcanoes of Hawaii erupt quite silica-poor basalt, whilst Vesuvius in Italy erupts silica-rich to intermidate material.

Now, the Hawaii shield volcanoes are the result of "hot spots", rising plumes of magma. That might rougly be explained by the FE answer above. However, the stratovolcanoes are the result of subduction, where one plate dives beneath another plate until it melts. The molten material then rise to the surface where it erupts in the form of volcanoes.

Subduction can be proven. There is no "subduction-free" theory that explains why the deep-sea trenches are located so closely to stratovolcanoes, or why stratovolcanoes erupt ash and debree that contains some amounts of water. Water which was "trapped" in the sediments of the diving plate - and then erupted again in the form of steam.

Also, if the flat earth "cylinder" has a bottom, then that area would have cooled - due to the surrounding temperatures. In case the cylinder is pushed forward, the centre of the cylinder would be squeezed. This would indeed cause some magma to be pushed upwards, but due to the two effects of acceleration (the upper side being pushed down) and push (the bottom side being pushed upwards), the magma could go in any direction. That would result in volcanic eruptions on the bottom side of the cylinder as well, and most likely earthquakes. These earthquakes would have been detected long ago, since they would be able to travel through the mantle to our side. If the cylinder is being pulled, then all the molten rock would simply "fall off".

There is solid proof that the core is solid

Why not tell us what it is, then?

Also, if the flat earth "cylinder" has a bottom, then that area would have cooled - due to the surrounding temperatures. In case the cylinder is pushed forward, the centre of the cylinder would be squeezed. This would indeed cause some magma to be pushed upwards, but due to the two effects of acceleration (the upper side being pushed down) and push (the bottom side being pushed upwards), the magma could go in any direction. That would result in volcanic eruptions on the bottom side of the cylinder as well, and most likely earthquakes. These earthquakes would have been detected long ago, since they would be able to travel through the mantle to our side. If the cylinder is being pulled, then all the molten rock would simply "fall off".

What is causing the upper side to be pushed down? Acceleration? Please explain if you would.

Quote from: Earthquakesdontbend on November 16, 2008, 02:47:40 AM

There is solid proof that the core is solid

Why not tell us what it is, then?

How's this?

"A PKJKP traverses the inner core as a shear wave, so this is the direct evidence that the inner core is solid," Cao told LiveScience, "because only in the solid material the shear wave can exist. In the liquid material, say water, only the compressional wave can travel through."

Additional information here:
http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~barbara/pkjkp.html
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/coreLDCol.html

I guess that the answer will be something like "how do you know that information isn't corrupted?".

We need to make a conspirator list. And in case one already exists, add Geologists, Geological Surveys of the world and Volcanological Surveys of the world as well as companies measuring the frequencies of seismic waves.

If no one else makes that list, I'll have to.

I am trying to compile a list here, though we should make an official thread:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23575.0

Official thread is a necessity. That will make most people gain a perspective of how huge the conspiracy would have to be. We should update the thread whenever new conspirators are named.

Also, I can't possibly understand why all of the answers from flat-earthers regarded the evidene of a solid core. The main point was - and remains - where are the signs of the earthqukes on the other side of the cylinder? If I hold a sponge filled with water in my hand, and then accelerate that at rougly 9 m/s^2, the sponge would be compressed. Would not the water, due to the force of acceleration (forcing objects DOWN), "erupt" on the bottom? It would certainly be forced through the sides; and if this is the case with the flat-earth cylinder, there would still be earthquakes on the sides that would be detected on our side.

Quote from: Robosteve on November 16, 2008, 09:28:16 AM

Quote from: Earthquakesdontbend on November 16, 2008, 02:47:40 AM

There is solid proof that the core is solid

Why not tell us what it is, then?

How's this?

Quote from: http://www.livescience.com/environment/050414_earth_core.html

"A PKJKP traverses the inner core as a shear wave, so this is the direct evidence that the inner core is solid," Cao told LiveScience, "because only in the solid material the shear wave can exist. In the liquid material, say water, only the compressional wave can travel through."

Additional information here:
http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~barbara/pkjkp.html
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/coreLDCol.html

Please don't say "solid proof" if you don't have solid proof.

