why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?

  • 12 Replies
  • 1566 Views
why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?
« on: December 21, 2013, 09:32:56 AM »
 rock is like concrete it cracks under tension, and in your model the earth is being put in tension. I would ask why don't valley and mountains erode in reverse.

let me put it this way


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

yes the earth on a whole is moving, put parts of it in the middle are static. with the inconsistent terrain, you will find multiple restraints and parts of the earth would want shear off, of simply crack.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 12:32:02 PM by Romrot »
No love lost, no love found

so gay I can barely say it with a straight face


Re: why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2013, 10:16:51 AM »
if it is just a sand dune, then it should behave as in your diagram. but if it's a mountain, then 9.8 ms is not enough to bring it down fast...




« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 10:35:24 AM by neutral22 »

Re: why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2013, 10:32:32 AM »
if it is just a sand dune, then it should behave as in your diagram. but if it's a mountain, then 9.8 ms is not enough to bring it down fast...

yes it is, erosion happens everywhere(even on mountains). F=adm the mass of earth is huge, so the force would be huge. do you know how much force it take to crack concrete in tension? in the video below it only took less than 200Kn, how much does the earth weigh? because it's weight would only work against in tension. Also why does the grand canyon not bubble up and crack?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

actually this is a better example here
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

imagine the grand canyon doing that but upwards.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 10:39:10 AM by Romrot »
No love lost, no love found

so gay I can barely say it with a straight face


Re: why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2013, 10:47:19 AM »
Hey, you make up all kinds of impressive-sounding grandiose phrases and expressions that are vague and not very precisely defined, so that no one can quite accuse you of being wrong. They can't even really argue with you because everything is so nebulous and intangible. It's like trying to bite fog.

Re: why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2013, 10:53:56 AM »
note too:
roman concrete is said to be 10 times weaker than portland concrete, yet it is supposedly standing 2000+ years with barely any signs of weakening - it's said to strengthen over time. therefore, i doubt a mountain made of pure homeogenous rock would be a problem to resist 9.8m/s. so, I just couldn't resist to continue making more straw man tangents...

so what, if portland cement is 10 times stronger but will be dust in 100 years, when something 10 times weaker will still be perfectly intact.

Re: why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2013, 10:59:00 AM »
note too:
roman concrete is said to be 10 times weaker than portland concrete, yet it is supposedly standing 2000+ years with barely any signs of weakening - it's said to strengthen over time. therefore, i doubt a mountain made of pure homeogenous rock would be a problem to resist 9.8m/s. so, I just couldn't resist to continue making more straw man tangents...

so what, if portland cement is 10 times stronger but will be dust in 100 years, when something 10 times weaker will still be perfectly intact.

its not about strength. Because rock of all kind cracks under tension. Ask any Civil or Mechanical engineer they will tell you (or I will cause I R 1) concrete(ie rock) cannot take tension. most concrete bridges are designed with arches under them, they have to so that when a load is put on them they actually go into compression. though its true some hills and valleys are arched, they are not perfect arches and therefore there will be some tension in them.
No love lost, no love found

so gay I can barely say it with a straight face


Re: why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2013, 11:07:35 AM »
Hey, you make up all kinds of impressive-sounding grandiose phrases and expressions that are vague and not very precisely defined, so that no one can quite accuse you of being wrong. They can't even really argue with you because everything is so nebulous and intangible. It's like trying to bite fog.

Hold up what am I saying that is hard to understand? That tension cracks concrete? what you don't know what tension is? Here is a picture for you.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I just assume people on here are so intelligent cause they know more than anyone else about how the world "really" works, so you would have already looked into simple math like calculus and you scoff at "Newtonian" physics, when a lot of your own "theories" are only based on hypotheses.

F=adm is force = acceleration multiplied by the mass differential. I would have thought all you super intelligent flat earthers who know more than the rest of the world, and you would already know what I was talking about. when mass is huge, so will the force be huge meaning the acceleration is irrelevant. As long as its above zero. but the force is not only enough to push the mass of the earth and equal it, it pushes and exceeds it.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 11:10:18 AM by Romrot »
No love lost, no love found

so gay I can barely say it with a straight face


Re: why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2013, 11:14:29 AM »
your top drawing isn't correct for gravity. gravity only points one way, because the ground beneath the test object would also be accelerating at same speed.- only 9.8m/s acceleration is hardly enough to bring down a solid rock foundation?

ALSO: isn't this going to be true regardless of flat or round? physics is physics no matter what!!

« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 11:22:44 AM by neutral22 »

Re: why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2013, 11:24:53 AM »
your top drawing isn't correct for gravity. gravity only points one way, because the earth beneath the test object would also be pressing at the same acceleration as the test object? and that is only 9.8m/s acceleration is hardly enough to bring down a solid rock foundation?

ALSO: isn't this going to be true regardless of flat or round? physics is physics no matter what!!

ok let me put it this way

flat earth


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

This in TENSION this is why we don't make trusses out of concrete the tension would break them, they'd fall apart.

Round earth


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

this is COMPRESSION

Concrete cannot take tension, however it is one of the best materials for compression. this is why many columns are made of concrete, because it puts it in compression.
No love lost, no love found

so gay I can barely say it with a straight face


Re: why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2013, 11:30:15 AM »
well if gravity assumes that acceleration towards the center or middle then wouldn't the under side of the disk also be accellerating towards the middle of the disk? in  "disk" or "flat" model the disk might be be very thick and cause gravity towards center too?

here too you could say that the earth is hollow, but if the earth was flat, then you could say the "hollow" is the opposite side of the face!

most drawings of flat earth show disk being accelerated by magic turtle drawing, so for that viewpoint it would be vector pointing only one way parallel. but wouldn't it make sense for flat earthers to think that both 2 sides are gravitationally pulling towards the middle.. then the flat earth would be more like a huge cylinder or maybe an oval...
« Last Edit: December 21, 2013, 11:34:04 AM by neutral22 »

Re: why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2013, 11:36:26 AM »
well if gravity assumes that acceleration towards the center or middle then wouldn't the under side of the disk also be accellerating towards the middle of the disk? in  "disk" or "flat" model the disk might be be very thick and cause gravity towards center too?

here too you could say that the earth is hollow, but if the earth was flat, then you could say the "hollow" is the opposite side of the face!

most drawings of flat earth show disk being accelerated by magic turtle drawing, so for that viewpoint it would be vector pointing only one way parallel. but wouldn't it make sense for flat earthers to think that both 2 sides are gravitationally pulling towards the middle.. then the flat earth would be more like a very elongated oval with ice walls :)

I think this is outside of your understanding here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics_of_materials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressive_stress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_stress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_(engineering)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensile_strength
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(engineering)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection_(engineering)

a start to very long journey, let the reading commence.

read or don't breed.
No love lost, no love found

so gay I can barely say it with a straight face


Re: why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2013, 11:50:46 AM »
I made a creative response, and you threw your hands in impatience.

These topics seems to be your specialization, not mine.

What you said made sense actually. I said that I don't see how flat versus round earth changes gravity. To this, you conceded by stating wiki links.

I gave you wiki links, because you'd have to buy a 120$ book to learn it otherwise

but maybe this image helps a little to understand what I saying about erosion, pin screens are a good example because they show in a large scale what is happening at the atomic.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us


No love lost, no love found

so gay I can barely say it with a straight face


*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37797
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: why don't valleys and mountains erode in reverse?
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2013, 10:31:32 PM »
Romrot, I am not sure what the arrows on your flat Earth picture are supposed to represent.  Take a look at mine.  Is this not compression?