761

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity - measurement and applications

« on: September 09, 2020, 07:46:24 PM »

Tom, thanks for providing the link to the wiki. It was an interesting read. My questions stemmed from that, and I will try to rephrase.

My issue is that the gravimeter readings of local changes in relative pull, as the wiki puts it, are supported by the subsequent drilling of boreholes and measurement of the properties from the subsurface materials. In mining camp settings, there are hundreds of boreholes drilled to provide the necessary ground-truthing.

I would argue that the wiki article misrepresents the density differences that are interpreted from the changing reading on gravimeters. It's really the total amount of mass beneath the meter (the relative densities of subsurface materials just influence the total mass because denser materials have more mass per unit volume).

The other issue is the seismometer-gravimeter comparison. The wiki article seems to argue that the fact that the two are variations of the same setup invalidates either of them. That's just not true because both are devices that measure acceleration. Why would they need to be different? The fact that they differ in precision and frequency is a function of the nature of the acceleration they are developed to measure at-large amplitude high frequency seismic waves vs. Low amplitude low frequency gravitational variations.

The wiki article does no seem to provide any explanation as to why the relative pull measured by a gravimeter would change over small areas, nor why temporal changes in gravitational strength are observed across large areas.

If you could provide further clarification to those last points that would be great!
Cheers

Edit, these variations are often in the interior portions of tectonic plates and far from mountains or other features

762

Flat Earth Theory / Gravity - measurement and applications

« on: September 09, 2020, 07:11:38 PM »

The gravity vs. Upward acceleration/ equivalency principle arguments are an interesting set of discussions. They commonly quote the constant value of 9.8 m/s² for g. This is true enough for our every day lives.

The problem is that Earth's gravity is nowhere near that uniform once to start using more sensitive instruments in different areas - i.e. the significant digits after 9.8 become significant to the discussion. Gravitational strength varies based on a number of regional factors, like your latitude (because of the earth's rotation, you weigh very slightly less at the equator than you do at the poles, even though you're at a greater distance to the center of the earth).

Ignoring large regional effects, local variations in earth's gravity occur over as little as tens of meters! And in mapping out these changes, weve been able to discover geologic features like buried mineral deposits, oil and gas reservoirs, and buried bedrock valleys that may host large aquifers capable of supplying groundwater for large municipalities. (e.g. Greenhouse and Williams, 1986. A gravity survey of the Dundas buried valley west of Copetown, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.23: 110-114 available free online)

Aside from the multi-billion dollar applications of gravity for exploration, understanding temporal variations in earth's gravity is becoming increasingly effective. The GRACE satellite system can now detect tiny changes in gravitational strength that relate to changes in water and ice storage on land on seasonal and multi-year timescales. These help measure climate change impacts and long-term over use of major aquifer systems that are causing subsidence problems in many cities (examples in California and Arizona are widespread in google searches https://lmgtfy.com/?q=land+subsidence+aquifers )

How do these measured changes in local acceleration due to gravity fit within a FE framework? The UA would induce an apparent acceleration of 9.8 m/s2 uniformly across earth's plane, and the equivalency principle is really only valid for local reference frames and cannot account for these local variations.

763

Flat Earth Theory / Antarctic fossil finds

« on: September 09, 2020, 05:06:31 PM »

Hundreds of fossils have been recovered from various parts of Antarctica. These range from plants, sea creatures, large reptiles and dinosaurs, to coal beds. In particular, large reptile fossils (Lystrosaurus) that date back to the Triassic Period can be found across the interior of the continent, and are also found in bands across southern India, Africa, and South America. *there is an excellent page outlining lots of these on the Geological Society's website, and hundreds of images, journal articles, and news reports can be found by a quick search on google and/or researchgate.

These fossils, the wide variety of rocks which contain them, and the additional older igneous and metamorphic rocks underlying those, demonstrate that the Antarctic continent has a dynamic geologic past. They provide evidence for long-term plate tectonics, by suggesting it was once connected to parts of the other continents mentioned above, and that the climate in the area was warm enough for large reptiles to live (unlike the modern tundra environment we know today, now that it is located at the south pole).

