Poll

Which map do you agree with the most?

Flat Earth Map #1
5 (38.5%)
Flat Earth Map #2
2 (15.4%)
levee's new map
6 (46.2%)

Total Members Voted: 13

Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With

  • 191 Replies
  • 48559 Views
?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #90 on: May 07, 2010, 06:50:57 AM »
Sorry levee, but pictures prove nothing on these forums! Everyone knows that pictures and videos are not admissible as evidence here. Besides, everyone knows those "black sun" photos you posted are a hoax anyway. Try again.

Besides, you said the pictures "clearly" show that the moon and sun are only a few kilometers distant. I don't see that. I see atmospheric refraction causing them to look larger than they are. It is the same thing which causes the sun and moon to look very large anywhere on the planet when they are close to the horizon.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 07:27:08 AM by General Disarray »
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42687
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #91 on: May 07, 2010, 07:58:51 AM »
The ISS/Mercury videos prove clearly that the official data offerred by Nasa re: sun diameter/earth-sun distance are completely bogus and false.

There are many more videos of those transits out there, I selected just a few so that you will get an idea of what is going on.

Levee, you should know as well as anyone that sustained space flight is impossible in flat earth theory, therefore any of those photographs showing the ISS must be fake and prove nothing at all.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #92 on: May 07, 2010, 08:16:49 AM »
What did you say about igneous petrology? You are joking of course...

The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.


Please tell oil companies that. Because geologists base their oil exploration on what the field of petroleum geology predicts. But, in case that first kick to groin was not enough here is a more solid one,

From dictionary.com
pe·trol·o·gy    (p?-tr?l'?-j?)   
n.  The branch of geology that deals with the origin, composition, structure, and alteration of rocks.

petro-1 
a combining form meaning “rock,” “stone,” used in the formation of compound words: petrology.
Also, petri-; especially before a vowel, petr-.

Origin:
< Greek, comb. form of pétra rock, pétros a stone

Clearly, petrology doesn't have a damn thing to do with petroleum geology (that's what the study of hydrocarbons is officially called, in case you missed it the first go around). Igneous petrology is the branch of geology that deals with the mineral physics, chemical properties, and thermal properties of rocks and how they behave in systems. Specifically, if you look at differentiation and fractionation (Since you have difficulty understanding your subjects, those are both geology terms, I'm not talking about differentials or fractions) you see that certain elements aren't very compatible with certain rocks, so they naturally aren't incorporated into the core or minerals found in the mantle. The heavier metals are especially incompatible.

If an undergrad was to approach me and ask if I knew anything about neurons or some other extremely basic biology question, then I would very likely be stumped in a heartbeat. So claiming that you beat world renowned phds is a highly dubious claim unless they have very little knowledge about the field you are discussing. Chances are they simply tire of your constant attempts to prove them wrong, versus show any interest in understanding the core material, that they blow you off or ignore you. The latter I think is probably what happens. I can tell you straight off the bat, that if I have to spend a third of a semester teaching undergrads about the chemistry of the mantle/crust, another third about the physics of the mantle/crust, and then a third part to explain the chemistry and physics of just the asthenosphere, in addition to devoting an entire senior level course just to the cover the deeper complexities of it the chemistry of the earth. All that said, there isn't a remote chance you've spent any time researching this material adequately, let alone understand it or can expect to from a conversation on this forum board.

This, Levee is why you are without question out of your league. A mathematician is not necessarily a great physicist. A physicist without a heavy background in geology is not going to be a great geophysicist. I don't care one bit how well you can formulate mathematical abstractions -- it has no relevance when dealing with complex systems. And the fact that you have no idea what I am talking about, since you show a clear ignorance of the concepts and vocabulary that you are using, there is a great indication that you have zero knowledge about what you're talking about in the first place.

The world hardly ever boils down to just one pretty equation, it's a horrible inelegant mess that requires an ability to apply interdisciplinary approaches to problems. This becomes very apparent once you get past your basic college physics and start modelling complex processes.

If you are truly as brilliant and qualified to tear down the pillars of modern science, please show some actual calculations, models, and hard data to back your reasoning and predictions, instead of just riding on the coat tails of other people who, like you, don't fully understand the subject they are trying to dismantle. I'm already very familiar with the supposed 'holes' of isotope dating, since creationists love to harass me about it. Just like you though, they are only capable regurgitating something that they think makes sense because another scientist happens to be able to write nice sentences that appear to make sense.

Unlike you, I can claim expertise in only the field of geology (and most sub-fields I am utterly ignorant) and though I have a working knowledge isotope geochemistry, I believe your questions have a deeper root of misunderstanding... so please consult a nuclear physicist if you think your arguments have merit, I'm certain they can address your questions with much greater detail and especially clarity.

