*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9854
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2014, 07:42:24 PM »
It kind of does. John Davis basically claims that the perception is analogous to quantum superpositions. Reality can exist in any metaphysical state imaginable until our perception requires it to manifest according to one or more compatible models. I say one or more, because many details of our everyday life are entirely with both RE and FE theories. So John Davis would say, it's both Round and Flat.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Yaakov ben Avraham

Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2014, 07:50:23 PM »
Well, that's fine in a metaphysical, non-literal kind of way, but its not very helpful in the real world.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #22 on: February 03, 2014, 04:07:20 AM »
It kind of does. John Davis basically claims that the perception is analogous to quantum superpositions. Reality can exist in any metaphysical state imaginable until our perception requires it to manifest according to one or more compatible models. I say one or more, because many details of our everyday life are entirely with both RE and FE theories. So John Davis would say, it's both Round and Flat.
Well, that's fine in a metaphysical, non-literal kind of way, but its not very helpful in the real world.
Yes indeed.  I thought that my ideas were a little too entrenched in the theoretical.  Much like my spatial-distortion south, it's an interesting thought experiment, but completely unhelpful in terms of zetetic science.  I'll have to look up some of these ideas.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10178
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #23 on: February 06, 2014, 09:48:29 AM »
Who is your favorite figure in Flat Earth history and why?

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #24 on: February 06, 2014, 02:26:00 PM »
Who is your favorite figure in Flat Earth history and why?

Lady Blount, the first female pioneer of Flat Earth Theory.  There are those who may say that her gender makes a silly reason to regard her above Rowbotham as a role model, because gender doesn't matter.  Well... it did in 1901!  She also was the first to experimentally verify Rowbotham's findings from the Bedford experiment, and founded the first incarnation of our own society. 

*

Offline Hoppy

  • *
  • Posts: 1149
  • Posts 6892
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #25 on: February 06, 2014, 03:52:58 PM »
Who is your favorite figure in Flat Earth history and why?
Bishop, because he knows.
God is real.

Offline Socker

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2014, 06:49:19 PM »
What's your opinion on the phases of the moon? Do you believe in the bioluminescent migrating shrimp or some other theory?

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3957
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2014, 07:46:11 PM »
In your opinion, how does the core of the Earth work in an infinite flat Earth model? Plate tectonics fitting together across a round earth makes sense because we know they fit together like a puzzle with each other, how does that work with FET? And seismology? How can an earthquake in Japan lead to a tsunami in the Americas? Or how do you explain that we can use seismic waves to map the interior of a round Earth?

As you can tell, I've always been much more interested in the geology of a FE model than the astronomy of it. 
« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 08:41:21 PM by rooster »

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2014, 08:43:49 PM »
What's your opinion on the phases of the moon? Do you believe in the bioluminescent migrating shrimp or some other theory?

I believe that the moon's phases are a combination of effects.  I believe that the moon is self-luminescent, and that the luminescence is  triggered, at least in part, by sunlight.  The result is that the bright parts of the moon are the portions where sunlight is most intense, but the light we see is not reflected light from the sun, if that makes sense.  I also think that the relative altitudes of the sun and moon change with time, which is why the sun's light sometimes falls on the part of the moon we can't see.  I should probably expand this into a working model with diagrams eventually.

In your opinion, how does the core of the Earth work in an infinite flat plane model? Plate tectonics fitting together across a round earth makes sense because we know they fit together like a puzzle with each other, how does that work with FET? And seismology? How can an earthquake in Japan lead to a tsunami in the Americas? Or how do you explain that we can use seismic waves to map the interior of a round Earth?

As you can tell, I've always been much more interested in the geology of a FE model than the astronomy of it. 

This is actually a really interesting question.  On a spherical earth with tectonic motion, subduction is necessary.  That is, in some places like the Mid-Atlantic ridge, spreading occurs, and in places like the trench off the western coast of South America, subduction occurs and the old land slides under itself, and the whole process is in perpetual repetition.  However, when one looks at one of many graphical representations of the relative ages of the earth at the sea floor, there isn't any evidence of subduction.