How do these observations of fossil abundances and diversity within the rocks of the Antarctic continent fit within a flat earth framework, where the leading views (monopole model) advocate that Antarctica  is an unknown part of the earth surrounded by an ice wall with only minor rock outcrops (source:fes wiki)?

Italics added to correct an originally misquoted statement.

764

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA claims Flat and Fake Apollo Missions

« on: September 09, 2020, 04:46:18 PM »

No-Man, where does the space conspiracy start? Moon landings fake, Hubble telescope fake, photos of earth from space fake?

... but GPS is okay? Weather satellites that identify and track tropical storms and hurricanes are okay? Satellite phones  and internet are okay?

I have a hard time understanding where the line is between "obviously fake" things like moon landings and the ISS, when we use data and technology in earth's orbit every single day...

765

Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE

« on: August 26, 2020, 10:05:21 PM »

Some cheap community-based tests to evaluate aspects of claims/predictions of FE and RE models:

1. Get a group of people, spread over as broad a range of latitudes (north and south of the equator) as possible, to measure the shadow length of n object of fixed height at their local solar noon on the upcoming fall equinox. Have them record their coordinates, take photos of their setup and shadow measurement, and conduct it in a public place, with identifiable landmarks. Post pictures and readings so that all reported coordinates, and measurements can be cross-validated by anyone who wishes to do so.

2. Minimum 3 people - one in southern america, one in southern africa, one in southern Australi/New Zealand - point their cameras due south, record star trails on the same night.

3. Take a long-haul southern hemisphere flight, bring a GPS with you. Take way point measurements every ~15 minutes or so. Plot the path you take, use the distance between points and time interval to evaluate for any changes in speed during the flight.

4. Obtain tide gauge data (public domain) for ports along oceans following seismic events that produce a  tsunami. Time interval between the seismic event (also public domain) and the arrival of tsunami waves at different coasts allows for the calculation of distance the wave has travelled.

5. Conduct your own pendulum experiments

6. Evaluate refractive effects of light bending over water by adding observers and instrumentation ( temperature, humidity etc) in between land-based observers, and ships dissapearing over the 'apparent' horizon.

Those are the cheapest and easiest experiments I can come up with. There are undoubtedly many others. In this age of instant communication, remember that it doesnt necessarily take big money to produce big data. Just ensure strict protocols are followed and record everything you do so that others can verify and replicate your work. Best of luck to you!

766

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tsunami travel times across Pacific Ocean

« on: August 23, 2020, 07:49:48 PM »

Hey Tom,

Fair question. The map you copied that I had originally linked is indeed partially simulated, but anchored with observed data. We dont have enough data to make perfect maps of the tsunami wave fronts, but by integrating tidal gauge data from pacific islands and coastal regions, with bathymetric data, there's more than enough data to compare observed wave arrival times, seismic event origin, and compute travel distances to evaluate maps advanced within anycomepting worldviews.

The pink lines I drew on the FE map represent the distances the tsunami wave front would have travelled over 14 hours, using actual (but approximated, due to me using my fingertips on my phone) observed travel times from the 1960 Chilean earthquake ( see link below). That tsunami wave traveled from Santiago to Hawaii in 15 hours, then reached the coast of Japan in 22 hours.

https://www.sms-tsunami-warning.com/pages/tsunami-chile-1960#.X0LFsVNE2dN

Other examples would be the reported tsunami arrival times after the 2004 Christmas weekend tsunami that affected a huge region of coasts along the Indian Ocean from Indonesia to Australia to the east coast of Africa.

Hope that helps clarify things!

767

Flat Earth Theory / Tsunami travel times across Pacific Ocean

« on: August 23, 2020, 03:48:01 PM »

Another geology question to toss out there:

Published arrival times of tsunami waves across the Pacific Ocean appear to be consistent with distances between shores portrayed on map projections within a Round Earth framework.

