slimreaper
Active member
why do snipers have to calculate the curvature of the earth on particularly long flat shots if the earth isn't round?
No forests on (flat) earth
- Thread starter YowYan
- Start date
slimreaper
Active member
any mention of flat earth requires no reading. even if they don't specifically putting flat earth in the title destroys their credibility due to the most basic of facts we now know
slimreaper
Active member
What a dumbass.
I'm saying there is no reason to believe them on this if they base their whole theory in a world they wrongly believe to be flat.
Why would they be so correct(they aren't) on this and not the shape of the earth.
You must not be aware of your reputation on the base.. You're in no position to call another 'dumbass'.
And if you just followed my suggestion and actually read the thread and discussion before you posted, you would see that the sources I linked are void of the flat earth theory which can be seen as completely separate of a topic, next to the no forests on earth theory.
Stop boring me now and actually pay attention before you post again.
Cooling lava shrinks and cracks, often forming stunning structures, such as the hexagonal columns found in the volcanic remains at Ireland’s Giant’s Causeway. Although cracks spread from the top down, hexagonal columns can emerge from a crack pattern on the surface that is initially rectangular. Researchers now explain why, using a new model that tracks the cracks from the moment they form at the surface to the time when they have penetrated through the cooling lava. The model could be applicable to crack patterns that form in other materials, such as cooling ceramics.
This, again, is discussed in the Video content and claims no certainty on the matter. Also, it can not make sense that cooling/shrinking lava basalt could form hexagonal columns with the crosscuts at the bottom of the natural structure. So far, it is nothing but a claim and if you actually pay attention you'll realize something is really off about the claim.
@ Bold: why?
You are willing to entertain the
You must be registered for see links
... but say
You must be registered for see links
s on
You must be registered for see links
under a certain temperature and pressure condition and composition etc 'cannot' make sense.Any particular reason?
I am willing to entertain the idea of there having been giant silicon trees on earth. Haven't I repeated myself often enough on that flat earth part?
As for your question (which I appreciate);
1. Within the cooling lava body, jointing occurs in what essentially is a 2dimensional plane, and it propagates away from the cooling spot. Why do some basalt column structures seem to propagate above ground in this quarterpipe motion?
You must be registered for see images
2. The joints supposedly form hexagons because it is the most efficient cracking pattern possible..most sides that create tessellating shapes. I wonder how a mass of molten rock under high pressure could form intricate patterns that occur in lifeforms (turtleshell, beehives) and plantlife stemcells whereas molten rock, that is ejected due to high pressure (and does have a point of release) leaves behind an abstract mess.
3. Then there are basalt columns that show crosscut ends reveiled at the bottom of the phenomena. How would this not raise an eyebrow:
You must be registered for see images
These are the three main questions I have the matter.
Last edited:
Post 1:
Post 2:
Have you given a thought to how much area these flood basalt occupy; how the shape of the earth would be if it had such giant masses standing tall on it; how the mass of the earth will be balanced; how the gravity will work, how it will affect the rotation? Your idea of giant trees made of solid rocks doesn't even float with the round earth.
It was mentioned in one of the links given earlier if you actually studied it..
They are not cooling in quarter pipe motion. The jointing is not a result of the rock trying to cool, but of the rock trying to stay in one place while everything around it, is cooling and shrinking at fast rate.
When the outer diameter of the column stays relatively constant and shrinks uniformly, the entire column experience equal stress in all directions. This stress causes fractures/joint, but since the stress is equal in all directions, it forms in such a way that the space created by the jointing is equal on all sides throughout the column. In order to fit in this space, materials tend to crack apart of a pattern of nested hexagons. Because it's nearest to the round shape without leaving any space in between.
That said these flood basalt columns are not always hexagonal. They can have only three sides to more than 12 sides at times. The shape, structure and texture of a basalt is tells us how and where it erupted, the environment surrounding it. Some of the places the columns are more well defined and untouched than the rest.
Basic rock formation process are also pretty systematic and uniform. Any distortion is result of the outside factors like other process that are going simultaneously or around it. Igneous rocks are not homogeneous material but made of multiple minerals that have their own temperature gradients. When they cool slowly and find time to crystallize, each element in it gets more time to crystallize and has larger crystals. The flood basalt rocks do not have bigger crystals- The columns are not individual crystals.
BTW On one side you keep the at par with plant organisms and call it a giant rock tree that some mysterious entity cut down and on the other hand you say since it's not 'living' it cannot have symmetrical formations... Aren't those thoughts a bit contradictory? If it cannot display any physical or chemical characteristic of a living organism, why do you insist on calling the a " tree" instead of hills or mountains only?
