Geothermal energy

  • 19 Replies
  • 1143 Views
Geothermal energy
« on: April 26, 2017, 11:57:33 AM »
Hi,
i'm new of this theory and i want to deepen on it.

I have a question. How do you explain the geothermal energy, the lava and the eruptions if there isn't a core?

Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2017, 12:00:37 PM »
Hi,
i'm new of this theory and i want to deepen on it.

I have a question. How do you explain the geothermal energy, the lava and the eruptions if there isn't a core?

- heat from when the planet formed
- heat from the decay of radioactive elements

Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2017, 12:21:42 PM »
I'm searching a more exhaustive answer than two easy arguments like yours are...



Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2017, 02:36:12 PM »
I'm searching a more exhaustive answer than two easy arguments like yours are...
FE doesn't have them.
It has a bunch of piecemeal explanations for individual phenomenon, as there isn't a way to try and combine them all into a single model.

Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2017, 07:27:16 AM »
I want some flat earth believer to tell me how they explain the geothermal energy and so... I'm between the two theories and try to find some answer

Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2017, 10:34:04 AM »
Probably the best I've heard is that whatever is causing the upward universal acceleration (UA) that simulates gravity, be it aether currents or something else, is also heating up the bottom of the flat earth. If you believe in UA, then, sure, why not?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2017, 11:10:19 AM »
Probably the best I've heard is that whatever is causing the upward universal acceleration (UA) that simulates gravity, be it aether currents or something else, is also heating up the bottom of the flat earth. If you believe in UA, then, sure, why not?
That is a very interesting thought. It must be noted, that such a process would likely be able to erode the bottom as well, sending bits of material up. Did I just figure out the source of meteorites in FET, noting that meteorites often show mantle or core like compositions?
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: Geothermal energy
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2017, 11:44:53 AM »
Quote
I want some flat Earth believer to tell me how they explain the geothermal energy and so... I'm between the two theories and try to find some answer

Please take a look at Jan Lamprecht's first "lesson" : "The Earth is not a ball of molten lava" : http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/esp_tierra_hueca_9.htm

I don't "believe" in a flat Earth, but in a round hollow Earth.

*

Shifter

  • 11365
  • ASI
Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2017, 02:32:48 PM »
The geothermal energy is the heat generated by Hell. There is no question it is bloody hot down there.

The reason why it is not more popular to use geothermal energy is that we need Hell hot to keep punishing the billions of bad souls down there. If everyone used geothermal energy then the heat would be lost and it might start 'snowing in hell'. In which case, all the bad people would have a party and that's not much of a disincentive to do the wrong thing.

Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2017, 03:03:06 PM »
Quote
I want some flat Earth believer to tell me how they explain the geothermal energy and so... I'm between the two theories and try to find some answer

Please take a look at Jan Lamprecht's first "lesson" : "The Earth is not a ball of molten lava" : http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/esp_tierra_hueca_9.htm

I don't "believe" in a flat Earth, but in a round hollow Earth.

Wonderful ignorance. Things like this:
"If the Earth were an "ocean of molten lava" then it would actually be subject to tidal pressures and the continents would be broken to pieces as the earth rotated."
Ever heard of plate tectonics?
The plates do move around, over very long time scales, with them breaking apart and rejoining.

It also has this claim:
"If the earth were truly molten, then seismic waves would be considerably dampened down."
With no backing at all.
That would be akin to saying we wouldn't get tidal wave if the ocean was liquid because the waves would be considerably dampened. But they are observed all the time.

But you are right, very few people will say Earth is a ball of molten lava.
So what relevance does this have to the thread?
It is asking about geothermal energy.

With a hollow Earth, there is no reason for the crust to do anything except collapse. There would be no reason for any kind of plate tectonics or stress where the plates just move around the surface, and thus no reason for any lava to appear.

Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2017, 07:18:11 AM »
Probably the best I've heard is that whatever is causing the upward universal acceleration (UA) that simulates gravity, be it aether currents or something else, is also heating up the bottom of the flat earth. If you believe in UA, then, sure, why not?
That is a very interesting thought. It must be noted, that such a process would likely be able to erode the bottom as well, sending bits of material up. Did I just figure out the source of meteorites in FET, noting that meteorites often show mantle or core like compositions?

Oh Gosh... Now a FE believer is going to read what you just said and go to another FE forum to say where meteorites originates from LOL. Nice going giving them ideas lol

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16482
  • Or should I?
Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2017, 07:48:49 AM »
Probably the best I've heard is that whatever is causing the upward universal acceleration (UA) that simulates gravity, be it aether currents or something else, is also heating up the bottom of the flat earth. If you believe in UA, then, sure, why not?
That is a very interesting thought. It must be noted, that such a process would likely be able to erode the bottom as well, sending bits of material up. Did I just figure out the source of meteorites in FET, noting that meteorites often show mantle or core like compositions?

Another victory for the FE!!!
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #13 on: April 29, 2017, 01:03:36 AM »
Quote
"If the Earth were an "ocean of molten lava" then it would actually be subject to tidal pressures and the continents would be broken to pieces as the earth rotated."
Ever heard of plate tectonics?
The plates do move around, over very long time scales, with them breaking apart and rejoining.

