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

You're a poor troll, go bother your parents or something.

You're a poor troll, go bother your parents or something.

Why are you so concerned with his financial stability?  Are you a stalker? 

I'm always concerned by the low amount of jobs in trolling. It's a serious problem. So many trolls, so little money. Honestly if the career prospects in trolling were better, I might've gone for a degree in that field instead.

Quote from: RocksEverywhere on September 25, 2016, 10:51:32 AM

You're a poor troll, go bother your parents or something.

Why are you so concerned with his financial stability?  Are you a stalker?

ba boom tish

I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, 2 + 2 = ?

Thanks! I'm going over this old thread and finally found something I can get right!


See I'm a edicated injuneer!

ou please.. take some lessons in mineralogy and/or geology before you write just absolute bullshit about granite!
I cant even begin to critizes.. the whole section about granite is just wrong!
1. granite is not a very unique rock. it is a topic name for a group of rocks! there are alot of different granite rocks and to distinguish them is actually pretty hard!
2. a lot of granites are not in light color!
3. if it has Hornblende in it.. its a granodiorite!
4.of course granite can have cracks.. they usualy have huge ones!
5. of course granite doesnt contain fossiles.. its a plutonic rock and it forms some 10 to 100 miles below ground!!
6. the whole section about rhyolite its just bullshit! and if you melt anykind of rock and harden it again it will always be different than the first rock!! absolute bullshit are you taking here..
7. and ofcourse granite has solidified from molten magma.. thats exactly why you see all the different minerals in there!
8. granite is not the bedrock shell of the whole planet.. whatever that is!!
9. and seriously what the fuck does granite rock has to do with evolution theory.. I really tried to make this connection but this is just bullshit..
10. do you even geology? no seriously.. this is just one big bullshit that is not observed like that on the planet!

ORIGIN OF GRANITE:

Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.

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

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.

Quote from: AYellowCat on September 23, 2016, 12:45:55 PM

Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist on September 23, 2016, 11:17:56 AM

Quote from: RocksEverywhere on September 23, 2016, 10:57:39 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 23, 2016, 09:20:09 AM

Quote from: Woody on September 22, 2016, 06:16:36 PM

Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?

I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.

You have summoned me.

Talking purely plate tectonics, with the plates moving around, driven by the creation of new oceanic crust at spreading ridge, and subduction, I see no issue with a flat earth. In fact, schematic drawings of these systems are usually done with a "flat" earth, as the curvature has no significant effect on these processes. I.e.:



One thing, however, is a slight issue and that would be the border of the flat earth. There are no recorded "fixed" points of crust and this means that plates would be able to slip off the edge. BRB writing a new Hollywood disaster movie. Should I let Australia slip off the edge? Get rid of all those nasty spiders.

Anyway, I guess in the geographical model of the flat earth, Antarctica would be assumed to be fixed anyway (its actually semi stable atm, moving only 1 cm per year toward the Atlantic Ocean) and then it would be a non issue.

PS. For the globers among us who get excited from curvature:



PPS. Today I learned there's a Shetland Plate and a Sandwich Plate (LOL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Plate#/media/File:AntarcticPlate.png

there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

How about you learn your facts?

i know my facts all you know is lies.......

Right, we live on an INFINITE plane. Explain how that could be even remotely feasible.

9. and seriously what the fuck does granite rock has to do with evolution theory.. I really tried to make this connection but this is just bullshit..

 At least some paleologists seem to see a connection between granite and the evolution of complex life.

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-critical-role-granite-evolution-life.html

*/


Somebody tell me.if you get the joke.

The joke. The anagram joke. Can someone explain the current theory on it?

Seriously, explain the joke. I shall not google it to inform myself you bunch of shills.

What is an anagram of whatever that word was?

What would you estimate the long term (1000 year) effect to be on a parcel of land that was once prime agricultural and was turned into an open cut coal mine, and subsequently 'rehabilitated' ? (I'll clarify that qu at the end)

I work in open cut coal mining in a tech/support field, we work regularly with the 'geotechs'. They care more about slump, dykes and overburden heights etc etc to answer my inane questions.