If you still believe that shape belongs to tree roots only, here is your opportunity to study flood basalt rocks:
Implying you have gone for in depth studies of geology to understand whether it makes sense or not.... The "key points" in that theory are based on shallow information and complete ignorance about geology as well as physics and chemistry.
Post 2:
You say that but you are picking only one part of the theory the original guy presented and without giving any further logic to how these are formed to let us know if you have thought it through. + You are denying what the video's you linked say -about 'giants' cutting these 'silica' trees down and evidence being the story of "Jack and the bean-stock" and about earth being flat too. You mocked replies that commented on that.
Have you given a thought to how much area these flood basalt occupy; how the shape of the earth would be if it had such giant masses standing tall on it; how the mass of the earth will be balanced; how the gravity will work, how it will affect the rotation? Your idea of giant trees made of solid rocks doesn't even float with the round earth.
It was mentioned in one of the links given earlier if you actually studied it..
They are not cooling in quarter pipe motion. The jointing is not a result of the rock trying to cool, but of the rock trying to stay in one place while everything around it, is cooling and shrinking at fast rate.
When the outer diameter of the column stays relatively constant and shrinks uniformly, the entire column experience equal stress in all directions. This stress causes fractures/joint, but since the stress is equal in all directions, it forms in such a way that the space created by the jointing is equal on all sides throughout the column. In order to fit in this space, materials tend to crack apart of a pattern of nested hexagons. Because it's nearest to the round shape without leaving any space in between.
That said these flood basalt columns are not always hexagonal. They can have only three sides to more than 12 sides at times. The shape, structure and texture of a basalt is tells us how and where it erupted, the environment surrounding it. Some of the places the columns are more well defined and untouched than the rest.
You are underestimating nature. Life forms do not decide their shape because of them being alive and consciously shaping themselves. They are shaped symmetrically because, the nature has already been doing things very systematically- starting with definite shapes of atomic structures of all living or non living element.yowyan said:
Basic rock formation process are also pretty systematic and uniform. Any distortion is result of the outside factors like other process that are going simultaneously or around it. Igneous rocks are not homogeneous material but made of multiple minerals that have their own temperature gradients. When they cool slowly and find time to crystallize, each element in it gets more time to crystallize and has larger crystals. The flood basalt rocks do not have bigger crystals- The columns are not individual crystals.
BTW On one side you keep the at par with plant organisms and call it a giant rock tree that some mysterious entity cut down and on the other hand you say since it's not 'living' it cannot have symmetrical formations... Aren't those thoughts a bit contradictory? If it cannot display any physical or chemical characteristic of a living organism, why do you insist on calling the a " tree" instead of hills or mountains only?
Now, that's not really a question, is it? It does raise an eyebrow- you stop and look how magnificent and efficient mother nature's work can be in every wake and start studying geology.yowyan said:
If you still believe that shape belongs to tree roots only, here is your opportunity to study flood basalt rocks:
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see links
Last edited:
here I :
clicked on "reply with quote"
selected the text "separately and I'll reply"
deleted it
I copied the quote=yowyan....... text
then I deleted all what you said
then between the
YowYan......[/QUOTE said:
Thanks for the tip funny guy
But does that also work with multiple quotes within one post? Not quite clear for me.
edit: seems like I got it down. thanks!
at bold: Maybe so, but so far you haven't shared any information with me that I have not read myself. By now, you should be aware of the way I present my threads. I leave out most of the information I went through for the readers to come up with the questions (or corrections). And from there on, I can gather counterarguments that test the validity of the theory/topic itself. I know its futile but I expect closed questions that require open answers so we can break down the topic at large.
As for the ‘jack and the beanstalk’ story being mentioned in the video of RosetteDelacroix, (which is the uploader of the specific video you mentioned) She often links back stories with hidden messages to other subjects. Flat earth is in the title of her video but I still chose to add it as she is well practiced in reveiling and explaining the occult all around us, etc. (decoding the series Westworld, for example) Which can be interesting and of relevance as though, somehow there’s a lot of redirections all around us (media) that point straight to the mesa’s and giant trees. Example:
You must be registered for see images
You’re comparing this;
You must be registered for see links
To this?;
You must be registered for see links
Ignoring the fact the column structures are almost perfectly flat at the edges whilest the picture you’ve shown shows dripping magma. Where are the remains of the cooled up magma that supposedly dripped down to the ground? The link you’ve shared shows images of cooled magma beds and the shape is far from flat. Look at the top of most mesa’s. Perfectly flat. Can you explain that? If so, please have a go at it. Even for the columns that are formed under extreme conditions, the result still raises an eyebrow.
