I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.

  • 274 Replies
  • 51208 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #150 on: September 20, 2016, 04:16:28 PM »
You don't stand a chance with me here.

;D ;D All hail the King!  ;D ;D

Stop being such a puffed up, know-it-all prig!

Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #151 on: September 20, 2016, 05:23:01 PM »
I will GLADLY admit I like to line my pockets with money from the oilfield! The problem is the price of oil is too low right now, causing that lining in my pocket to be quite  thin.

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #152 on: September 21, 2016, 12:11:42 AM »
Someone's gotta take the oil money, right? (not me actually, I never found it that interesting)
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #153 on: September 21, 2016, 01:04:36 AM »
it depends which government

USA, UK etc, very corrupt

places like Iceland etc have very good governments

look at how Gaddafi ran his country, his people were well looked after, hence the world police (USA) going in and installing their own government

the media is the devil, they only show you things to get you 'on side'

Rothschild, Rockefeller etc if you don't know, research

the massive ice shelf at Antarctica is now named 'The Rockefeller Plateau'


the whole flat earth theory is a wild goose chase to put you off the mysteries of Antarctica..
re-upped under the pretense of a study about 'Andrea Barnes'


I've said it before and I'll say it again..
RESEARCH!!

There ARE mysteries in this world, there are people indoctrinating us daily, divide and conquer has always worked, why would they stop now

(sorry for the ramblings)

Gadaffi was a good government?  Are you serious? He killed his opponents and the country was poor despite oil.

Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #154 on: September 21, 2016, 01:52:08 AM »
it depends which government

USA, UK etc, very corrupt

places like Iceland etc have very good governments

look at how Gaddafi ran his country, his people were well looked after, hence the world police (USA) going in and installing their own government

the media is the devil, they only show you things to get you 'on side'

Rothschild, Rockefeller etc if you don't know, research

the massive ice shelf at Antarctica is now named 'The Rockefeller Plateau'


the whole flat earth theory is a wild goose chase to put you off the mysteries of Antarctica..
re-upped under the pretense of a study about 'Andrea Barnes'


I've said it before and I'll say it again..
RESEARCH!!

There ARE mysteries in this world, there are people indoctrinating us daily, divide and conquer has always worked, why would they stop now

(sorry for the ramblings)

Gadaffi was a good government?  Are you serious? He killed his opponents and the country was poor despite oil.

of course the media painted him to be the bad guy, to round up the support, remember that first video, of the school with all the burn victims? ask the locals who dropped it, they'll tell you it was the US, NOT Gadaffi

'The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.' - Malcolm X

here's a few from his time as leader:

1. There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.

2. There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.

3. Housing is considered a human right in Libya – Gaddafi vowed that his parents would not get a house until everyone in Libya had a home. Gaddafi’s father died while him, his wife and his mother were still living in a tent.

4. All newlyweds in Libya receive $60,000 Dinar (US$50,000) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.

5. Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. Today the figure is 83%.

6. Should Libyans want to take up farming careers, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipments, seeds and livestock to kick-start their farms – all for free.

7. If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only free, but they also get US$2,300/month for accommodation and car allowance.

8. If a Libyan buys a new car from Libya, the government subsidized 50% of the price.

9. The price of petrol in Libya is only $0.14 per liter.

10. Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – now frozen globally.

11. If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation, the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed, until employment is found.

12. A portion of Libyan oil sale is credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.

13. A mother who gives birth to a child receives US$5,000 ;

14. 40 loaves of bread in Libya costs only $0.15 ;

15. 25% of Libyans have a University degree;

16. Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country. The water is free of charge.


The list goes on, but I think I've made my point, stop getting your information from Israeli ran Media ;)

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #155 on: September 21, 2016, 02:30:27 AM »
To add to the above:

Really look into who the US supports around the world.  Who gets money and weapons.

US tax dollars have supported and continues to support some really horrible people and groups.
The reason being those groups and people are willing to make deals like disband unions.

I bit tired may add a list of who US tax dollars supported later.


Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #156 on: September 21, 2016, 02:35:57 AM »
I certainly don't pay any tax, I'm in the UK..

as far as I'm aware, it's still illegal to fund terrorism in the UK, and my tax goes to the government

in turn, my money is MY money, if they want it, they can come and try to take it, I'm not paying anyone for my right to live on the planet, it's as much my planet as it is theirs

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #157 on: September 21, 2016, 02:43:53 AM »
I certainly don't pay any tax, I'm in the UK..

as far as I'm aware, it's still illegal to fund terrorism in the UK, and my tax goes to the government

in turn, my money is MY money, if they want it, they can come and try to take it, I'm not paying anyone for my right to live on the planet, it's as much my planet as it is theirs

It really irks me that my tax dollars go to support these groups.  Then to listen to the US politicians saying how evil this or that group is as they make sure another group doing the same shit gets money, weapons and training.

I really wish more US citizens paid attention to stuff happening outside the US.

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #158 on: September 21, 2016, 02:49:50 AM »
Since I'm now bored, I'll take a crack at sandokhan's great wall of China text.

You don't stand a chance with me here.
Come at me bro.

Quote
You haven't even done your homework on seismic waves.
Who are you, my professor?

Quote
The discontinuities of the seismic waves assumed by modern science to occur at the crust mantle boundary are actually a network of huge caverns and large underground bodies of water and that they would match perfectly the seismic data.
You have got to be kidding me. Those caverns would never survive the pressure at that depth. There also is zero geological evidence for it, while we have plenty of mantle rocks on the surface. Even old crust-mantle boundary.

Quote
Great masses of water are interpreted as molten rock.
There actually isn't that much molten rock in the earth. There is a lot of water down there but it's incorporated in mineral structures or in the pores of rocks.

Quote
Seismic waves travel faster north-south than east-west for a full four seconds.
You mention no distance, so I'm going to assume it's all the way; let's not forget that the earth is not a perfect sphere; north to south is actually less distance than "east to west".

Quote
A powerful challenge to this model is posed by seismic tomography, which shows that the oldest parts of the continents have deep roots extending to depths of 400 to 600 km, and that the asthenosphere is essentially absent beneath them.
Bullshit. 200km: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/23/3/205.abstract
200-300km: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n10/full/ngeo2525.html?message-global=remove
150km: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation41.html
300km: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.526.3932&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Quote
Seismic research shows that even under the oceans there is no continuous asthenosphere, only disconnected asthenospheric lenses.
Source?

Quote
Continents are about as mobile as a brick in a wall!
Whoever wrote this, whether it was you or someone you copied, is clueless about the timescale on which geological processes take place. Plates move with 1 to 10 cm per year and this has been verified by GPS.