EDIT:
I'm going to take a moment Levee and pretend that instead of accusing a theory of being blatantly wrong, that you just asked me to explain how this or that happens because you aren't certain how we reach our conclusions or that some of them simply don't make sense. I'm going to be honest with you and tell you the limitations of what we know (or what I don't know personally), and what has been proven and what has been proven indirectly. This is by no means a complete description since there are lots of points in your granite link that have to be addressed, but I'd rather not put together a 30 page paper or teach you what generally takes students the better part of 2 and half years to learn, understand, and critically analyze. Especially if you are in fact just interested in proving me wrong. And depending on how you react to this, I don't have any issues trying to explain the nuances of this or that theory if something doesn't make sense or I seem contradictory.

So regarding the granite mess. I took the time to read what you wrote. The problem with granite is that it takes an extremely long time to get crystals of that size (as you noted, rhyolite is a primitive form of granite, the chemistry and proportions of mineral assemblages are equal, the only difference being that one is fine grained and the other is coarse grained). We aren't forming water crystals, we're forming very complex mineral structures that take (emphasis: mineral physics predicts this, geochemistry experiments confirm the rates) tens of thousands of years to form. Scientists don't have that kind of time, so we have to settle with much smaller crystal growth or we have to get creative to find ways to 'speed up' time. Speeding up time is nothing like natural conditions... so we don't get precise or consistent results depending on the specifics of those methods. We also have some trouble forming Gabbro, which is the same chemically as basalt/obsidian, but has larger grains -- like granite. Not sure why cracks or seams was mentioned... it's completely irrelevant to the issue. Crystals grow together... so any gaps that exist are closed or filled with finer crystals, which we can verify by direct observation using lab equipment. When stress is applied, rocks will develop cracks/seams. This is true for sedimentary and metamorphic rocks as well. Cracks and seams are not a characteristic of any type of rock, so either this was made up, or a word was used incorrectly. Granite/rhyolite DID come from original material, namely, the mantle from less complex minerals that were reorganized into more complex minerals due to pressure/temperature gradients (Bowen's Reaction Series -- fundamental to igneous and metamorphic petrology). Because the minerals that make up granite are less dense than most of the other minerals that formed in the mantle, they very slowly worked their way up to the top and formed the uppermost crust. Basaltic rock, being more dense than granitic rock, comprise the oceanic crust and therefore sit lower. As Basalt slowly cools and hardens (again, over many millions of years, it compacts, becoming more dense) it actually becomes denser than the semi-molten rock at the asthenosphere... so when it is forced against an overriding continental plate, it sinks along that edge (similar to how a bent penny can float on water as long as no edge gets pushed down) and gets dragged very deep into the mantle where it reheats, melts, and works it's way upward to oceanic ridges.. where it forms new oceanic crust. The last point I will address is that granite does not by any means form a shell around the entire earth. However, Eclogite, a rock chemically similar to basalt, does. Compared to basalt, it has a much greater range of densities when in a molten or solid or cool solid form (not that rock is particularly cool at that point!) and so it periodically delaminates from the base of the continental crust, melts, rises up, and forms a new layer that sits under the overlying lithosphere.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 08:31:11 PM by Deceiver »

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #93 on: May 07, 2010, 09:01:07 AM »
Hell, I just have a bachelor's in physics and I can tell he's full of crap.

Where levee goes wrong is that he does not say "FE is right because..." only, he throws in "RE is wrong because..." statements, which can be shown to be false. He must be kind of new here because he hasn't caught on to the subtle ways more experienced FE'ers have developed to deflect criticism.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #94 on: May 07, 2010, 10:10:41 AM »
Sorry levee, but pictures prove nothing on these forums! Everyone knows that pictures and videos are not admissible as evidence here. Besides, everyone knows those "black sun" photos you posted are a hoax anyway. Try again.

Besides, you said the pictures "clearly" show that the moon and sun are only a few kilometers distant. I don't see that. I see atmospheric refraction causing them to look larger than they are. It is the same thing which causes the sun and moon to look very large anywhere on the planet when they are close to the horizon.

Actually GD, you're mistaken and so is Levee, but about different things. Levee is wrong because that's not a black sun, it's the Moon. GD, the reason it looks so large is because it's a picture taken with a long telephoto lens. The person in the picture is a long way away from the camera. The sun looks large in the picture because it's a lens that makes everything look large. Nothing to do with the horizon.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #95 on: May 07, 2010, 10:33:54 AM »
I stand corrected.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #96 on: May 07, 2010, 10:41:34 AM »
Looks like globularists can't even agree on their own theories, eh?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #97 on: May 07, 2010, 10:46:46 AM »
Looks like globularists can't even agree on their own theories, eh?