Also, I can't possibly understand why all of the answers from flat-earthers regarded the evidene of a solid core. The main point was - and remains - where are the signs of the earthqukes on the other side of the cylinder? If I hold a sponge filled with water in my hand, and then accelerate that at rougly 9 m/s^2, the sponge would be compressed. Would not the water, due to the force of acceleration (forcing objects DOWN), "erupt" on the bottom? It would certainly be forced through the sides; and if this is the case with the flat-earth cylinder, there would still be earthquakes on the sides that would be detected on our side.

The water is squeezed down. It's forced into large reservoirs we Flat Earthers call "oceans".

Quote from: markjo on November 16, 2008, 10:11:49 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on November 16, 2008, 09:28:16 AM

Quote from: Earthquakesdontbend on November 16, 2008, 02:47:40 AM

There is solid proof that the core is solid

Why not tell us what it is, then?

How's this?

Quote from: http://www.livescience.com/environment/050414_earth_core.html

"A PKJKP traverses the inner core as a shear wave, so this is the direct evidence that the inner core is solid," Cao told LiveScience, "because only in the solid material the shear wave can exist. In the liquid material, say water, only the compressional wave can travel through."

Additional information here:
http://seismo.berkeley.edu/~barbara/pkjkp.html
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/coreLDCol.html

Please don't say "solid proof" if you don't have solid proof.

Do you have any direct evidence that contradicts the direct evidence reported in the links?

Do you have any direct evidence that contradicts the direct evidence reported in the links?

No.

How anticlimactic.

Quote from: Earthquakesdontbend on November 16, 2008, 02:47:40 AM

There is solid proof that the core is solid

Why not tell us what it is, then?

jfgi, lazy bum.

Quote from: Earthquakesdontbend on November 16, 2008, 02:47:40 AM

There is solid proof that the core is solid

Why not tell us what it is, then?

S-waves i think.

The inner core is composed of solid iron because the immense pressure inside the earth converts it from liquid to solid, just as Jupiter's core is composed of solid hydrogen.

Okay, I've been posting for only a short while, but I was thinking of asking this question, based on the answer from the FAQ.'

"A: The Earth is thick enough to have a core of molten lava. Once there's 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"


First, the core is not composed of "molten lava". There is solid proof that the core is solid, since it is so dense. The outer core is molten.

I see no contradiction.

Still, you seem to have failed to answer my question.

Where are the earthquakes from the other sides of the cylinder?
Even if the magma was cold (that is, hot magma rising to our "upper" side, whilst cold magma sink to the "lower" side) it would still cause earthquakes. Depending on the length of the cylinder, those earthquakes would be detected, since the different waves would move through the mantle, and the core, to our side.

Answer the question, please.

Still, you seem to have failed to answer my question.

Where are the earthquakes from the other sides of the cylinder?
Even if the magma was cold (that is, hot magma rising to our "upper" side, whilst cold magma sink to the "lower" side) it would still cause earthquakes. Depending on the length of the cylinder, those earthquakes would be detected, since the different waves would move through the mantle, and the core, to our side.

Answer the question, please.

Are you saying there should be earthquakes on the bottom of the cylinder? 

Exactly.

The acceleration, combined with the "squeezing" force force of the push, along with the cold magma sinking to the bottom of the cylinder, would create earthquakes. Magma moving through cracks and fissures in the crust will cause earthquakes - even "cool" magma would do this. Also, the sides of the cylinder would have to be made of some really hard material, or else the earth would be a really flat cylinder. I usually think of the mantle as "fudge", and the inner core "jam" (although the temperature difference would be great).

So far, though, no one has detected earthquakes from the other side of the cylinder. Or are the geologists part of the conspiracy as well?

Well, I think the earth is a real flat cylinder.  And as we have no idea what the bottom of the earth is actually composed of, or what its texture is, or how strong it actually is, I don't see why we should assume there'd be earthquakes.  It seems kind of silly to me.

Well then, how do you explain the existance of P and S-waves?

It seems pretty strange to me how millions of tons of information gathered by different and independent seismological studies conclude that the earth is NOT a flat cylinder. 

Of course, the geologists, seismologists, volcanologists etc could all be part of the conspiracy. But then again, you would have to bribe those who inspect the results from the studies (i.e press). From what I know, press rarely (or ever) agree with a democratical government's conspiracies and plans.