Quote
The plate-tectonic hypothesis that the present oceans have formed by seafloor spreading since the early Mesozoic (within the last 200 million years) is also becoming increasingly implausible. Numerous far older continental rocks have been discovered in the oceans, along with 'anomalous' crustal types intermediate between standard 'continental' and 'oceanic' crust (e.g. plateaus, ridges, and rises), and the evidence for large (now submerged) continental landmasses in the present oceans continues to mount.
Ocean formation isn't always as simple as just pulling apart a continent. There are definitely a few anomalies in the oceanic crust, possibly remnants from an old continent. This can happen if you don't cut a continent clean in half but some parts end up in the rift zone. Besides, you can literally see ocean spreading happening. And then date it back with both rock dating and magnetic reversals in the oceanic crust.

Quote
Blah blah seismics are hard and have been misinterpreted in the past
Which is why it's important to drill to depth so we can test hypotheses on how to interpret seismics. Make mistakes, learn from them, move on.
Your whole argument here is that because some errors were made over 20 years ago, the entire field is now worthless. And your argument is worthless.

Quote
Either the seismic interpretation or the model of layer 3's composition must be wrong
Since we found entire sections of ophiolite on the surface, I'm going with another learning opportunity for seismics.

Quote
*ramblings on seismics* In other words, their arguments are circular.
In other words, it's a best-fit model and working theory and we have yet to improve it, if possible.

Quote
Overall, rock porosity and pressure increased with depth, while density decreased, and seismic velocities showed no distinct trend.
First of all, the crust is strongly heterogeneous. "but at 4.5 km the drill encountered a sudden decrease in density" from earlier in your ramblings, they found one occasion of finding a lower density with depth and you conclude that therefore, the whole world must have a decreasing density with depth. Nice try.

Quote
Pari Spolter casts doubt on this model:
Pari Spolter can suck it.

Quote
There is no accurate way currently known of estimating the density distribution from seismic data alone.
Actually I know someone who's working on that. Besides, we have more than just seismic data. We have data from meteorites which show the exact progression from core to mantle that we expect from the earth. Iron meteorites have a composition similar to what we expect from the core; stony meteorites have that of the mantle. Stony iron meteorites are a combination of the two, also known as pallasites, look them up because they are gorgeous. Oh right another reason why the universe is really freaking old, iron meteorites often show Widmanstätten patterns which can only have originated through super slow cooling, we're talking millions of years here.

Quote
Except for the ocean and the crust, direct measurements of the density of the inner layers of the earth are not available.
False. Once again, meteorites are an approximation, and we have plenty of mantle material to work with.

Quote
This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the law of sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for some 4.5 billion years. When it was first formed, the earth was in a molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest density of matter should have migrated to the outer layers.
If this rotation was more powerful than gravity, earth would never have accreted in the first place. Nice try.

Quote
One exception is E.A. Skobelin, who draws the logical conclusion that since deep-focus earthquakes cannot originate in plastic material but must be linked to some kind of stress in solid rock, the solid, rigid lithosphere must extend to depths of up to 700 km.
Nope. The mantle is actually not homogeneous, as tomographics already tell us, but are being invaded (woo spooky!) by subducting slabs, which stall at around 600km (gee I wonder why, maybe because of a density change in the mantle?). Go read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadati%E2%80%93Benioff_zone

Quote
This undermines the hypothesis that such quakes are caused by olivine within the 'cold' centre of a slab suddenly being transformed into spinel in a runaway reaction when the temperature rises above 600°C.
No it doesn't undermine it. Where would you get that idea?

Quote
I have given you plenty of examples which do show that this composition is very different than what was assumed to be true.
Actually just two, without source, and of an extremely heterogeneous crust, which is already what we expected. Nothing new here, move along.

Quote
SINCE THE EARTH'S INTERIOR STRUCTURE IS MARKEDLY DIFFERENT THAN WAS ASSUMED
Nooooooope.

Nope.

Nope nope nope.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #159 on: September 21, 2016, 11:38:04 AM »
You still don't get it.

No wonder you came up with these catastrophic references, all of which FAIL to address the faint young sun paradox, the comets' tails paradox, the dating by isotopes paradoxes.

Site #1

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/23/3/205.abstract

We divided old continents into two age provinces: 800–1700 Ma (Middle Proterozoic) and older than 1700 Ma (Archean and Early Proterozoic).

Site #2

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n10/full/ngeo2525.html?message-global=remove

Stable continental cratons are the oldest geologic features on the planet. They have survived 3.8 to 2.5 billion years of Earth’s evolution.

Site #3

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation41.html

In the geologic time scale, the oldest eon is called the Archean, with an assigned age of 2.5 billion years ago and older.

Site #4

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.526.3932&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The Superior Province of the Canadian Shield, the world’s largest region of Archean (actually 3.0–2.7 Ga) rocks...


The basic assumptions/hypotheses stated by the authors you quoted are CATASTROPHICALLY WRONG.

Here are the best proofs that the dating methods used in these papers couldn't be more erroneous.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.msg1823324#msg1823324


Let me remind you of a very basic fact of astrophysics:

When passing close to the sun, comets emit tails. It is assumed that the material of the tail does not return to the comet's head but is dispersed in space; consequently, the comets as luminous bodies must have a limited life. If Halley's comet has pursued its present orbit since late pre-Cambrian times, it must "have grown and lost eight million tails, which seems improbable." If comets are wasted, their number in the solar system must permanently diminish, and no comet of short period could have preserved its tail since geological times.

But as there are many luminous comets of short period, they must have been produced or acquired at some time when other members of the system, the planets and the satellites, were already in their places.

(from Worlds in Collision)


The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.



PAGE 107: Halley's comet, for example, could not exist as a comet for more than 120 revolutions.

120 x 75 = 9000 years


Collapsing Tests of Time:

http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm

A total debunking of the papers you quoted.


If we add to this the Faint Young Sun Paradox, totally unsolved to this present day, your understanding of geology falls apart.


You have TOTALLY FAILED to address the main points of my message.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.


Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.


According to the relevant equations, the velocity of seismic waves will become slower, the denser the rocks through which they pass, if the rocks' elastic properties change in the same proportion as density. Since seismic waves accelerate with depth, this would imply that density decreases. However, scientists are convinced that the density of the rocks composing the earth's interior increases with depth. To get round this problem, they simply assume that the elastic properties change at a rate that more than compensates for the increase in density. As one textbook puts it:

Since the density of the Earth increases with depth you would expect the waves to slow down with increasing depth. Why, then, do both P- and S-waves speed up as they go deeper? This can only happen because the incompressibility and rigidity of the Earth increase faster with depth than density increases.

