What is below us?

Hi all,

Firstly, I would like to say that the flat earth theory is fascinating! My question is simply to better understand how others see the world. I believe it is very important for people to always question "why?" and to never stop challenging commonly excepted theories.

Secondly, a little about myself. I am finishing my Bachelor of Environmental Science in a few months. Depending on which view(s) you take.....some of you will either believe I have been well informed or ill-informed. This is up to the individual and I have no preference as this will always be subjective to the audience I am speaking to.

 
Now, to the question!

I see a lot of discussion around the sun, the moon, discrepancies in curvature calculations, plane travel routes etc. but this is not what I would like to ask about. Please keep this in mind when answering my questions because I would like to remain specifically on the geological theories of the flat Earth model.

It seems difficult to find much information on the functions of Earth's geological features (if indeed, the Earth is flat). For example, everything that has been taught about tectonic plate characteristics such as orogeny, convergence and divergence are based on the convection of molten rock within Earths inner core, which transfers hot rock towards the Lithosphere, then back down again as it cools.


From the flat Earth point of view.....is it considered a similar process? If not...how?

I have much more I would like to discuss on this but I just want to get the conversation started. Also, please lets keep this respectful!


 

From the flat Earth point of view.....is it considered a similar process? If not...how?

Sure. 
It can be a similar process.  There is nothing about the true form of the earth that would preclude a similar process. 

Next question? 

There were others, more qualified than you (Master in Geology) who thought they had a chance to prove anything.

Once they were confronted with the origin of granite paradox, the iron core paradox, their arguments were over, they had to accept defeat.

To truly understand just how little you know about geophysical sciences, here is the Dating Methods of the Past thread: Isotopes vs. Comets

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735

Hi and thank you both.

First of all I would like to say that there is no need to say "the chance to prove". I am not trying to prove anything, I am simply trying to better understand alternative views of the Earth.

I have one suggestion by Charming that it is more or less the same, and one opinion by Sand that Geology is not all true to begin with. Thank you for the information by the way Sand. I myself have reservations about carbon dating, but I was unable to find any information on tectonic plates. Please correct me if I missed something.

Let me clarify my position:

In a round Earth model...there is essentially no beginning or end to the Earths tectonic plate system. Think of it as a ball made up of material stitched together.

With a flat Earth model, we would have to consider that tectonic plates do indeed end (at the edges of the Earth). Therefor, we have to discount much information mainstream science has about the Geosphere and come up with a new solution which explains the world around us (activity of volcanoes, earthquakes, ocean ridges).

A new way of thinking is required to determined how these processes occur within a flat Earth. For example, where is the heat source for volcano's? What shape is it? Is there only one heat source as the Geosphere suggest...or are there many?

I would like to know more about the iron ore and granite paradox's you speak of Sand....could you supply me with some links for follow up?

Much appreciated!

 

There is no edge, the flat earth is an infinite plane.

A finite Earth within an Infinite plane. Has a nice ring to it!

I had a look on FE Wiki. Interestingly....it may be possible to explain current plate tectonics within a flat model. It is stated in the Wiki files that Antarctica is on its own continental plate (main stream science agrees on this point), with its edge (facing towards Earths land masses) being a giant subduction zone. This of course, would require the notion of an infinite plane to be accurate. It is also said in mainstream science that subduction zones do indeed exists around Antarctica's plate.

If you were to take a FE map and sketch out where plates currently are (remember, this would be based on observations of volcano's, earthquakes, ridges and mountains). You might make it fit, with the exception of turning Antarctica's continental plate into a large ring.

It is much more interesting to entertain the idea of being wrong....than it is to being right. That is, if I believe the Earth to be round....I remove bias while employing critical thinking by trying to investigate the exact opposite of what I believe.

This utilizes somewhat of a null hypothesis approach.

There is no edge, the flat earth is an infinite plane.

Really?
Infinite plane?
Just goes on and on?
Surely a flat 4 cornered Earth has a stopping point.

After some more thinking, perhaps it can be explained even without the notion of being finite. I also have my reservations on this and would preferably seek and alternative explanation.

FE wiki states that the wall of ice is fed by glaciers. Glaciers move large volumes of ice but they also take a lot of rock and debris with them (this is still a process that occurs and can be witnessed today). If the edges of the Earth span far off into the distance....perhaps there is enough rock and landmass to continually replenish the erosional processes of glaciers (at least for a very long time).

Why am I even mentioning glaciers? Well, if there is mass subduction occurring near the ice wall...then its tectonic plate will constantly be grinding away as the sea floor subduces beneath it. 

This means that there needs to be a balance between net loss of Antarctic plate rock and the deposition of eroded glacial rocks. *other wise the Earth could change size....which who knows, could be the case.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 19, 2016, 05:30:59 PM

There is no edge, the flat earth is an infinite plane.

Really?
Infinite plane?
Just goes on and on?
Surely a flat 4 cornered Earth has a stopping point.

Even the flat earthers who believe in the finite plane model still accept a round (in two dimensions) earth.

I don't think anyone prescribes to a square flat earth.

Maybe hoppy.

Quote from: Pangea on June 20, 2016, 12:10:13 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 19, 2016, 05:30:59 PM

There is no edge, the flat earth is an infinite plane.

Really?
Infinite plane?
Just goes on and on?
Surely a flat 4 cornered Earth has a stopping point.

