The Little Prince's Planet

[velita]

This is the image that came to me,when watching this...let's say "documentary"
I don't know how true ,how much of it can be verified.It makes sense to me though.And I am sure it will open your perceptions
Please hang on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObJL6aA2czo

 

[Alada]

This is the image that came to me,when watching this...let's say "documentary"
I don't know how true ,how much of it can be verified.It makes sense to me though.And I am sure it will open your perceptions
Please hang on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObJL6aA2czo

The video is 1hr 17Mins long!

Perhaps you could summarize what you found interesting in it here, what you found can use from it, share your thoughts generally as to why you think others here would benefit from investing this amount of time watching it. Thanks.

 

[velita]

Yes.This video is about what our earth might have looked like in ancient times.Traces are all around in the landscape,but our eyes have been taught differently.
It is not about a flat earth :/
But to me it is earth- shattering!
Biologically ,the transformation of carbon into silicium is interesting
(The dates are questionable)
Beautiful scenery ...

 

[Alejo]

I saw this link a little while back.

And must confess that the fact that the title of the video (then) was "there are no forests on the flat earth" made me quite reluctant to take a look. I will probably give it a shot eventually.

But, if I may ask, is the thesis here that the mountains and certain canyons are in fact old "real" tree trunks? And thus the trees we see nowadays are not trees? I don't mean to sound cynic, and as I said I haven't watched the video, but, when I first heard that... My only question brought me back to Plato, what comprises a tree? If not our recognition of the abstract concept of treeness in an object in front of our eyes. Like the capacity of abstract thought. my two cents

 

[Alada]

Yes.This video is about what our earth might have looked like in ancient times.Traces are all around in the landscape,but our eyes have been taught differently.
It is not about a flat earth :/
But to me it is earth- shattering!
Biologically ,the transformation of carbon into silicium is interesting
(The dates are questionable)
Beautiful scenery ...

Well there's not really much by the way of data there, which was the point of asking for a summary. And you missed two important questions, here they are again:

Perhaps you could summarize what you found interesting in it here, what you found can use from it, share your thoughts generally as to why you think others here would benefit from investing this amount of time watching it.

 

[velita]

The main argument is that lava ,when cooling, does not crystallize into an hexagonal, but amorphous pattern. Thus the hexagonal columns of basalt found the world over cannot be explained by volcanism.Instead ,these bear striking similarity to the stem structure of...grasses.
If the Earth was,eons ago, covered with much larger vegetation,its atmosphere had much more oxygen,implying longer lifespans for animals and...men.
So ,who cut the trees?(this covers the first part)
There is also an interesting theory of a world-wide catastrophe in...1816.
The second part is about :who has been mining the Earth? Evidence that the canyons, etc., have been dug by machinery.

 

[velita]

Who would have needed this map? https://www.sott.net/article/327407-The-Dashka-Stone-A-120-million-year-old-map

 

[luc]

The main argument is that lava ,when cooling, does not crystallize into an hexagonal, but amorphous pattern. Thus the hexagonal columns of basalt found the world over cannot be explained by volcanism.Instead ,these bear striking similarity to the stem structure of...grasses.
If the Earth was,eons ago, covered with much larger vegetation,its atmosphere had much more oxygen,implying longer lifespans for animals and...men.
So ,who cut the trees?(this covers the first part)
There is also an interesting theory of a world-wide catastrophe in...1816.
The second part is about :who has been mining the Earth? Evidence that the canyons, etc., have been dug by machinery.

Hi velita,

I can't say much about the crystallization of lava, I'm not familiar with the science behind it. But, having watched some of the video, I'm highly suspicious. When watching such videos, we should be very alert and try to see beyond the quick conclusions being drawn. After all, we are supposed to think critically, and this doesn't only apply to mainstream sources. Here are a few red flags I noticed:

* The video claims the earth is flat - "if you believe the earth is flat, you are half awakened". Without going into details here, this is utterly absurd. Huge red flag.

