Jump to content

thplinth

Member
  • Content Count

    6,537
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

thplinth last won the day on January 10

thplinth had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

93 Great guy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

13,328 profile views
  1. Plate tectonics as a theory also came about before they mapped the age of the sea floor I understand. From your other comments I can see you have not really looked at it. I can't be bothered relaying it to you. As for energy... maybe you are missing some other potential source. Anyway I really am not trying to convince you. Just seems to me like a far more interesting alternative theory of the earth than all this flat v ball pish.
  2. The theory has no need for subduction to be happening unlike the current theory of plate tectonics. So finding an example of it would not refute the theory. That may be some local effect if indeed it is actually subduction. I am glad you mention Pangea. What I find particularly curious about it is if you look at animations of the theorized movements of the continents under the plate tectonics theory they are moving about a lot and are all over the place, forming into super continents on one side of the earth breaking up, reforming again (Pangea is one of several super continents that existed apparently) and this goes on for 100s of millions of years before finally settling into the current configuration. What troubles me about it is what are the chances that the continents after all that higgily piggly movement would arrange themselves into a configuration so that by simply eliminating the newest rock in the oceans means you are able to collapse the continents into a smaller sphere and they would fit so well. I would have thought the chances of that would be almost nil. The problem is not subduction for them it is if the earth is increasing in mass as well. That is a toughie. But then do we really understand how mass is generated. Maybe the E=MC^2 formula suggest that energy is being converted into mass somehow in the the core.
  3. I am not even sure I was joking. This shit is getting confusing. We have these mathematical projections which make globe shaped maps into flat shaped maps but it involves some pretty fucking mind bending math. Then we have these flat earth maps which I am not sure adhere to the rigours of the maths of the maps above. Then you have weird hybrid maps which are quasi real quasi pish. I am just trying to go with the flow at this point.
  4. Ahh. I was looking at that map as if it was a flat earth map not a globe map 'made flat'. Sorry mistook the ice wall for the blurry edges.
  5. Are you lot mental of something. Looking at the above. North = Up South = Down East = Right West = Left If you start at the point above (so that must be North) the big white island in the middle of the map and go East / Right you are going to hit India ya loonies. Stay off the drugs.
  6. From what I can see they do not believe that that constant new crust being excreted in the oceans is subducted back into the earth They believe this is then resulting in the earth expanding. They say very limited local subduction might be happening but nothing close to the idea that it is all being spewed out and then swallowed back up to maintain the constant surface size earth. Rather that focus on subduction which is quite difficult to prove one way or the other being so deep at this point. What do you say to the theory that we can shrink the current earth using the age of the most recent crust to remove the new stuff which is in the ocean rifts and when you do that the very old continents reform like pieces of a shattered egg shell to form an earth that is much smaller. The degree to which he can make them fit if you believe it is really quite hard to discount. All they think they know is the earth is expanding. They have several variants from there. It is expanding without increasing in mass, it is expanding and increasing in mass, the gravitational constant is changing... it goes on. Biffer will go off his nut but I really find it quite interesting. It has lot of interesting tangents.. for example if it is expanding and increasing in mass it could mean the earths gravity was considerably lower explaining gigantism in animal and plants in the past. But it is far out there. Apparently the earth has been measured growing using all the latest technology by about 17mm per year for a couple of decades now and they have written it off as an error. The guy in the longer vid had predicted 22mm per year. We are talking about very hard things to observe given the time scales versus a human life time. The other thing is that that this expansion is exponential. For most of earth history it was the same size or near it and then it started exponentially growing. The theory being that planets have a life cycle. The earth will grow and move further from the sun and evolve into what we see in planets further out and then collapse back down and wither... Say what you want it is 100X more intriguing than a flat earth theory.
  7. For those who really want to get into it. Skip to 1.20. 14 glorious parts. Fill those boots.
  8. One of the longest running and most controversial theories in geology is the Expanding Earth theory. From the earliest school classes to the most advanced university geology lectures we are all taught that the size of the Earth has been constant and unchanging for thousands of millions of years, so virtually everyone is astonished when first presented with evidence for an Expanding Earth. Some people are so shocked by the array of observations supporting an Expanding Earth model they simply deny there is any evidence for expansion. This rejection of the observations can become very animated at times but a few people are sufficiently curious to carefully investigate the facts indicating that the Earth has expanded over geological time. Some of the more well known investigators into the Expanding Earth theory are professors of geology and other sciences, who continue to examine the supporting evidence and report the results of their observations in various scientific papers and books. This history of the Expanding Earth theory is still developing today as these new scientific observations are examined and debated. The most widely known geological evidence for Earth expansion is a simple reconstruction of the ancient continents and ancient ocean floor like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The continents are ancient and some regions have existed for more than 3,800 million years but in geological time scales the ocean floor is relatively young and ranges from only about 200 million years old at the continents to areas at the mid-ocean ridges that are still forming today. When the dinosaurs first evolved none of today's ocean floor existed. Consider how unlikely it is that the entire ancient ocean floor fits together so precisely to form a complete sphere on the ancient Earth. If the missing ancient ocean floor had been generated by any other process than an Expanding Earth it would be improbable that the areas were the exact shapes required to reconstruct a smaller Earth. It would be more likely that irregular shapes that didn't fit together would exist. The probability of the Expanding Earth forming by chance is so low it seems impossible. It is similar to arguing that a jigsaw puzzle fits together by chance rather than for any logical reason. Read more here
  9. Oh dear.... sorry to have to be the one to break this to you but....
  10. No idea how that worked but the harshness of the lunar day and night mean I don't see the plants being in some mini eco glass ball self sustaining environment that they release and leave on the lunar environment and let get on with it. It must have been well embedded within the lander in an artificial zone with a sustained heat and false light source. Given those resources scaled up I could probably grow tomatoes on the moon. It is a fair experiment but it would have been far more rewarding to try using martian soil added to human stuff and then grow it.
  11. well given the odd starting point if you cleared the antarctic peninsula you go on to collide with the southern tip of India i reckon.
  12. If you are at the ballearth South Pole then no matter what direction you step you are going North. At the flat earth South Pole what is the deal?
  13. Using that flat earth map you will not clear the Antarctic peninsula and if you did you would then hit he mainland. But on a globe fuck knows, probably some weird answer.
×