When a seismic event occurs, we can triangulate its epicenter through analysis of the arrival times of the different types of seismic waves recorded at seismometers at different locations on earth. From there, arrival times of tsunami waves have historically been recorded by analysis of tide gauge data at various coastal locations around the Pacific. Tsunami waves travel at ~500 mph, depending on water depth; with the waves traveling faster in deeper water than shallow water. This causes the waves to 'pile up' when they approach shorelines, increasing their height, and leading to destruction of life and property on land.
For more detailed descriptions and sources, go to the USGS, NOAA, or BGS websites, or there are many available research papers available through Researchgate.

The image below shows two separate data sets (very crudely) plotted on a standard FE map (I had to crop out big areas to get it u der max file size for display here). The first, coloured dots, are derived from this map of travel times from a 1975 tsunami originated at Hawaii (data from https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/data/icons/1975_1129.jpg). The source location is shown with purple dot, 5-hour travel times in red, 10-hour times in yellow, and 15-hour times in green. I decided not to drawn lines to connect those locations (as is done in the linked map for a RE).


The second set of data shows the Chilean mega thrust earthquake of 1960. The pink lines connect the source, near Santiago, to the American coast near Los Angeles and to the Northeastern New Zealand coast. Both of these locations reported tsunami wave arrivals after 14 hours.

Can someone explain these observations?

768

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there direct flights between Sydney and Santiago (Chile) ?

« on: August 21, 2020, 09:33:14 PM »

Wow, I really didnt think I made many claims in my response, but alright. Apparently there is severe skepticism of the utility/accuracy of GPS, passengers on airplanes, circumpolar ocean currents, and the fact that wind is just gas moving from ares of high pressure to low pressure.


I'll just leave this one alone...

769

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions from a glacier guy - not on FAQ or the wiki

« on: August 21, 2020, 09:28:01 PM »

Hey Tron,

Thanks for weighing in and adding to the discussing! Interesting points, appreciate you taking the time to chime in!

Cheers

770

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather balloon from Antarctica

« on: August 21, 2020, 09:24:38 PM »

There arent restrictions on north pole airspace, nor antarctic. Launching a weather balloon anywhere requires a permit, the same way most countries require licensing for drone pilots.

Published maps of antarctic balloon paths show circular paths, typically creating paths around the pole during their lascent. My argument is that once any balloon gets high enough, a camera pointed down at earth's surface would provide evidence as to the shape of the continent - whether it 'looks' like it does in map projections for a round earth, as displayed in journal publications, and satellite imagery from numerous agencies, or whether it is a long, curving ice wall, as depicted in various FE maps.

Easypeasy, valuable information either way

771

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there direct flights between Sydney and Santiago (Chile) ?

« on: August 21, 2020, 12:40:49 AM »

Tom,

Those are some excellent quotes from some great sources the Australian, British, and US Antarctic surveys have many additional fantastic resources to choose from as well. Journal of Geophysical research is a fantastic journal, that supports Open Access publication, so the full texts of lots of peer-reviewed articles available for free download. Awesome stuff!

The thing you didnt mention for OP though is that the causes of those winds are very well understood, owing to Hadley Cell development due to the Coriolis effect, and because below about 55 degrees south, a southern circumpolar current exists because there is no land to obstruct the flow of shallow or deep ocean waters. These currents alone would create difficult weather conditions, but they're enhanced further due to upwelling along Antarctica's coast, and from katabatic winds driven outward from the interior cold regions of the Antarxtic ice sheet.

Despite these, commercial airliners dont have too many problems completing long flights like NZ to Chile or Argentina to South Africa, or south Africa to Australia. And return flights take approximately the same length of time, plus or minus a bit due to the winds, just as any standard flight does.

Cheers

772

Flat Earth Investigations / Weather balloon from Antarctica

« on: August 20, 2020, 11:12:45 PM »

Hey, I have a decent idea for a couple simple investigations that can be turned into an effective test.

First, crowd-fund a leading FE-er to take the chartered flight to the south pole, where they get to spend 5-6 days there trying around, and would have free time to conduct some basic studies (magnetic inclination and declination mapping as an example)

Second option: convince one of the many agencies operating in antarctica, that they should install a camera and livestream the ascent from any one of the dozens of weather balloon launches. This would (depending on cloud cover) effectively show the shape of the Antarctic continent, one way or the other.