Nope, I agreed with TD, because he obviously knows more about the subject than I do.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42687
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #98 on: May 07, 2010, 12:12:33 PM »
Looks like globularists can't even agree on their own theories, eh?

That's funny, neither can FE'ers.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #99 on: May 07, 2010, 12:18:29 PM »
Looks like globularists can't even agree on their own theories, eh?

That's funny, neither can FE'ers.

I was about to say the same thing. There seems to be no unified consensus on anything in FET. Like the topic of this thread, which (if any) flat map is right? Is the moon flat or round? Does gravity exist or doesn't it? Is there an antimoon, or bioluminescent organisms with predictable patterns? The list could go on and on.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #100 on: May 07, 2010, 01:05:46 PM »
Looks like globularists can't even agree on their own theories, eh?

When all else fails... the hypocrisy emerges. Way to go FE!
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 01:09:54 PM by Deceiver »

*

Catchpa

  • 1018
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #101 on: May 07, 2010, 01:11:27 PM »
Looks like globularists can't even agree on their own theories, eh?

Nah, we just don't claim to have extensive knowledge on everything which usually require a fuckin' great education specialized on a single subject.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 02:29:19 PM by Catchpa »
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

*

The Question1

  • 390
  • Your logic is inferior to my logic.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #102 on: May 07, 2010, 02:27:52 PM »
@levee...

Have you considered the fact that maybe,the heavenly bodies are HUGE but FAR FAR away?

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #103 on: May 07, 2010, 02:30:24 PM »
Considered, and rejected because that wouldn't fit with his world-view.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #104 on: May 07, 2010, 06:07:57 PM »
I want to know what the FUCK any of levee's bullshit has to do with what fucking map you guys agree on?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42687
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #105 on: May 07, 2010, 06:37:21 PM »
I want to know what the FUCK any of levee's bullshit has to do with what fucking map you guys agree on?

Please watch your language in the upper forums.  Yes, some people here can be quite frustrating to deal with, but there is no need for profanity.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #106 on: May 07, 2010, 06:59:04 PM »
I want to know what the FUCK any of levee's bullshit has to do with what fucking map you guys agree on?

Short answer is: you won't find them agreeing on anything, much less an impossible flat map configuration.

You may have noticed that FE'ers prefer not to commit themselves to any definite specifics, because those could be definitely disproved. If you don't commit to a single theory, you can ignore criticism towards any individual model by saying that there are always other possibilities. It is really quite brilliant.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #107 on: May 07, 2010, 07:25:15 PM »
I want to know what the FUCK any of levee's bullshit has to do with what fucking map you guys agree on?

Short answer is: you won't find them agreeing on anything, much less an impossible flat map configuration.

You may have noticed that FE'ers prefer not to commit themselves to any definite specifics, because those could be definitely disproved. If you don't commit to a single theory, you can ignore criticism towards any individual model by saying that there are always other possibilities. It is really quite brilliant.
I'm not really looking for them to agree on anything, just wish guys like levee and James would quit derailing my threads.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #108 on: May 08, 2010, 02:49:19 AM »
gdissaray, your neurons must be full of crap...to believe that 1 billion trillion tons of water stay glued next to a spherical surface which flies through space at 107000 km/hr, means that you too can be accused of illegally carrying a brain inside your skull. Perhaps those three years you spent in first grade were not nearly enough to remove the crap from your mind...

deceiver, it is very obvious that, so far, you have been accepting much too easily(personal reasons) without even giving a second thought about these matters, the official fairy tale known as the round earth theory, with all its ramifications.

I could easily checkmate you here, even if we were only to debate about the trajectories of the clouds, which show very clearly that those patterns are possible only on a stationary earth.

You have not addressed at all the multiple issues I raised here, but I do not blame you actually, the textbooks that you use to defend the round earth theory cannot in any way shape or form answer these questions.

Again, here are some of the points you missed, and which should show you that you have much more to study:

Here is the Faint Young Sun Paradox which disproves immediately the fairy tale you believe in:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg718434#msg718434


Impossibility of a spherically shaped sun:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=24706#p24706 (read this one especially, deceiver)


Please try to understand once and for all, THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, Newton believed ONLY in a pressure/push type of gravity, and never mentioned attractive gravity at all, please update your studies on this subject:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542


Now, I will demonstrate to you, and everybody else, that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

Here are the videos which prove, once and for all, now and forever, that there is no curvature, not one centimeter over the strait of Gibraltar:

Islamic History of Europe

#

Between 2:56 si 3:00 the author shows us the spanish beach and points towards the african coastline

Between 3:02 si 3:07 we can see clearly that there is no curvature all the way to Morocco; moreover, if we use the full screen option, we will see the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore...this is actually a closeup taken, again, from that beach...