In this image (and many others like it), red represents "younger" land, and blue the oldest.  In these images, I see evidence that the continents are older than everything else, and the only thing happening as far as tectonics is expansion.  On a spherical earth, unless the sphere itself is growing, this can't happen.  In an infinite plane, it's not entirely out of the question to think that the plane is ever-expanding, particularly when one notes that the overwhelming majority of this expansion appears in the southern hemidisc.  Cover the lower half of this image with a hand, then the upper, and compare the amount of area that is red.  Also, near the center of the disc (the north pole) the continents are still largely crunched together.  Farther south near the ice rim, land masses are greatly fractured and spread widely apart.

Now, of course, this isn't my data so I take it with a grain of salt, but given that simply doing an image search for "sea floor age" (that's how I got this one) returns many, many different images all showing the same relative ages, then I consider them worth a little more salt.  It isn't evidence in the empirical sense, but it's  certainly compelling.  I think geologists simply assume that subduction must happen because an earth that is a fixed sphere demands it, but it's not happening.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 08:46:08 PM by Tintagel »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6870
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2014, 09:24:59 PM »
What's your opinion on the phases of the moon? Do you believe in the bioluminescent migrating shrimp or some other theory?

I believe that the moon's phases are a combination of effects.  I believe that the moon is self-luminescent, and that the luminescence is  triggered, at least in part, by sunlight.  The result is that the bright parts of the moon are the portions where sunlight is most intense, but the light we see is not reflected light from the sun, if that makes sense.
No, it doesn't make sense (to me,at least).  Why do you think that lunar self-luminescence triggered by sunlight is a better explanation than the moon reflecting sunlight?  How would someone tell the difference?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2014, 10:22:46 PM »
What's your opinion on the phases of the moon? Do you believe in the bioluminescent migrating shrimp or some other theory?

I believe that the moon's phases are a combination of effects.  I believe that the moon is self-luminescent, and that the luminescence is  triggered, at least in part, by sunlight.  The result is that the bright parts of the moon are the portions where sunlight is most intense, but the light we see is not reflected light from the sun, if that makes sense.
No, it doesn't make sense (to me,at least).  Why do you think that lunar self-luminescence triggered by sunlight is a better explanation than the moon reflecting sunlight?  How would someone tell the difference?

In short, I don't think the moon is as reflective as RET says.  If it were, then the light from the sun bouncing up from the earth would make even the darker sections brighter than they appear.  I will concede that sunlight has an effect on the moon's luminescence, and my own observations support this, but I still believe there's an element of self-luminescence at play, or it just wouldn't be as bright as it is.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3957
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2014, 10:32:19 PM »
This is actually a really interesting question.  On a spherical earth with tectonic motion, subduction is necessary.  That is, in some places like the Mid-Atlantic ridge, spreading occurs, and in places like the trench off the western coast of South America, subduction occurs and the old land slides under itself, and the whole process is in perpetual repetition.  However, when one looks at one of many graphical representations of the relative ages of the earth at the sea floor, there isn't any evidence of subduction.



In this image (and many others like it), red represents "younger" land, and blue the oldest.  In these images, I see evidence that the continents are older than everything else, and the only thing happening as far as tectonics is expansion.  On a spherical earth, unless the sphere itself is growing, this can't happen.  In an infinite plane, it's not entirely out of the question to think that the plane is ever-expanding, particularly when one notes that the overwhelming majority of this expansion appears in the southern hemidisc.  Cover the lower half of this image with a hand, then the upper, and compare the amount of area that is red.  Also, near the center of the disc (the north pole) the continents are still largely crunched together.  Farther south near the ice rim, land masses are greatly fractured and spread widely apart.

Now, of course, this isn't my data so I take it with a grain of salt, but given that simply doing an image search for "sea floor age" (that's how I got this one) returns many, many different images all showing the same relative ages, then I consider them worth a little more salt.  It isn't evidence in the empirical sense, but it's  certainly compelling.  I think geologists simply assume that subduction must happen because an earth that is a fixed sphere demands it, but it's not happening.
Actually, this is proof that subduction is happening. As the plates slide underneath each other at the trenches in a process called flux-melting, magma is created and forms volcano arcs that run parallel to the subduction trenches (unless you can explain other reasons for the formation of magma/volcanoes running parallel to trenches according to Flat Earth Theory).