‘’Truth is often stranger than fiction’’ is what comes to mind when reading your remark. What the cause would’ve been of the cut silicon trees is beyond us but wether or not the mesa’s and basalt columns are really just that or more is something we can discuss. Think; We really do not know much of our history and facts are often purposely hidden in plain sight. But I agree, it is contradictory to the mind that only looks at what's right in front of it.
Don't get me wrong, I AM willing to stand corrected. That's if an irrefutable point has been made. Lets not get heated, if you weren't already.
Last edited:
at bold: Maybe so, but so far you haven't shared any information with me that I have not read myself. By now, you should be aware of the way I present my threads. I leave out most of the information I went through for the readers to come up with the questions (or corrections). And from there on, I can gather counterarguments that test the validity of the theory/topic itself. I know its futile but I expect closed questions that require open answers so we can break down the topic at large.
As for the ‘jack and the beanstalk’ story being mentioned in the video of RosetteDelacroix, (which is the uploader of the specific video you mentioned) She often links back stories with hidden messages to other subjects. Flat earth is in the title of her video but I still chose to add it as she is well practiced in reveiling and explaining the occult all around us, etc. (decoding the series Westworld, for example) Which can be interesting and of relevance as though, somehow there’s a lot of redirections all around us (media) that point straight to the mesa’s and giant trees. Example:You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images[/spoiler]
And another view at columns at another place Boat caves Scotland :
Notice the different basalt formations and columns sandwiched in between?You must be registered for see images
What you saw in the recent pictures was not the lava that had been eroded for thousands of years but freshly erupting and cooling lava- the flood basalt images you see with perfect columns and solid rocks from before, have been there since Cretaceous The time when dinosaurs went extinct. And formed under specific climate and environment conditions. Natural agencies being wind water or ice. Weathering of the rocks involves all sorts of organic, mechanical , and chemical process plus gravity etc. With time these rocks will go a lot of metamorphosis. Weathering will remove the more softer part of the rocks. Some part of the harder rock will be worse affected getting more hit by eroding agencies. Water will trickle down and deposit some other minerals in joints. The tectonic activities ( say an earthquake) may tilt the whole region variously. Joints will crack further apart. We are talking in terms or thousands of millenniums not a few days.
You can still see the column structure/chunky joints in places in the older rocks of the hot lava flow, if you look at the image more carefully. Not that they would be necessarily same type of columns or look exactly the same. If one one side lava flow is erupting, natural agencies of erosion also have their process to run.
Let me give you another example to process what I said so far ( including in the para above and previous post):
I said earlier--Polygonal columnar structure is one of the basic characteristics of flood basalt. Now while the ones in your examples are more spectacular visually, there are plenty of less known places you can find it. Well formed columnar rocks from Kavadiya Pahad Bhopal, India.
You must be registered for see images
St Mary's island Karanataka
You must be registered for see images
Patalpani waterfall Indore:You must be registered for see images
Can you notice the columnar structures in the rocks visible under water? Keep in mind these pictures have eroded and fragmented remains of basalt rocks from the past.( all part of Deccan Traps).
Some other views of other table top mountains from Deccan Traps regions:
Lohagad
You must be registered for see linksOr
SataraYou must be registered for see images
"The Deccan Traps are one of the largest volcanic provinces in the world. It consists of more than 6,500 feet (>2,000 m) of flat-lying basalt lava flows and covers an area of nearly 200,000 square miles (500,000 square km) (roughly the size of the states of Washington and Oregon combined) in west-central India. Estimates of the original area covered by the lava flows are as high as 600,000 square miles (1.5 million square km). The volume of basalt is estimated to be 12,275 cubic miles (512,000 cubic km)(the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens produced 1 cubic km of volcanic material). The Deccan Traps are flood basalts similar to the Columbia River basalts of the northwestern United States."You must be registered for see images
-You must be registered for see links
Mt Everest is only 8,848 m high.
Earth's atmosphere is about 300 miles (480 kilometers) thick, but most of it is within 10 miles (16 km) the surface.
Compare that volume and size to the size of mt Everest to all the basalt lying in Deccan Traps to get a grip over better visual size of the 'silicon tree' you are talking about.
If, these are not result of the volcanic activity of the past, but remains of giant trees, with that thick stems, how tall you think these trees were?
