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.

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 721
    • View Profile
Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2020, 04:45:10 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 !
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #2 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

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 721
    • View Profile
Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2020, 08:35:18 PM »
You say a couple times, "there must" as in YOU HAVE NO TRUE Knowledge of this. It's ridiculous to discount the creators flat earth, plates, movement, breaths, belches, heats, ice, waters and his construction, which you have no knowledge of. Scientist are not really that intelligent about his design.
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2020, 10:00:51 PM »
It's ridiculous to discount the creators flat earth
Well, it isn't because the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the earth is a globe.
What is ridiculous is to cling to certain interpretations of Bible verses as the evidence stacks up against it.

Quote
Scientist are not really that intelligent about his design.

They're not trying to be. They're just trying to discern truth. They're not interested in scripture - Biblical or any other religious text.
Not should they be. They're just trying to understand the physical universe.
Whether there's a God or any purpose behind it, that's for religion and philosophy to sort out.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2020, 10:49:14 PM »
They're not trying to be. They're just trying to discern truth. They're not interested in scripture - Biblical or any other religious text.
Not should they be. They're just trying to understand the physical universe.
Whether there's a God or any purpose behind it, that's for religion and philosophy to sort out.

Incorrect. See these quotes: https://wiki.tfes.org/Multiverse

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
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2020, 11:28:32 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop link=topic=16908.msg220110#msg220110

Incorrect. See these quotes: [url
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7524
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2020, 12:29:12 AM »
Quote from: geolguy29
The idea of a multiverse is plausible.

There is no evidence for a Multiverse. No evidence and untestable = Not Science.

Quote from: geolguy29
How do people arrive at God did it.

I didn't propose God. Those scientists did. Those scientists looked at the matter and stated that either there is a Multiverse or that the universe was divinely created. They are proposing something without evidence to escape a religious conclusion.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2020, 08:01:07 AM »
They're not trying to be. They're just trying to discern truth. They're not interested in scripture - Biblical or any other religious text.
Not should they be. They're just trying to understand the physical universe.
Whether there's a God or any purpose behind it, that's for religion and philosophy to sort out.

Incorrect. See these quotes: https://wiki.tfes.org/Multiverse

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
Literally the first quote says at the end

Quote
The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved

There is no "they". Individual scientists may have an anti-religion or anti-God agenda. But science as a discipline is about the physical world, things we can measure and test.
All the quotes in this area are speculative, there is no experiment you can do to determine whether we live in one of many universes or one universe which is finely tuned for life by a God (or by dumb luck). So yeah, scientists may be prone to speculate about these things but while they can make a hypothesis about these things - as we all can - there is no way of testing the hypothesis so it's not going to form part of a scientific theory.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11946
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2020, 08:38:17 AM »
Could I please ask that we stick to the subject of geology here? The meta-discussion on science is interesting, but probably belongs in S&AS.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #10 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.

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2020, 12:22:17 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.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2020, 12:24:23 PM by jack44556677 »

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #12 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.

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2020, 04:07:29 AM »
Quote
The point of the thread was to talk about observations that are undeniable.

Right, of which many of your "observations" are not a part.  That was the point.  Cores from the MAR and the like are not proof of pole reversals, that's stupid.

There is also no good evidence for tectonic plates, nor the causes of volcanism or earthquakes.  It's all junk.  Not only are they not undeniable, most are not supportable.

Quote
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.

I see.  Firstly, there is no flat earth model in the scientific sense.  As models are not a part of the scientific method, and are greatly responsible for the predicament we find ourselves in - they will not be helping us to dig our way out.

Most flat earth researchers I am aware of are collecting data that refutes the globe model, and working on historical and scientific analysis.

Secondly, the observations you are talking about have interpretive bias baked in.  For example, measuring non uniform (random) magnetic orientation in ferromagnetic rock cores near the underwater lava flows and declaring the poles reverse...

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #14 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.

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2020, 05:34:29 AM »
Quote
The evidence is there, but if you want to close your eyes to it, be my guest.