If you look at the map you posted, it clearly shows the oldest part of the crust is the farthest away from the known magma eruptions along the sea-floor (such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) as the crust is spread out along the diverging plates which then sink underneath the continental plates.



Now because continental crust is thicker and less dense than oceanic crust, it is the oceanic that sinks below the continental forcing the movement of the continents, not the growth of them.  On the continental crust where the plates converge they'll form mountains rather than sinking below one another. And as this kind of movement continues, the continents will all be pushed back together as the crust continuously replaces itself rather than expanding.




And you skipped my question of how we can map the interior of the round Earth with seismic waves.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6870
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #32 on: February 09, 2014, 10:39:17 PM »
In short, I don't think the moon is as reflective as RET says.
How reflective do you think RET says the moon should be? 

Quote
If it were, then the light from the sun bouncing up from the earth would make even the darker sections brighter than they appear. 
Funny, that's just my thought on self-luminescence.  It seems that self-luminescence should mean few, if any, shadows in craters near the lunar terminator.

Quote
I will concede that sunlight has an effect on the moon's luminescence, and my own observations support this, but I still believe there's an element of self-luminescence at play, or it just wouldn't be as bright as it is.
I'm confused.  Do you think that moon is brighter or darker than RET says it should be?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2014, 10:50:30 PM »
In short, I don't think the moon is as reflective as RET says.
How reflective do you think RET says the moon should be? 

Quote
If it were, then the light from the sun bouncing up from the earth would make even the darker sections brighter than they appear. 
Funny, that's just my thought on self-luminescence.  It seems that self-luminescence should mean few, if any, shadows in craters near the lunar terminator.

Quote
I will concede that sunlight has an effect on the moon's luminescence, and my own observations support this, but I still believe there's an element of self-luminescence at play, or it just wouldn't be as bright as it is.
I'm confused.  Do you think that moon is brighter or darker than RET says it should be?

I'm aware there are shadows near the terminator, I've seen them.  This is why I think direct sunlight plays a role.  I think the moon is brighter than it 'should' be.

Offline Socker

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2014, 10:52:43 PM »
What's your opinion on the phases of the moon? Do you believe in the bioluminescent migrating shrimp or some other theory?

I believe that the moon's phases are a combination of effects.  I believe that the moon is self-luminescent, and that the luminescence is  triggered, at least in part, by sunlight.  The result is that the bright parts of the moon are the portions where sunlight is most intense, but the light we see is not reflected light from the sun, if that makes sense.  I also think that the relative altitudes of the sun and moon change with time, which is why the sun's light sometimes falls on the part of the moon we can't see.  I should probably expand this into a working model with diagrams eventually.


I'm sorry,  but this seems to be a poor explanation.  How is that idea superior or even equal to the idea of reflective light? How would the sun shining on the moon make sections that are not receiving light glow? I would believe in moon shrimp before I believe in this.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2014, 10:55:43 PM »
Actually, this is proof that subduction is happening. As the plates slide underneath each other at the trenches in a process called flux-melting, magma is created and forms volcano arcs that run parallel to the subduction trenches (unless you can explain other reasons for the formation of magma/volcanoes running parallel to trenches according to Flat Earth Theory).

If you look at the map you posted, it clearly shows the oldest part of the crust is the farthest away from the known magma eruptions along the sea-floor (such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) as the crust is spread out along the diverging plates which then sink underneath the continental plates.

I see the oldest part of the earth being the areas near the continents.  I don't see any direct evidence of subduction.  There's simply an idea that it "must" be happening to keep the earth from growing.  I think we made it up to account for the fact that the spherical model of earth doesn't grow.

And you skipped my question of how we can map the interior of the round Earth with seismic waves.

I presume you're referring to the idea that certain seismic waves pass through a liquid core while others don't?  I don't know a great deal about this process or how it's done, but I'd be happy to look into it and get back with you.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2014, 10:57:23 PM »
What's your opinion on the phases of the moon? Do you believe in the bioluminescent migrating shrimp or some other theory?

I believe that the moon's phases are a combination of effects.  I believe that the moon is self-luminescent, and that the luminescence is  triggered, at least in part, by sunlight.  The result is that the bright parts of the moon are the portions where sunlight is most intense, but the light we see is not reflected light from the sun, if that makes sense.  I also think that the relative altitudes of the sun and moon change with time, which is why the sun's light sometimes falls on the part of the moon we can't see.  I should probably expand this into a working model with diagrams eventually.


I'm sorry,  but this seems to be a poor explanation.  How is that idea superior or even equal to the idea of reflective light? How would the sun shining on the moon make sections that are not receiving light glow? I would believe in moon shrimp before I believe in this.

In the past I was of the opinion that the light from the moon was reflective, but then I considered, doesn't sunlight eventually bounce back to it from earth?  Why is it *ever* dark.  I think there must be something more happening that just reflection of the sun's light.  Perhaps the surface of the moon flouresces when struck by certain wavelengths of EM radiation.  I can't be certain, I'm just judging according to what I can see.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 02:30:23 AM by Tintagel »

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3957
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #37 on: February 10, 2014, 12:01:09 AM »
Actually, this is proof that subduction is happening. As the plates slide underneath each other at the trenches in a process called flux-melting, magma is created and forms volcano arcs that run parallel to the subduction trenches (unless you can explain other reasons for the formation of magma/volcanoes running parallel to trenches according to Flat Earth Theory).

If you look at the map you posted, it clearly shows the oldest part of the crust is the farthest away from the known magma eruptions along the sea-floor (such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) as the crust is spread out along the diverging plates which then sink underneath the continental plates.

I see the oldest part of the earth being the areas near the continents.  I don't see any direct evidence of subduction.  There's simply an idea that it "must" be happening to keep the earth from growing.  I think we made it up to account for the fact that the spherical model of earth doesn't grow.

So your answer comes solely from an image of the oldest oceanic crust being next to the continental crust and nothing else. No research into volcanic formation or anything. Gotcha.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #38 on: February 10, 2014, 02:25:53 AM »
Actually, this is proof that subduction is happening. As the plates slide underneath each other at the trenches in a process called flux-melting, magma is created and forms volcano arcs that run parallel to the subduction trenches (unless you can explain other reasons for the formation of magma/volcanoes running parallel to trenches according to Flat Earth Theory).

If you look at the map you posted, it clearly shows the oldest part of the crust is the farthest away from the known magma eruptions along the sea-floor (such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) as the crust is spread out along the diverging plates which then sink underneath the continental plates.

I see the oldest part of the earth being the areas near the continents.  I don't see any direct evidence of subduction.  There's simply an idea that it "must" be happening to keep the earth from growing.  I think we made it up to account for the fact that the spherical model of earth doesn't grow.

So your answer comes solely from an image of the oldest oceanic crust being next to the continental crust and nothing else. No research into volcanic formation or anything. Gotcha.

Hot-spot volcanism works as well on an expanding plane as on a spherical earth with spreading and subduction.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3957
    • View Profile
Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything
« Reply #39 on: February 10, 2014, 02:50:42 AM »
Actually, this is proof that subduction is happening. As the plates slide underneath each other at the trenches in a process called flux-melting, magma is created and forms volcano arcs that run parallel to the subduction trenches (unless you can explain other reasons for the formation of magma/volcanoes running parallel to trenches according to Flat Earth Theory).

If you look at the map you posted, it clearly shows the oldest part of the crust is the farthest away from the known magma eruptions along the sea-floor (such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) as the crust is spread out along the diverging plates which then sink underneath the continental plates.

I see the oldest part of the earth being the areas near the continents.  I don't see any direct evidence of subduction.  There's simply an idea that it "must" be happening to keep the earth from growing.  I think we made it up to account for the fact that the spherical model of earth doesn't grow.

So your answer comes solely from an image of the oldest oceanic crust being next to the continental crust and nothing else. No research into volcanic formation or anything. Gotcha.

Hot-spot volcanism works as well on an expanding plane as on a spherical earth with spreading and subduction.
Hot spot volcanoes don't account for ridges or volcano arcs parallel to trenches.