Plate tectonics

Can someone who believes the earth is flat explain how plate tectonics works, when there is clear evidence supporting motion in a spherical earth. Such as  euler poles. Please tell me how these work if the earth is flat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_pole

Not to mention that if it did work on FE, the Earth would be expanding and continents would continually be getting further apart.


If the plates then subducted at the rim, then continents at the rim would eventually disappear.




Generally, they will just say how plate tectonics work, not how they apply to FE.

Not to mention that if it did work on FE, the Earth would be expanding and continents would continually be getting further apart.


If the plates then subducted at the rim, then continents at the rim would eventually disappear.




Generally, they will just say how plate tectonics work, not how they apply to FE.

Aren't the continents getting farther apart on the RE map according to plate tectonics?

Quote from: flyingmonkey on February 11, 2010, 05:43:10 PM

Not to mention that if it did work on FE, the Earth would be expanding and continents would continually be getting further apart.


If the plates then subducted at the rim, then continents at the rim would eventually disappear.




Generally, they will just say how plate tectonics work, not how they apply to FE.

Aren't the continents getting farther apart on the RE map according to plate tectonics?

RE is round you douche. If they got further and further apart, the earth would expand. They are simply moving around, not repelling each other.

On RE, they get further apart at one place, and closer at another.

This can't happen if the edges do not meet each other such as FE.

The only place it doesn't work in the flat earth model is the south pole. Otherwise it still makes since seeing as the world is still "round" is not like a square map

Any southern movement of the plates would screw the map up. Plus geodetics also puts a massive hole in FE idiocy.

Can someone who believes the earth is flat explain how plate tectonics works, when there is clear evidence supporting motion in a spherical earth. Such as  euler poles. Please tell me how these work if the earth is flat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_pole

Is the euler like EW-LER or euler like YOU-LER?

Quote from: mazty88 on February 11, 2010, 05:37:55 PM

Can someone who believes the earth is flat explain how plate tectonics works, when there is clear evidence supporting motion in a spherical earth. Such as  euler poles. Please tell me how these work if the earth is flat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_pole

Is the euler like EW-LER or euler like YOU-LER?

According to Wikipedia, it's pronounced oy-ler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler

I hate saying things wrong.

Quote from: Vongeo on February 11, 2010, 06:43:26 PM

Quote from: flyingmonkey on February 11, 2010, 05:43:10 PM

Not to mention that if it did work on FE, the Earth would be expanding and continents would continually be getting further apart.


If the plates then subducted at the rim, then continents at the rim would eventually disappear.




Generally, they will just say how plate tectonics work, not how they apply to FE.

Aren't the continents getting farther apart on the RE map according to plate tectonics?

RE is round you douche. If they got further and further apart, the earth would expand. They are simply moving around, not repelling each other.

I meant to say continents.

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 11, 2010, 08:26:42 PM

Quote from: Vongeo on February 11, 2010, 06:43:26 PM

Quote from: flyingmonkey on February 11, 2010, 05:43:10 PM

Not to mention that if it did work on FE, the Earth would be expanding and continents would continually be getting further apart.


If the plates then subducted at the rim, then continents at the rim would eventually disappear.




Generally, they will just say how plate tectonics work, not how they apply to FE.

Aren't the continents getting farther apart on the RE map according to plate tectonics?

RE is round you douche. If they got further and further apart, the earth would expand. They are simply moving around, not repelling each other.

I meant to say continents.

you're still wrong. objects on a circle can't continually get further away. You're an idiot

The fact is, the continents simply aren't churning around and covering these wild distances. They fluctuate very slightly thanks to some non-mystical geological processes, but they don't sail across the sea bed for thousands of miles, and they never have.

The fact is, the continents simply aren't churning around and covering these wild distances. They fluctuate very slightly thanks to some non-mystical geological processes, but they don't sail across the sea bed for thousands of miles, and they never have.

Hoho ho ho hooooooooooooooo. Thanks for saying that
So please, explain this.
The Mid-Atlantic Trench has mirror imaging of the reversal of the magnetic signature found in the rock that is perpendicular to the trench. This would suggest that the area has been getting wider over a long time span.
Also, why at convergent boundaries between land and oceanic plates are there such large earth quakes recorded so deeply e.g. 1960 Chilli Earth quake measuring 9.5 at a depth of 35km, whereas conservative boundaries have much shallower earthquakes e.g. 1906 San Francisco earthquake at 8km? This ties in with tectonic theory because at convergent boundaries the oceanic plate moves under the land plate, and as the oceanic plate heats due to its distance from the mantle decreasing, it becomes more susceptible to large deformation resulting in large, but deep, earthquakes.
What part is mystical about tectonic theory?
How can you say plates only move slightly (which they do, we are talking 10^-5 and 10^-10) but don't move thousands of miles? Given the time span of the earth, any slight distance is going to be obviously magnified over a large time span. E.g. moving 5 mm a year (say the Ageian plate) turns into kms over thousands of years, let a lone looking into the Miocene and before.
How can you explain the bedrock similarities of Africa and South America which if you linked the two into the model of Pangea, the rock beds line up perfectly?