Between 3:19 - 3:22, WE CAN SEE THE WAVES SPLASHING ONTO THE OPPOSING BEACH, EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR STANDING ON THE SPANISH SHORELINE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; on a round earth, we would see an ascending slope, with a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters.

Between 3:43 si 3:45, the same thing, zero curvature...full screen option, the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore, WITH THE AUTHOR STADING RIGHT THERE ON THE SPANISH BEACH.

The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature:

The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


THE EXPLOSION FROM TUNGUSKA, 1908, WAS SEEN FROM THE SHORES OF LAKE BAIKAL (600 KM DISTANCE, 27 KM OF A VISUAL OBSTACLE), AND FROM LONDON/ANTWERP/STOCKHOLM, please read the newspaper accounts:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142

The world you believe in, deceiver, is a fairy tale, carefully concocted by Nasa and Mir, but you fell for it...

The visual obstacle between London and Tunguska measurea at least 4333 km.

The best photographic evidence which shows that there is no curvature whatsoever, at the surface of the Earth:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=0#p34489
« Last Edit: May 09, 2010, 09:02:39 AM by levee »

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #109 on: May 08, 2010, 04:21:51 AM »
Sliver, this is an official warning. I suggest you review the site rules, and introspect on common decency, or you may find yourself facing a ban.

"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #110 on: May 08, 2010, 06:34:00 AM »

Impossibility of a spherically shaped sun:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=24706#p24706 (read this one especially, deceiver)

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=0#p34489

If those textbooks are so unreliable, you can go to the end of each chapter and find a list two to three or more pages full of references, read any one of those peer-reviewed referenced articles, go through their methodology, and tell us all precisely how the experiments are full of fail. In fact, you can do this to any peer reviewed article.Think you can handle that much work? Or would you rather just make up garbage about how you think youtube videos show this or that. Admittedly though, the pictures/videos and flat out misconceptions take the better part of 20 seconds to discredit, so I probably shouldn't be telling you how to get even a sliver of credibility... you might even come across as halfway intelligent if you can provide legitimate critisms or show an ability to understand what it is you are trying to discuss.

As you should have noticed by now, making a long post with a dozen single sentence 'proofs' with the random personal attack thrown in doesn't work either. Please demonstrate just a little bit of depth in regards to your understanding...

I already showed that those articles/posts are not reliable in my granite explanation. Why would you bring up another link from the same source when you haven't made any attempts to show that there is any basis for it in the first place? Or that you even know what half the vocabulary of your posts actually mean? I spent a fair bit of time trying to simplify and condense a fair bit of material to show where the original facts fail to hold up, and where uncertainty fits into things... but all you can manage to say, despite your vast pool of knowledge, is that I buy too much into these matters? Again, without any sort of proof or attempts to refute a single thing I said. I haven't even completed my phd dissertation, yet you claim to trump world renowned doctorates when you can't even make a case against the arguments of a graduate student using explanations and methods that are explained in great detail in undergraduate level texts? Or used by not just myself or the people I collaborate with, but everyone else who does geochem laboratory work? ??? I honestly can't tell if you are delusional, or just hellbent on proving every RE'r on the grounds that they are simply RE, even in matters that have nothing to do with a RE (mineral nucleation being an obvious one).
« Last Edit: May 08, 2010, 03:40:07 PM by Deceiver »

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #111 on: May 08, 2010, 07:14:58 AM »
When all else fails, resort to ad hominem attacks. Way to lose the argument levee.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

The Question1

  • 390
  • Your logic is inferior to my logic.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #112 on: May 08, 2010, 10:04:23 AM »
Er,the water is not glued to the surface.Thier is enough gravity so the water doesn't fly off the planet.
Also,how is that more unbelieveable than a sun rotating around the earth(because we are so special) which is a flat cyclinder(because,once again we are so special.)

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #113 on: May 08, 2010, 02:30:11 PM »
gdissaray, your neurons must be full of crap...to believe that 1 billion trillion tons of water stay glued next to a spherical surface which flies through space at 107000 km/hr, means that you too can be accused of illegally carrying a brain inside your skull. Perhaps those three years you spent in first grade were not nearly enough to remove the crap from your mind...

deceiver, it is very obvious that, so far, you have been accepting much too easily(personal reasons) without even giving a second thought about these matters, the official fairy tale known as the round earth theory, with all its ramifications.

I could easily check mate you here, even if we were only to debate about the trajectories of the clouds, which show very clearly that those patterns are possible only on a stationary earth.

You have not addressed at all the multiple issues I raised here, but I do not blame you actually, the textbooks that you use to defend the round earth theory cannot in any way shape or form answer these questions.