Clarification : I guess that when I see prime agricultural land have the top soil cleared, the next 30-70mt drilled, pumped full of anfo, detonated, removed and then the coal stripped out I try consider that in terms of millenia at a minimum. it took at least 6 😅 of those pesky millenia to get the earth here in the first place.

The rehabilitation appears to amount to shoving the freshly exploded rock into the old hole you have finished with - in any particular order - then find whatever top soil you can and placing approx 3mt of it on top. ensure gradient is to spec, throw down 40 trees per ha and some grass seed.

The qu :

Could you please try and explain the long term effects on this parcel of land, directly compared/referenced to how it originally/naturally was in the areas of :

-long term geo 'stabililty'
-long term effect on the ability for that land to perform as the fertile grasslands it was (Bowen Basin QLD Australia)
-long term effect on water tables
-expected long term effect on native flora and fauna returning?

(please dont infer any political or idealogical beliefs here. I am super inquisitive and I feel these questions are relative regardless of your particular swagger.... i.e. please read as neutral, sciencish questions, not meant to be edgy to anybodies sensibilties)

Thankyou in advance if you take the time. I hope the question isn't too vague to answer

for the record my assumption is 500+ years after rehab it would be +/-5% compared to the original (except, of course, the missing coal) but prior to that it would be an absolute clusterfuck.

It doesn't work like '5% different' but thats just me trying to give you a better idea of what I'm wondering about

I spent a stupid amount of time on a colliery spoil heap during my first degree for my dissertation, and one of the subjects it covered was land reclamation.

Colonisation of raw colliery spoil can be fairly rapid, but it isn't by what you'd call agriculturally desirable species, and it can take a few decades for the highly acid spoil and compacted environment to be ameliorated by an accumulation of organic matter. Once you get plants in you get in things that eat the plants then things that eat the things that eat the plants and so on and so on.

The main issue with recovery is what kind of effort you put into the top soil and the surface topography. Things that make even out the particle size distribution and make it less acid are good, pile enough fertiliser on, then get the slope grades right so they water doesn't just run straight off and erode it all away and make sure the drainage is right and you can get recovery pretty quickly. All depends on how much money you want to spend.

Can somebody inform our friend of what is about to happen to him?
You are actually challenging me on geology, astrophysics, physics, paleoastronomy, chronological dating, and much more?


Impressive! So what actually are your credentials in;
Geology
Astrophysics
Physics
Paleoastronomy
chronological dating

And of course ...much much more!

You are of course master of the cut and paste...but come on let's hear about your academic record.

By the way I thought you would suit pink.

I spent a stupid amount of time on a colliery spoil heap during my first degree for my dissertation, and one of the subjects it covered was land reclamation.

Colonisation of raw colliery spoil can be fairly rapid, but it isn't by what you'd call agriculturally desirable species, and it can take a few decades for the highly acid spoil and compacted environment to be ameliorated by an accumulation of organic matter. Once you get plants in you get in things that eat the plants then things that eat the things that eat the plants and so on and so on.

The main issue with recovery is what kind of effort you put into the top soil and the surface topography. Things that make even out the particle size distribution and make it less acid are good, pile enough fertiliser on, then get the slope grades right so they water doesn't just run straight off and erode it all away and make sure the drainage is right and you can get recovery pretty quickly. All depends on how much money you want to spend.

Thanks for your time.

Ok, with that info in mind and somewhat accepted (I feel you are a reasonably trustworthy source, but you could be a SHILL XD nah seriously I haven't checked you or info but will tentatively accept this blindly atm) what about the stabilty/structure from say 'RL -50mt' up to 'RL -3mt'?

Does the shattering and willy-nilly (nimbly-pimpbly XD) redistribution of rock affect long term 'geo stabilty' (like foundation stability) of the area.... and does the shattering, mixing and redistribution affect the ability for the top soil to perform in that area as it historically did?

(also, love to hear Rocks answer so I have another educated answer/opinion/not-sure-what-to-call-it-to-not-offend)

While I don't have any degree in that field, I don't think it would affect the ability of the topsoil.

The topsoil is primarily just a bunch of dead life and nutrients sitting on top of rock or clay or other soil.
It doesn't really matter what is below it unless it is leaching something toxic out.

The only potential issue I could see is problems with drainage where water flows into the crushed up rock depleting the topsoil of its nutrients.

I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, 2 + 2 = ?

I have an Electrical Engineering Degree, so I know that 10.000000000 x 10.000000000 = 99.999999999.
If I worked in Computer Science, I would ask, "What base is that?"
If I were a checkout assistant, I would say, "Wait till I get my calculator."

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on September 25, 2016, 10:40:27 AM

I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, 2 + 2 = ?

I have an Electrical Engineering Degree, so I know that 10.000000000 x 10.000000000 = 99.999999999.
If I worked in Computer Science, I would ask, "What base is that?"
If I were a checkout assistant, I would say, "Wait till I get my calculator."

99.96 = 100.00 too. I have a degree in Australian. Ask any aussie. 99.96 averages out to 100, 60% of the time, everytime XD

While I don't have any degree in that field, I don't think it would affect the ability of the topsoil.

The topsoil is primarily just a bunch of dead life and nutrients sitting on top of rock or clay or other soil.
It doesn't really matter what is below it unless it is leaching something toxic out.

The only potential issue I could see is problems with drainage where water flows into the crushed up rock depleting the topsoil of its nutrients.

Likely a reasonable outcome. A large part of me assumes the same.

I guess that some part of me seeing the highwalls* makes me want to attach some superstitious significance to that precise structure. Thinking as though altering it will become 'chaos theory' for lack of a better description.

I'm about to fuck up here, sorry geotech terminology is not my strongsuit. When I see two sheets of rock 30mt down run into one another, and one goes over, one goes under the other...... detonating that and shoving it back on top any old how must create more than just a dramatic long term change in drainage charateristics? Even just rearranging the rock from 70mt down to just under topsoil must create drastic change?

It may not be logical or rational. I have just attached value to that structure it doesn't deserve perhaps.

Interesting the pace at which the top soil 'turns itself over' - that I did not expect.

*50-70mt approx 'cutaway' where you can see every layer of earth layed down over eons in fine detail.




I could google this, but I struggle not to be frustrated with inadequate answers to similar questions if I can find any. I must be too lazy to pour over literature I won't properly understand for hours to answer for myself : )

edit : gramer

What would you estimate the long term (1000 year) effect to be on a parcel of land that was once prime agricultural and was turned into an open cut coal mine, and subsequently 'rehabilitated' ? (I'll clarify that qu at the end)

I work in open cut coal mining in a tech/support field, we work regularly with the 'geotechs'. They care more about slump, dykes and overburden heights etc etc to answer my inane questions.

Clarification : I guess that when I see prime agricultural land have the top soil cleared, the next 30-70mt drilled, pumped full of anfo, detonated, removed and then the coal stripped out I try consider that in terms of millenia at a minimum. it took at least 6 😅 of those pesky millenia to get the earth here in the first place.

The rehabilitation appears to amount to shoving the freshly exploded rock into the old hole you have finished with - in any particular order - then find whatever top soil you can and placing approx 3mt of it on top. ensure gradient is to spec, throw down 40 trees per ha and some grass seed.

The qu :

Could you please try and explain the long term effects on this parcel of land, directly compared/referenced to how it originally/naturally was in the areas of :

-long term geo 'stabililty'
-long term effect on the ability for that land to perform as the fertile grasslands it was (Bowen Basin QLD Australia)
-long term effect on water tables
-expected long term effect on native flora and fauna returning?

(please dont infer any political or idealogical beliefs here. I am super inquisitive and I feel these questions are relative regardless of your particular swagger.... i.e. please read as neutral, sciencish questions, not meant to be edgy to anybodies sensibilties)

Thankyou in advance if you take the time. I hope the question isn't too vague to answer

Well this certainly is not the kind of answer I would have expected on a flat earth forum, and in all honesty, this (soils, flora/fauna) is not my expertise, so I'll mostly be making educated guesses.