I look forward to reading your answer..  

Quote from: Vongeo on February 12, 2010, 01:53:22 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 11, 2010, 08:26:42 PM

Quote from: Vongeo on February 11, 2010, 06:43:26 PM

Quote from: flyingmonkey on February 11, 2010, 05:43:10 PM

Not to mention that if it did work on FE, the Earth would be expanding and continents would continually be getting further apart.


If the plates then subducted at the rim, then continents at the rim would eventually disappear.




Generally, they will just say how plate tectonics work, not how they apply to FE.

Aren't the continents getting farther apart on the RE map according to plate tectonics?

RE is round you douche. If they got further and further apart, the earth would expand. They are simply moving around, not repelling each other.

I meant to say continents.

you're still wrong. objects on a circle can't continually get further away. You're an idiot

Well lets not resort to name calling (Asshole{Ironic}[Unessary]) As things move around in the circle other part subduct into one another to create space.

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 12, 2010, 04:23:48 PM

Quote from: Vongeo on February 12, 2010, 01:53:22 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 11, 2010, 08:26:42 PM

Quote from: Vongeo on February 11, 2010, 06:43:26 PM

Quote from: flyingmonkey on February 11, 2010, 05:43:10 PM

Not to mention that if it did work on FE, the Earth would be expanding and continents would continually be getting further apart.


If the plates then subducted at the rim, then continents at the rim would eventually disappear.




Generally, they will just say how plate tectonics work, not how they apply to FE.

Aren't the continents getting farther apart on the RE map according to plate tectonics?

RE is round you douche. If they got further and further apart, the earth would expand. They are simply moving around, not repelling each other.

I meant to say continents.

you're still wrong. objects on a circle can't continually get further away. You're an idiot

Well lets not resort to name calling (Asshole{Ironic}[Unessary]) As things move around in the circle other part subduct into one another to create space.

Yeah, but areas getting further away create new land. You can't reduce the total sum of crust on the RE model. The amount of oceanic and land crust is going to vary, but essentially same amount of crust as there has always been. The problem with FET is that the mechanics simply don't work, such as convection current of the mantle, no earthquakes at the Arctic and Antarctic etc.

The Mid-Atlantic Trench has mirror imaging of the reversal of the magnetic signature found in the rock that is perpendicular to the trench. This would suggest that the area has been getting wider over a long time span.

Magnetic systems tend to transfer their patterns to surrounding magnetically-sensitive material. If I hold a magnet under some paper with some iron filings on top, the iron filings change their positioning. If the magnet were a different shape, or were shielded differently along its surface, the effect on the filings would systematically change. How exactly do the rather simple properties of magnets demonstrate that the continents are zipping around on the floor of the ocean?

Also, why at convergent boundaries between land and oceanic plates are there such large earth quakes recorded so deeply e.g. 1960 Chilli Earth quake measuring 9.5 at a depth of 35km, whereas conservative boundaries have much shallower earthquakes e.g. 16 San Francisco earthquake at 8km? This ties in with tectonic theory because at convergent boundaries the oceanic plate moves under the land plate, and as the oceanic plate heats due to its distance from the mantle decreasing, it becomes more susceptible to large deformation resulting in large, but deep, earthquakes.

Nobody here is denying that volcanic and tectonic activity occurs. The network of hot subterranean chambers and vaults (Hell/Gehennom/Tartarus*) which extends underneath the surface of the Terra Firma is not a uniform system. Some parts of Hell are more active than others, and consequently more powerful seismic turmoil occurs above the more volatile underground areas. Nothing about earthquakes is incongruent with my true account of the Earth.

How can you say plates only move slightly (which they do, we are talking 10^-5 and 10^-10) but don't move thousands of miles? Given the time span of the earth, any slight distance is going to be obviously magnified over a large time span. E.g. moving 5 mm a year (say the Ageian plate) turns into kms over thousands of years, let a lone looking into the Miocene and before.

They move slightly, but not in any consistent direction. The continents are subject to underground magma systems which vary their local intensities with time. No system is going to (or has) sustain(ed) enough deliberate monodirectional force to push billions of tonnes of rock thousands of miles. That is pure science-fantasy.

How can you explain the bedrock similarities of Africa and South America which if you linked the two into the model of Pangea, the rock beds line up perfectly?

Should we really be surprised that rocks from one part of the world are similar to rocks from other parts of the world?

*I'm talking about Hell in the non-religious sense here.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:16 PM

The Mid-Atlantic Trench has mirror imaging of the reversal of the magnetic signature found in the rock that is perpendicular to the trench. This would suggest that the area has been getting wider over a long time span.

Magnetic systems tend to transfer their patterns to surrounding magnetically-sensitive material. If I hold a magnet under some paper with some iron filings on top, the iron filings change their positioning. If the magnet were a different shape, or were shielded differently along its surface, the effect on the filings would systematically change. How exactly do the rather simple properties of magnets demonstrate that the continents are zipping around on the floor of the ocean?

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.

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.

Quote from: markjo on February 13, 2010, 11:14:41 AM

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.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on February 13, 2010, 11:22:50 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 13, 2010, 11:14:41 AM

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...

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on February 13, 2010, 11:22:50 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 13, 2010, 11:14:41 AM

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.

I did, he told me the Earth was flat. I guess that about wraps it up, then.

Quote from: markjo on February 13, 2010, 11:24:12 AM

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on February 13, 2010, 11:22:50 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 13, 2010, 11:14:41 AM

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.

I did, he told me the Earth was flat. I guess that about wraps it up, then.

He also told me that the sun and moon are round.

He told me he loved me, but didn't call me the next day.

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...

I used to always bring back a rock or two from travel.  I was really interested in Markjo's collection and his method of orientation labeling, etc. not what is common knowledge.  His calculations would also, of course, be an added bonus.  The kind of evidence, you understand, that is not readily available by a 'quick search.'

Quote from: Joeval on February 13, 2010, 12:10:55 PM

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...

I used to always bring back a rock or two from travel.  I was really interested in Markjo's collection and his method of orientation labeling, etc. not what is common knowledge.  His calculations would also, of course, be an added bonus.  The kind of evidence, you understand, that is not readily available by a 'quick search.'

I'm sorry Mrs. Peach, but when did I say that I collected samples and charted the courses of the continents?  I only said that it could be done, not that I had actually done it myself.  However, in a 9th grade Earth Science lab, I did plot the course of the continental drift from data that was provided to me.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:16 PM

The Mid-Atlantic Trench has mirror imaging of the reversal of the magnetic signature found in the rock that is perpendicular to the trench. This would suggest that the area has been getting wider over a long time span.

Magnetic systems tend to transfer their patterns to surrounding magnetically-sensitive material. If I hold a magnet under some paper with some iron filings on top, the iron filings change their positioning. If the magnet were a different shape, or were shielded differently along its surface, the effect on the filings would systematically change. How exactly do the rather simple properties of magnets demonstrate that the continents are zipping around on the floor of the ocean?

Quote from: mazty88 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:16 PM

Also, why at convergent boundaries between land and oceanic plates are there such large earth quakes recorded so deeply e.g. 1960 Chilli Earth quake measuring 9.5 at a depth of 35km, whereas conservative boundaries have much shallower earthquakes e.g. 16 San Francisco earthquake at 8km? This ties in with tectonic theory because at convergent boundaries the oceanic plate moves under the land plate, and as the oceanic plate heats due to its distance from the mantle decreasing, it becomes more susceptible to large deformation resulting in large, but deep, earthquakes.

Nobody here is denying that volcanic and tectonic activity occurs. The network of hot subterranean chambers and vaults (Hell/Gehennom/Tartarus*) which extends underneath the surface of the Terra Firma is not a uniform system. Some parts of Hell are more active than others, and consequently more powerful seismic turmoil occurs above the more volatile underground areas. Nothing about earthquakes is incongruent with my true account of the Earth.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:16 PM

How can you say plates only move slightly (which they do, we are talking 10^-5 and 10^-10) but don't move thousands of miles? Given the time span of the earth, any slight distance is going to be obviously magnified over a large time span. E.g. moving 5 mm a year (say the Ageian plate) turns into kms over thousands of years, let a lone looking into the Miocene and before.

They move slightly, but not in any consistent direction. The continents are subject to underground magma systems which vary their local intensities with time. No system is going to (or has) sustain(ed) enough deliberate monodirectional force to push billions of tonnes of rock thousands of miles. That is pure science-fantasy.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:16 PM

How can you explain the bedrock similarities of Africa and South America which if you linked the two into the model of Pangea, the rock beds line up perfectly?

Should we really be surprised that rocks from one part of the world are similar to rocks from other parts of the world?

*I'm talking about Hell in the non-religious sense here.

Magnetic systems...How do you propose the rocks became magnetic if they did not originate from the mantle? And according to what you said, the rocks should have one constant magnetic pattern, not different ones showing the reversal of the poles. Plus when dated, the rocks the same distance either side of the trench have the same magnetic readings and age? Surely not just a coincidence.
You didn't answer the question. How come destructive boundaries have the constant pattern of deep and powerful earth quakes, whereas conservative boundaries always have shallow and weaker earth quakes?
Plus evidence for the network system. Just because you claim it doesn't make it so.
Pure science fantasy? Then explain the rock formations in Africa and South America. The bedrock is a perfect match - not similar. As in it's like a jigsaw. The contients look like they could fit and the geology suggests that they once did fit, unless it's pure coincidence that they just seem to have joining bands of rock if they were put together.

 

I'm sorry Mrs. Peach, but when did I say that I collected samples and charted the courses of the continents?  I only said that it could be done, not that I had actually done it myself.  However, in a 9th grade Earth Science lab, I did plot the course of the continental drift from data that was provided to me.

Sorry, I thought as you described the process as 'easy,' that you must have performed it.

Sorry, I thought as you described the process as 'easy,' that you must have performed it.

Driving a spike nail into one's foot is also quite easy, but I haven't done that either.