I'm saying it is not, not that it is there and I am ignoring it.  Are you familiar with carl sagan? Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence - lay it on me bro (or sis)!

Quote
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.


Sure I can! It's easy.  Peer review is a farce, as is the laughable concept of un-biased scientists.  Geologists aren't even scientists... Science is only what adheres to the scientific method, and largely geology does not qualify.

Quote
Science is humanity's greatest achievement, and your denial of it in favour of some archaic man-made religion is embarrassing

I love science, and mostly loathe religion.  You would be surprised at the lack of uniformity between flat earth researchers!

Quote
There is absolute heaps of evidence for the movement of tectonic plates. It is absolutely the cause of earthquakes.

Then why do earthquakes happen anywhere and not only on the fault lines?  The entire "theory" is junk. It has no support except in the classroom.  It's also entirely useless.  As einstein said, scientific theories must be judged by the biblical maxim - from their fruits shall they be judged.  Tectonic "theory" bares no fruit.

Quote
This can only occur on an Earth where the crust moves.

That's a stretch, but i don't have any reason to doubt that the "crust" moves.

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2020, 11:52:58 AM »
Hey Jack, what kinds of science do you like/trust? I'll see what  can dug up as far as geologic investigations that use those principles.

Regarding earthquake locations one of the main reasons they dont always have epicenters at plate boundaries is because over geologic time, the continental plates have grown. North America for example has undergone three major mountain building events which have added fragments of new plate onto the old plate margins. The grenville progeny a billion years ago, the Appalachian progeny, and the cordillera orogeny, which built the rocky mountains. 

The first two are now thousands of miles from the plate boundary in the Atlantic, but are still zoned of weakness compared to the rest of the crust. On top of that, in eastern north america there are two failed rifts - the mid continent rift and the Ottawa-Bonnechere graven. Stresses that build up within the plate has it is pushed westward can trigger failures in these regions because there are so many faults that remain.

Plate tectonic theory explains earthquakes very well if you understand a lot of earths history and no where all the boundaries are, and where they used to be.
___________________________________
"Earth isnt round or flat. It's fucked."
- Ricky LaFleur

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2020, 11:15:53 PM »
Quote
Hey Jack, what kinds of science do you like/trust?

Most all of it I like, except the demonic stuff - of which there are terrifying amounts.  I don't "trust" science exactly, but I recognize that of all the means of knowledge at our disposal, the scientific method is the best.  Sure the half life on facts is always in play, and all scientific knowledge is doomed to be laughable to subsequent generations - but it's the best we have.  Science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method (and colloquially, the body of knowledge that that method produces).  Much of what is taught as science isn't because it cannot and does not adhere to the scientific method.  One of the greatest things about science is it requires no trust, and is in fact hindered by it.  Science has (provisional) proof by experiment instead.

To tell you the truth, I do like a good story - so even the fiction I enjoy / have enjoyed (astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, climatology/planetology, sociology, history, etc.).  The most egregious flaw of earth "science" is it is taught as fact to children when it is anything but.  It is speculation at best, and it should be presented that way.

Quote
Plate tectonic theory explains earthquakes very well if you understand a lot of earths history and no where all the boundaries are, and where they used to be.

It purports to explain, but it is the validation I find lacking and the interpretation of evidence highly biased.  It is also useless. It doesn't explain the earthquakes, because if it did and we truly understood how they happened we would be able to predict them.  I know we have made progress with predicting aftershocks, but the position, size, and frequency are total mystery.  They do not only happen on fault lines, nor on "old fault lines" - though I suppose one could always claim that there MUST have been a fault there because of their bias. Circular logic at its purest.  Geology is simply rife with circular logic - the geologic column is a good example.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2020, 11:29:51 PM by jack44556677 »

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #18 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.

Re: Geology on a flat earth
« Reply #19 on: October 04, 2020, 06:11:18 PM »
Quote
Just because you can't predict something, it doesn't mean you can't figure out the cause.

This is true.  However it doesn't change the unscientific nature of the speculation of tectonic plates nor its complete uselessness to humanity as a "theory".