Mohenjo-daro was destroyed 450-500 years ago

OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,429
Likes
5,790
#21
The actual elements are clearly the same: a stem, a couple of horizontal lines, and a bush around the stem, just two different ways of painting a tree.
Absent the map legend we can speculate all day long. We clearly interpret this symbol differently.

As far as the expanding Earth goes, I'minterested in learning the concept. I know that Ortelius had this continental drift theory.
 
Messages
13
Likes
41
#22
These are my thoughts exactly about Piranesi.

I’m just a regular person who ended up spending a few hours a day writing down his observations. You can rest assured on this one. When I went on my Utah roadtrip, @CyborgNinja was keeping an eye on this place filling in the void with his articles.

If you want to continue discussing this local conspiracy please take it to the general subforum.
Ack. Sorry. I'll try to behave.

I do not know if continents can grow as well, but we had 360° degrees in 1564, just like we do now. A lot of people are saying that old maps are wrong because continents on them are much bigger than they are today. Well, the continents could be of the same size if the oceans were simply getting wider. Hence 1° value would change as well. Not sure if it could work like that, but that's a thought I had.
This is the way I've understood it, although I'll admit I haven't dug too deep into it. The oceans are basically ripping apart, expanding out, leaving wider and deeper bodies of water. The NOAA did an ocean floor study and came to the conclusion that the ocean floor was only millions of years old as opposed to the billions of years old of the Earth itself and the exposed land mass. https://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.jpg Obviously we'll need to take those timelines with a huge grain of salt, but they are admitting that the oceans are newer than the rest of the land mass that's above water. Their explanation for this is subduction, which is certainly only a theory as nobody has actually seen a tectonic plate sliding underneath another plate.

Personally I think it makes more sense to consider that everything has been pulling apart, as opposed to some areas pulling apart and others slamming into each other and getting pushed down toward the core of the earth. Especially when you look at the lines where the NOAA is showing new ocean floor growth, the closer you get to those big rifts in the ocean, the younger the ocean floor is. Go toward the coasts and the ocean floor is older. Seems to me that it likely could be splitting apart in the middle.

Not that I'm arguing this the the correct theory, I don't know. Just throwing ideas out there. The idea of the continents also growing is intriguing. I haven't heard that before.
Post automatically merged:

Yes, I think they grew as well.

Because the growing earth theory is actually pretty much wrong in every respect:

- No gradual growth
- no spinning ball in space
- no ball growing in volume

This wouldn't be possible, because how could a ball spinning through space grow in size?
I've spent quite a bit of time reading through Wild Heretic's blog and think that there is a lot of stuff in concave earth theory that makes lots of sense. It somewhat opened my eyes to properly looking at the world around me and I often feel that when I look around, the land actually looks like it forms a bit of a bowl around me. I must say that if I had to pick a cosmology right now, it would probably be concave earth.

With that out of the way, I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusions above, as I don't see concave earth to be mutually exclusive from expanding earth.

"No gradual growth" - I don't see why this would be required. It could certainly be sudden jolts of growth. I think that makes more sense than gradual growth. Sure, the NOAA age maps make it look as though the oceans are slowly pulling apart, but how much can we honestly believe their age data. I pretty much only take it for the value that they're admitting the oceans are younger than the exposed land mass.

"No spinning ball in space" - I don't see what this has to do with expanding earth at all

"No ball growing in volume" - I'd be very interested to learn who has measured this over the past several hundred years and how they did so.

Further to that, just as with the oceans ripping apart and getting more expanse, so too could the earth. I didn't really consider this to be that the continents were actually growing, as I mentioned in my last post, but like you describe, where rifts can open up. I suppose depending on how you look at it, that could be considered continent growth, but when I think of growth I don't think of something ripping apart at the seams and leaving a chasm in the middle.

When you posit that the continents are getting bigger, but earth is not expanding, does that then imply that the oceans are getting smaller?
Post automatically merged:

Sorry. I've derailed this topic, haven't I? :oops:
 
Last edited:

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
164
Likes
641
#23
"I don't see what this has to do with expanding earth at all"
There is to this day no theoretical model in physics or geology which would allow for a growing earth, which is why the theory hasn't been taken seriously.

"I'd be very interested to learn who has measured this over the past several hundred years and how they did so."
No one can measure this At that level everything is only a model, as I think it was assumed that the growth is basically happening over billions of years. I don't know if the theory argues that earth is still growing, but "scientists" have of course rejected everything directly without doing any practical experiments. I can understand why, because their model of the universe doesn't allow such growith happening, so they outright dismissed it.

I wrote that earth is expanding, just not steadily but abruptly. I think the growing earth topic would need to be understood in terms of sudden catastrophes simply ripping apart everything, creating the oceans.

Concave Earth just so happens to be the ideal model for a growing earth, because both the cause (sun at the center) as well as the effects (widening of cavity, gravity as a pull force keeping away the water to a certain extent, ice age as a result of the bigger distance of sun<->earth) can be explained elegantly and easily. But the standard model is definitely incapable of explaining things even remotely. I just wanted to highlight the latter.
 
Last edited:

Glumlit

Active member
Messages
44
Likes
139
#24
Here's what Nat Geo said the ocean floors looked like in 1981. Plenty of stretch-marks or whatever they are. Some actually look like remnants of giant city blocks. Definitely some weird formations.
national-geographic-world-ocean-floor-map-1981_1.jpg


Also take note the strange lake in Greenland, as well as the equator being a third of the page up from the bottom. So they wouldn't have to show the rest of that lake in Antarctica?
 

PyraGorgon

New member
Messages
5
Likes
9
#25
This is actually pretty interesting way to look at things, for if the below hypothesis has any merit, we could reorganize maps on the time line, based on the size of 1°. It would only work if continents do not change size though. It would require oceans only getting wider.

2018 Africa: 17° W to 51° E = 68° / 1°~69 miles
1564 Africa: 4° W to 82° E = 86° / 1°~54 miles

I do not know if continents can grow as well, but we had 360° degrees in 1564, just like we do now. A lot of people are saying that old maps are wrong because continents on them are much bigger than they are today. Well, the continents could be of the same size if the oceans were simply getting wider. Hence 1° value would change as well. Not sure if it could work like that, but that's a thought I had.
Would not the simplest explanation be that they erred on their measurements?

I'd like to offer up a consideration challenge (that I myself cannot do): Go someplace and don't bring any technology. No phone, no GPS, no maps. Maybe take a bottle of water, a knife, and some paper with something to scribble with. Now, deduce WHERE YOU ARE AT. Here's a bone: you get to know where you started from and general cardinal direction. Now if you didn't have an odometer, no signposts, how would you know how far you had gone from your origin as you travelled? Accurately, that is.

I think this is what the early cartographers had to deal with. Yes, they had sextants, quads, stars, and such...but how accurate is star guiding for distance measurements or longitude? Even if the best of cartographers had homing pigeon talents, would that help them get cities to within a mile or two or the meander of a river, given the size of the whole earth?

I'm not a map maker, but it seems the cartographers were doing some interpolation of pre-existing data points to make their maps. Since none of that source material is available to us (what WERE they thinking while they calculated?) how do we know if their finished product would be accurate? Later discoveries and amendments to measurements would be used for updated maps, making them more accuate and less like their predecessors. I think we see that in maps from 1400's to current.

In conclusion, I don't think the earth is growing or anything like that. It seems the most plausible explanation is miscalculation. Just as we have today dealing with mis-info and 'false news', so too did the ancient cartographers. Imagine trying to get the real scoop on a southerly coastline and all you get are these tiresome stories from the boatswain about sea monsters and crazy winds that blow you all over and refusing to talk unless you bought them another round of glug. What was that? thirty miles or three? Oh right, three sea monsters...so where is that coastline again???
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,429
Likes
5,790
#26
If that was the case, mistakes would be made in all directions and would have a sporadic pattern.

Older maps are ok north to south. Only east-west suffers the issue.
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
363
Likes
568
#27
Besides, it's all done with trigonometry anyway. They didn't have cell phones and GPS all the way up until modern times and still made highly accurate maps. Target scope, compass, level, angle finder etc.

There would be a margin of error, of course, and it would depend on the number of calculations, or measurements away from the starting point and how accurate the tools are. That too would be calculable.

I dunno, I'm no cartographer, or surveyor, but I've done some off the beaten path locating with some civil engineers.
 

Ice Nine

Well-known member
Messages
145
Likes
494
#28
Here's what Nat Geo said the ocean floors looked like in 1981. Plenty of stretch-marks or whatever they are. Some actually look like remnants of giant city blocks. Definitely some weird formations. View attachment 10448

Also take note the strange lake in Greenland, as well as the equator being a third of the page up from the bottom. So they wouldn't have to show the rest of that lake in Antarctica?
Oh yeah definitely some weird city like areas, wish I could see the west coast of Washington better.
Is the eastern sea board of the USA weird looking to anybody else, it seems to small like the east side of Florida is not big enough or something, I'm busy and can't be bothered to check another map at the mo. Back later
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
363
Likes
568
#29
The lines on the sea floor look similar to the lines and striations we see in the sky/clouds many days.
 
Top