Chartered trips to the south pole are just over 50k USD. I'm not sure what the costs of adding a video stream to a weather balloon launch would be.

773

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions from a glacier guy - not on FAQ or the wiki

« on: August 17, 2020, 07:19:46 PM »

Hi Bikini,

I didnt mean to imply anything in my response to your post with the link to the wiki. Was only trying to reaffirm that I'm requesting clarification from anyone who views the earth as a flat surface as to the nature of geologic processes in such a model. Despite some lingering uncertainties, the processes that govern the phenomena listed in my original questions are well accounted for within a round earth framework, as is currently taught in schools.

 You might be right that the answers to my original questions are still unknowns within FET. I would completely agree with you that if anyone with a firmer background in flat earth mechanics can provide background as to how these processes can operate within FET,  the contribution would be welcomed,  as these issues are not seemingly addressed in videos or provided literature from this or other flat earth websites.

774

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions from a glacier guy - not on FAQ or the wiki

« on: August 16, 2020, 10:07:43 PM »

Hi Tom, thanks again for continued input on this discussion.

I feel, however, that you're cherry-picking definitions of certain things, while ignoring some of the points I'm trying to understand. You've quoted oxford's definition of an experiment, but not their definition of science. You've focused on experimentation as the root of all science, while ignoring the examples I've given of laboratory experiments that provide the confirmation of the theories that were developed based on detailed field observations with controlled environment.

Thanks for your input, and I respect your right to believe what you feel is right, but I dont think it will be particularly productive for either of us to continue the discussion of the merits of geologic studies as a science any further.

On the other hand, if you (or anyone else) has any additional perspectives to offer on how geologic processes are explained within flat earth models, I'll be happy to read them.

Thanks again to the contributors so far.
Iceman

775

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions from a glacier guy - not on FAQ or the wiki

« on: August 16, 2020, 12:16:52 PM »

Hi Tom, you did indeed suggest that people weren't making any observations to support theories of geologic processes

"None or few of those processes have been directly verified with direct experimentation. They are theorized to occur based on indirect or observational evidence."

But it's more important now to address your assertion that it's not science anyways.

The first point I would make is that every geologic phenomena is a natural experiment and we seek to clearly define the existing conditions, observe the magnitude and nature of changes/events as they occur and then fully describe the final conditions following and event. And we have got quite good at this: whether its mapping and instrumenting the forefield of a glacier prior to a surge, setting up pressure and temperature sensors during build up of tornadoes, or seismometers and thermal sensors prior to volcanic eruptions.

Second, countless controlled lab experiments and field experiments are being conducted every single day. Whether its re-melting igneous rocks to verify the melting points of their constituent minerals, performing ring shear tests on subglacial till to understand how sediments respond to subglacial stresses, measuring groundwater flow through porous media... the list is staggeringly long, and continues to grow.

Yes it is difficult to access some environments, but the earth gives us plenty of opportunities, and we make use of them.

776

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions from a glacier guy - not on FAQ or the wiki

« on: August 15, 2020, 05:29:56 PM »

Hi Bikini,

Thanks for posting that link. Apologies for not noticing that while reading through things prior to posting my original questions here.

I dont want to get into arguments over what's right or wrong about the views, just better understand them... so I'll just ask for further elaboration - is there an estimate of the thickness of the planetary disk?

The explanations given for volcanoes and earthquakes (upon a cursory read) are very similar to the RE view. The obvious difference is that theres no core in the flat earth frame work... so where is the heat generated from, and what kinds of thicknesses of crust/mantle etc are we dealing with? How do the hotspots discussed in that article move, i.e. the way the Hawaiian islands formed in a RE view is that there is a stationary hotspot beneath the crust due to mantle convection. The pacific tectonic plate is migrating westward overtop of the hot spot, so a chain of islands developed gradually, with the oldest island occurring in the west, where volcanism is now mostly dormant, and the youngest in the east, with very active modern volcanic because it still overlies the hotspot.

Thanks for any additional clarification you can provide, its appreciated.

