Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Earth issues and truth seeking

Earth issues and truth seeking 25 Apr 2016 23:31 #1

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7675
  • Likes received: 1668
In this topic I want to list some observations I have done over the last years in discussions and videos on the Earth.

Earth sciences are the sciences studying the Earth. The Earth from inside to outside consists of:
  • geosphere:
  • - asthenosphere
  • - lithosphere
  • hydrosphere
  • biosphere
  • atmosphere
  • magnetosphere

Geophysics is the study of the physics of the Earth, mainly focused on the deep interior geosphere and the magnetosphere.
Geochemistry is the stufy of the chemistry of the Earth, split into organic (life, hydrocarbons) and anorganic (minerals, volcanic compositions, etc.)
Geology is the study of the history of the Earth, focusing on the processes through time of the lithosphere and the interaction of that with the other spheres.
Biology and paleontology study the (paleo)biosphere
Hydrology and oceanographt study the (paleo)hydrosphere
(Paleo)climatology and meteorology study the (paleo)atmosphere

On truth seeking platforms I have seen the following topics widely or less widely discussed:
1 - Flat Earth - luckily not here; it is a deliberate disinfo trolling strategy mostly backed by NASA cum suis
2 - Concave Earth/Skycentrism - truth-zone.net/forum/science-and-physics/63418-hollow-world-theory-inner-world-cosmos-skycentrism-we-live-in-the-concave-earth.html?limitstart=0
3 - Hollow Earth - truth-zone.net/forum/planet-earth/64088-hollow-earth.html
4 - Expanding Earth - truth-zone.net/forum/planet-earth/64198-the-expanding-earth-is-for-sure.html
5 - Creationism (and its subset "Intelligent Design")
6 - Dinosaurs would be a hoax (part of 5)
7 - The Origin of Oil - truth-zone.net/forum/planet-earth/65351-the-origins-of-oil.html

All these topics have some particular and some common features. In general the outline goes like:
a - people lie to us
b - established scientific models are wrong
c - we present an alternative model

a is true but not an argument in itself. The fact there have been major lies on news events, history and faked, corrupted non-science (e.g. "Global" "Warming", Nuke Hoax, Space Travel Hoax) does not mean that any established scientific model is a priori wrong. It just means one needs to be skeptical and not take everything for granted. Skepticism is a good sign of a scientific mind.
b - what is done usually is complete amateurs who have no or very little knowledge of the established model distort and twist the model they want to attack. Mostly because they lack even basic "wiki-type" knowledge about the model they are attacking. Examples are numerous, some notorious comments like "a dog cannot come from a bacteria" (Evolution Theory) or "Antarctica is inaccessible, so there is no 24 hour daylight there on 21 Dec" (Flat Earth).
c - the way an "alternative" "model" is presented usually works with backreasoning; first starting with a "model" and then trying to fit observations in there. Observations that don't fit are intentionally avoided as that would mean the model is not correct. This is typical religious behaviour, not scientific. In science you start with observations (data) and from there you build a hypothesis (an idea that you need to test), if the hypothesis is tested and confirmed by existing observations you could speak about a theory. That theory is only worth something if it can predict future observations as well.

The listed topics above all have these characteristiscs and show the believer in those "models" (falsely called "theories") doesn't have a clue about what the existing model is.

It would be just like saying "on September 23 2006 3 planes carrying 37 buddhist terrorists from Oman, Ghana and Australia hit the CN Tower, the White House and the Empire State Building" and then start attacking that story. That is making a fool out of yourself. Most of the basic science is well explained in many text books and Wikipedia on this terrain gives a good introduction. But not more than that; if you really want to understand the details you have to study them. Studying them takes time, effort and dirty hands; going into the field where possible or build reliable models on a computer if that is not possible. None of the people who attack those established models do that, with the exception of some experiments on Concave Earth and Expanding Earth models like that of Maxlow.

On top of this a strategy is chosen to fill the gaps with "magic" or the infamous God of the Gaps.