Thus geophysicists simply adjust the values for rigidity and incompressibility to fit in with their preconceptions regarding density and velocity distribution within the earth! In other words, their arguments are circular.

Drilling results at the Kola borehole revealed significant heterogeneity in rock composition and density, seismic velocities, and other properties. Overall, rock porosity and pressure increased with depth, while density decreased, and seismic velocities showed no distinct trend. In the Oberpfälz pilot hole, too, density and seismic velocity showed no distinct trend with increasing depth. Many scientists believe that at greater depths, the presumed increase in pressures and temperatures will lead to greater homogeneity and that reality will approximate more closely to current models. But this is no more than a declaration of faith.

We have data from meteorites which show the exact progression from core to mantle that we expect from the earth.

You can't use anything relating to meteorites since then I will invoke the Comets' Tails Paradox; any argument you might raise will be debunked in less than 30 seconds.


If this rotation was more powerful than gravity, earth would never have accreted in the first place.

You haven't done your homework on accretion, have you?

Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit’s research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another. Think about it a minute; don’t those facts make sense?

This point is so important (for it devastates the origin of stars theory) that *Harwit’s research should be mentioned in more detail:

*Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved Series (which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).


As I said, you came here totally unprepared: you should be giving alms and prayers for actually having the chance to learn the missing 90% of basic geology/astrophysics that is lacking from your curriculum.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #160 on: September 21, 2016, 11:47:56 AM »
A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #161 on: September 21, 2016, 01:47:22 PM »
You keep hanging on to those few paradoxes; the fact that they're a paradox means that at least one statement in each paradox is wrong or missing. Not which one it is that's wrong or missing. You say it's proof that the earth is way younger than it actually is; I say something else in your statements is wrong. For example for your comets it would mean that perhaps there's a mechanism of tail regrowth, or else, the age of the solar system does not have to be less than the oldest comet. Honestly you're a poor scientist if you go in biased to assume one specific statement is wrong without checking the others properly or seeing if you missed anything.

Quote
Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.
This is complete bullshit, read up on the geoid.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #162 on: September 21, 2016, 02:34:41 PM »
Sandhokhan, make sure you add "/*" before you start typing, and "*/" after you are done.

I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #163 on: September 21, 2016, 04:07:11 PM »
Haha, this is great! I do enjoy watching sandokhan's endless bullcrap get smacked down. Also, I have learned a lot about rocks! Win win.

Kudos RockDude.

Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #164 on: September 21, 2016, 06:22:11 PM »
You still don't get it.

No wonder you came up with these catastrophic references, all of which FAIL to address the faint young sun paradox, the comets' tails paradox, the dating by isotopes paradoxes.

Site #1

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/23/3/205.abstract

We divided old continents into two age provinces: 800–1700 Ma (Middle Proterozoic) and older than 1700 Ma (Archean and Early Proterozoic).

Site #2

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n10/full/ngeo2525.html?message-global=remove

Stable continental cratons are the oldest geologic features on the planet. They have survived 3.8 to 2.5 billion years of Earth’s evolution.

Site #3

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation41.html

In the geologic time scale, the oldest eon is called the Archean, with an assigned age of 2.5 billion years ago and older.

Site #4

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.526.3932&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The Superior Province of the Canadian Shield, the world’s largest region of Archean (actually 3.0–2.7 Ga) rocks...


The basic assumptions/hypotheses stated by the authors you quoted are CATASTROPHICALLY WRONG.

Here are the best proofs that the dating methods used in these papers couldn't be more erroneous.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.msg1823324#msg1823324


Let me remind you of a very basic fact of astrophysics:

When passing close to the sun, comets emit tails. It is assumed that the material of the tail does not return to the comet's head but is dispersed in space; consequently, the comets as luminous bodies must have a limited life. If Halley's comet has pursued its present orbit since late pre-Cambrian times, it must "have grown and lost eight million tails, which seems improbable." If comets are wasted, their number in the solar system must permanently diminish, and no comet of short period could have preserved its tail since geological times.

But as there are many luminous comets of short period, they must have been produced or acquired at some time when other members of the system, the planets and the satellites, were already in their places.

(from Worlds in Collision)


The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.



PAGE 107: Halley's comet, for example, could not exist as a comet for more than 120 revolutions.

120 x 75 = 9000 years


Collapsing Tests of Time:

http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm

A total debunking of the papers you quoted.


If we add to this the Faint Young Sun Paradox, totally unsolved to this present day, your understanding of geology falls apart.


You have TOTALLY FAILED to address the main points of my message.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.


Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.


According to the relevant equations, the velocity of seismic waves will become slower, the denser the rocks through which they pass, if the rocks' elastic properties change in the same proportion as density. Since seismic waves accelerate with depth, this would imply that density decreases. However, scientists are convinced that the density of the rocks composing the earth's interior increases with depth. To get round this problem, they simply assume that the elastic properties change at a rate that more than compensates for the increase in density. As one textbook puts it:

Since the density of the Earth increases with depth you would expect the waves to slow down with increasing depth. Why, then, do both P- and S-waves speed up as they go deeper? This can only happen because the incompressibility and rigidity of the Earth increase faster with depth than density increases.

Thus geophysicists simply adjust the values for rigidity and incompressibility to fit in with their preconceptions regarding density and velocity distribution within the earth! In other words, their arguments are circular.

Drilling results at the Kola borehole revealed significant heterogeneity in rock composition and density, seismic velocities, and other properties. Overall, rock porosity and pressure increased with depth, while density decreased, and seismic velocities showed no distinct trend. In the Oberpfälz pilot hole, too, density and seismic velocity showed no distinct trend with increasing depth. Many scientists believe that at greater depths, the presumed increase in pressures and temperatures will lead to greater homogeneity and that reality will approximate more closely to current models. But this is no more than a declaration of faith.

We have data from meteorites which show the exact progression from core to mantle that we expect from the earth.

You can't use anything relating to meteorites since then I will invoke the Comets' Tails Paradox; any argument you might raise will be debunked in less than 30 seconds.


If this rotation was more powerful than gravity, earth would never have accreted in the first place.

You haven't done your homework on accretion, have you?

Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit’s research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another. Think about it a minute; don’t those facts make sense?

This point is so important (for it devastates the origin of stars theory) that *Harwit’s research should be mentioned in more detail:

*Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved Series (which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).


As I said, you came here totally unprepared: you should be giving alms and prayers for actually having the chance to learn the missing 90% of basic geology/astrophysics that is lacking from your curriculum.

it really is funny how provided these irrefutable facts so the globers just have to avoid it all and name call.......

Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #165 on: September 21, 2016, 09:32:25 PM »
You haven't actually read any of it. So please don't artificially increase the length of pages by quoting that mess.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #166 on: September 21, 2016, 09:42:08 PM »
You haven't actually read any of it. So please don't artificially increase the length of pages by quoting that mess.

i have.......

Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #167 on: September 21, 2016, 09:43:13 PM »
Oh! Then please explain how magma fits into your model, since you claim rocks burn.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16332
  • Djinn
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #168 on: September 21, 2016, 09:48:54 PM »
You haven't actually read any of it. So please don't artificially increase the length of pages by quoting that mess.

i have.......

Aha! That's how we know you're lying. Not even sandokhan reads his own posts.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #169 on: September 21, 2016, 11:25:18 PM »
For example for your comets it would mean that perhaps there's a mechanism of tail regrowth, or else, the age of the solar system does not have to be less than the oldest comet.

There is no mechanism of tail regrowth for the comets: that is why the dispersion of material from a comet's tail constitutes the very best dating method, unsurpassed by any other.


The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets: this is a very basic fact of astrophysics.

If you do not agree with your own scientists, then write to your local university about this, and wait for a response.

Comets are supposed to be as old as the age of the solar system itself, you should know that by now.


The official theory of paleogeology is totally contradicted by the proofs which come from genetics and molecular biology.

"Robert Wesson (Beyond Natural Selection): "By Mayr's calculation, in a rapidly evolving line an organ may enlarge about 1 to 10 percent per million years, but organs of the whale-in-becoming must have grown ten times more rapidly over 10 million years. Perhaps 300 generations are required for a gene substitution. Moreover, mutations need to occur many times, even with considerable advantage, in order to have a good chance of becoming fixed.
Considering the length of whale generations, the rarity with which the needed mutations are likely to appear, and the multitude of mutations needed to convert a land mammal into a whale, it is easy to conclude that gradualist natural selection of random variations cannot account for this animal" (p. 52). Wesson’s book is a catalogue of biological improbabilities—-from bats' hypersophisticated echolocation system to the electric organs of fish—and of the gaping holes in the fossil record.

"By what devices the genes direct the formation of patterns of neurons that constitute innate behavioral patterns is entirely enigmatic. Yet not only do animals respond appropriately to manifold needs; they often do so in ways that would seem to require something like forethought" (p. 68). R. Wesson adds: "An instinct of any complexity, linking a sequence of perceptions and actions, must involve a very large number of connections within the brain or principal ganglia of the animal. If it is comparable to a computer program, it must have the equivalent of thousands of lines. In such a program, not merely would chance of improvement by accidental change be tiny at best. It is problematic how the program can be maintained without degradation over a long period despite the occurrence from time to time of errors by replication" (p. 81).


Antoine Tremolilre (La vie plus tetue que les etoiles): "We know that more than 90% of the changes affecting a letter in a word of the genetic message lead to disastrous results; proteins are no longer synthesized correctly, the message loses its entire meaning and this leads purely and simply to the cell’s death. Given that mutations are so frequently highly unfavourable, and even deadly, how can beneficial evolution be attained?" (p. 43).


M. Frank-Kamenetskii (Unraveling DNA): "It is clear, therefore, that you need a drastic refitting of the whole of your machine to make the car into a plane. The same is true for a protein. In trying to turn one enzyme into another, point mutations alone would not do the trick. What you need is a substantial change in the amino acid sequence. In this situation, rather than being helpful, selection is a major hindrance. One could think, for instance, that by consistently changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually prove possible to change the entire sequence substantially and thus the enzyme's spatial structure. These minor changes, however, are bound to result eventually in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but it has not yet begun its 'new duties.' It is at this point that it will be destroyed—together with the organism carrying it" (p. 76).

In the early 1980s, researchers discovered that certain RNA molecules, called "ribozymes," could cut themselves up and stick themselves back together again, acting as their own catalysts. This led to the following speculation: If RNA is also an enzyme, it could perhaps replicate itself without the help of proteins. Scientists went on to formulate the theory of the "RNA world," according to which the first organisms were RNA molecules that learned to synthesize proteins, facilitating their replication, and that surrounded themselves with lipids to form a cellular membrane; these RNA-based organisms then evolved into organisms with a genetic memory made of DNA, which is more stable chemically. However, this theory is not only irrefutable, it leaves many questions unsolved. Thus, to make RNA, one must have nucleotides, and for the moment, no one has ever seen nucleotides take shape by chance and line up to form RNA. As microbiologist James Shapiro writes, the "experiments conducted up until now have shown no tendency for a plausible prebiotic soup to build bricks of RNA. One would have liked to discover ribozymes capable of doing so, but this has not been the case. And even if one were to discover any, this would still not resolve the fundamental question: where did the first RNA molecule come from?". He adds: "After ten years of relentless research, the most common and remarkable property of ribozymes has been found to be the capacity to demolish other molecules of nucleic acid. It is difficult to imagine a less adapted activity than that in a prebiotic soup where the first colony of RNA would have had to struggle to make their home".


The contents of this famous soup are problematic. In 1952. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did an experiment that was to become famous; they bombarded a test tube containing water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane with electricity, supposedly imitating the atmosphere of the primitive earth with its permanent lightning storms; after a week, they had produced 2 of the 20 amino acids that nature uses in the construction of proteins. This experiment was long cited as proof that life could emerge from an inorganic soup. However, in the 1980s, geologists realized that an atmosphere of methane and ammoniac would rapidly have been destroyed by sunlight and that our planet’s primitive atmosphere most probably contained nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and traces of hydrogen. When one bombards the latter with electricity, one does not obtain biomolecules. So the prebiotic soup is increasingly considered to be a "myth".

Microbiologist James Shapiro writes: "In fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject—evolution—with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."

During the 1980s, it became possible to determine the exact sequence of amino acids in given proteins. This revealed a new level of complexity in living beings. A single nicotinic receptor, forming a highly specific lock coupled to an equally selective channel, is made of five juxtaposed protein chains that contain a total of 2,500 amino acids lined up in the right order. Despite the improbability of the chance emergence of such a structure, even nematodes, which are among the most simple multicellular invertebrates, have nicotinic receptors.

Confronted by this kind of complexity, some researchers no longer content themselves with the usual explanation. Robert Wesson writes in his book Beyond natural selection: "No simple theory can cope with the enormous complexity revealed by modern genetics."
Other researchers have pointed out the improbability of the mechanism that is supposed to be the source of variation — namely, the accumulation of errors in the genetic text. It seems obvious that "a message would quickly lose all meaning if its contents changed continuously in an anarchic fashion." How, then, could such a process lead to the prodigies of the natural world, of which we are a part?


Another fundamental problem contradicts the theory of chance-driven natural selection.
According to the theory, species should evolve slowly and gradually, since evolution is caused by the accumulation and selection of random errors in the genetic text. However, the fossil record reveals a completely different scenario. J. Madeleine Nash writes in her review of recent research in paleontology: "Until about 600 million years ago, there were no organisms more complex than bacteria, multicelled algae and single-celled plankton.... Then, 543 million years ago, in the early Cambrian, within the span of no more than 10 million years, creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom.

Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geological time all around the world.
Throughout the fossil record, species seem to appear suddenly, fully formed and equipped with all sorts of specialized organs, then remain stable for millions of years. For instance, there is no intermediate form between the terrestrial ancestor of the whale and the first fossils of this marine mammal. Like their current descendants, the latter have nostrils situated atop their heads, a modified respiratory system, new organs like a dorsal fin, and nipples surrounded by a cap to keep out seawater and equipped with a pump for underwater suckling. The whale represents the rule, rather than the exception. According to biologist Ernst Mayr, an authority on the matter of evolution, there is "no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty."


In the middle of the 1990s, biologists sequenced the first complete genomes of free-living organisms. So far, the smallest known bacterial genome contains 580,000 DNA letters. This is an enormous amount of information, comparable to the contents of a small telephone directory. When one considers that bacteria are the smallest units of life as we know it, it becomes even more difficult to understand how the first bacterium could have taken form spontaneously in a lifeless, chemical soup. How can a small telephone directory of information emerge from random processes?
The genomes of more complex organisms are even more daunting in size. Baker’s yeast is a unicellular organism that contains 12 million DNA letters; the genome of nematodes, which are rather simple multicellular organisms, contains 100 million DNA letters. Mouse genomes, like human genomes, contain approximately 3 billion DNA letters."

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #170 on: September 22, 2016, 01:00:19 AM »
snip
Will you stop with the endless posts?

Okay so let's assume the solar system's age must be less than the estimated upper age of comets. You say that Halley's comet's age is the estimated upper age of comets, and that therefore the earth must be younger. I say you're insane and that not all comets are as old as the solar system.

Quote
If you do not agree with your own scientists
Scientists disagreeing with one another is very common actually, they resolve it by doing more proper research until one team emerges victorious.

Quote
blah blah fossils
You probably included another illogical assumption or conclusion in there, or blatant misinformation but I gotta get back to work now.


Haha, this is great! I do enjoy watching sandokhan's endless bullcrap get smacked down. Also, I have learned a lot about rocks! Win win.

Kudos RockDude.
I aim to please! If you look closely you see he moves on to a new subject every time, he'll run out of shit to post soon.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #171 on: September 22, 2016, 01:39:50 AM »
Nasa website

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast20oct98_1

They say that Halley's comet "was formed in the primordial Solar Nebula at about the same time as the sun."


Solar nebula origin for volatile gases in Halley's comet

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Icar...85..380E


Scientists believe Halley's and other comets and the sun formed at about the same time in the early solar nebula.

https://www.reference.com/science/halley-s-comet-made-69b094997d542ddc


Solar system formation

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/distance/exploring/course/strobel/solarsys/solsysd.htm

Comets are primitive objects which means they are unchanged since they first solidified from the solar nebula about 4.6 billion years ago. Comets are frozen relics of the early solar system holding valuable information about the formation of the planets.



But Halley's comet could not possibly have orbited the solar system for more than 9,000 years.



PAGE 107: Halley's comet, for example, could not exist as a comet for more than 120 revolutions.

120 x 75 = 9000 years


The usual explanation for the Saturnian and Jovian families of comets is that they had originally traveled on extremely elongated or even parabolic orbits and, passing close to one of the large planets, were changed into short-period comets, traveling on ellipses—it is usual to say that they were “captured.” However, the Russian astronomer K. Vshekhsviatsky of the Kiev Observatory, one of the leading authorities on comets, has brought strong arguments to show that the comets of the solar system are very youthful bodies—only a few thousand years old—and that they originated in explosions from the planets, especially from the major planets Saturn and Jupiter or their moons. By comparing the observed luminosity of the periodic comets on their subsequent returns, he found it failing and their masses rapidly diminishing by loss of matter to the space through which they travel; the head of the comet emits tails on each passage close to the sun and then dissipates the matter of the tails without recovery. Thus Vshekhsviatsky concluded that comets of short duration originated in the solar system, were not captured from outside of that system—a point to which the majority of astronomers still adhere—and that they came into existence by explosion from Jupiter and Saturn, and to a smaller extent by explosion from the smaller planets, like Venus and Mars.


Dr. D. Russell Humphreys:

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.


Dr. Danny Faulkner:

The standard model of a comet is one in which all of the material observed is released by an icy nucleus only a few kilometres across. This model strongly suggests that comets are very fragile, losing much of their material during each close pass to the Sun. Most comets follow orbits that take them vast distances from the Sun. If a comet’s orbit takes it too far from the Sun, then the comet could easily be captured by the gravitational attraction of other stars and thus would be lost to the Solar System. This places a maximum distance from the Sun that a comet may orbit. If this maximum distance can be estimated, Kepler's third law of planetary motion can be used to deduce the greatest possible orbital period that a comet may possess (about 11 million years). When combined with an estimate of how many trips around the Sun that a comet can survive, we can estimate the maximum age of comets. This figure is far less than the adopted 4.6 Ga age of the Solar System. Because no source of creation for comets has been identified, comets are assumed to be primordial. If this is true, then the age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.


Comet Halley, as well as other comets, may have only been orbiting in its present orbit for only a few thousand years. While the planets follow nearly circular orbits, comets follow very elliptical orbits. This causes them to cross the orbits of most of the planets, and result in a very real possibility of passing close to one or more planets eventually. Such a pass may cause a gravitational interaction (called a perturbation) that changes the orbit of a comet. This is particularly true of Jupiter, which has more mass than all of the other planets combined. Perturbations can cause huge changes in a comet’s orbit. A good example was Comet Shoemaker-Levi, which collided with Jupiter in the summer of 1994. The collision was caused by a near miss of Jupiter which the comet had experienced about two years earlier that had placed the comet in a radically different and doomed orbit.

It is believed that periodic comets like Halley’s Comet once followed a much larger, more elliptical orbit. Chance encounters with Jupiter, and to a lesser extent the other planets, have changed its orbit to the present one. If this is true, Comet Halley may have been in its current orbit for as little as 3,000 years.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #172 on: September 22, 2016, 02:15:45 AM »
I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.