* It insults scientists, wikipedia etc. rather harshly and implies that everything coming from such sources is BS. This is black-and-white thinking. Yes, there are many problems with today's science, and wikipedia certainly is a mainstream source. But a lot of useful information comes from these sources as well - if wikipedia claims that 1+1=2, it's still true. It's our job to think critically and find out what is true and what not, whether we are dealing with "official science" or alternative websites and conspiracy theories.

* It uses emotional music and faulty reasoning to seduce the viewer. For example, it says that we are living in a Matrix and are lied to constantly (true enough), and therefore we should question everything, and therefore even the most outragious claims can be true, such as that the earth is flat or that mountains are really trees. That is faulty reasoning - just because we are lied to by official sources in many cases doesn't mean that everything ever said by anyone other than some conspiracy theorists or new agers is false. Such reasoning makes us deny our common sense, which is an important ressource.

* It makes extremely bold claims without substance. For example - why would more oxygen lead to longer life spans? Where is the evidence? Where are the scientific studies proving this? It's just a claim - probably derived from the new age theory that humans were once highly evolved, which colors the thinking of those promoting such a theory.


And so on. As I said, I'm highly sceptical. Using such techniques of faulty reasoning and suggestive claims, you can "prove" almost anything, including that the earth is flat

 

[Oxajil]

The main argument is that lava ,when cooling, does not crystallize into an hexagonal, but amorphous pattern. Thus the hexagonal columns of basalt found the world over cannot be explained by volcanism.Instead ,these bear striking similarity to the stem structure of...grasses.

If you're referring to hexagonal shapes, see here:

Computer model solves the riddle of why lava sometimes forms into hexagons

A team of researchers with Dresden University of Technology in Germany has apparently solved the riddle of why lava sometimes forms into hexagonal towers as it cools. In their paper published in Physical Review Letters, the team describes how they put together a computer model that ultimately showed how such shapes can form.

Scientists and other people have been amused, piqued and inspired by some of the geometric shapes that come about as lava cools—Devils Tower in Wyoming, for example, or Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland, both feature cooled lava in the form of hexagonal structures. Upon seeing them, most wonder how they could have come about—after all, most things in nature are random, or perhaps round. Hexagons seem like they could come about only due to intervention by us humans. Now it appears, the team in Germany has cracked the riddle of how nature could have made it happen.

It is all about heat differential and the way cracks form, the team reports. They made these discoveries by building a model very similar to those used by engineers to build bridges or aircraft parts. It allowed them to account for the characteristics of the lava, both when it was hot, and as it cooled. That allowed them to see that after some bit of lava stopped flowing, as it cooled, the inner parts cooled faster than the outer parts, leading to shrinkage and the formation of cracks adjacent to one another, which meant they formed at 90 degree angles. Then as the lava cooled even more and more shrinkage occurred, the cracks made their way down into the lava below which was still solidifying—that forced the cracks to grow larger, forcing the angle between them to change to approximately 120 degrees, which occurred because it was the point at which the largest amount of energy was released—and it is also, of course, the same angle degree found in hexagonal structures.

The hexagonal structure were then maintained as the lava cooled down to ambient temperatures and the shape was persevered—meanwhile, the same process occurred around it, causing the creation of other lava formations that looked very nearly just like it.

See also this article. These experiments suggest that lava can crystallize into an hexagonal pattern.

In the video you posted velita, at around 39:16 tree stumps are being compared to mountains (a blog has posted those pictures as well). That isn't really evidence of anything. There are many things in nature that can look alike from our perspective, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing, or that mountains really are trees that were cut off by, as some people on the internet suggest, giants.

There are several natural reasons for why some mountains have a more or less flat surface. For example, 'Table Mountain' in South Africa "owes it table-top flatness to the fact that it is a syncline mountain, meaning that it once was the bottom of a valley." (see the diagram on this Wiki page).

So like luc, I'm also quite skeptical of these claims.

 

[velita]

Thank you all for helping look trough this