-long term geo 'stabililty'

I guess you meant this: "Does the shattering and willy-nilly (nimbly-pimpbly XD) redistribution of rock affect long term 'geo stabilty' (like foundation stability) of the area.... and does the shattering, mixing and redistribution affect the ability for the top soil to perform in that area as it historically did?"

After the gravel/crushed rock or however that is done, is placed, it probably still can compact a bit further. Don't expect this to be a hazardous event, but just something that occurs slowly, over a long time. In the end you may end up with a slight depression in the landscape (assuming it's initially filled to the brim). But yeah, this also depends on: grain size distribution, shape, if they actually try to make it compact, material used (I'm guessing it's mostly sandstones, quartz is really resistant stuff).

-long term effect on the ability for that land to perform as the fertile grasslands it was (Bowen Basin QLD Australia)

onebigmonkey covered this pretty well. It really depends in the effort you put in it. If you just dump gravel or pulverized rock or whatever in a pit, it will take a very long time, but it's possible to try to restore the top soil to a certain level.

-long term effect on water tables

I'd say that this really depends on the scale that we are talking about. What kind of surface area and depth are we talking about? The local geology is also very relevant.

-expected long term effect on native flora and fauna returning?

Long term, no issue. Nature is good at restoring stuff, it ususally just takes a lot of time.
In the end, it really depends on how much effort is put into reclaiming the mining site.



I figured I'd add some stuff to read:

http://cornerstonemag.net/case-studies-of-successfully-reclaimed-mining-sites/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation

Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist on September 23, 2016, 08:00:55 PM

Quote from: AYellowCat on September 23, 2016, 12:45:55 PM

Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist on September 23, 2016, 11:17:56 AM

Quote from: RocksEverywhere on September 23, 2016, 10:57:39 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 23, 2016, 09:20:09 AM

Quote from: Woody on September 22, 2016, 06:16:36 PM

Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?

I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.

You have summoned me.

Talking purely plate tectonics, with the plates moving around, driven by the creation of new oceanic crust at spreading ridge, and subduction, I see no issue with a flat earth. In fact, schematic drawings of these systems are usually done with a "flat" earth, as the curvature has no significant effect on these processes. I.e.:



One thing, however, is a slight issue and that would be the border of the flat earth. There are no recorded "fixed" points of crust and this means that plates would be able to slip off the edge. BRB writing a new Hollywood disaster movie. Should I let Australia slip off the edge? Get rid of all those nasty spiders.

Anyway, I guess in the geographical model of the flat earth, Antarctica would be assumed to be fixed anyway (its actually semi stable atm, moving only 1 cm per year toward the Atlantic Ocean) and then it would be a non issue.

PS. For the globers among us who get excited from curvature:



PPS. Today I learned there's a Shetland Plate and a Sandwich Plate (LOL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Plate#/media/File:AntarcticPlate.png

there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

How about you learn your facts?

i know my facts all you know is lies.......

Right, we live on an INFINITE plane. Explain how that could be even remotely feasible.

So if we life on a infitnat plane why do i say earth are round 

Quote from: bolts on January 07, 2017, 09:05:04 AM

What would you estimate the long term (1000 year) effect to be on a parcel of land that was once prime agricultural and was turned into an open cut coal mine, and subsequently 'rehabilitated' ? (I'll clarify that qu at the end)

I work in open cut coal mining in a tech/support field, we work regularly with the 'geotechs'. They care more about slump, dykes and overburden heights etc etc to answer my inane questions.

Clarification : I guess that when I see prime agricultural land have the top soil cleared, the next 30-70mt drilled, pumped full of anfo, detonated, removed and then the coal stripped out I try consider that in terms of millenia at a minimum. it took at least 6  of those pesky millenia to get the earth here in the first place.

The rehabilitation appears to amount to shoving the freshly exploded rock into the old hole you have finished with - in any particular order - then find whatever top soil you can and placing approx 3mt of it on top. ensure gradient is to spec, throw down 40 trees per ha and some grass seed.