When did the Earth's spin axis become tilted at an angle of approximately 23.5 degrees?

Modern astronomy is eager to tell us that it was the collision with Theia, with the debris gathered around the Earth to form the early Moon.


That is, no other collision with Earth has taken place since.


But then we have a huge problem.

Because there are ample geological and documentary proofs that the Earth, in the heliocentrical setting, did undergo a collision some thousands of years ago, in the age of modern man.

How did the Earth manage to regain its orbital speed?


One day, in 1849, a certain archaeologist made an important discovery at Nineveh.

Once these tablets were brought to England, they wished they had never found them in the first place.


And that is because the Ammizaduga Venus tables show that the orbit followed by Venus in the past was markedly different from that observed in the present.


http://www.skepticfiles.org/neocat/ammi.htm

Charles Ginenthal (Sagan and Velikovsky) has a great deal to
say about the Ammizaduga tablets, pp 281 - 284, quoting Livio C.
Stecchini's "The Velikovsky Affair":

     "The Venus tablets of Ammizaduga is the most striking document
     of early Babylonian astronomy.  These tablets, of which we
     possess several copies of different origin, report the dates
     of the helical rising and setting of the planet Venus during
     a period of 21 years...

     "Since the first effort at explanation of Archibald Henry
     Sayce in 1874, these figures have challenged the wit of a
     score of experts of astronomy and cuneiform philology.
     (Father Franz Xavier) Kugler (1862 - 1929), a recognized major
     authority on Babylonian and biblical astronomy, chronology and
     mythology, opposed the contention of those who claim that
     these documents must be dismissed as nonsense."  [because they
     do not conform to present orbital patterns for Venus]

 "Let me give some typical passages from the tablet:

 
     "In the month of Sivan, on the twenty fifth day, Ninsianna
     [that is, Venus] disappeared in the east; she remained absent
     from the sky for two months, six days; in the month Ulul on
     the 24'th day, Ninsianna appeared in the West - the heart of
     the land is happy. In the month Nisan on the 27'th day,
     Ninsianna disappeared in the West; she remained absent from
     the sky for seven days; in the month Ayar on the third day,
     Ninsianna appeared in the east - hostilities occur in the
     land, the harvest of the land is successful.


     "The first invisibility mentioned in these lines involves a
     disappearance in the east, an invisibility of two months, six
     days, and a reappearance in the west.  This seems to be a
     superior conjunction. The second invisibility involves a
     disappearance in the west, an invisibility of seven days, and
     a reappearance in the east.  This seems to be an inferior
     conjunction.  Most of the data in groups one and three on the
     tablet are of this form.  But the lengths and spacings of
     these invisibilities have a certain irregularity about them,
     and they do not conform to the manner in which Venus moves at
     present.

     "The data given in the second group on the tablet do have
     regularity - even too much regularity to be believable, - but
     they do not conform to the present state of affairs
     either.....


'How explain these observations of the ancient astronomers, modern astronomers and historians have asked. Were they written in a conditional form ("If Venus disappeared on the 11th of Sivan . . .") ? No, they were expressed categorically.
The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months.

The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months. "The invisibility of Venus at superior conjunction is given as 5 months 16 days instead of the correct difference of 2 months 6 days," noted the translators of the text, wonderingly."


If the tables are true, then both the attractive law of gravity AND Kepler's third law of motion are completely wrong; if they have been falsified, then we have another extraordinary proof of how the "ancient" history has been forged, confirming the findings of Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110720184710/http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html



In Jaiminiya-Upanisad-Brahmana it is written that the center of the sky, or the point around which the firmament revolves, is in the Great Bear.

Hindu astronomical tablets composed by the Brahmans in the first half of the first millennium before the present era show a uniform deviation from the expected position of the stars at the time the observations were made (the precession of the equinoxes being taken into consideration). Modern scholars wondered at this, in their opinion inexplicable, error. In view of the geometrical methods employed by Hindu astronomy and its detailed method of calculation, a mistake in observation equal to even a fraction of a degree would be difficult to account for.

Could it be that the precession of equinoxes shifted the direction of the axis so that, three or four thousand years ago, the polar star was among the stars of the Great Bear?  No. If the earth moved all the time as it moves now, four thousand years ago the star nearest the North Pole must have been a-Draconis. The change was sudden; the Great Bear "came bowing down." In the Hindu sources it is said that the earth receded from its wonted place by 100 yojanas,10 a yojana being five to nine miles. Thus the displacement was estimated at from 500 to 900 miles. The origin of the polar star is told in many traditions all over the world. The Hindus of the Vedas worshiped the polar star, Dhrura, "the fixed" or "immovable." In the Puranas it is narrated how Dhrura became the polar star. The Lapps venerate the polar star and believe that if it should leave its place, the earth would be destroyed in a great conflagration.


The length of the longest day in a year depends on the latitude, or the distance from the pole, and is different at different places. Gnomons or sundials can be built with great precision. The Babylonian astronomical tablets of the eighth century provide exact data, according to which the longest day at Babylon was equal to 14 hours 24 minutes, whereas the modern determination is 14 hours 10 minutes and 54 seconds. "The difference between the two figures is too great to be attributable to refraction, which makes the sun still visible over the horizon after it has set. Thus, the greater length of the day corresponds to latitude 34° 57', and points to a place 2/2° further to the north; we stand therefore before a strange riddle [vor einem merkwiirdigen Ratsel]. One tries to decide: either the tablets of System II do not originate from Babylon [though referring to Babylon], or this city actually was situated far [farther] to the north, about 35° away from the equator."


Claudius Ptolemy, who, in his Almagest, made computation for contemporaneous and ancient Babylon, arrived at two different estimates of the longest day at that city, and consequently of the latitude at which it was located, one of his estimates being practically of the present-day value, the other coinciding with the figure of the ancient Babylonian tables, 14 hours 24 minutes. The Arabian medieval scholar Arzachel computed from ancient codices that in more ancient times Babylon was situated at a latitude of 35° 0' from the equator, while in later times it was situated more to the south. Johannes Kepler drew attention to this calculation of Arzachel and to the fact that between ancient and modern Babylon there was a difference in latitude. Thus Ptolemy, and likewise Arzachel, computed that in historical times Babylon was situated at latitude 35°. Modern scholars arrived at identical results on the basis of ancient Babylonian computations. "This much, therefore, is certain: our tables [System II, and I also], and the astronomers mentioned as well, point to a place about 35° north latitude. Is it possible that they were mistaken by 2° to 2M°? This is scarcely believable."