Secondly, keep the height of earth atmosphere and temp & pressure conditions in mind and tell me whether you see a round shape/ flat shape/ or a spiked ball or weird spiked hammer shape for this earth you are theorizing. If these are trees of rocks, how do you think the resulting shape of the Earth will look? The idea of such giants trees made of rocks on round shaped Earth is even more odd than on flat Earth.
Thirdly- Can the Earth maintain balance of it's mass with those giant silicon trees? How it affects the rotation and earth's axis? Scientists believe thatYou must be registered for see links
Just think of the volume and size we are talking about before theorizing that these were giant "trees" and not just mountains made of cooled lava.
So why do you feel the need to pit fiction against the truth. Surely the way nature works is more complex than our fairy tales. ^^yowyan said:
And really now? 'Others are heated' when you are the one running out of explanations and calling mysteries to phenomena that were known even a century ago? I could copy youtube comment section and suggest throwing shrooms awaybut I decided to reply because the forums are slow and I thought someone may have something to read. Even if only to point out some error I made in my explanation. It's been long time I studied the subject afterall.
Your points were refuted a long time ago. Long before I posted in this thread, long before you made the thread or this site started. There is a good reason why so few of the people showed interest in your theory. Whether you want to accept it or prefer fancier tales is up to you.
Last edited:
I wouldn't have replied if I did not thought over your words first.
At bolded: Fair enough. I'm on it.
You mean this part? This, especially was interesting. Albeit I never pictured the giant trees to have been made of solid rock, rather petrified in some way or another at some point in time. But fair enough, this is a major factor I did not take into account before your mention thereof. One thing we do know is that in the cretaceous era, the level of oxygen was at nearly 35% in comparison to the present day level of 21%. This doesn't necessarily add up with any giant trees being the reason of higher levels of oxygen though. In an age of unhalted growth of vegetation, there is no need for the 'no forests on earth' theory.
Actually, I don't see any resemblance of basalt columns in the flowing magma. Plus, if the basalt columns formed under pressure from all sides, subterraneously, this image you shared would have no place in a explanation as it flows within the atmosphere, freely. Maybe I'm not seeing it right. I'm just saying I don't see any resemblance in that image of yours, hence my previous reply to that.
As for the flat crosscuts of the bottom side of basalt columns; The flat side underneith the columns are almost linear next to each other. Same goes for the picture you shared of the heavily eroded columns with debris underneith. Why is that? I wonder why the crosscut ends are not neatly straight as the one from my previous post. Possibly due to the difference in geological location, erosion, etc. But its strange how the ends of columns broke off almost completely straight in contrary to the more heavily eroded columns structure you've shown.
The column structure having been uplifted? Good point.
As I said; heated.
Alright, now, this is more convincing! This sandwiched formation is a gamechanger. I have nothing to say in response to that for now.(This sketch was derived from this 'sandwich' basalt formation.)
You must be registered for see images
The Kavadiya (Pahad Bhopal, India) column structure reminded me of the time I walked on similar looking columns. I don't remember where. Might have been in south America or Spain.
This is one particular questionmark that still remains. How would the flat-lying basalt lava solidify subterraneously. I'm not convinced there.
The Devil's Tower would have been around 6 kilometers high, assuming it would grow straight up and not in, for example this shape;
You must be registered for see images
I replied to this particular comment earlier in my post. Indeed, a major factor that is sorta beyond us even when theorizing.
'Running out of explanations' implies I'm heated? Mentioning shrooms and the amount of replies on my thread is not getting heated? It seems you took that as some sort of snappy attack. Calm down, sis.So why do you feel the need to pit fiction against the truth. Surely the way nature works is more complex than our fairy tales. ^^
And really now? 'Others are heated' when you are the one running out of explanations and calling mysteries to phenomena that were known even a century ago? I could copy youtube comment section and suggest throwing shrooms away
Your points were refuted a long time ago. Long before I posted in this thread, long before you made the thread or this site started. There is a good reason why so few of the people showed interest in your theory. Whether you want to accept it or prefer fancier tales is up to you.
It's important to question that which the collective perceives to be the norm. So, I tend to entertain the unthinkable.
That does not mean I'm applying a religious irrational mentality that denies any logical counterargument.You shared two points so far that really do counter this whole theory, so I'll stand corrected. ''
''
Last edited:
All the theories you mentioned or linked said the same thing. And I very clearly asked you (to double check before replying) if you really thought of these trees as being silicon tree and you replied in affirmative. :| But ok.