What's the source of all this money? At this point, the governments of the world would be CRASHING down into a GIGANTIC and ECONOMIC FAILURE. Don't use the finance crisis as a reference here - you have been arguing for a conspiracy before it.

Have a nice day,

- A puzzled, Earthquakes don't bend

Well, I think the earth is a real flat cylinder.  And as we have no idea what the bottom of the earth is actually composed of, or what its texture is, or how strong it actually is, I don't see why we should assume there'd be earthquakes.  It seems kind of silly to me.

Unless it is some material that has never been seen and conforms to no known property of any type of matter (and yet still has properties of matter - solid, holds together, interacts with matter, etc) then we will still get Earth Quakes from it. If at the very least due to pressure build up as the actual matter of the Earth moves around (tectonic plates) and causes a build up of stresses and periodically releases them.

So it is really silly to make the claim that something is matter, and yet is not matter at the same time.

If it is matter, just like the surface of the Earth, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it has the same properties as the matter of the surface.

So it would be silly to assume that if it is made of the same stuff that we known about, then it wouldn't have the same properties as what we know.

Quote from: Doctor Roundbottom on November 19, 2008, 12:23:47 AM

Well, I think the earth is a real flat cylinder.  And as we have no idea what the bottom of the earth is actually composed of, or what its texture is, or how strong it actually is, I don't see why we should assume there'd be earthquakes.  It seems kind of silly to me.

Unless it is some material that has never been seen and conforms to no known property of any type of matter (and yet still has properties of matter - solid, holds together, interacts with matter, etc) then we will still get Earth Quakes from it. If at the very least due to pressure build up as the actual matter of the Earth moves around (tectonic plates) and causes a build up of stresses and periodically releases them.

So it is really silly to make the claim that something is matter, and yet is not matter at the same time.

If it is matter, just like the surface of the Earth, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it has the same properties as the matter of the surface.

So it would be silly to assume that if it is made of the same stuff that we known about, then it wouldn't have the same properties as what we know.

What is the actual property of matter you're speaking of that would cause these earthquakes?  You haven't clearly explained why these should necessarily be expected.

What is the actual property of matter you're speaking of that would cause these earthquakes?  You haven't clearly explained why these should necessarily be expected.

Not sure exactly what he was talking about, but I can't see why there wouldn't be earthquakes on the other side of the FE. There's nothing we know of to make it behave any differently to this side, as far as I can tell. I would expect it to have it's own tectonic activity, especially with the anti-moon stirring everything around.

So (excuse me, please) WHERE ARE THE EARTHQUAKES?

The current world has volcanoes and earthquakes on the surface as the result of magma and other material being circulated in the mantle and outer core. The electromagnetic field is cause by friction in the core.

There would be earthquakes at the bottom of the cylinder due to the existance of this magma, core and mantle, and these waves would travel through the core to our side. So far, we've yet to see one earthquake from the other side of the cylinder. Also, how do you explain the fact that if an earthquake shakes the northern hemisphere, it can be detected in the southern? In the RE model, the waves travel through the earth to the other side. In the FE, they would have to "bend" through the core up to the other side. In case there would be an earthquake on one side of antartica, the waves would have to be really shallow travelling through the entire upper mantle of the FE disc.

Very unlikely.

Quote from: Edtharan on November 19, 2008, 06:17:17 AM

Quote from: Doctor Roundbottom on November 19, 2008, 12:23:47 AM

Well, I think the earth is a real flat cylinder.  And as we have no idea what the bottom of the earth is actually composed of, or what its texture is, or how strong it actually is, I don't see why we should assume there'd be earthquakes.  It seems kind of silly to me.

Unless it is some material that has never been seen and conforms to no known property of any type of matter (and yet still has properties of matter - solid, holds together, interacts with matter, etc) then we will still get Earth Quakes from it. If at the very least due to pressure build up as the actual matter of the Earth moves around (tectonic plates) and causes a build up of stresses and periodically releases them.

So it is really silly to make the claim that something is matter, and yet is not matter at the same time.

If it is matter, just like the surface of the Earth, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it has the same properties as the matter of the surface.

So it would be silly to assume that if it is made of the same stuff that we known about, then it wouldn't have the same properties as what we know.