The qu :

Could you please try and explain the long term effects on this parcel of land, directly compared/referenced to how it originally/naturally was in the areas of :

-long term geo 'stabililty'
-long term effect on the ability for that land to perform as the fertile grasslands it was (Bowen Basin QLD Australia)
-long term effect on water tables
-expected long term effect on native flora and fauna returning?

(please dont infer any political or idealogical beliefs here. I am super inquisitive and I feel these questions are relative regardless of your particular swagger.... i.e. please read as neutral, sciencish questions, not meant to be edgy to anybodies sensibilties)

Thankyou in advance if you take the time. I hope the question isn't too vague to answer

Well this certainly is not the kind of answer I would have expected on a flat earth forum, and in all honesty, this (soils, flora/fauna) is not my expertise, so I'll mostly be making educated guesses.

-long term geo 'stabililty'

I guess you meant this: "Does the shattering and willy-nilly (nimbly-pimpbly XD) redistribution of rock affect long term 'geo stabilty' (like foundation stability) of the area.... and does the shattering, mixing and redistribution affect the ability for the top soil to perform in that area as it historically did?"

After the gravel/crushed rock or however that is done, is placed, it probably still can compact a bit further. Don't expect this to be a hazardous event, but just something that occurs slowly, over a long time. In the end you may end up with a slight depression in the landscape (assuming it's initially filled to the brim). But yeah, this also depends on: grain size distribution, shape, if they actually try to make it compact, material used (I'm guessing it's mostly sandstones, quartz is really resistant stuff).

-long term effect on the ability for that land to perform as the fertile grasslands it was (Bowen Basin QLD Australia)

onebigmonkey covered this pretty well. It really depends in the effort you put in it. If you just dump gravel or pulverized rock or whatever in a pit, it will take a very long time, but it's possible to try to restore the top soil to a certain level.

-long term effect on water tables

I'd say that this really depends on the scale that we are talking about. What kind of surface area and depth are we talking about? The local geology is also very relevant.

-expected long term effect on native flora and fauna returning?

Long term, no issue. Nature is good at restoring stuff, it ususally just takes a lot of time.
In the end, it really depends on how much effort is put into reclaiming the mining site.



I figured I'd add some stuff to read:

http://cornerstonemag.net/case-studies-of-successfully-reclaimed-mining-sites/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation

Thanks to all! The answers have sorted me out XD

I'm pretty confident that I was placing some made up 'superstition' on how important the structure of the top 100mt of the Earth is. Thinking that re-arranging that would be detrimental to most natural procceses.

Kinda like trying to put a car back together after a 100kmhr crash and expecting it to perform to >95% of original would be nearly impossible was my train of thought.

Thanks for straightening me out and giving me a bit more to follow on from guys.

And yeah, weird qu for a FE forum. Something I have queried in the past an been unhappy with the answer... saw my chance so I took a shot. Also you did a AMA and from what I seen nobody engaged you realistically, I wasn't going to waste the chance.

Hey RocksEverywhere, colleague, thanks for sharing some good points. I did a similar thing when I came here, a year ago.

Will search for the topic and share it here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65123.0 - I addressed geological impossibilities of the FE idea here, also climate and trigonometry/apparent size. Has some geology in it.

Also curious to see what you as fellow Earth scientist think about this  thread:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65140.0

Quote from: Penguins_Are_Evil on January 05, 2017, 07:16:04 AM

Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist on September 23, 2016, 08:00:55 PM

Quote from: AYellowCat on September 23, 2016, 12:45:55 PM

Quote from: Flat Earth Scientist on September 23, 2016, 11:17:56 AM

Quote from: RocksEverywhere on September 23, 2016, 10:57:39 AM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 23, 2016, 09:20:09 AM

Quote from: Woody on September 22, 2016, 06:16:36 PM

Could tectonic plates shift or drift on a flat plane?

I would love it if RocksEverywhere thought about this and gave his honest opinion.

You have summoned me.

Talking purely plate tectonics, with the plates moving around, driven by the creation of new oceanic crust at spreading ridge, and subduction, I see no issue with a flat earth. In fact, schematic drawings of these systems are usually done with a "flat" earth, as the curvature has no significant effect on these processes. I.e.:



One thing, however, is a slight issue and that would be the border of the flat earth. There are no recorded "fixed" points of crust and this means that plates would be able to slip off the edge. BRB writing a new Hollywood disaster movie. Should I let Australia slip off the edge? Get rid of all those nasty spiders.

Anyway, I guess in the geographical model of the flat earth, Antarctica would be assumed to be fixed anyway (its actually semi stable atm, moving only 1 cm per year toward the Atlantic Ocean) and then it would be a non issue.

PS. For the globers among us who get excited from curvature:



PPS. Today I learned there's a Shetland Plate and a Sandwich Plate (LOL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Plate#/media/File:AntarcticPlate.png

there is no edge we live on a flat infinite plane learn your facts......

How about you learn your facts?

i know my facts all you know is lies.......

Right, we live on an INFINITE plane. Explain how that could be even remotely feasible.

So if we life on a infitnat plane why do i say earth are round 

because you are an idiot.

Try this for "logical effect": you are starting off from the wrong premises.



if it can block out the moon, it can block out other stars..

Ask yourself a more important question: why doesn't the Black Sun block out any other heavenly body, with the exception of the Sun?

Perhaps because they are a product of your imagination?

Quote from: RocksEverywhere on September 20, 2016, 01:33:56 AM

Gravity. The earth does lose some helium to space though.

Gravity is not enought to poise the atmospher. Because there is a balance between centrifugal forces and gravity on the all of the atmospher and diffusion causes sudden changes on the balance on the edge. There is no power can equalize this imbalance.

Inti accepts that the earth is spinning! Look he mentioned centrifugal forces and, brace yourselves, gravity!

Oh dear how does the flat eart spin?

I suddenly got the image of continents falling off the edge. For some reason I couldn't stop laughing.

If you lived near the edge you wouldn't laugh!
Think about property devaluation.

Hey RocksEverywhere, colleague, thanks for sharing some good points. I did a similar thing when I came here, a year ago.

Will search for the topic and share it here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65123.0 - I addressed geological impossibilities of the FE idea here, also climate and trigonometry/apparent size. Has some geology in it.

Also curious to see what you as fellow Earth scientist think about this  thread:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65140.0

Sorry, I completely missed this post.

There are definitely geological features that are not compatible with FET; meteorites, seismics, planetary geology, radiometric dating, all the good stuff. Plate tectonics is such a broad concept that with the magic that FET needs anyway, you can bend and twist it to fit. See the other thread we discussed this in.

Second thread, very interesting, and even though I'm bound to educated guesses and wishful thinking on this subject, I do agree that it's very unlikely for us to encounter another intelligent life form. What I do consider possible however, is at some point encountering very basic alien life forms, be it on comets/meteorites, or on not too distant plantes. Think bacteria, archaea, algae or such.

Quote from: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 01:43:13 PM

Try this for "logical effect": you are starting off from the wrong premises.



if it can block out the moon, it can block out other stars..

Ask yourself a more important question: why doesn't the Black Sun block out any other heavenly body, with the exception of the Sun?

Perhaps because they are a product of your imagination?

Because starlight and moonlight are not the same thing. Therfore whatever substance the black sun is made of only reacts with certain types of light. Nature is already known to abound with such devices.

Quote from: Gumby on January 22, 2017, 12:17:58 PM

Quote from: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 01:43:13 PM

Try this for "logical effect": you are starting off from the wrong premises.



if it can block out the moon, it can block out other stars..

Ask yourself a more important question: why doesn't the Black Sun block out any other heavenly body, with the exception of the Sun?

Perhaps because they are a product of your imagination?

Because starlight and moonlight are not the same thing. Therfore whatever substance the black sun is made of only reacts with certain types of light. Nature is already known to abound with such devices.

but we arent really talking about reacting so much as physically blocking aren't we?