tellytubby

Ice Ages on FE
« on: June 02, 2019, 04:18:54 PM »
There have been at least five major ice ages recorded during Earths history. I won't go into the details of what happened during each ice age as there are plenty of resources that go into that detail.  However suffice is to say that all the ice ages had a generalised and significant effect on the climate all over the world.

I can't find any mention at all about the ice ages in FE Wiki so how do you build these major climatic events into the history of FET?

Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2019, 08:00:23 PM »
" In order for ice masses to have been formed, increased precipitation must have
taken place. This requires an increased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which is
the result of increased evaporation from the surface of oceans; but this could be caused by
heat only. A number of scientists pointed out this fact, and even calculated that in order to
produce a sheet of ice as large as that of the Ice Age, the surface of all the oceans must have
evaporated to a depth of many feet. Such an evaporation of oceans followed by a quick
process of freezing, even in moderate latitudes, would have produced the ice ages. The
problem is: What could have caused the evaporation and immediately subsequent freezing?
As the cause of such quick alternation of heating and freezing of large parts of the globe is
not apparent, it is conceded that "at present the cause of excessive ice-making on the lands
remains a baffling mystery, a major question for the future reader of earth's riddles."
Not only are the causes of the appearance and later disappearance of the glacial sheet
unknown, but the geographical shape of the area covered by ice is also a problem. Why did
the glacial sheet, in the southern hemisphere, move from the tropical regions of Africa
toward the south polar region and not in the opposite direction, and, similarly, why, in the
northern hemisphere, did the ice move in India from the equator toward the Himalaya
mountains and the higher latitudes? 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. All hypotheses regarding increased and
diminished insolation due to solar alterations or the changing temperature of the cosmic
space, and other similar hypotheses, cannot avoid being confronted with this problem.
Glaciers are formed in the regions of eternal snow; for this reason they remain on the slopes
of the high mountains. The north of Siberia is the coldest place in the world. Why did not
the Ice Age touch this region, whereas it visited the basin of the Mississippi and all Africa
south of the equator? No satisfactory solution to this question has been proposed."

The extinction of the mammoths occurred simultaneously with the end of the last Ice Age.

Island of California:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2169555#msg2169555 (seven consecutive messages)


Macarios

Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2019, 09:37:57 PM »
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.

Northeast Siberia was free of ice during the last Ice Age because of "Polar Wander".
North pole was farther from it, more towards Greenland.

Quote
Based on evidence from the Pacific Ocean, including the position of the Hawaiian Islands,
Rice University geophysicists have determined Earth shifted relative to its spin axis within
he past 12 million years, which caused Greenland to move far enough toward the north
pole to kick off the ice age that began about 3.2 million years ago...
(from: https://news.rice.edu/2018/11/19/true-polar-wander-may-have-caused-ice-age-2/)

Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2019, 08:30:50 AM »
Northeast Siberia was free of ice during the last Ice Age because of "Polar Wander".

Then, the RE have a huge problem.

They cannot state that the Ice Age occurred after 4500 BC (official chronology of history):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936055#msg1936055 (Gizeh pyramid perfect north-south orientation)

If the cosmic cataclysm which caused the pole shift occurred before 4500 BC, then this fact contradicts the calculations put forward by Jacques Laskar:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581

Therefore, the RE are forced to say that the pole shift was due to mantle anomalies (pole wander theory) or to the polar ice mass displacement (issued by Charles Hapgood).

However, these hypotheses cannot be true.

The position of the centre of gravity varies according to the shape of the object.

And, according to the official theory we do have an applied external force:



This is what modern science is assuming about the shape of the Earth (perfect ellipsoid/geoid):





Each and every layer (official theory) - crust, mantle, outer/inner core - forms a perfect ellipsoid (again, if it did not, we would have a direct defiance/violation of the law of attractive gravitation).

Upon that sphere, we have the fifth and last layer, the lithosphere.

And here is where the problems begin for the RE.


Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).


"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."


The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.

At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.


It is the unequal mass distribution of the hemispheres upon a perfect oblate spheroid which defies the law of attractive gravity.

Since the northern hemisphere has more mass than its southern counterpart, we have a clear and definite DEFIANCE of the law of attractive gravity.


For the Pangeea hypothesis the situation is even more disastrous for the heliocentrical theory.

If we take into account the shape and size of the supercontinent Pangea, such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth. It would have gradually stopped the Earth from rotating around its own axis, and Pangea would have faced the Sun 24 hours a day. The rotating layers of iron/nickel would have come to a dead stop in some weeks.


