The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: ghostopia on December 02, 2017, 02:14:14 AM
-
In Round Earth model, inside of Earth is explained. Its made of crust, mantle, outer core, and inner core. It is also tested by calculating of seismic waves created from earthquake. Because seismic wave's speed change as they go through different parts of Earth.
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_3/seismic.htm (http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_3/seismic.htm)
How does it look like below the surface of Earth in Flat Earth model?
Also in Round Earth model, it is believed that there are tectonic plates are made up of Earth's crust. These plates move around very slowly and when they collide, earthquake happens. These plates move because of earth's mantle.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/kids/eqscience.php (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/kids/eqscience.php)
This is how earthquake if formed in Round Earth model. How does earthquake happen in Flat Earth? It cannot happen because of tectonic plates because they are based of theory that states Earth is made of crush, mantle, outer core, and inner core.
-
I could not find a wiki page dedicated for how it look like underground, but I found a related one.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Formation_of_Mountains_and_Volcanoes (https://wiki.tfes.org/Formation_of_Mountains_and_Volcanoes)
However, this one does not explain what the structure underground looks like. Also this page only explain it for Universal Acceleration model from what I understand.
Mountains are created over long periods of time by tremendous forces within the flat earth. Below the crust there is tremendous pressure due to acceleration, which has created a vast underground ocean of magma within the earth's mantle. Mountains are formed by volcanism, erosion, and disturbances or an uplift in the flat earth's crust.
The flat earth's crust is made up of huge slabs called plates, which fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. At the Ice Wall there are subduction plates, where the continents recede and recycle. When two slabs of the earth's crust smash into each other the land can be pushed upwards, forming mountains. Many of the greatest mountain ranges of the flat earth have formed because of enormous collisions between continents.
This is directly from the wiki page. According to this, mantle is formed because of pressure from "acceleration"(I think this mean UA). If rock melted from pressure of UA than how can we withstand the pressure? Also, how does the plates move because there is no explanation for that... It simply says "When two slabs of the earth's crust smash into each other the land can be pushed upwards".
-
tremendous pressure due to acceleration, which has created a vast underground ocean of magma
Ghostopia is right that this phrase needs work. I would like to see the thermodynamics of this more clearly explained. How exactly does pressure create magma in terms of thermodynamics?
-
tremendous pressure due to acceleration, which has created a vast underground ocean of magma
Ghostopia is right that this phrase needs work. I would like to see the thermodynamics of this more clearly explained. How exactly does pressure create magma in terms of thermodynamics?
Einstein's Equivelence Principle states that an upwardly acclerating earth and gravity are indistinguishable, which means that the concept of weight still holds.
-
tremendous pressure due to acceleration, which has created a vast underground ocean of magma
Ghostopia is right that this phrase needs work. I would like to see the thermodynamics of this more clearly explained. How exactly does pressure create magma in terms of thermodynamics?
Einstein's Equivelence Principle states that an upwardly acclerating earth and gravity are indistinguishable, which means that the concept of weight still holds.
Did you reply to the wrong thing here Tom? Because your reply doesn't appear to make any sense in context to what you have quoted. If this was intentional, some elaboration would be much appreciated.
-
tremendous pressure due to acceleration, which has created a vast underground ocean of magma
Ghostopia is right that this phrase needs work. I would like to see the thermodynamics of this more clearly explained. How exactly does pressure create magma in terms of thermodynamics?
Einstein's Equivelence Principle states that an upwardly acclerating earth and gravity are indistinguishable, which means that the concept of weight still holds.
Did you reply to the wrong thing here Tom? Because your reply doesn't appear to make any sense in context to what you have quoted. If this was intentional, some elaboration would be much appreciated.
Yes, please.
-
Think about why weight creates magma.
-
Think about why weight creates magma.
I just thought about it and can't understand how a constant 1g of acceleration would create magma. If that was the case, then any large building on the surface of the earth would surely create magma as it would be pressing down on the surface with the same force as UA pushing up from underneath ???
Roger
(Enjoying playing the game)
-
Think about why weight creates magma.
I just thought about it and can't understand how a constant 1g of acceleration would create magma. If that was the case, then any large building on the surface of the earth would surely create magma as it would be pressing down on the surface with the same force as UA pushing up from underneath ???
Roger
(Enjoying playing the game)
Acceleration is not a constant speed, it is a rate of increase of speed. You are going faster and faster at a certain rate.
Weight still works the same way according to Einstein's Equivelence principle. Imagine if you were in a fighter jet and accelerated at 3g while wearing eye glasses the weight of of a feather vs. wearing eye glasses the weight of a bowling ball. You would feel a distinct difference in what is pressing back against your face, right?
-
Think about why weight creates magma.
I just thought about it and can't understand how a constant 1g of acceleration would create magma. If that was the case, then any large building on the surface of the earth would surely create magma as it would be pressing down on the surface with the same force as UA pushing up from underneath ???
Roger
(Enjoying playing the game)
Acceleration is not a constant speed, it is a rate of increase of speed. You are going faster and faster at a certain rate.
Weight still works the same way according to Einstein's Equivelence principle. Imagine if you were in a fighter jet and accelerated at 3g while wearing eye glasses the weight of of a feather vs. wearing eye glasses the weight of a bowling ball. You would feel a distinct difference in what is pressing back against your face, right?
Do you not find it slightly ironic that the theory you pull equivalence from deals with gravity, not UA? General Relativity is about the geometric warping of spacetime by massive objects. (which is what we call gravity) I posted about the whole stepping off the chair thing awhile back and was met with, and I think it was you who said this, "are you smarter than Einstein?" Well, Tom, are YOU smarter than Einstein? I view this as just another example of FEH cherry-picking little bits of science that make it seem more legitimate while ignoring everything that show it is completely absurd.
-
Think about why weight creates magma.
I just thought about it and can't understand how a constant 1g of acceleration would create magma. If that was the case, then any large building on the surface of the earth would surely create magma as it would be pressing down on the surface with the same force as UA pushing up from underneath ???
Roger
(Enjoying playing the game)
Acceleration is not a constant speed, it is a rate of increase of speed. You are going faster and faster at a certain rate.
Weight still works the same way according to Einstein's Equivelence principle. Imagine if you were in a fighter jet and accelerated at 3g while wearing eye glasses the weight of of a feather vs. wearing eye glasses the weight of a bowling ball. You would feel a distinct difference in what is pressing back against your face, right?
Do you not find it slightly ironic that the theory you pull equivalence from deals with gravity, not UA? General Relativity is about the geometric warping of spacetime by massive objects. (which is what we call gravity) I posted about the whole stepping off the chair thing awhile back and was met with, and I think it was you who said this, "are you smarter than Einstein?" Well, Tom, are YOU smarter than Einstein? I view this as just another example of FEH cherry-picking little bits of science that make it seem more legitimate while ignoring everything that show it is completely absurd.
Yeah, it is ironic. But for the sake of discussion let's just go with it.
This wiki states that the magma is formed because of tremendous pressure from UA. So magma is at the very last layer of the Earth because the deepest place should have the most pressure. But than, magma is liquid. So the magma part will separate from the crust because of laws of Inertia.
You test this yourself. You will need a cup of water(without lid) and something like car or bicycle. You accelerate and spin the cup of water so that the open side faces away from the direction you are headed.
What happens? The water will spill from the cup. From the viewpoint of second observer, it will look like the water is pulled away from your cup.
How does this not happen in UA model?
-
Think about why weight creates magma.
I can't because I have no idea why weight would create magma. Please talk about why weight creates magma.
-
Think about why weight creates magma.
I can't because I have no idea why weight would create magma. Please talk about why weight creates magma.
I think what he means is that PRESSURE from the weight create magma not the weight itself. Because high pressure causes heat to melt the rocks. This is true and this is the reason why Earth's core is hot.
-
Think about why weight creates magma.
I just thought about it and can't understand how a constant 1g of acceleration would create magma. If that was the case, then any large building on the surface of the earth would surely create magma as it would be pressing down on the surface with the same force as UA pushing up from underneath ???
Roger
(Enjoying playing the game)
Acceleration is not a constant speed, it is a rate of increase of speed. You are going faster and faster at a certain rate.
Weight still works the same way according to Einstein's Equivelence principle. Imagine if you were in a fighter jet and accelerated at 3g while wearing eye glasses the weight of of a feather vs. wearing eye glasses the weight of a bowling ball. You would feel a distinct difference in what is pressing back against your face, right?
Not sure what relevance your post has to my point, of course at 3g, the feather and the glasses would weigh proportionately more. However the increasing speed of the earth is irrelevant as the accelerating force is still a constant 1g. When I have taught and demonstrated aerobatics I have regularly pulled considerably increased G forces which make my body feel much heavier. That doesn't make any difference to UA giving a 1g acceleration to the earth and a large object (or any object) exerting a similar downward force to resist it, so why no magma being created under objects on the surface?
Roger
-
Acceleration is not a constant speed
No kidding. Nobody said it was.
-
Think about why weight creates magma.
I just thought about it and can't understand how a constant 1g of acceleration would create magma. If that was the case, then any large building on the surface of the earth would surely create magma as it would be pressing down on the surface with the same force as UA pushing up from underneath ???
Roger
(Enjoying playing the game)
Acceleration is not a constant speed, it is a rate of increase of speed. You are going faster and faster at a certain rate.
Weight still works the same way according to Einstein's Equivelence principle. Imagine if you were in a fighter jet and accelerated at 3g while wearing eye glasses the weight of of a feather vs. wearing eye glasses the weight of a bowling ball. You would feel a distinct difference in what is pressing back against your face, right?
Not sure what relevance your post has to my point, of course at 3g, the feather and the glasses would weigh proportionately more. However the increasing speed of the earth is irrelevant as the accelerating force is still a constant 1g. When I have taught and demonstrated aerobatics I have regularly pulled considerably increased G forces which make my body feel much heavier. That doesn't make any difference to UA giving a 1g acceleration to the earth and a large object (or any object) exerting a similar downward force to resist it, so why no magma being created under objects on the surface?
Roger
When you accelerate into more massive objects they press harder against you.
If you were in space and your open faced rocket ship were accelerating at 1g against an asteroid, pinning your body between the rocket and asteroid, you would be crushed to death. If it was a small feather instead of an asteroid you would not be crushed to death.
-
If you were in space and your open faced rocket ship were accelerating at 1g against an asteroid, pinning your body between the rocket and asteroid, you would be crushed to death. If it was a small feather instead of an asteroid you would not be crushed to death.
Do you have any proof of this Tom?? This is exactly the type of statement that you refute when presented to you and demand evidence to support it, so let's turn the tables. Prove it.
-
If you were in space and your open faced rocket ship were accelerating at 1g against an asteroid, pinning your body between the rocket and asteroid, you would be crushed to death. If it was a small feather instead of an asteroid you would not be crushed to death.
Do you have any proof of this Tom?? This is exactly the type of statement that you refute when presented to you and demand evidence to support it, so let's turn the tables. Prove it.
I would love to see Tom's answer to this. But primarily I am confused as to why devil's advocate is asking the question. Isn't the reality of Tom's assertion obvious? I won't answer yet. I will let Tom B. But if he doesn't answer, I hope to do it.
That said, no amount of force or pressure will liquefy rock. Only water is liquefied under pressure. Pressure turns most substances from gas to liquid to solid phase. Not the other way around. Only heat liquifies rock. There is some thermodynamic nuance to what I have said, and if we need to go into that, we can. But for the purposes of "non-compressible" rock, the thermodynamics are negligible. No amount of force or pressure turns rock into magma.
-
If you were in space and your open faced rocket ship were accelerating at 1g against an asteroid, pinning your body between the rocket and asteroid, you would be crushed to death. If it was a small feather instead of an asteroid you would not be crushed to death.
Do you have any proof of this Tom?? This is exactly the type of statement that you refute when presented to you and demand evidence to support it, so let's turn the tables. Prove it.
I would love to see Tom's answer to this. But primarily I am confused as to why devil's advocate is asking the question. Isn't the reality of Tom's assertion obvious? I won't answer yet. I will let Tom B. But if he doesn't answer, I hope to do it.
In open space hitting an asteroid at that speed would kill you because of its mass, however a feather has very little mass hence it's effect would be nominal.
-
We are not talking about my body being crushed by being pinned between a rocket accelerating at 1g and the mass of an asteroid. We are talking about the mass of the earth being accelerated at 1g by a force which is moving at 9.8m/s/s. If we hypothesise for a moment that the UA force was a solid object spreading an even force across the entire underside of the earth, that force would always remain the same as the earth moved ahead of it and wouldn't be generating heat anymore than me experiencing 5g in aerobatics would generate heat in what I am in contact with. On the other hand a direct impact against a non moving solid object by another solid object moving at 9.8m/s will quite likely generate some heat from the energy of the impact. But we are not talking about impact we are talking about continuous acceleration which is not enough pressure to turn rock into magma.
In the RE model, all of the energy generated by gravity is directed inwards towards the core from every direction with no subsequent acceleration away from the energy by the trapped inner rocks, so the energy will be converted into heat enough to turn the rock to magma. I should add that is purely my thoughts based on no scientific background just thinking about it as Tom asked.
Roger
-
A little bit of confusion here.
We are not talking about my body being crushed by being pinned between a rocket accelerating at 1g and the mass of an asteroid. We are talking about the mass of the earth being accelerated at 1g by a force which is moving at 9.8m/s/s. If we hypothesise for a moment that the UA force was a solid object spreading an even force across the entire underside of the earth, that force would always remain the same as the earth moved ahead of it and wouldn't be generating heat anymore than me experiencing 5g in aerobatics would generate heat in what I am in contact with. On the other hand a direct impact against a non moving solid object by another solid object moving at 9.8m/s will quite likely generate some heat from the energy of the impact.
It would be good to restate the above with crystal clear distinction between acceleration and velocity.
But we are not talking about impact we are talking about continuous acceleration which is not enough pressure to turn rock into magma.
Again, no amount of pressure turns rock into magma unless there is deformation/destruction/friction/chemical change. The heat of an impact can melt things because of those things.
In the RE model, all of the energy generated by gravity is directed inwards towards the core from every direction with no subsequent acceleration away from the energy by the trapped inner rocks, so the energy will be converted into heat enough to turn the rock to magma. I should add that is purely my thoughts based on no scientific background just thinking about it as Tom asked.
Roger
This is not right. There is magma inside the round earth for four reasons:
Most of Earth's heat is stored in the mantle, Marone says, and there are four sources that keep it hot. First, there's the heat left over from when gravity first condensed a planet from the cloud of hot gases and particles in pre-Earth space. As the molten ball cooled, some 4 billion years ago, the outside hardened and formed a crust. The mantle is still cooling down.
"We don't think this original heat is a major part of the Earth's heat, though," Marone says. It only contributes 5 to 10 percent of the total, "about the same amount as gravitational heat."
To explain gravitational heat, Marone again evokes the image of the hot, freshly formed Earth, which was not of a consistent density. In a gravitational sorting process called differentiation, the denser, heavier parts were drawn to the center, and the less dense areas were displaced outwards. The friction created by this process generated considerable heat, which, like the original heat, still has not fully dissipated.
Then there's latent heat, Marone says. This type arises from the core's expanding as the Earth cools from the inside out. Just as freezing water turns to ice, that liquid metal is turning solid—and adding volume in the process. "The inner core is becoming larger by about a centimeter every thousand years," Marone says. The heat released by this expansion is seeping into the mantle.
For all this, however, Marone says, the vast majority of the heat in Earth's interior—up to 90 percent—is fueled by the decaying of radioactive isotopes like Potassium 40, Uranium 238, 235, and Thorium 232 contained within the mantle. These isotopes radiate heat as they shed excess energy and move toward stability. "The amount of heat caused by this radiation is almost the same as the total heat measured emanating from the Earth."
Radioactivity is present not only in the mantle, but in the rocks of Earth's crust. For example, Marone explains, a 1-kilogram block of granite on the surface emanates a tiny but measurable amount of heat (about as much as a .000000001 watt light bulb) through radioactive decay.
That may not seem like much. But considering the vastness of the mantle, it adds up, Marone says.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2006-03-probing-earth-core.html