Again, here are some of the points you missed, and which should show you that you have much more to study:

Here is the Faint Young Sun Paradox which disproves immediately the fairy tale you believe in:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg718434#msg718434


Impossibility of a spherically shaped sun:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=24706#p24706 (read this one especially, deceiver)


Please try to understand once and for all, THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, Newton believed ONLY in a pressure/push type of gravity, and never mentioned attractive gravity at all, please update your studies on this subject:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542


Now, I will demonstrate to you, and everybody else, that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

Here are the videos which prove, once and for all, now and forever, that there is no curvature, not one centimeter over the strait of Gibraltar:

Islamic History of Europe

#

Between 2:56 si 3:00 the author shows us the spanish beach and points towards the african coastline

Between 3:02 si 3:07 we can see clearly that there is no curvature all the way to Morocco; moreover, if we use the full screen option, we will see the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore...this is actually a closeup taken, again, from that beach...

Between 3:19 - 3:22, WE CAN SEE THE WAVES SPLASHING ONTO THE OPPOSING BEACH, EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR STANDING ON THE SPANISH SHORELINE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; on a round earth, we would see an ascending slope, with a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters.

Between 3:43 si 3:45, the same thing, zero curvature...full screen option, the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore, WITH THE AUTHOR STADING RIGHT THERE ON THE SPANISH BEACH.

The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature:

The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


THE EXPLOSION FROM TUNGUSKA, 1908, WAS SEEN FROM THE SHORES OF LAKE BAIKAL (600 KM DISTANCE, 27 KM OF A VISUAL OBSTACLE), AND FROM LONDON/ANTWERP/STOCKHOLM, please read the newspaper accounts:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142

The world you believe in, deceiver, is a fairy tale, carefully concocted by Nasa and Mir, but you fell for it...

The visual obstacle between London and Tunguska measurea at least 4333 km.

The best photographic evidence which shows that there is no curvature whatsoever, at the surface of the Earth:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=0#p34489
Um, the Straight of Gibraltar is only 14.24 km wide, and, you only showed images from the narrowest part of the English Channel.  But again, I ask, what does any of this have to do with which map you guys support?

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #114 on: May 08, 2010, 02:31:44 PM »
Sliver, this is an official warning. I suggest you review the site rules, and introspect on common decency, or you may find yourself facing a ban.
Sorry for the language, but you must understand how frustrating it is when people like levee and yourself derail threads.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42687
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #115 on: May 08, 2010, 05:52:12 PM »
gdissaray, your neurons must be full of crap...to believe that 1 billion trillion tons of water stay glued next to a spherical surface which flies through space at 107000 km/hr, means that you too can be accused of illegally carrying a brain inside your skull. Perhaps those three years you spent in first grade were not nearly enough to remove the crap from your mind...

Levee, as a moderator, you should know that such personal attacks are completely uncalled for.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #116 on: May 09, 2010, 08:03:47 AM »
BACK ON TOPIC!  Who agrees with which map?  That was the whole purpose of this thread, and so far the only thing that's happened is a derailment.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #117 on: May 09, 2010, 08:43:47 AM »
sliver, please bear a little longer with my "debate" here...you must remember that your thread would have been forgotten by now, had I not mentioned the thing with the other map...as you can see, most threads are of interest for a few days, that is all...I understand your concern, and ask you to have a little more patience at hand...

deceiver, you refuse to answer to any of the issues I raised here (faint young sun paradox, impossibility of a spherical sun, the impossibility of a big bang scenario, the fact that the clouds show clearly that we find ourselves on a stationary earth, and much more), as I said before, you know at the present time about 5% (we could of course lower that threshold, given your performance here) of what a true scientist should know...

I ALREADY answered your analysis of the granite issue. Here is WHAT YOU WROTE, your main point/argument:

The problem with granite is that it takes an extremely long time to get crystals of that size ...

See, deceiver, you are basing your argument on the validity of the radiodating method which is completely wrong to start with.

That is why I told you from the very beginning: you are accepting official data/arguments without having a second thought about them...the system will reward you with grants and a chance to further your education, but you will not gain any respect...

Please update your understanding of the radiodating/stratigraphy methods, as they ARE COMPLETELY FALSE:

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v8i9f.htm
http://www.worldbydesign.org/research/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html

Here is the dean of the faculty of mathematics/mechanics at the Moscow University, A. Fomenko, explaining to you how the radiodating CANNOT be used at all:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
CHAPTER I, SECTIONS 14, 15, 16, 17, THEY STARY ON PAGE 71

Your argument, as you posted it here, has no validity whatsoever, given the blatant, grevious errors of the radiodating method; you say that, and I quote: we're forming very complex mineral structures that take (emphasis: mineral physics predicts this, geochemistry experiments confirm the rates) tens of thousands of years to form... NO DECEIVER, the radiodating methods, introduced by the most ignorant of all scientists, namely Willard Libby, are very wrong, and cannot be used to form an argument re: the origin of granite.