The mantle anomalies hypothesis is also contradicted by the extinction of the mammoths paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2171410#msg2171410


The Ice Ages are unexplained on a spherical/orbiting Earth.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2019, 04:03:50 PM »
The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

Interesting point. Could you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations for this? I guess you estimated the north-south mass difference, you could work out an effective torque applied to the planet.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2019, 05:28:37 PM »
You cannot invoke torque calculations, since these computations involve several assumptions (the liquid layer of the Earth's outer core):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333146591_Theory_of_tectonic_plates_movement_of_the_lithosphere_of_the_Earth

How do geologists "know" that the Earth has a solid inner core and a molten outer core?

Exactly, by using seismic waves:

http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/earth_int.htm

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/earth-history-topic/plate-techtonics/v/how-we-know-about-the-earth-s-core

However, now you have another huge problem: seismic waves prove the Earth is flat.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg956136#msg956136


These assumptions cannot be true:

http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#p1


Therefore, you still have to deal with the fact that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere, thus the Earth should be rotating with the North Pole facing the Sun.




*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2019, 03:21:31 PM »
You cannot invoke torque calculations, since these computations involve several assumptions (the liquid layer of the Earth's outer core):
[...]
Therefore, you still have to deal with the fact that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere, thus the Earth should be rotating with the North Pole facing the Sun.
I'm looking for something more back-of-the-envelope, not something exact. You are suggesting that if the North Pole was facing 90 degrees away from the Sun, that it should rotate due to mass difference between the mass of the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere such that the North Pole faces the Sun. I think you should be able to calculate what kind of torque this would provide on the Earth, if you ignore other effects.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2019, 04:45:59 PM »
You cannot invoke torque calculations, since these computations involve several assumptions (the liquid layer of the Earth's outer core):
[...]
Therefore, you still have to deal with the fact that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere, thus the Earth should be rotating with the North Pole facing the Sun.
I'm looking for something more back-of-the-envelope, not something exact. You are suggesting that if the North Pole was facing 90 degrees away from the Sun, that it should rotate due to mass difference between the mass of the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere such that the North Pole faces the Sun. I think you should be able to calculate what kind of torque this would provide on the Earth, if you ignore other effects.

I included a link to exact calculations (not just back of the envelope computations) involving the torque. However, as I mentioned in my previous message (the part where you used suspension points), those calculations are based on certain assumptions which cannot be true.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333146591_Theory_of_tectonic_plates_movement_of_the_lithosphere_of_the_Earth

Here is another article which explores the same problem:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319179377_Why_Earth's_coating_rotates_around_the_liquid_core_of_the_Earth

How do geologists "know" that the Earth has a solid inner core and a molten outer core?

Exactly, by using seismic waves:

http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/earth_int.htm

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/earth-history-topic/plate-techtonics/v/how-we-know-about-the-earth-s-core

However, now you have another huge problem: seismic waves prove the Earth is flat.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg956136#msg956136

These assumptions cannot be true:

http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#p1

Therefore, you still have to deal with the fact that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere, thus the Earth should be rotating with the North Pole facing the Sun.

« Last Edit: June 04, 2019, 04:53:25 PM by sandokhan »

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2019, 05:46:06 PM »
I included a link to exact calculations (not just back of the envelope computations) involving the torque. However, as I mentioned in my previous message (the part where you used suspension points), those calculations are based on certain assumptions which cannot be true.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333146591_Theory_of_tectonic_plates_movement_of_the_lithosphere_of_the_Earth
Okay, I read the paper. Not only were there no torque calculations, there actually aren't any calculations at all in this paper. Or an abstract. Or any references. Or even correct spelling and grammar.
Maybe I just missed them. Could you please point me towards exactly where the torque calculation is?
And can you stop copy-pasting that bit about seismic waves? I read it the first two times you posted it.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2019, 06:46:48 PM »
So you did not read the paper the first time around, yet you posted that earlier message today.

Now, you have read the paper and yet you obviously do not understand what is going on.

Not only were there no torque calculations, there actually aren't any calculations at all in this paper.

The formulas are right there: do you understand the physics involved?

The author of the paper acknowledges that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere, so he has to make use of the ONLY argument left to the RE: an unbelievable feedback process involving the molten mantle outer core; that is, the Earth is able to counteract the heavier northern hemisphere by moving part of the molten mantle just enough to avoid a pole shift.

The molten mantle hypothesis is justified by resorting to seismic wave theory, that is why it cannot be true:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg956136#msg956136

http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#p1

The calculations involving any kind of torque rely on hypotheses which are pure fiction.

That is why your request is useless.

If you want anyone to believe your story, you are going to have to explain the seismic waves anomalies listed in the links provided above.






Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2019, 07:01:36 PM »
"The Earth’s mantle is mostly solid from the liquid outer core to the crust, but it can creep on the long-term, which surely strengthens the misconception of a liquid mantle.'



Courtesy of the U.S. Geological Society.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2019, 07:24:15 PM »
So you did not read the paper the first time around, yet you posted that earlier message today.

Now, you have read the paper and yet you obviously do not understand what is going on.

Not only were there no torque calculations, there actually aren't any calculations at all in this paper.

The formulas are right there: do you understand the physics involved?

The author of the paper acknowledges that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere, so he has to make use of the ONLY argument left to the RE: an unbelievable feedback process involving the molten mantle outer core; that is, the Earth is able to counteract the heavier northern hemisphere by moving part of the molten mantle just enough to avoid a pole shift.

The molten mantle hypothesis is justified by resorting to seismic wave theory, that is why it cannot be true:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg956136#msg956136

http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#p1

The calculations involving any kind of torque rely on hypotheses which are pure fiction.

That is why your request is useless.

If you want anyone to believe your story, you are going to have to explain the seismic waves anomalies listed in the links provided above.
Humor me: where is the torque calculation? If you don't want to do the torque calculations then just say so, there's no need to go off on one.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2019, 07:41:38 PM »
If you want me (or anybody else) to perform torque calculations for this problem, then you better explain the seismic waves anomalies listed in the links:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg956136#msg956136

http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#p1

An argument involving the torque applied to the planet RELIES on the correctness of the seismic wave theory. If the currently accepted seismic wave theory is wrong, there is no need to even take into consideration any further calculations.


*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2019, 07:46:10 PM »
An argument involving the torque applied to the planet RELIES on the correctness of the seismic wave theory. If the currently accepted seismic wave theory is wrong, there is no need to even take into consideration any further calculations.
So that's a resounding "no", then. Glad we cleared that up, although you could have just replied to my first comment with the word "no" and that would have saved us both a lot of time.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2019, 07:51:36 PM »
So that's a resounding "no", then.

No.

Why go through the trouble of providing torque calculations if you are unable to explain the necessary supporting theory?

You owe it to your readers to explain those seismic waves anomalies, otherwise your request is way beyond the scope of our current discussion.

If you cannot explain the seismic wave anomalies, then any calculations involving the torque are meaningless, this is what I have been trying to tell you.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2019, 07:57:53 PM »
So that's a resounding "no", then.

No.

Why go through the trouble of providing torque calculations if you are unable to explain the necessary supporting theory?

You owe it to your readers to explain those seismic waves anomalies, otherwise your request is way beyond the scope of our current discussion.

If you cannot explain the seismic wave anomalies, then any calculations involving the torque are meaningless, this is what I have been trying to tell you.
Right. I am trying to understand why the Earth's North Pole should face the Sun, and you're talking about seismic wave anomalies as if it's critical for this. I've had a quick read through the things you linked, and I have a basic understanding of what seismic wave anomalies are. Could you explain to me why they are so critical for this particular calculation?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2019, 08:07:41 PM »
They are absolutely critical for the torque calculations.

Remember, all modern geology has left at its disposal is to claim that the molten outer core will reposition itself just enough to balance the effect of the heavier northern hemisphere.

Now, the existence of the molten outer core is based exactly on the correctness of the seismic wave theory. If the currently accepted seismic wave theory is false, then there is no molten outer core, and thus no need to get into torque calculations.

If you do not like my links, please provide the necessary bibliographical references which might offer a better explanation.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2019, 08:50:49 PM »
They are absolutely critical for the torque calculations.
Okay, so you haven't done any calculations.

Quote
The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.
How can you make this claim, then? If calculations are, according to you, completely impossible? How can you possibly know that the globe should have its north pole facing the Sun if any calculation that attempts to prove this is, according to you, incorrect?
If you can't calculate or demonstrate a claim, then it's unfounded.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2019, 09:07:28 PM »
How can you possibly know that the globe should have its north pole facing the Sun if any calculation that attempts to prove this is, according to you, incorrect?

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Since you cannot explain the seismic waves anomalies, then your request for torque calculations is meaningless.

Then, the fact that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere is a clear and direct defiance of the law of universal gravitation as it pertains to the issue being discussed here.

If calculations are, according to you, completely impossible?

They are not impossible, just useless.

Go ahead and provide your own bibliographical references which might offer a better explanation.

Until then, I win.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 218
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Ice Ages on FE
« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2019, 09:14:17 PM »
How can you possibly know that the globe should have its north pole facing the Sun if any calculation that attempts to prove this is, according to you, incorrect?

Is this supposed to be a joke?
I'm still waiting for any evidence for your claim. You can say "lol i win" all you like, if you can't back up your claim with any evidence then it's meaningless. You're asking me to provide evidence, and yet you seem to be forgetting that the whole reason that I started talking to you is because you made a claim with no evidence. You don't get to just shift the burden of evidence onto me.
🤔⏰
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in