777

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions from a glacier guy - not on FAQ or the wiki

« on: August 15, 2020, 05:20:15 PM »

Hi Pete, thanks for your reply. And in any future forum posts I will try to take your advice. I'm brand new here and just looking to get a better view of how geologic processes/features are explained in FET.

Thanks for your input on Antarctica/ice wall question. I guess I pictured the other side of the ice wall as the 'edge' of the disk mostly because that's just how it's kinda simplified in the maps and models I've seen. Probably best it's not viewed that way because we would have lost all/most our water millions of years ago in that configuration.

Even a continuation of the flat earth surface beyond the ice wall poses issues though, as the issues of hydraulic head differentials from ocean to the other side of the ice wall dont work unless there is a significant change in ice elevation/ elevation of underlying bedrock away from the ocean contact. And if there is room beyond the wall, glacier would flow equally/partially in that direction, and thereby be unaccounted for in our understanding of water balance/sea level rise and fall for 'our'part of the earth.

Thanks for adding perspective to that question though. The above response isnt meant to be just contrarian, just some thoughts on the fly of some possible implications of that kind of physical configuration.

Thanks though, lots for me to think about

778

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions from a glacier guy - not on FAQ or the wiki

« on: August 15, 2020, 05:08:40 PM »

Hi Tom,

Thanks for adding to the discussion. I can understand that view point, especially given the extreme difficulty we have in reaching the base of glaciers to make observations. I do however take some exception to your labeling as 'pseudoscience' because nothing is being observed.

There are hundreds of studies that have provided observations from the base of glaciers. Boulton and Hindmarsh tunneled into the base of an Icelandic glacier. An alpine glacier in France has been tunneled into and developed into an electric generating plant. The beds of dozens of glaciers in Alaska, Iceland, Norway, Sweden have been instrumented to evaluate stress directions, porewater pressure variations, measure displacement under the movement of the overriding glacier. Boreholes have been drilled through Antarctic ice streams to analyze the nature and chemistry of the ice and sediments/bedrock/water beneath it. Our understanding of glacial processes is firmly rooted in observations, and greatly enhanced by more recent developments in geophysical techniques such as seismic, ice penetrating radar, high-resgravity surveys, electrical sensitivity, and satellite monitoring of surface ice flow velocities.

I posed my questions in this forum to try to gain an understanding of how geologic phenomena are understood within a flat earth framework, your dismissal of glaciology as mere pseudoscience is somewhat problematic.

779

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions from a glacier guy - not on FAQ or the wiki

« on: August 13, 2020, 08:29:29 PM »

Hi Toddler Thork, thanks for your input on the age of the earth question. I appreciate the perspective. Like I said I was only asking because an answer would hold implications for what types of empirical geoscience evidence could be used in developing or evaluating FE theories, you're absolutely right that its age holds no direct bearing on its shape. Apologies if my original post gave that impression. Two small points, our view of earth age is derived from radiometric dating of heavier elements with long  half-lives, like Uranium, which give a much longer time range to look back than the 45-50000 years of radiocarbon. And thanks for the link to the Kelvin story. He is a great example of coming to the wrong conclusion, but for all the right reasons.

Thanks for sharing and helping me get a better understanding of view points!

780

Flat Earth Theory / Questions from a glacier guy - not on FAQ or the wiki

« on: August 13, 2020, 05:13:05 PM »

*I am a glacial geologist who specializes in reconstruction of past glacial processes. I will not claim to be an expert in geologic knowledge beyond that. Looking to better understand the principles of FE theory as part of ongoing scientific questioning. I have many questions about FE, but many are partially addressed in the FAQ and or the wiki, so I want to address some of the shortcomings of FET, namely its avoidance of explanations of geologic phenomena. Thanks in advance for any clarifications you can provide on any of the queries below. I appreciate it!

1.     Is there an estimate of the age of the earth in flat earth hypotheses? I have not seen any. This is more a point of curiosity for me, but it would hold implications for evaluating other aspects of the theory against potential bodies empirical evidence.