Even the flat earthers who believe in the finite plane model still accept a round (in two dimensions) earth.

I don't think anyone prescribes to a square flat earth.

Maybe hoppy.

You never know! Some people think the earth is shaped like a doughnut. 

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on June 19, 2016, 05:30:59 PM

There is no edge, the flat earth is an infinite plane.

Really?
Infinite plane?
Just goes on and on?
Surely a flat 4 cornered Earth has a stopping point.

It goes on and on. This was known to many flat earthers over the years.

Flat Earth "map" has an edge... Your avatar has an edge. 

Which is it?

Are you honestly suggesting I should have an avatar of infinite dimensions?!

Are you honestly suggesting I should have an avatar of infinite dimensions?!

Maybe one that tries to depict your own model somewhat accurately, because right now it's a standard polar equidistant map, which doesn't fit at all. 

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2016, 12:15:10 PM

Are you honestly suggesting I should have an avatar of infinite dimensions?!

Maybe one that tries to depict your own model somewhat accurately, because right now it's a standard polar equidistant map, which doesn't fit at all.

Does a UN have a logo that depicts their model accurately?

Quote from: Blue_Moon on June 20, 2016, 03:28:11 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2016, 12:15:10 PM

Are you honestly suggesting I should have an avatar of infinite dimensions?!

Maybe one that tries to depict your own model somewhat accurately, because right now it's a standard polar equidistant map, which doesn't fit at all.

Does a UN have a logo that depicts their model accurately?

It has a logo that shows all the countries that are a part of it in a nice, visually appealing circle.  It doesn't even show Antarctica.  It's meant to look good; not be an accurate map, because we already have plenty of maps. 

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2016, 03:51:05 PM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on June 20, 2016, 03:28:11 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2016, 12:15:10 PM

Are you honestly suggesting I should have an avatar of infinite dimensions?!

Maybe one that tries to depict your own model somewhat accurately, because right now it's a standard polar equidistant map, which doesn't fit at all.

Does a UN have a logo that depicts their model accurately?

It has a logo that shows all the countries that are a part of it in a nice, visually appealing circle.  It doesn't even show Antarctica.  It's meant to look good; not be an accurate map, because we already have plenty of maps.

There, you have your answer. Ignoring this, this is the most commonly held model for the flat earth. As such, its an appropriate logo, don't you think?

Quote from: Blue_Moon on June 20, 2016, 04:05:51 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2016, 03:51:05 PM

Quote from: Blue_Moon on June 20, 2016, 03:28:11 PM

Quote from: John Davis on June 20, 2016, 12:15:10 PM

Are you honestly suggesting I should have an avatar of infinite dimensions?!

Maybe one that tries to depict your own model somewhat accurately, because right now it's a standard polar equidistant map, which doesn't fit at all.

Does a UN have a logo that depicts their model accurately?

It has a logo that shows all the countries that are a part of it in a nice, visually appealing circle.  It doesn't even show Antarctica.  It's meant to look good; not be an accurate map, because we already have plenty of maps.

There, you have your answer. Ignoring this, this is the most commonly held model for the flat earth. As such, its an appropriate logo, don't you think?

Now that I look at it, your pic doesn't have Antarctica either.  It stops at the same place the UN logo does.  Coincidence?

I saw the amount of replies and thought "wow, looks like a conversation has started!"

As you could imagine, I was somewhat disappointed to see the thread has turned into a debate about edges and logos.......

For the purpose of understanding "what is below us?", I gave 2 ways in which it could work...either way may allow of both a finite or infinite edge:

1. Infinite edge allows for constant replenishment for net loss of rock lost during glacial processes
2. A finite edge could also allow for this, provided the rock source was large enough that we could not see it running out in the foreseeable future


Please do not use this thread as a platform to argue or belittle others with opposing views.

I saw the amount of replies and thought "wow, looks like a conversation has started!"

As you could imagine, I was somewhat disappointed to see the thread has turned into a debate about edges and logos.......

For the purpose of understanding "what is below us?", I gave 2 ways in which it could work...either way may allow of both a finite or infinite edge:

1. Infinite edge allows for constant replenishment for net loss of rock lost during glacial processes
2. A finite edge could also allow for this, provided the rock source was large enough that we could not see it running out in the foreseeable future


Please do not use this thread as a platform to argue or belittle others with opposing views.

What do you mean by 'rock source'?
Where do rocks and mountains come from in your opinion?

My personal opinion is based on a sphere model. That is, Earths inner core creates a convection (hot rock rising, cold rock returning back to core). That is, no new sources are introduced....it is a constant recycling of old rock, into new rock through heat driven processes. Mountains are created through Orogeny (2 plates of similar strength crumpling as they are pushed together).

Of course there is more to this (again, in my opinion based on mainstream science) i.e. continental plates being made from Granite which is less Dense then oceanic crust (Basalt). Hence why we have ocean ridges and continental shelves.

The point of this is to try and develop a FE model, I cannot emphasize this point enough. This is were I entertain the idea of external rock sources....as this would be possible if the Earth was indeed flat and had sources of rocks we don't know about beyond "the wall". Another option would require somewhat of a pie crust idea, using a form of Diagenesis on a scale in which currently has not been discovered.

I threw this all into an OVERLY-SIMPLIFIED diagram.