What is the actual property of matter you're speaking of that would cause these earthquakes?  You haven't clearly explained why these should necessarily be expected.

Friction:
As the magma moves around (it is a liquid and it will cool near the surface and convection currents will form), it will moves past this matter at the bottom. This will cause stresses and so create "earthquakes" as these pressures are released. This might be in the form of fracturing, or just from it springing back into place (elastic).

We know the bottom must be solid or how would the magma remain with an accelerating Earth. We know that magma is effected by whatever is causes the sensation of gravity (as the FE explanation is that the Earth is accelerating and we feel "Gravity" because we are not directly experiencing the force that is accelerating the Earth). As Magma thrown out of a volcano falls back to Earth, then it also must not directly experience the force that is accelerating us. As it doesn't feel the Force, then if nothing solid is holding it is, it would fall away, therefore there must be something solid at the bottom of the Earth (if FE is correct).

Structural integrity:
As you make something bigger,it becomes less able to retain its structure without fracturing. It depends on the substance, but a good rule of thumb is that if you have an object that is half the size (ion all dimensions) then it requires a certain factor times more force to break it. So making something larger means that it takes same amount less force to break it.

Land Tides:
We all accept that the Moon causes the Tides (unless you subscribe to the tilting Earth FE Model). Whether there is an anti Moon as well makes no difference here. If you have sensitive enough equipment to can even measure "Land" tides where the actual surface of the Earth (not just the water) is effected by the "gravitational" pull of the Moon. This means that even the bottom of the Earth will be effected by these forces, just as the top surface is) and so this will also cause movement.

As you can see, if the bottom of the Earth is made of the same stuff as the top of the Earth, then it will be affected by the same forces. These forces will cause Earthquakes and so we should be able to detect them.

Also if the Magma is being "squeezed" up to form volcanoes, then it should also be able to be squeezed downwards to form volcanoes on the bottom (in fact because the acceleration would also be causing the magma to feel pushed downwards, they should be more likely on the bottom). We should be able to detect these too.

Well I don't think the bottom is necessarily composed of the same material as the top, in fact I think it's unlikely; the surface of the earth is somewhat brittle and I would expect the bottom to be stronger out of necessity.  But that's academic to the question, I suppose.  In RE the center of the earth is solid too, right?  Do we detect earthquakes from the liquid magma interacting with the solid core?

Well I don't think the bottom is necessarily composed of the same material as the top, in fact I think it's unlikely; the surface of the earth is somewhat brittle and I would expect the bottom to be stronger out of necessity.  But that's academic to the question, I suppose.

Yes, how strong would the bottom have to be to support all the mass of the top part while the whole thing is accelerating at 9.8m/s upwards. It would have to be incredibly strong. In fact, no known material could be that strong.

But the thing is the bottom has to be made of some material that interacts with normal matter, and so this interaction itself will be the source of "Earthquakes", which means we can detect it. And if we can detect it, careful analysis will reveal some of its properties (like how solid it is, its density, whether it is elastic or not, and so forth).

In RE the center of the earth is solid too, right?  Do we detect earthquakes from the liquid magma interacting with the solid core?

Yes, we do.

Quote from: Doc Brownbottom on November 20, 2008, 12:40:07 PM

Well I don't think the bottom is necessarily composed of the same material as the top, in fact I think it's unlikely; the surface of the earth is somewhat brittle and I would expect the bottom to be stronger out of necessity.  But that's academic to the question, I suppose.

Yes, how strong would the bottom have to be to support all the mass of the top part while the whole thing is accelerating at 9.8m/s upwards. It would have to be incredibly strong. In fact, no known material could be that strong.

There's nothing implausible about that.

But the thing is the bottom has to be made of some material that interacts with normal matter, and so this interaction itself will be the source of "Earthquakes", which means we can detect it. And if we can detect it, careful analysis will reveal some of its properties (like how solid it is, its density, whether it is elastic or not, and so forth).

Quote from: Doc Brownbottom on November 20, 2008, 12:40:07 PM

In RE the center of the earth is solid too, right?  Do we detect earthquakes from the liquid magma interacting with the solid core?

Yes, we do.

Well, we must be detecting something then, if the earth is flat.  So there's the answer.  That was easy.