Yes. Ever looked at a map of oceanic grounds ? There is approximately a factor FIVE between zones of expansion (in the rifts in the middle of ALL oceans of the Earth) and supposed zones of subduction (Chile, North Pacific...). 5 - 1 = 4. So we have an expanding Earth : I found the evidence !  :D
(Source : drawing in Les Planètes, les nôtres et les autres, Thérèse Encrenaz of the CNRS and Observatoire de Paris, 2010)

Quote
But you are right, very few people will say Earth is a ball of molten lava.
So what relevance does this have to the thread?
It is asking about geothermal energy.
Thank you anyway for having read Lamprecht's "lesson".

Quote
With a hollow Earth, there is no reason for the crust to do anything except collapse.
Not if :
- the shell is 2 850 km thick
- gravity is a push coming from space and has an effect of shielding after some hundred miles (see chapter 5 at the middle of that page : http://forum.planete-astronomie.com/quelques-questions-de-physique-t4807.html?sid=543022c0ddf70a22f290fbae42e557e9 and discussion in the topic "And if the Earth would simply be ... hollow ?")
- there would be air in the inside so that there would be a pressure preventing the shell to collapse (akin a balloon) and/or a repulsive force - that obviously wouldn't have been observed yet as it would be a force acting inside planets and as you know it, no measurements have been made by man inside planets)
- and matter would be quite solid (like rock), not liquid (at least near the inside and outside surfaces).

Quote
There would be no reason for any kind of plate tectonics or stress where the plates just move around the surface, and thus no reason for any lava to appear.
Mmmh ... just think about the Earth as a living organism, maybe ?
Ooops, sorry ...  ;D
« Last Edit: April 29, 2017, 01:06:03 AM by Rayon de Soleil »

Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #14 on: April 29, 2017, 03:50:38 AM »
Yes. Ever looked at a map of oceanic grounds ? There is approximately a factor FIVE between zones of expansion (in the rifts in the middle of ALL oceans of the Earth) and supposed zones of subduction (Chile, North Pacific...). 5 - 1 = 4. So we have an expanding Earth : I found the evidence !  :D
You are aware the subduction doesn't just occur in the oceans and that isn't the only way to have the plates "shrink"?
Then there is the issue that you can't see the subduction zones.
Once they go below, that's it, they are gone.

Or are you trying to go based upon pure numbers, if so, having more of them number wise doesn't mean Earth is growing.

The only way to have something like that suggest Earth is growing is by measuring the rate of subduction and the rate of expansion, and seeing if they match. But that would need to be done over a long time scale.

Quote
With a hollow Earth, there is no reason for the crust to do anything except collapse.
Not if :
- the shell is 2 850 km thick
- gravity is a push coming from space and has an effect of shielding after some hundred miles (see chapter 5 at the middle of that page : http://forum.planete-astronomie.com/quelques-questions-de-physique-t4807.html?sid=543022c0ddf70a22f290fbae42e557e9 and discussion in the topic "And if the Earth would simply be ... hollow ?")
- there would be air in the inside so that there would be a pressure preventing the shell to collapse (akin a balloon) and/or a repulsive force - that obviously wouldn't have been observed yet as it would be a force acting inside planets and as you know it, no measurements have been made by man inside planets)
- and matter would be quite solid (like rock), not liquid (at least near the inside and outside surfaces).
Assuming it is 100 km, and that it is just water for that 100 km (to give it a low density), and ignoring the compression of the water and the change in area, the pressure from the water would be 10000 atmospheres or 1 GPa of pressure. The compressive strength of rocks is typically measured on the order of hundreds of MPa, an order of magnitude lower. So even if it was just water in the top 100 km, that would likely be enough to crush the rest of Earth.

Rocks are not capable of being compressed as a shell infinitely. They will fail and collapse.

But the basis of this idea of gravity is that it doesn't get stopped by matter, only a tiny bit does, proportional to the mass of the object. So it wouldn't be entirely shielded by the few hundred miles.

If it was, then that means it is only the first few hundred miles which give rise to Earth's apparent gravity, meaning it has a lot more mass than we thought, and thus would be even more likely to crush the rest of Earth.
It is akin to expecting a balloon to stay inflated, without anything inside to hold it up.

The sheer pressure inside would cause most gasses to liquefy (or solidify). Nitrogen cannot exist as a gas above a pressure of roughly 35 atmospheres.

And then there is the issue of people claiming the centre isn't sealed and that there is a way into the inside of Earth, meaning all that gas would escape. Even if that hole didn't exist, the ground isn't airtight, it is porous and would allow gas out.

So the only hope for it is the unsubstantiated repulsive force.
But then why is it only acting in there?
If that is enough to overcome gravity, why isn't it everywhere? Why does it only work like that inside Earth?
Why doesn't it cause the moon and Earth to be repelled away from each other?
Why doesn't it cause us to be repelled away from Earth?