Therefore, deceiver, we go back to what I wrote originally:

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/04earth4.htm
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/04earth3.htm
http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-3a.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/catastrophic-granite-formation (read this one carefully)

Geologist's built the theory of an evolving earth on the premise that the basement granites formed naturally. They did this without having firm scientific evidence for their formation.
(29 Conference proceedings publications in 1947, 1988 and 1991 show that geologists continue to argue about the origin of granites (see 1947 "Origin of Granite", Geological Society of America, Memoir 28; 1988 "The Origin of Granites", Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Earth Sciences, 79, parts 2-3; 1991 "Second Hutton Symposium on the Origin of Granites and Related Rocks", Brown & Chappell eds)
(30) Rhyolite is a pale rock with tiny crystals that is said to be the result of granite cooling over a long time under the earth's surface.
(31) It is assumed that granite forms very deep under the surface, because they have larger crystals than rhyolite. But rhyolite samples said to have formed 1683 feet below the surface only have tiny crystals.
(32) Experiments were conducted in the 1960's where granite was melted, then cooled slowly under conditions similar to those believed to exist deep inside the earth. The result produced a rock identical to rhyolite.
(33) Granite halos therefore show that granites formed under unnatural conditions.
(34) Geologist Andrew Snelling examined many granite outcrops and found that there was no mixing between the granite and other rocks that formed at the same time.
(35) Mixing should occur if different types of rocks formed from molten magma that cooled over millions of years. There should not be distinct boundaries between them.

http://nitishpriyadarshi.blogspot.com/2008/01/did-god-created-rocks-of-our-earth-in.html
http://unmaskingevolution.com/12-radiohalos.htm

Read again the Faint Young Sun Paradox, it disproves immediately your lousy arguments...

You wanna play hardball with me?

Let me completely destroy your nonsensical beliefs about the world we live in, especially hypothesis that the Earth is rotating around its own axis with 1600 km/hr (at the equator)...

The extraordinary timelapse photography/videos which show that the Earth is completely stationary, and not rotating around its own axis with 1600 km/hr (at the equator):

(four different directions for the clouds, at the same time)
(New York, incompatible cloud trajectory with that of the axially rotating Earth)

(Hollywood Hills, opposite directions)
The famous Cloudscape sequence from Koyaanisqatsi - Cloudscape (cloud layers, different directions):
(0:33 - 0:50)

And now, the complete demonstration that the earth could not possibly rotate around its own axis with 1600 km/hr or around the Sun with 29 km/s:
From Galileo was wrong:
If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model
Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:
The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth's surface is composed of similar materials. Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles. The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:

If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.
Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach's principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes, that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth, it defies either logic or observation.
If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air's freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.


Friction is a force with becomes weaker as the altitude increases, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE concept of the restoring force whose magnitude must increase for higher altitudes. The videos above show that friction as a restoring force concept does not exist at all!

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v|. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World).
However, such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).
Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

So far, in conventional physics, there is no lateral "gravitation/gravity" which could possibly maintain the atmosphere at the same speed as that of the Earth; again, we would have the Restoring Forces Paradox, exemplified in the link above.
There still seems to exist confusion as to what angular momentum is, and I
think that the main reason for this is that "everyone just knows" that the
acentric problem of a spinning World/atmosphere system (as put forward by
Aristotle) has been explained away by invoking the law of the conservation of
angular momentum.

We need to delve a little deeper into the physics here. Angular momentum is
defined as the product of moment of inertia with angular frequency about a
common axis of rotation. Molecules of a gas do not have any angular frequency
about a common axis of rotation, except in the case of something like a
hurricane or a tornado (and haven't we all seen just how much damage something
as 'small' as that can do?). To illustrate this, consider a single air
molecule. He's merrily going about his business, sometimes going one way, then
another. Sometimes travelling along a straight line, with absolutely no axis of
rotation.

Now, the 'conventional' treatment of our atmosphere is that these molecules
interact with one another, such that the angular momentum of the whole is
conserved. This is wrong for at least two reasons: There are thermal convection
currents within the atmosphere (and, boy, if you lived in Caithness, you'd know
all about them!) which have a great effect on the air molecules. These
convection currents have absolutely nothing to do with angular momentum (these
are perhaps the greatest reason why Mike's so-called "closed system" is
invalid). They are due to the incoming heat from the Sun, heating up different
components of the World and its atmosphere at different rates, depending upon
composition. These convection currents will act so as to disrupt any alleged
angular momentum of our considered molecule. Their effect upon our molecule
will be totally overwhelming, compared with any possible transference of
angular momentum. ANY 'ANGULAR MOMENTUM' THAT OUR MOLECULE MAY HAVE HAD WILL BE
CHANGED BY THE ACTION OF SOMETHING ORIGINATING OUTSIDE OF THE WORLD/ATMOSPHERE
SYSTEM. Once changed, the total angular momentum of the whole atmosphere (if
such a thing existed) would be changed. If it has changed, then it is not
conserved. I hope that you will all see that there is no way that total angular
momentum can be conserved and that we are not talking of any form of
theoretical "closed system." The second reason is closely tied to the first. As
I have said many times now, angular momentum is an attribute of rigid bodies.
That is how it is DEFINED. Note that ALL the particles within a rigid body have
the SAME angular frequency about a COMMON axis of rotation, irrespective of how
far each of them is from that axis. Angular momentum does not apply to gases,
nor, in general, to fluids.

Molecules in a gas transfer linear momentum between themselves, but even these
are inelastic collisions.

This atmospheric rotation anomaly seems to depend on air that's schizophrenic - it's actually a non-viscous gas, but acts like a solid when surrounding the Earth! It's not mechanically coupled to the Earth, but rotates with it at basically every altitude, as
though it were. It even moves fastest in the same direction as the (alleged)
rotation (jet streams)!

I have asked NASA, NOAA, JPL, the Australian weather
forum, 2 US meteorologists and a host of internet weather 'gurus' to
explain the ARA, and get basically 3 answers:
1.. no response
2.. a description of the global circulation pattern that includes the
minor effect of the Coriolis force but ignores the primary and major effect
of the Earth's central surface speed of 1100 mph on the atmosphere.
3.. admission that they don't know, but no concern that they don't.


As far as I understand it, the law of conservation of angular momentum applies
to rigid bodies. Not to liquids and not to gases. The reason for this necessity
is that imparting a torque to a molecule in a rigid body affects the whole
body, which is not the case with the other two states.
Consider the World, without an atmosphere, spinning in a vacuum. If we then
wrap a non-moving atmosphere around it, that atmosphere will serve to damp the
spin of the World. Do we agree that in this scenario the World will slow down
and the atmosphere will start to turn?
On the assumption that we do, then where we disagree is in what follows on from
this. There is no way that the World will ever speed up again, right? We have
now a World-atmosphere "closed system," in your terminology, that you will say
has reached some sort of equilibrium in terms of its angular momentum. What I
am saying is that this is not a "closed system," in the sense you infer, but an
interactive system between a rotating spherical object (not even rigid, because
of its excessive water content), surrounded by a gaseous envelope.
The crux of the difference between us is this: you maintain an equilibrium
because of the "closed system," and I accept that you have "conventional"
physics on your side, insofar as that is the "party line." I maintain that the
World would constantly be losing the energy that it possessed as a result of
its rotation, to an atmosphere which would heat up due to this friction and
dissipate this extra energy by radiating most of it out into space.
If the atmosphere is rotating en mass with the World, and winds spring up all
over the place, in almost random directions, then what is it that acts upon the
molecules in those winds, in order to bring them back into eastwardly,
differential rotation with the World?
If it were the pressure exerted by other air molecules, then in a very short
timespan the atmosphere, as a whole, would slow down and stop.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2010, 08:47:24 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7249
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #118 on: May 09, 2010, 08:54:27 AM »
Part II

The atmospheric pressure does not obey an attractive gravitational law:

SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN BAROMETRIC PRESSURE

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.
It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal's discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth?s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.
The ingredients of the air, oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases, though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation. This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that pockets of noxious gas are in the air, the scientists replied:
There are no pockets of noxious gas. No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

THEREFORE, DECEIVER, I HAVE JUST SHOWN YOU THAT YOU ARE MISTAKEN, I HAVE JUST DEMONSTRATED THAT FRICTION CANNOT POSSIBLY BE THE RESTORING FORCE ENVISIONED BY PRESENT DAY ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE.

Now, we go further...

Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.
A clear evidence that clouds simply defy any attractive gravitation (which does not exist); on a round earth we could not have a pressure type of gravitational force, since the force required to keep the 1000 trillion billion liters of water "glued" to the surface would crush the clouds and any living being which would attempt to move upon this surface.

YOU HAVE CHOSEN SO FAR TO IGNORE THE COMPLETE DEMONSTRATION THAT THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542

YOU ARE SHOWING EVERYBODY THAT YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENTS WHATSOEVER FOR THIS ISSUE, SHOWING YOU HAVE IGNORED, SO FAR, IN YOUR CAREER, THESE MATTERS...
 
You see deceiver, you are out of your league here; please improve your bibliography and study some more...

PS You think I will let go so easily on the strait of Gibraltar videos?

THERE SHOULD BE A 3.31 METER CURVATURE OVER THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR, IN THE ROUND EARTH THEORY; even if we change the radius of the earth from 6300 to 6400 km, the curvature will vary from 3.30 to 3.35 meters. We should see an ascending slope starting from the shores of Spain, a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters, and NOTHING BELOW 5 METERS FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STRAIT.

Here are the videos which prove, once and for all, now and forever, that there is no curvature, not one centimeter over the strait of Gibraltar:

Islamic History of Europe

#

Between 2:56 si 3:00 the author shows us the spanish beach and points towards the african coastline

Between 3:02 si 3:07 we can see clearly that there is no curvature all the way to Morocco; moreover, if we use the full screen option, we will see the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore...this is actually a closeup taken, again, from that beach...

Between 3:19 - 3:22, WE CAN SEE THE WAVES SPLASHING ONTO THE OPPOSING BEACH, EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR STANDING ON THE SPANISH SHORELINE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; on a round earth, we would see an ascending slope, with a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters.

Between 3:43 si 3:45, the same thing, zero curvature...full screen option, the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore, WITH THE AUTHOR STADING RIGHT THERE ON THE SPANISH BEACH.

The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature:

The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


So, deceiver, there is no curvature whatsoever over the strait of Gibraltar, no matter the fairy tale you stubbornly want to believe in...

Here is a photograph taken right on the spanish beach, from the same place as that in the second video above:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289/


« Last Edit: May 09, 2010, 09:01:33 AM by levee »

?

Deceiver

  • 239
  • The grant money made me do it.
Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« Reply #119 on: May 09, 2010, 08:57:24 AM »
sliver, please bear a little longer with my "debate" here...you must remember that your thread would have been forgotten by now, had I not mentioned the thing with the other map...as you can see, most threads are of interest for a few days, that is all...I understand your concern, and ask you to have a little more patience at hand...

deceiver, you refuse to answer to any of the issues I raised here (faint young sun paradox, impossibility of a spherical sun, the impossibility of a big bang scenario, the fact that the clouds show clearly that we find ourselves on a stationary earth, and much more), as I said before, you know at the present time about 5% (we could of course lower that threshold, given your performance here) of what a true scientist should know...

I ALREADY answered your analysis of the granite issue. Here is WHAT YOU WROTE, your main point/argument:

The problem with granite is that it takes an extremely long time to get crystals of that size ...

See, deceiver, you are basing your argument on the validity of the radiodating method which is completely wrong to start with.


I never said we used isotopes. Get your facts straight. We use thermodynamics and mineral physics to estimate how long it takes to get a crystal to be x size. We use isotope dating to figure out when the rock formed, not when specific minerals began to form from melt. You might not be able to understand the nuance there, but those are two very separate problems. (isotopes decay... even after the rock is cooled,  in case your brilliance failed to figure why knowing one doesn't have a thing to do with the other). Beyond that, I'm not going to waste my time responding to your posts. I often spend a fair bit of time trying to answer single points that you raise with a fair bit of detail. Then you ignore 95pct of what I said about that topic, or simply say things that I did not mean because you do not understand the vocabulary or concepts. In addition I can't respond to every last thing you post because I neither have the time to write a detailed response (which you consistently show a failure to understand anyway) or inclination, and because all you ever do is shoot out posts that have a dozen unrelated points in the first place. If you would care to discuss a single topic at length, then by all means, create your own thread and we can do such a thing. Otherwise, please quit putting words in my mouth, or assuming I know very little about anything... I am a planetary geologist who has specialized in geochemistry, not a stratigrapher or paleontologist, or even a full out astrophysicist -- we hardly ever even tackle similar problems or study overlapping theory and anything I might happen to know about such subfields I mostly learned as an undergraduate or from my friends during lunch. In fact, I can even tell you that I know very little about Mercury or Venus except what I picked up in one or two graduate level classes.. why? Because I've spent the most of my graduate career studying just a handful of satellites from the Jovian and Saturn systems. And quite frankly, that takes up all my time. I have zero interest to spend another 4 years to learn the subtleties of atmospheric physics (which I didn't study as an undergraduate) or whatever else you care to bring up. I learn what I need to in order to do what I need to. As you demonstrate quite well, spending so much time trying to know about every subject, or even a broad spectrum of subjects requires that you have zero understanding of it when it comes time to relating or piecing them together.

Again,
I have no idea what you think a scientist is, but it certainly doesn't require that they know fields outside their specialization to a degree anywhere near that of someone with that specialization, especially if the work they do has nothing or even very little to do with it.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2010, 10:33:34 AM by Deceiver »