Why did the glaciers of the Ice Age cover the greater part of North America and Europe, while the north of Asia remained free? In America the plateau of ice stretched up to latitude 40° and even passed across this line; in Europe it reached latitude 50°; while northeastern Siberia, above the polar circle, even above latitude 75°, was not covered with this perennial ice.

If we look at the distribution of the ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere, we see that a circle, with its center somewhere near the east shore of Greenland or in the strait between Greenland and Baffin Land near the present north magnetic pole, and a radius of about 3,600 kilometers, embraces the region of the ice sheet of the last glacial age. Northeastern Siberia is outside the circle; the valley of the Missouri down to 39° north latitude is within the circle. The eastern part of Alaska is included, but not its western part. Northwestern Europe is well within the circle; some distance behind the Ural Mountains, the line curves toward the north and crosses the present polar circle. Now we reflect: Was not the North Pole at some time in the past 20° or more distant from the point it now occupies—and closer to America? In like manner, the old South Pole would have been roughly the same 20° from the present pole.

Billions of tons of ice would have fallen on the polar regions, flash-freezing everything in little more than an instant.
 
This, at last, would explain the mystery of the mammoths found frozen where they stood. The mammoth, contrary to belief, was not a cold region animal, but one which lived in temperate grasslands.
 
Somehow those temperate regions were frozen in a moment. Some mammoths have been found frozen in the middle of eating! There you are munching away and the next thing you know you’re an ice lolly. If this ionized ice did rain down, the biggest build up would have been nearest to the magnetic poles because they would have had the most powerful attraction. Again, that is the case. The ice mass in the polar regions is greater at the poles than at the periphery and yet there is less snow and rain at the poles to create such a build up.


It is proposed that the carefully documented proofs of the catastrophe actually describe the end of the last Ice Age, which occurred some 3.500 years ago (and not 5.200 years ago) - [official chronology, of course; in the new radical chronology, the last Ice Age ended around 1740 AD, exactly the period discovered by Christopher Pfister, the great Swiss historian: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg998158#msg998158 ]


http://www.immanuelvelikovsky.com/mammoth.pdf (THE EXTINCTION OF THE MAMMOTH) PAGES 382, 389-390

"The sudden extermination of mammoths was caused by a catastrophe
and probably resulted from asphyxiation or electrocution. The immediately
subsequent movement of the Siberian continent into the polar region is probably
responsible for the preservation of the corpses.

"It appears that the mammoths, along with other animals, were killed by
a tempest of gases accompanied by a spontaneous lack of oxygen caused by fires
raging high in the atmosphere. A few instances later their dying or dead bodies
were moving into the polar circle. In a few hours northeastern America moved
from the frigid zone of the polar circle into a moderate zone; northeastern Siberia
moved in the opposite direction from a moderate zone to the polar circle. The
present cold climate of northern Siberia started when the glacial age in Europe
and America came to a sudden end."

http://asis.com/users/stag/starchiv/transcriptions/ST110Velikovsky.html (exceptionally documented)

The sudden shift in the direction of the axis of Earth would have meant a slowing down of the velocity of the diurnal rotation of the Earth, and there would have no way for the Earth to regain the same velocity of the diurnal rotation as before, after Venus departed to a different orbit.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140221011512/http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_2.htm (superb documentation)


Ovid, Metamorphoses (transl. F. J. Miller), Book II:

"The chariot of the sun, driven by Phaethon, moved "no longer in the same
course as before." The horses "break loose from their course" and "rush aimlessly, knocking against the stars set deep in the sky and snatching the chariot along through uncharted ways."
The constellations of the cold Bears tried to plunge into the forbidden sea, and the sun's chariot roamed through unknown regions of the air. It was "borne along just as a ship driven before the headlong blast, whose pilot has let the useless rudder go and abandoned the ship to the gods and prayers."

"The earth bursts into flame, the highest parts first, and splits into deep cracks, and its moisture is all dried up. The meadows are burned to white ashes; the trees are consumed, green leaves and all, and the ripe grain furnishes fuel for its own destruction. . . . Great cities perish with their walls, and the vast conflagration reduces whole nations to ashes."

"The woods are ablaze with the mountains. . . . Aetna is blazing boundlessly . . . and twin-peaked Parnassus. . . . Nor does its chilling clime save Scythia; Caucasus burns . . . and the heaven-piercing Alps and cloud-capped Apennines."
The scorched clouds belched forth smoke. Phaethon sees the earth aflame. "He can no longer bear the ashes and whirling sparks, and is completely shrouded in the dense, hot smoke. In this pitchy darkness he cannot tell where he is or whither he is going." "It was then, as men think, that the peoples of Aethiopia became black-skinned, since the blood was drawn to the surface of their bodies by the heat."
"Then also Libya became a desert, for the heat dried up her moisture. . . . The Don's waters steam; Babylonian Euphrates burns; the Ganges, Phasis, Danube, Alpheus boil; Spercheos' banks are aflame. The golden sands of Tagus melt in the intense heat, and the swans . . . are scorched. .

. . The Nile fled in terror to the ends of the earth . . . the seven mouths lie empty, filled with dust; seven broad channels, all without a stream. The same mischance dries up the Thracian rivers, Hebrus and Strymon; also the rivers of the west, the Rhine, Rhone, Po and the Tiber. . . . Great cracks yawn everywhere. . . . Even the sea shrinks up, and what was but now a great watery expanse is a dry plain of sand. The mountains, which the deep sea had covered before, spring forth, and increase the numbers of the scattered Cyclades."


A well-known student of S. Freud and roommate of A. Einstein at Princeton had the following comments:

How could the poet have known that a change in the movement of the sun across the firmament must cause a world conflagration, blazing of volcanoes, boiling of rivers, disappearance of seas, birth of deserts, emergence of islands, if the sun never changed its harmonious journey from sunrise to sunset?

How the Roman poet Ovid could have known of the relation between the interrupted movement of the sun and a world fire unless such a catastrophe had really occurred?


Adam Maloof (Princeton) and Lonnie Thompson (Ohio State University) confirm that a stupendous catastrophy occurred some 5200 years ago:


http://web.archive.org/web/20131216205151/http://www.mayanendoftheworldplanetx.com/Pages/videostudio.html

Princeton University geoscientist, Adam Maloof investigates 2012 Maya prognostications, in response to the many queries he has received concerning the possibility of an upcoming geographical poleshift. Dr. Maloof's specialities include paleogeography, the study of continental plate transmigrations. In these National Geographic video clips, he travels from the frigid Arctic to the scorching outbacks of Australia to the dense forrest of Central America, to investigate geologic evidence and traditions of any pass geographic poleshift.

His research revealed not one but two important discoveries; one poleshift transpired slowly over a million years( posing no threat to life on earth) while the other happened abruptly some 5200 years ago(approximately the end of the Maya's last Great Cycle, when the last "world" ended.) Perhaps a coincidence, but it was enough for Dr. Maloof to pursue and study the ancient Maya legacy in greater depth. A journey that would take him from Dresden Germany, home of the famous Dresden Codex (one of four codices that survived the Inquisition) to the ancient ruins of Chi'chen Itza.

To understand how these ancient people with such remarkable mathematical and astronomical skills, were inclined to prognosticate the future with such conviction. Their obsession with cycles and climate change, their beliefs that all major cycles began and ended with global destruction.

With the aid of notable Paleoclimatologist, Lonnie Thompson from Ohio State University, they venture to the summit of the Quelccaya ice caps of the Peruvian Andes at sixteen thousand feet, to unlock secrets trapped in the glaciers for over five thousands years. While continents apart, from ice core samples at Mt. Kilimanjaro, Africa to "Otzi The Iceman" from the Austrian Alps, all corroborate a global disaster at the end of the last Long Count cycle and provide possible insight on what may happen at the end of this current Great Cycle.

Full video can be seen in the National Geographic 2012 The Final Prophecy documentary.

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #173 on: September 22, 2016, 02:34:31 AM »
Quote
But Halley's comet could not possibly have orbited the solar system for more than 9,000 years.
You don't see the flaw in your logic, do you? You have one piece of potential evidence that Halley's comet is not as old as people think it is, so all the other thousand pieces of evidence on how old the solar system and by extension also Halley's comet, are wrong? That's not how science works. Ever heard of crater counting as a method of dating planets, moons and certain areas on those? I quote: "The method is based upon the assumptions that a new surface forms with zero impact craters, and that impact craters accumulate at some constant rate." Yet another piece of evidence that rips your wall of text to shreds. You can quote all the sceptic websites that you want but that does not make you right.

Quote
When did the Earth's spin axis become tilted at an angle of approximately 23.5 degrees?

Modern astronomy is eager to tell us that it was the collision with Theia, with the debris gathered around the Earth to form the early Moon.


That is, no other collision with Earth has taken place since.
No other collision anywhere near the size of Theia, hence not of significance for the tilt angle.


Why do people on this website always swear by ancient knowledge? I don't get it. If modern scientists find 100 pieces of evidence for something, and an ancient tablet or book or cave painting states something else, then everyone clames that the modern scientists are wrong. Seriously? This is not just about your Venus jibberjabber, but about pretty much everything. "Ancient civilizations thought the earth was flat so the earth must be flat." That's your best argument? Useless.

Quote
Blah blah mammoths
This is the most far-fetched theory I have ever seen. Did you ever wonder why the theories you spread around have never actually been published in scientific journals (at least recently)? It's cause they're insane and no one accepts them. Besides, the magnetic north pole is all over the place:


Quote
How could the poet have known that a change in the movement of the sun across the firmament must cause a world conflagration, blazing of volcanoes, boiling of rivers, disappearance of seas, birth of deserts, emergence of islands, if the sun never changed its harmonious journey from sunrise to sunset?

How the Roman poet Ovid could have known of the relation between the interrupted movement of the sun and a world fire unless such a catastrophe had really occurred?
Well we can theorize at most, asking the poor dead guy is kind of tricky. I'd stick with; he tried to explain a volcanic eruption, or has a good sense of fantasy.


Quote
one poleshift transpired slowly over a million years( posing no threat to life on earth) while the other happened abruptly some 5200 years ago(approximately the end of the Maya's last Great Cycle, when the last "world" ended.)
Do you mean polar wander or geomagnetic reversal?

Quote
Perhaps a coincidence
There's the magic word. Correlation =/= causation.

I wonder why I still bother, there's probably an endless supply of pseudo-scientific websites and news articles.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #174 on: September 22, 2016, 02:52:08 AM »
 "The method is based upon the assumptions that a new surface forms with zero impact craters, and that impact craters accumulate at some constant rate."

Brilliant.

In fact, those craters could not have possibly accumulated at some constant rate, since by their very definition, cosmic collisions include highly nonlinear factors, the rate at which craters might have occurred during the collision itself, the intensity, the fact that an earlier collision might have produced far fewer craters than a later, more powerful cataclysm, and so on.


The proofs that Halley's comet could not possibly have orbited the solar system for more than 9,000 years are based on its FUNDAMENTAL geological/thermodynamical features: dispersion of material + luminosity.

And the basic calculations DEFY and DESTROY what modern astrophysics, and implicitly paleogeology, has to say on the subject.


Magnetism is not a subject you want to get into a debate with me, since this is what I have in store for you:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332


The paleomagnetic dating of the artefacts found at Pompeii and Herculaneum indicate that they belong to the 17TH century AD:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683846#msg1683846

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1685184#msg1685184

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1690028#msg1690028
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 02:53:48 AM by sandokhan »

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #175 on: September 22, 2016, 03:02:09 AM »
Before you spew around your far fetched theories and probably already debunked pseudoscience, I have a challenge for you. Give it your best shot to try to debunk it yourself. Don't just use your fancy pseudoscience websites as source, but do actual research. It'll save me a shitload of time and if you do a good job you'll realise how silly it is of you to believe all the stuff you've posted, most of which is so easy to debunk, I'm surprised you didn't do it yourself. Science is not based on a belief, it is based on progression. You're standing still, holding on to your scraps of mediocre sceptics opinions. Let it go.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #176 on: September 22, 2016, 05:17:50 AM »
Before you spew around your far fetched theories and probably already debunked pseudoscience, I have a challenge for you. Give it your best shot to try to debunk it yourself. Don't just use your fancy pseudoscience websites as source, but do actual research. It'll save me a shitload of time and if you do a good job you'll realise how silly it is of you to believe all the stuff you've posted, most of which is so easy to debunk, I'm surprised you didn't do it yourself. Science is not based on a belief, it is based on progression. You're standing still, holding on to your scraps of mediocre sceptics opinions. Let it go.

stop projecting.....

Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #177 on: September 22, 2016, 07:38:34 AM »
Well, he can't.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #178 on: September 22, 2016, 11:12:12 AM »
Question: What causes meteors? c; (I think you know where I'm going with this).

Re: I have a degree in Earth Sciences, ask me anything.
« Reply #179 on: September 22, 2016, 11:14:09 AM »
Question: What causes meteors? c; (I think you know where I'm going with this).

they are rocks they break off of fire creatures that simple.....