2.     How are earthquakes and volcanoes explained within a flat earth paradigm? Again, more curiosity than anything, but these are major phenomena that require explanation in any worldview.

3.     Though I am admittedly skeptical of the FE model’s ability to account for changes in day/night and seasons, larger scale climate variations are not discussed within a FE framework. A very basic but fundamental question to ask would be what is the cause(s) of past ice ages and interglacials in the recent geologic past (either the last interglacial to glacial maximum from 115 000 – 25 000 years ago, or the last deglaciation from 20 000 – 12 000 years ago, or even the Medieval Warm Period and/or Little Ice Age conditions that exhibited major climate changes over large parts of the earth?

4.     Antarctica. (this will be a longer one, fair warning.) Glaciers and ice sheets are intensely complicated features, but they can be effectively simplified as large masses of frozen water that move/flow due to the influence of gravity. I will grant that they could move under the influence of any force that exhibits a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s2 (i.e. UA explanation offered in the FE wiki), given our inability to differentiate those two possibilities within a closed reference frame. The problem lies in glacier mechanics and mass balance, but we don’t need to go into detail; simply put, glaciers flow ‘downhill’ melting or calving into the sea at their downstream end. For a glacier/ice sheet to survive over millennia, mass must be added in the upflow regions in the form of precipitation.

a.     If Antarctica is just a wall of ice (and mountains?) that rims the earth, as depicted in the more common FE maps and theories, where are they flowing from? That is, where is ice being added to the wall of ice to counteract the melting and calving observed along the margins of Antarctica?

b.     If mass is being added upflow, that would mean it is being added closer to the edge of the disk. The downward acceleration that drives glacier motion (either gravity or UA, as discussed above), would also cause the ice sheet to flow not only towards the inner part of the disk, where it meets the oceans, but also towards to outer parts of the disk (the mechanism here is the same for all large ice sheets and ice caps, Greenland ice sheet would be the best analogue). If this is true, then ice would eventually flow either off the edge of the earth (which is likely no happening, because this would cause rapid acceleration of the ice flow velocity, initiating broad ice streams that would effectively ‘steal’ ice from the catchment areas flowing towards the oceans within the disk (google ice stream piracy, or check out a paper by Matthew Bennett, 2003: ice streams as the arteries of an ice sheet).

c.     Many people have been to Antarctica, including several personal friends of mine (these are limited to cruises and research missions that visited the margins of the continent). I have seen videos and hundreds of photos of the different stages of the trip. I have personally been offered a position to visit the continent as part of a graduate field course, but I was unable to make it work because of financial and time constraints. Many other people have flown to (and in some cases, skied to) the south pole. There is a permanent research station at the south pole, and many past travelers have documents their experience in detail. There is a 24-hour live stream offered by the US Antarctic program https://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm – you can check sunrise and set times and compare them to predictions made by round earth (though, technically, there’s just 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness, but the angle of the sun in the sky/glow beneath the spring and fall will be informative in developing/evaluating theories). You can even apply to be a volunteer and work on different research bases in Antarctica! 😊

d.     How do the transantarctic Mountains and the nearly 100 documented volcanoes fit within the icewall paradigm of flat earth (this assumes the monopole version that appears to be more commonly promoted as opposed to the dipole version which was advocated following increased Antarctic exploration in the early 1900’s, according to the FE wiki). In the round earth paradigm, these mountains form a significant topographic divide which helps promote the divergence of flow at the interior of the ice sheet outward in both directions to the east Antarctic and west Antarctic ice sheets.

e.     How does liquid water get to the base of the Antarctic ice sheet? And why does it flow towards the oceans? If the ice was simply a wall that holds the oceans in place, as promoted by FE, any documented water should be flowing from the oceans, beneath the ice, towards the interior of the ice sheet/outwards towards the edge of the disk, however far that may be. This flow should be controlled by differences in hydraulic head (think pressure) from sea level to the base of the Antarctic ice sheet, which is in many areas 800 - 1500 m below sea level, even along its margins. If the ice was holding the oceans on the surface of the disk, there would be a head differential promoting water flow outward toward the disk margins, rather than from the ice into the oceans.