Plate Tectonics?

I would like to know how the flat earth hypothesis explains this question.  Why do spreading centers and subduction zones take up most of the length of the world's plate boundaries and transform faults like in California take up so little? 

 I posted this a few days ago. Apparently they don't believe in Plate Tectonics, either.

I posted this a few days ago. Apparently they don't believe in Plate Tectonics, either.

Have you read John Mcphee's Assembling California?  Thats where I got this from.  I was reading when I thought damn this would really mess with the flat earth people.  I notice they don't even mention plate tectonics in the FAQ.  Too much to explain I guess.  Are the geologists in on it too,  how would everything work. (bendy crust?)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45392.0

Topic from a few days ago.

But yeah, plate tectonics can be pretty damning for a FE.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45392.0

Topic from a few days ago.

But yeah, plate tectonics can be pretty damning for a FE.

Wow.  They don't even try do they?  I always come here for a laugh every once and a while, and I always leave dumbfounded.  I still don't understand why they believe this stuff. 

Plate Tecnonics has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Plate Tecnonics has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Except that they don't work in the FE model.

Plate Tecnonics has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Pictures have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth yet you still have to explain why every picture ever taken of the Earth from space shows a sphere.  If the Earth was flat than every plate boundary would form a transform fault.  How come we don't see this?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 23, 2011, 06:27:09 PM

Plate Tecnonics has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Why don't you try answering my question?

This is the question you asked:

"Why do spreading centers and subduction zones take up most of the length of the world's plate boundaries and transform faults like in California take up so little?"

It has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

You might as well ask "Why do Sedimentary rocks take up over 75% of the earth's surface as opposed to other kinds of rocks?" The answer is the same to your question: That's just the way things are.

Read my edit

"You might as well ask "Why do Sedimentary rocks take up over 75% of the earth's surface as opposed to other kinds of rocks?" The answer is the same to your question: That's just the way things are."

you do know why lots of these are visable though

Plate Tecnonics has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

false.it has to do with how the earth was formed, which has to do with its roundness. Why is flat earth even hot down their? for the lulz?

Flat Earth hypothesis doesn't even give an explanation (not to mention no evidence or proof whatsoever) of how their "flat earth" was formed, so it's no surprise to me that they can't come up with a reason why their core is hot.

Flat Earth hypothesis doesn't even give an explanation (not to mention no evidence or proof whatsoever) of how their "flat earth" was formed, so it's no surprise to me that they can't come up with a reason why their core is hot.

or why compasses work.

So basically, the Flat Earth tectonic plates sit on lava which exists for no reason, and the plates themselves exist for no reason?

So basically, the Flat Earth tectonic plates sit on lava which exists for no reason, and the plates themselves exist for no reason?

Not only that, but the reason there are spreading centers and subduction zones is because the Earth is a globe.  The plates curve with the Earth and that causes the plate boundaries to be uneven.    I have been trying to think of a way for this to work with a flat earth, and I really can't see any way that it could.  If the Earth really is flat then the flat earth proponents must explain this. 

Well I've heard explanations like "Plate tectonics are a myth", despite accurate predictions regarding them...

Well I've heard explanations like "Plate tectonics are a myth", despite accurate predictions regarding them...

Thats one thing they don't understand.  You can't just say its a myth, you have to prove it.  Go into the field, study whatever it is you are trying to disprove, then write a paper about it.

Plate tectonics, as it is described by the insidious doctrines of globularism, does not exist. What evidence is there to suggest that America and China, for example, were once joined together in one giant super-country? The very notion is proposterous, and lacks convincing substantiation.

Plate tectonics, as it is described by the insidious doctrines of globularism, does not exist. What evidence is there to suggest that America and China, for example, were once joined together in one giant super-country? The very notion is proposterous, and lacks convincing substantiation.

The same can be said about all of FET.

I know it's hard, but we need some evidence.

Just look on this website and you just might find some.

Plate tectonics, as it is described by the insidious doctrines of globularism, does not exist. What evidence is there to suggest that America and China, for example, were once joined together in one giant super-country? The very notion is proposterous, and lacks convincing substantiation.

Then submit a paper about why you believe that plate tectonics is a preposterous bunch of crap.  Scientists are looking for the truth, and if you are right and can present evidence then they will gladly change their position on these things.  I should know I am a scientist, unlike you.

Globularist science journals are tomes of vile untruths, they cannot handle my revolutionary true scientific discoveries, so they do not publish them. I prefer to disseminate my findings through more respectable media.

Globularist science journals are tomes of vile untruths, they cannot handle my revolutionary true scientific discoveries, so they do not publish them. I prefer to disseminate my findings through more respectable media.

Then please enlighten me.  How do you explain the fact that transform faults are rare, when if the Earth was flat they would be the only boundaries we would find.   Don't avoid the question, it is perfectly legitimate.  I want a straightforward answer.

Transform faults are rare because the Earth rarely transforms.

Transform faults are rare because the Earth rarely transforms.

Just what I thought.  You have no explanation.

I've offered a perfectly reasonable explanation for the rarity of transform faults, which you seem unable to acknowledge. Could it be that you lack the humility to admit that you were wrong?

I've offered a perfectly reasonable explanation for the rarity of transform faults, which you seem unable to acknowledge. Could it be that you lack the humility to admit that you were wrong?

Yes it is perfectly reasonable if you have no knowledge of what a transform fault is.  I will not converse with a moron who is quite obviously delusional and perhaps unable to use google to find out what a transform fault is.

What sort of a buffoon would use Google to perform rigorous academic study on the nature of the universe?

What sort of a buffoon would use Google to perform rigorous academic study on the nature of the universe?

Did I say you should use google to perform rigorous academic study.  No.  If you need to look up definitions for something.  Yes. 

How do you expect to convert anyone to believing the earth is flat is you dance around questions and give smart ass responses to people?   Don't bother answering cause I'm done.  Goodbye.