Quote
There would be no reason for any kind of plate tectonics or stress where the plates just move around the surface, and thus no reason for any lava to appear.
Mmmh ... just think about the Earth as a living organism, maybe ?
Ooops, sorry ...  ;D
But there is no reason to.
Even if it was a living organism, there is still no basis for the movement of the plates and lava.

Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2017, 03:55:16 PM »
- gravity is a push coming from space and has an effect of shielding after some hundred miles (see chapter 5 at the middle of that page : http://forum.planete-astronomie.com/quelques-questions-de-physique-t4807.html?sid=543022c0ddf70a22f290fbae42e557e9 and discussion in the topic "And if the Earth would simply be ... hollow ?")
One other thing I realised with this (which could be somewhat explained above):
If this was proportional to mass (to give a relationship proportional to mass), but has complete shielding after a few hundred miles, why is the gravity on the moon different to the gravity on Earth?

Why is the effect on large scale systems (like the solar system), so much weaker?
Sure, for the Earth and the moon you could claim that Earth is much denser than we think, and thus its observed mass is the mass which is required for complete shielding, but that doesn't work with other things, like the sun and Earth.
The sun has to have a mass much greater than Earth, but if the shell of Earth is the limit required for complete shielding, the sun would reach that same limit and no additional mass would be observed, or at best it would be based upon area (cross sectional at best, but slightly more complex), which would still grossly underestimate the force of gravity from the sun.
Instead of having the sun being much more massive than any of the planets and thus accelerating the planets far more than the planets accelerate the sun, you would have the sun having pretty much the same effective mass of the planets (or few orders of magnitude more) and thus have quite similar accelerations for each, resulting in the position of the sun being very significantly perturbed by the planets. If the limit is the limit and area doesn't come into it, then the barycenter of the Earth-sun system would be the midway point between the Earth and sun and both would appear to orbit around it.
If it is based upon area (where because the sun is larger it can block some more) then as the sun has roughly 100 times the radius, it would have roughly 10 000 times the effective mass (instead of the roughly 333 000 times it has), then the barycenter would be located roughly one 10 000th of the distance between Earth and the sun.
That puts it at 15 000 km, well outside the sun and enough to cause serious issues to other planets.
It would also result in a completely different orbit for Earth, where we would need to be travelling much slower due to the significantly less gravitational attraction between us and the sun,

As the acceleration for a circular orbit (which is close enough for this) is omega^2*r, r will be 1 10th less than what it is (so enough to ignore it), but the force from gravity will be roughly 0.03 times what it is, then the omega^2 will need to be roughly 0.03 times what it is in reality, making omega have to be 0.17 times what it is in reality.
That would make our year 1/0.17 or roughly 5.8 times as long as in reality. So if that was true (that it can be shielded to the point of no longer having an effect) then our year should be over 2000 days long. But it isn't.

So this idea simply doesn't work.

Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2017, 04:32:33 PM »
Hi,
i'm new of this theory and i want to deepen on it.

I have a question. How do you explain the geothermal energy, the lava and the eruptions if there isn't a core?

- heat from when the planet formed
- heat from the decay of radioactive elements

Wait then how would you explain the earth forming as a flat thing?

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2017, 04:38:03 PM »
Hi,
i'm new of this theory and i want to deepen on it.

I have a question. How do you explain the geothermal energy, the lava and the eruptions if there isn't a core?

- heat from when the planet formed
- heat from the decay of radioactive elements

Wait then how would you explain the earth forming as a flat thing?
This is probably an issue for most FE theories, as forming the earth kinda requires gravity.
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: Geothermal energy
« Reply #18 on: April 29, 2017, 04:44:16 PM »
Probably the best I've heard is that whatever is causing the upward universal acceleration (UA) that simulates gravity, be it aether currents or something else, is also heating up the bottom of the flat earth. If you believe in UA, then, sure, why not?

Wait, so according to this "UA", earth has its gravity because it's moving up (and accelerating (inertia stuff))? If so, an asteroid, say, 20 km in diameter would have the same gravity as earth, if it is accelerating at the same rate the earth is, would have the same gravitational pull on its side turned towards the direction it's moving?

Re: Geothermal energy
« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2017, 05:47:58 PM »
Probably the best I've heard is that whatever is causing the upward universal acceleration (UA) that simulates gravity, be it aether currents or something else, is also heating up the bottom of the flat earth. If you believe in UA, then, sure, why not?

Wait, so according to this "UA", earth has its gravity because it's moving up (and accelerating (inertia stuff))? If so, an asteroid, say, 20 km in diameter would have the same gravity as earth, if it is accelerating at the same rate the earth is, would have the same gravitational pull on its side turned towards the direction it's moving?

UA has a lot of problems, but it's often ponied up as a way to try to explain why objects would fall toward a flat earth. Yeah... other physical objects that maintain the same distance from earth on average must be subject to the same acceleration on average. That's one of the problems, and why some assert that celestial objects are only reflections (or holograms) and aren't actually physical objects.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan