1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geology on a flat earth

« on: October 01, 2020, 12:05:11 AM »

Jack, get a lightbulb and slowly start applying pressure to it. You can't accurately predict the force you need to apply to that glass before it breaks and your foot hits the floor. However, you should be able to work out the cause of the glass breaking. Yes? In case you didn't get it, it is your foot pressing down on it.

Now, I know you are going to say, the second time you will be able to predict it. But what if I gave you a second light bulb and it has different glass. You can't predict the force it requires now.

The point I am making is that there is no uniformity in the crust. There are numerous factors that will effect the timing, location, depth and magnitude of an earthquake. We have no way of accurately measuring every single potential factor, and are still finding new information about them. The same way there are different factors that affect the pressure required to break that light bulb under your foot. Just because you can't predict something, it doesn't mean you can't figure out the cause.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are the constellations and the moon upside down in the Southern Hemisphere?

« on: September 30, 2020, 11:46:07 PM »

Okay, to clarify a few things for you Jack.

1. When I said the moon would rotate, I meant a clockwise/anticlockwise rotation, something akin to a record player turning. The type of rotation you are referring to in that article is axial rotation. The point I was making is that if the sky was rotating above a stationary plane then we would see the moon rotate in the manner I mentioned. If you wanted to see the moon rotate, then you need to move to higher or lower latitudes which cause the moon to rotate. This is because we are on a spherical Earth and a change in latitude changes your angle of view.

2. The example of putting a picture on the ceiling doesn't work though. Because the moon we see is always round, no matter what time of night it is and where you are on the Earth (provided it is night). Now for you to see the same face all the time it would need to be flat. Any curvature or convex nature of the moon, as you mention, would mean that part of the face that is visible in one part of the world, will not be visible in another part of the world. Get a bowl, draw black marks on it, and tape it to the ceiling round side down. Depending on where you in the room, you'll see different marks. Yet people in Scotland see the exact same face as people in South Africa. Now if the moon was flat, then it would only be round if it was directly above you. However, we see it as round the entire night. What is it going to be? Flat or round. Either way you can't explain why you see the same face on the moon all over the world. However on a globe it makes sense. Not only is the moon extremely far away, but the moon is also tidally locked, which means that the Moon doesn't rotate on its axis the way a planet does.

3. I am sorry, your argument that we should see different sides because it is a ball doesn't work on the globe model. That's because the Moon is so far away from the Earth. It would be like sticking a basketball 100 metres away from you on a long straight road. Stand on one sidewalk and look at it through binoculars. Then look at it from the other side. You're still going to be seeing the exact same face. And that is because relative to the width of the road, the ball is a long way away from you. At least see this as proof that the moon has to be 100's of thousands of miles away from the Earth. But, the general flat Earth consensus is that the moon is much closer to us. 

4. You can't say, things may be affecting the view of the moon. The image of the moon is consistent. Or is it just a happy coincidence that no matter where you look at the moon, it is the same shape, the same face, and just changes rotation based upon your latitude. - Don't come back at me with crescent moons etc, that remains consistent  across the globe so doesn't mean anything. Also if you want to go into it, it is just further proof of a spherical Earth so I wouldn't recommend it.

5. Yeah. Go to the southern hemisphere, further that one degree south, and try and find Polaris. You can't.

6. There can't be two rotating star spirals above us. A star constellation that has declination of +45 degrees can be visible in Paris at the same time it is visible in Cape Town. They will be in different places in the sky, but both can be visible. Now, in Paris, that constellation will be moving anti-clockwise. That exact same star constellation in cape town can be seen rotating clockwise. How is that possible on a flat plane. The stars can't be moving in two different directions. It is IMPOSSIBLE, unless Paris is "upside down" compared to Cape town.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are the constellations and the moon upside down in the Southern Hemisphere?

« on: September 29, 2020, 11:52:30 PM »

I'm sure this has been asked and answered ad-nauseam by now - did you not find an answer when you searched for relevant threads before posting this?

In any case, the answer is simple.  Put a picture of the moon on the middle of your ceiling (add constellations if you wish).  Now walk from the "southern hemisphere" to the northern hemisphere on the opposite side of the room.  What do you observe?

If you continue to have trouble understanding beyond that, I encourage you to visit grand central station and observe the model of the earth and sky that the main hall represents.

Every time flat earthers use this rebuttal, but it makes no sense. First of all if the moon was above us on a flat plane, and the sky was rotating above us we would see the moon rotate over the course of the night, however we don't. Secondly, everyone on Earth sees the same face. It may be the wrong way round, but it is always the same features on the face of the moon. How could it be possible that people in Scotland and people in South Africa see the same face at the same time. Try hanging a ball up on the ceiling of your room and looking at it from different sides of the room. You're never going to see the same face. Now if the moon was a LONG LONG way away from the Earth then maybe you would see the same face. But if it was that far away then on a flat Earth you would see the moon 24 hours a day. The other potential option would be if the moon was also flat. Everybody would see the same face. However, the moon would only ever be spherical if you were directly underneath it. Otherwise it would look like an oval, which never happens.

As for the constellations. People don't see the same constellations in the north hemisphere as they do in the Southern hemisphere. That is a lie. Now the most damning observation is if you record the stars in the northern hemisphere over the course of the night, and speed up the footage, you'll find that they rotate anti-clockwise around the Earth's north axis. However, if you do this in the southern hemisphere, you'll see the stars rotating clockwise around the Earth's southern axis. At the equator stars move more linearly. This doesn't possibly make any sense on a flat earth. How could stars be moving two different directions at once. This only works on a sphere...There is nothing more to say.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a flat Earth Jean Meeus?

« on: September 29, 2020, 11:26:55 PM »

If you can show me some calculations of astrological astronomical positions that consistently give you accurate results/predictions, that use the Earth's planar nature then there is a conversation to be had.

Fixed that for you, I hope?

Yep, cheers.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a flat Earth Jean Meeus?

« on: September 29, 2020, 12:01:04 PM »

It's funny though isn't it. That you can use this book to accurately predict all sorts of astronomical movements. Especially when it uses numbers taken from the globe Earth model. I mean things such as eccentricity of the Earth's orbit or the obliquity of the ecliptic. They couldn't even exist on any flat earth model. You see, one correct prediction you could put down to coincidence. Maybe even two. But millions?

It must be really unfortunate as a flat earther to have all these formulas that use the Earth's sphericity in calculations that actually provide accurate predictions. Maybe globers invented maths to fool all of us. I mean, is 2+2 even 4?. I am looking at my fingers, and I count four, but who knows. Maybe it is a coincidence as well.

I apologise for being patronising, but I came here to have a sensible debate. But if you are going to talk absolute nonsense that this doesn't support a globe earth model then you are clearly lying to yourself or are a fake flat earther.

If you can show me some calculations of astrological positions that consistently give you accurate results/predictions, that use the Earth's planar nature then there is a conversation to be had. 
 

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geology on a flat earth

« on: September 29, 2020, 11:37:04 AM »

Don't get fixated on the pole reversals. The evidence is there, but if you want to close your eyes to it, be my guest. But this constant denial of scientific evidence is the issue behind this rise in flat earth belief. You can't just deny hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, carried out by un-biased scientists, from institutions all over the world, that are heavily scrutinised within the scientific community, just because it doesn't fit within your world view. I was part of that scientific community. They don't get you to sign some contract that forces you to lie to the rest of the world. No doubt you believe in religion, most likely a fundamentalist Christian, and therefore have been indoctrinated into a faith based system that uses one ancient book as its reference point. Science is humanity's greatest achievement, and your denial of it in favour of some archaic man-made religion is embarrassing.   

But let's forget about all that. Lets get back to the major point that is plate tectonics. There is absolute heaps of evidence for the movement of tectonic plates. It is absolutely the cause of earthquakes. Just go look at any map of global earthquakes, and the vast majority of them are going to be right on a plate boundary. If you want visual proof of moving plates go to San Francisco. Perhaps have a look at a cliff face. You are almost definitely going to see some small faults, folding of bedding and perhaps even overturned beds. This can only occur on an Earth where the crust moves.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geology on a flat earth

« on: September 28, 2020, 02:17:25 PM »

I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said - good thread!

"The fact we can see pole reversals in the changing direction of magnetic minerals in the Earth alternating, outward of constructive plate boundaries."

This is complete, and utter fiction.  Much like tectonics, geodynamo, pangea, ice bridge, etc - just more of mankind's profound stupidity.  "Look, the continents are all pieces of a puzzle floating in a bathtub! I'm a scientist!".  Learning about the origins of these "theories" is invaluable.  The history of science is woefully taught, and it is very useful to determine the actual science from the pseudoscience mythology masquerading as it.  Also learning the definition of science, and the scientific method - not the definitions we most all learned initially, which were largely incorrect.

I understand that flat earthers don't believe in the foundation of a lot of our geological understanding, despite its strongly supported evidence and all theories being scrutinised by the scientific community. The point of the thread was to talk about observations that are undeniable. These observations need to be able to fit within an Earth model, and I was challenging the ability for the flat earth model to support it.

My experience is that lots of flat earthers are afraid to talk about geology because it is actually a very well understood branch of science that can tell us a lot about the history of the Earth. I can look at a cliff face and tell you a lot about the geological history of that area.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geology on a flat earth

« on: September 09, 2020, 09:05:00 AM »

Agreed, it would be nice to talk about the topic that was mentioned.

As for J-man, where I have said there 'must be something' it is recognising that something must cause what we observe. Like if I came home and a window was broken, I can assume something broke it. What I wasn't doing was claiming that the theories of how it occurs are indisputable. Albeit if you took the time to read about the theories, they are indeed quite strongly supported.

But let's not get into that, or talk about scientific theory. I wanted to talk about the logical explanations and causes for the phenomena that we observe.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geology on a flat earth

« on: September 08, 2020, 11:28:32 PM »

https://wiki.tfes.org/Multiverse[/url]

In this instance they are clearly saying that they have to believe in something which does not have evidence (the Multiverse) because the only other explanation is God.

- They are aware of religion
- They are interested in religion, if only to deny it
- They are proposing hypothesis' without evidence to escape a religious conclusion

That's such an illogical argument. The idea of a multiverse is plausible. We live in a universe, hence one is known to exist. Perhaps there are more.

How do people arrive at God did it. There is no physical evidence of any god, therefore we have no reason to believe one exists. While you can use it as an explanation if you want, scientists choose not to, because there are no grounds to any supernatural entity existing. They are not denying anything.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geology on a flat earth

« on: September 08, 2020, 06:59:49 PM »

Theory is based on facts. Seeing as there is less known of the ocean floor (2/3rd earth surface) than the surface of the moon? How could anyone factually draw conclusions as to what the heck is going on down there?

Simple answer: you can't !

You can quite accurately map the bottom of the ocean using echosounders. We haven't the time, resources or energy to map the entire ocean floor. But the plate boundaries have been mapped and the movement measured

11

Flat Earth Theory / Geology on a flat earth

« on: September 08, 2020, 10:55:47 AM »

One of the subjects that is rarely discussed in forums and youtube videos is the geology of the Earth in relation to the Flat Earth theory. In particular the geological theory of plate tectonics.

The earth's tectonic and volcanic activity is one of the most observable phenomena in the world. Volcanoes erupt continually and hundreds of measurable earthquakes occur each day. We also witness the destruction of the Earth's crust a destructive plate boundaries and formation of new rock at constructive plate boundaries  (e.g the mid-Atlantic ridge). Even more miraculously we see the birth of entire islands as they emerge from the ocean all thanks to the wonderful happenings beneath our feet. All of this is is observable and I assume undisputed.

Now I don't know what the current flat earth opinion is on this subject, but I will list a selection of things that must be occurring because of what we observe.
1. There must be a source of great heat and energy beneath the crust that is effectively breathing life into the earth. We see this with the molten rock that emerges at heats of 1000 degrees from the mantle. The new rock forming is essentially a recycling of the rock that gets gets dragged back into the mantle at destructive plate boundaries. It provides the Earth with vital minerals and gases that sustain the atmosphere and sea life. The cause of this energy, for obvious reasons is not observable with the naked eye.
2. As with all sources of energy, one day it will run out. Hopefully not soon haha, because we could not survive without it.
3. The continents are moving. You can actually measure the movement of the Earth's crust. This can be done all over the world, and it is easy to find figures for the movement of these plates each year. If you have the patience go to San Francisco and do it for yourself.  However, the speed of the crust moving differs, presumably depending on the size of the plate and the type of plate boundaries that it has. But this is open to discussion.
4. There must be a force acting on the plates causing them to move. The popular theory is a combination of convection currents in the mantle and slab pull, which is a downwards pull of the crust at destructive plate boundaries, that scientists would call gravity. I am open to discussing other theories for pate movement.
5. There has to have been huge collisions in continents throughout Earth's history to create mountains. Effectively the crust buckling as the two large land masses collide. We can actually measure the rise or fall in mountains depending on where they are in the cycle. Some mountain ranges are continually getting taller as the two continental plates push into each other. You could theorise that the volcanic activity is the cause of mountains, but the complete lack of volcanic activity in regions, as well as the lack of craters disputes this.


All of the above criteria must be met for a satisfactory theory. Now this doesn't even start with what is actually known about plate movement. The fact we can see pole reversals in the changing direction of magnetic minerals in the Earth alternating, outward of constructive plate boundaries. Matching fossil and geological records across continents, providing evidence for mass movement continent moving. Radiometric dating that provides the age of rocks, telling us the age of land masses. All the information from sediment that can be analysed to illustrate huge changes in sea levels and atmospheric conditions throughout history. The list endless. But I appreciate that lots of people won't ever get the chance to see this, so I'm not going to use this in the argument.

My main argument is that the only theory that matches the criteria is plate tectonic theory. The theory that the Earth is made up of several segments, varying in oceanic and continental crust, that are all moving due to forces in the mantle at various directions and speed and are responsible for the formation and destruction of the crust. My issue is that plate tectonic theory can't work on a two-dimensional plane. With the known positions of plate boundaries and their movement speeds, the shape of the Earth would never be able to maintain a circular disc like structure. Instead it would constantly change shape, literal gaps would form in the crust based on the popular flat earth model, the Antarctic wall would be moving. If you believe in an edge, plates would be falling off it.

I am interested to hear what you believe is happening with the Earth's tectonics. What is causing all of the the observable phenomena listed above? Do you believe in plate tectonic theory? Or is there another theory that would allow for this to all occur on a flat plane.

If anyone has any questions about this theory or geology in general I'd love to discuss it.

Hope everyone's healthy and doing well.