In science, logic, reason and consistency are extremely important tools to differentiate between truth and untruth. Basic logic included intrinsically contradictory statements like "a single-colour object can be black and white at the same time". If it's 1 colour it can either be black or white, not at the same time. If it's black and white it is not single-colour anymore and in the case of a black object painted with some invisible coating in normal light lighting up white under UV light it is not at the same time. There are many more logical inconsistencies like this in the models those people present.

A good model is consistent. It means there is consistency either in shapes, sizes, physics behind the observations, etc.

A good model is predicting. With the current established heliocentric spherical Earth model it is possible to predict solar and lunar eclipses up to the minute. That shows it is a robust model. I still have to come across any successfully predicted eclipse with one of the other models.

The topics in particular:
1 - Flat Earth - is impossible even with the simplest observations; day and night, seasons, the apparent size of the Sun and Moon, flight paths, solar and lunar eclipses, not possible to see for many kms etc. The "model" is inconsistent with globes (Moon, Sun), dishes (Earth), points (stars), domes (the sky) and avoids any point of geology like plate tectonics, origin of volcanism, meteorites, Milankovitch cycli etc.
2 - Concave Earth/Skycentrism - the same problem as for Flat Earth is the apparant size of the Sun and Moon. The Sun and Moon when observed from any point of Earth at the same moment looks equal in size. That is not possible with a close-by and small Sun and Moon and points to a far away object. Otherwise an object would look very different in size. Imagine two trees of 50 m and 45 m in height. From 5 km distance both trees look equal in height, while standing before them where you can see the whole tree they look different. That the Sun and Moon always look the same from Point A and B on Earth at the same moment, means they are far away. And far away and big as they look quite big.
3 - Hollow Earth - hollow Earth fails in explaining seismic waves (also concave and flat have that problem) traveling through the Earth and measurable, like with earthquakes
4 - Expanding Earth - no mechanism for expansion explained, not explained what are subduction zones and numerous other problems listed in the topic
5 - Creationism (and its subset "Intelligent Design") - a typical religious view starting from a base assumption that there is a god. They may or may not be a god, that is outside of the realm of science by definition. Science is agnostic. There are many religious scientists and science has no say about the transcedental world. But equally religion can not explain scientific observations. Evolution theory is well-constrained and evolution is all around us. The way many domesticated animals have been bred into different races already makes it visible at close range, even up to creating new species (who are infertile, sterile; cannot produce fertile offspring) such as mules (breeding horses with donkeys)
6 - Dinosaurs would be a hoax (part of 5) - a very funny yet crazy idea as so many dinosaur-bearing formations can be visited by anyone on Earth, not even a single serious video on YT about it as well
7 - The Origin of Oil - the idea that complex organic macerals can be formed from inorganic sources. Simple methane (CH4) can be produced by volcanoes and other degassings, but complex cyclobenzenes is a whole different matter. It also would deny the complete study of advanced geochemistry and oul-to-source fingerprints using biomarkers. With oil analysis it is possible to track even the kind of maceral groups where the oil came from (algae, bacteria, plants, more complex fauna, etc.).

In all those years of truth seeking where formerly established views have been shattered because of logical, consistent and well-constrained explanations I haven't found anything of that kind on Earth science matters. It is all based on non-science. It is not a shame to be not a scientist but if you want to attack an established model and I am the first one to support that as authority always needs to be questioned over and over again, then better make sure you know the subject at least on an advanced amateur level and not some religious arm waiving and avoiding "difficult" questions. If your model cannot be scrutinized even with the most basic critical questions, your model is worthless. It shows you are not a serious researcher or truth seeker.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Last Edit: 26 Apr 2016 04:01 by Gaia.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 250 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 192 - Raised
( £ 140 GBP )
donation thermometer
Most Recent Donation $122 USD
4th January 2021
Bitcoin Address: bc1q0kazqya0nurfxtunxv807vm0m8852nnrrk8mj8
Ethereum Address: 0xe69915c80dd75df19f438d556267e04f932f057d
More Info: Donation options for TZ

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.