Either way for a tree to be petrified preserving it's original structure- you still need other minerals to replace the original material the tree were made of. And to save any original plant structure it has to be a very slow process and no, it won't be basalt lava replacing those plant cells just like that. Comparing it to thin stem cell images and fantasizing basalt penetrating the giant plant cells individually and solidifying like that is erroneous. What do you think the cell walls of those plants were made of? Lava will simply burn them down, if it penetrated the tree.
What preserves a tree/animal that didn't burn down already by heat from lava, is lava itself, which makes a cast of lava around it. Thus while the tree or animal dies due to heat and suffocation, the caste saves the body from further damage from more lava. Lack of oxygen supply inside the caste stops further burning too. Later on when the lava has solidified and developed some cracks minerals trickle down through water and other natural agencies and slowly replace the tissues making crystals of these new minerals. Iron, quartz etc.
I meant that in the least you can see the 'material' that rock is formed comes from a volcanic activity and not from any "tree".
Also I think you are focusing on lava flow and not on rocks structure from previous flow. You can see mini blocks on the sides.
You must be registered for see images
Different layers from previous flow are displaying systematic layers and joints. Columnar basalt is not well developed where flows are thin.
You didn't notice a horizontal banding of similar nature indicating another cooling surface from another front. Take a closer look at these columns to see two sets of columns, opposing each other:
You must be registered for see images
Weathering on the rocks is on constantly. Sometimes they break evenly and some times not, depending upon how it affected the rocks on that spot.
These joints form because there are more than one cooling fronts. Top surface loses heat rapidly and starts the slow but long and slower process of solidification of columns down the line. These columns continue shrinking, as they cool. Horizontal contraction along this cooling front makes a secondary crack/weakness in these columns. In some places it's more even and at others not, depending on center of contraction and homogeneity of the rock and since they are secondary they don't really travel across.
You must be registered for see images
Thanks but I was only making a point.
In this case I don't think it even matters.Nah dry fact. You had not replied my questions in the beginning and kept saying its a mystery or were vague about it. So I made a comment on that...yowyan said:As I said; heated.jean grey said:
Didn't I post another image of these rocks even before..yowayan said:
Edit: yes I did. One of the links I posted earlier, had the Fingal caves aka 'sandwiched' columns. You didn't check it out now did you.. :|
Kavadiya Pahad ( pahad= hill) hasn't been explored much yet. It may have bigger rock columns inside.
You must be registered for see images
I'm not sure what you are referring to as in "not being convinced". Unlike magma stage, lava is near it's freezing point already. It's going to cool down eventually. Through heat conduction however poor it maybe, or convection current as air or water moves down those cracks.yow yan said:
Secondly not all the volume you see is from one go. These are results of layer upon layers of lava from repeated eruptions. Contraction patterns may vary and may not be perfect if, for example, the thickness or composition of the lava flow varies.
More like an intrusive igneous rock in sedimentary rocks of the surface that eroded only 'recently', geologically speaking, leaving the columns exposed.yow yan said:
Geologists do not theorize on what these rocks are. They theorize on the climate and topographical conditions of the old, based on these formations. Like, what could enable a formation like that- what would have been the cooling front.
Don't get me wrong but- You are quick to point out if I question depth of your " studies" as heated, despite the fact that I can see you didn't use google enough on this topic either. Let alone study the subject itself. And no I'm not saying you lied. But the subjects like this require a certain level of special expertise. Even if you looked in to scientific " claims" as you say, you probably only gave a glance to it's theories. And it's just human nature that in doing so we tend to pay more weight on arguments presented by those with whom our own way of thinking matches. Because they sound more logical to us for thinking in a way according to our inclination.
At the same time you snapped at a few people before I started posting seriously. You think that's not heated? I had given you the reference point- shroom comment was on the youtube video you linked. ^^ Though I admit I found that comment amusing, I didn't dismiss your theory just like that and gave my reasons. Didn't I? Maybe I shouldn't have but it was hard to resist.
Great. But beware of the pseudo-scientists and pseudo-archeologists.It's important to question that which the collective perceives to be the norm. So, I tend to entertain the unthinkable.
You shared two points so far that really do counter this whole theory, so I'll stand corrected. ''
You should have included the methodology used by geologists before they give a theory in your consideration, before proceeding with a new one saying they fail entirely and are not convincing. e.g. Basalt rocks being basalt rocks is not a theory. So do you think it's possible to have silica plant life on the earth surface?
Last edited: