« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Seismic waves

  • 33 Replies
  • 8456 Views
?

crimsonak

  • 8
Seismic waves
« on: March 01, 2009, 04:28:35 PM »
I know it's my first time posting on this site, when I first got linked to here I pretty much considered this whole thing a joke.
I've spent a good few hours reading since though, and it seems there are some very intelligent explainations to be offered that point towards FE theory being true.
Also since thinking about it. I haven't really seen any evidence from a personnal point of veiw to suggest that the earth is infact round. Other than being taught since childhood that it is exactly that.
This said, i'm not really convinced the earth is flat because there are so many things that can go wrong reguarding people spotting the ice wall aswell as various other lackins in visual proof such as telescopes restoring the hull of a ship on the horizon. Though that doesn't mean to say i'm not open minded.

Anyway the basic reason for this thread is a flat earth explaination into Seismographs and more specifically P waves and S waves, and how they would function accuratly on a flat planet.
I aint gonna pretend i'm anywhere near as intelligent as some of the people on this site from what i've been reading but, for anyone who doesnt know what im on about. My basic current understanding of it is P waves and S waves are different types of wave produced by an event such as an earthquake which travels through the ground, however different waves are naturally only capable of travelling through certain densities, and so using a round based earth model the result of the waves path ends up looking like this:


Now, with this in mind this is what happens to the P waves.


My question to you is. Firstly, how would the Hypocentre, Epicenter and Earthquake location be determined if the earth was flat?
and secondly, why does the shadow zone exist within a very specific range of angle from the origin of the waves?

Apologies in advance if this turns out to be a really easy or stupid question, also if it's been asked before. I did search before hand but found no results.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2009, 04:30:43 PM by crimsonak »
Logged
?

imasomebody

  • 26
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2009, 04:35:51 PM »
One specific example of something like this, I'd like to know why the waves from the 50 megaton bomb that Russia detonated in the cold war could be measured as they traveled around the world 3 times.  What did they travel around in FET.  ???
Logged
?

crimsonak

  • 8
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2009, 05:08:17 PM »
Quote from: imasomebody on March 01, 2009, 04:35:51 PM
One specific example of something like this, I'd like to know why the waves from the 50 megaton bomb that Russia detonated in the cold war could be measured as they traveled around the world 3 times.  What did they travel around in FET.  ???

Wheres the data for this?
I might aswell ask it since thats what's gonna be asked.

I suppose it might well be asked for my post too but hopefully not since it's a generally well accepted form of earthquake location calculations.
Calculations which can be looked up with a little self research if the disbeleif is there.
It's also completely unrelated to NASA to my knowledge.
Logged
?

MayTheBetterModelWin

  • 656
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2009, 05:10:19 PM »
Quote from: crimsonak on March 01, 2009, 04:28:35 PM
I know it's my first time posting on this site, when I first got linked to here I pretty much considered this whole thing a joke.
I've spent a good few hours reading since though, and it seems there are some very intelligent explainations to be offered that point towards FE theory being true.
Also since thinking about it. I haven't really seen any evidence from a personnal point of veiw to suggest that the earth is infact round. Other than being taught since childhood that it is exactly that.
This said, i'm not really convinced the earth is flat because there are so many things that can go wrong reguarding people spotting the ice wall aswell as various other lackins in visual proof such as telescopes restoring the hull of a ship on the horizon. Though that doesn't mean to say i'm not open minded.

Anyway the basic reason for this thread is a flat earth explaination into Seismographs and more specifically P waves and S waves, and how they would function accuratly on a flat planet.
...

My question to you is. Firstly, how would the Hypocentre, Epicenter and Earthquake location be determined if the earth was flat?
and secondly, why does the shadow zone exist within a very specific range of angle from the origin of the waves?

Apologies in advance if this turns out to be a really easy or stupid question, also if it's been asked before. I did search before hand but found no results.
An excellent post. I do see that REers have documented here quite well this observation. I like how the waves would have to appear at great distances (traveling across the SP in RE, magically appearing in FE distantly.) The amount of seismic data available from hundreds of independent universities that show the Earth is round on a daily basis is quite convincing. Good job.
Logged
?

imasomebody

  • 26
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2009, 05:13:07 PM »
Quote from: crimsonak on March 01, 2009, 05:08:17 PM
Quote from: imasomebody on March 01, 2009, 04:35:51 PM
One specific example of something like this, I'd like to know why the waves from the 50 megaton bomb that Russia detonated in the cold war could be measured as they traveled around the world 3 times.  What did they travel around in FET.  ???

Wheres the data for this?
I might aswell ask it since thats what's gonna be asked.

I suppose it might well be asked for my post too but hopefully not since it's a generally well accepted form of earthquake location calculations.
Calculations which can be looked up with a little self research if the disbeleif is there.
It's also completely unrelated to NASA to my knowledge.

Heard it on Discovery or History channel once, I'll look for a source.

Course it's likely the USGS.
Logged
?

imasomebody

  • 26
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2009, 05:16:28 PM »
Here's all you ever wanted to know about the Tsar bomb:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

Unfortunately the source they cite for 'circling the world' is a book, and I am not at a library.
Logged
?

crimsonak

  • 8
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2009, 05:25:53 PM »
Quote from: imasomebody on March 01, 2009, 05:16:28 PM
Here's all you ever wanted to know about the Tsar bomb:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

Unfortunately the source they cite for 'circling the world' is a book, and I am not at a library.

Yeah it just says "Circling the world" on the link you gave, unfortunatly
(Not that i'm saying you're wrong or I want you to be wrong. If anything I want the opposite since it's always nice to put a definitive end to a debate reguardless of which side)
The bottom fact is though unfortunatly without that book or without any visuals of the readings that were taken you can't really submit it as evidence, you can however submit the way readings are taken and the accuracy of calculations based off those reading to be irreplicable with FE theory (To my knowledge) which is why I made this thread to ask for one of the people who are educated within FE theory to have a chance to explain this one. Since it may well have a very valid explaination to it.

To which I hope there is, because then the quest to challenge FE theory becomes harder and harder until eventually all the answers are given and there can be only one outcome from it which is to believe.. Atleast thats how I see it.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2009, 05:28:10 PM by crimsonak »
Logged
?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2009, 05:31:53 PM »
Good post.  I'll have to give it some thought and get back to you.  As for the 'circling the world', that would probably just be the shock waves resonating from the origin to the opposite side and back which on a flat earth would be similar to dropping a rock in a circular pool.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on January 22, 2009, 09:27:08 PM
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?
?

crimsonak

  • 8
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2009, 05:34:51 PM »
I'm glad i'd had a couple of "Good post" comments. I was really worried about posting at all, since alot of the arguments in here are admittantly out of my depth intellectually. Especially the acceleration and spped of light ones. I'm glad to know my question isn't as stupid and as easily answered as I was concerned it might be.
Anyway, thankyou for the compliments XD
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2009, 08:42:31 PM »
Quote from: Ski on February 01, 2009, 09:52:37 PM
Quote from: Ski on January 23, 2009, 09:43:19 PM
The truth is scientists predict the density of the layers based on the seismographic evidence, not the other way around. They say "there must be a fluid layer here reflecting these waves" to make the data fit the RE model. Not the other way around.

It would be entirely possible to create a FE model for seismic wave propagation. In fact, the military uses a FE model as well as a more publicized RE model.

In addition to making assumptions about the density and composition of the earth's core despite barely having scratched it, they come up with nifty things like anistropic wave propagation to make the data fit the model -- again, not the other way around.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2009, 09:04:43 PM »
Quote from: Ski on March 01, 2009, 08:42:31 PM
Quote from: Ski on February 01, 2009, 09:52:37 PM
Quote from: Ski on January 23, 2009, 09:43:19 PM
The truth is scientists predict the density of the layers based on the seismographic evidence, not the other way around. They say "there must be a fluid layer here reflecting these waves" to make the data fit the RE model. Not the other way around.

It would be entirely possible to create a FE model for seismic wave propagation. In fact, the military uses a FE model as well as a more publicized RE model.

In addition to making assumptions about the density and composition of the earth's core despite barely having scratched it, they come up with nifty things like anistropic wave propagation to make the data fit the model -- again, not the other way around.

What assumptions are they making about the density and composition of the earth's core?  ???  If anything, they are using a model based on known seismic activity of various materials in order to determine the composition of the earth's core.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2009, 09:18:35 PM »
Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2009, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: Ski on March 01, 2009, 08:42:31 PM
Quote from: Ski on February 01, 2009, 09:52:37 PM
Quote from: Ski on January 23, 2009, 09:43:19 PM
The truth is scientists predict the density of the layers based on the seismographic evidence, not the other way around. They say "there must be a fluid layer here reflecting these waves" to make the data fit the RE model. Not the other way around.

It would be entirely possible to create a FE model for seismic wave propagation. In fact, the military uses a FE model as well as a more publicized RE model.

In addition to making assumptions about the density and composition of the earth's core despite barely having scratched it, they come up with nifty things like anistropic wave propagation to make the data fit the model -- again, not the other way around.

What assumptions are they making about the density and composition of the earth's core?  ???  If anything, they are using a model based on known seismic activity of various materials in order to determine the composition of the earth's core.

That's exactly what he was saying, we have all these data, and we use them and shoehorn in whatever scientists feel the model should be, not the other way around which is the way science should ideally work.  Of course based on that model, predictions of the waves propagated through the Earth from earthquakes are predicted quite well, but that doesn't mean that the current model is correct, it just means that it fits the data well.  Which it absolutely should, otherwise it'd be a useless model.
Logged
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 27, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.
?

crimsonak

  • 8
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2009, 01:30:46 AM »
Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 01, 2009, 09:18:35 PM
Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2009, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: Ski on March 01, 2009, 08:42:31 PM
Quote from: Ski on February 01, 2009, 09:52:37 PM
Quote from: Ski on January 23, 2009, 09:43:19 PM
The truth is scientists predict the density of the layers based on the seismographic evidence, not the other way around. They say "there must be a fluid layer here reflecting these waves" to make the data fit the RE model. Not the other way around.

It would be entirely possible to create a FE model for seismic wave propagation. In fact, the military uses a FE model as well as a more publicized RE model.

In addition to making assumptions about the density and composition of the earth's core despite barely having scratched it, they come up with nifty things like anistropic wave propagation to make the data fit the model -- again, not the other way around.

What assumptions are they making about the density and composition of the earth's core?  ???  If anything, they are using a model based on known seismic activity of various materials in order to determine the composition of the earth's core.

That's exactly what he was saying, we have all these data, and we use them and shoehorn in whatever scientists feel the model should be, not the other way around which is the way science should ideally work.  Of course based on that model, predictions of the waves propagated through the Earth from earthquakes are predicted quite well, but that doesn't mean that the current model is correct, it just means that it fits the data well.  Which it absolutely should, otherwise it'd be a useless model.

That doesn't explain how a shadow zone would fit into a FE model.
Nor does it explain how it would work on a FE model either.

You're just basically saying "That example is twisted to fit the RE model accuratly."
but you're not really showing me how it works on the FE model. Which is pretty much what I asked in my original post.
Since the whole problem is I don't see how a shadow zone and be produced within the same range from the source on the FE model.
Also I don't see how one of these waves is always going to show up on the exact opposite end of the earth (based on the RE model) on FE. and in order to be further convinced to the FE theory it kinda needs to be explained to a degree more than just "Yeah well they're just using a made up model with the data they have which fits accuratly"

Also I dislike the way that it is said that it's basically just assumed that this happens in order to fit the model.
It is not assumed waves curve this way when passing through changing density, therefor we know on a RE model the waves would curve like that. Using the siesmographic evidence and/or maths you can determine how much they curve. Once the shadow zone becomes apparent it is obvious from an RE perspective that the waves are being refracted by that point. Due to the fact we also know the earth has a core due to various ecological impacts the core has, aswell as astronomical evidence of other planets having cores.(Aswell as the FE model having a core!) It is also not an assumption that the core has a different density. Therefor not an assumption that the waves would refract upon passing through. The RE model I provided is quite majoritivly not assumed, they didnt just take the siesmic data and say "Well if the earth is round and these are the results this is what happens"
The process is actually more like "Well if the earth is round, and has varying density levels throughout the deeper stretches of the planet this is why the data correlates." Which is exactly what you'd have to do with explaining or drawing a FE model. It's all good just saying where data is and then randomly drawing lines underground that make it all fit together. It has to make sense and have reasoning behind it too. People don't just randomly assume things scientifically like you're claiming, even though sometimes things are wrong it's rarely because something was just guessed.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2009, 02:10:06 AM by crimsonak »
Logged
?

RoundSquares

  • 47
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2009, 03:08:19 AM »
Crimsonak, you've made a good thread here in my opinion, and I like your posting style. But you've got a lot to learn; FE'ers never show a proper counter argument to a near conclusive RE theory. Here's a couple of catchphrases that might come in handy in spotting a troubled FE'er who's unable to properly counter argue:
"Show me your data"
"You have no data"
"That's because you've been blinded by a conspiracy"
"I don't see your data"
"Nope"
"Prove it"
"*Points out random grammatical mistake completely irrelevant to argument*"
"If you want a counter theory, you're going to have to fund us"
"Look in the FAQ"

Just read page 2 of this thread: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26661.20 You'll see what I mean.


Keep it up though, I like this seismic idea.
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2009, 04:03:11 AM »
Quote from: RoundSquares on March 02, 2009, 03:08:19 AM
"Show me your data"
"You have no data"
"That's because you've been blinded by a conspiracy"
"I don't see your data"
"Nope"
"Prove it"
"*Points out random grammatical mistake completely irrelevant to argument*"
"If you want a counter theory, you're going to have to fund us"
"Look in the FAQ"

If all of the above apply, then you only have yourself to blame.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2009, 09:47:04 AM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on March 02, 2009, 04:03:11 AM
Quote from: RoundSquares on March 02, 2009, 03:08:19 AM
"Show me your data"
"You have no data"
"That's because you've been blinded by a conspiracy"
"I don't see your data"
"Nope"
"Prove it"
"*Points out random grammatical mistake completely irrelevant to argument*"
"If you want a counter theory, you're going to have to fund us"
"Look in the FAQ"

If all of the above apply, then you only have yourself to blame.

It's true, nobody's said anything of the kind in this thread yet.

More to the point, I am not a seismologist, and I doubt anyone else is eather around these parts.  I assume that if seismologists took as a fact that the earth was flat instead of round, then an appropriate density distribution below the surface, and maybe even a solid underplate resting below the molten rock to reflect the waves back to the earth's surface would be the model instead of a sphere with a very dense core.

EDIT: My main point is that science in cases like these don't really care about being 'right' in the sense of whether or not the Earth is round or flat, they only care about creating a model that accurately predicts the observed phenomena, they just happened to have assumed the earth was round in creating their model.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2009, 09:57:52 AM by EnigmaZV »
Logged
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 27, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.
?

crimsonak

  • 8
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2009, 09:55:30 AM »
Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 02, 2009, 09:47:04 AM
Quote from: NEEMAN on March 02, 2009, 04:03:11 AM
Quote from: RoundSquares on March 02, 2009, 03:08:19 AM
"Show me your data"
"You have no data"
"That's because you've been blinded by a conspiracy"
"I don't see your data"
"Nope"
"Prove it"
"*Points out random grammatical mistake completely irrelevant to argument*"
"If you want a counter theory, you're going to have to fund us"
"Look in the FAQ"

If all of the above apply, then you only have yourself to blame.

It's true, nobody's said anything of the kind in this thread yet.

More to the point, I am not a seismologist, and I doubt anyone else is eather around these parts.  I assume that if seismologists took as a fact that the earth was flat instead of round, then an appropriate density distribution below the surface, and maybe even a solid underplate resting below the molten rock to reflect the waves back to the earth's surface would be the model instead of a sphere with a very dense core.

This explaination would not explain a shadow zone being produced for P waves and S waves, neither would it explain how there is a wave detection always on the exact opposite end of the world as the source.
Logged
*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2009, 10:04:07 AM »
Perhaps you are correct, I'll give it some thought and get back to you.

I will leave you with this thought however, and that is that it is very close-minded to assume that yours is the only model that fits the observed phenomena.  It could be that at some point in the future an earthquake could occur in an area not prone to quakes which could propagate waves in a different fashion than what is predicted and an alternate model will have to be proposed.  If the possibility of an alternate solution is dismissed outright, then it's possible that you might not gain knowledge that might otherwise have been available to you.
Logged
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 27, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.
?

crimsonak

  • 8
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2009, 10:09:57 AM »
Don't get me wrong i'm not saying that this is the only model at all, what I am saying is I know that this is the only current model that i'm aware of, I also know that it is an accurate model. Since waves, are waves. it's unlikely that you will have something that disobeys the curves currently on the model. Mathmatically speaking anyway.
I apologise if i'm coming across close minded it's not my intention at all, i'm actually trying my best to be neutral and vigilant towards things which can't really count towards being valid explaination or evidence from both sides (Such as I did with the Tsar atomic bomb at the beginning of the thread)

Although you're right, that COULD happen. To my knlowledge though it never has. If anyone knows of a time where it has i'd love to know about it.
Thing is though even if something did happen like an earthquake occuring in a place that was unprone to them, and the waves behaved uncharacteristically. Although it would be documented it would rightly be treated as an anomaly and since the model i've given is accurate (Although rightly point out earlier may not be the only accurate model hence this thread) it is still the current accepted form, which means to change peoples minds you have to show another way that it works, and where any anomaly's that occur can be explained.

Anyway like i've been saying a few times the basic whole point of this thread is not to say this is the only model and it's the only model there ever will be, but more curiosity on how a FE model would function using the same waves and results. Since i'm currently neither a believer (Yet to be fully convinced) nor an expert on FE theory, this seems like the most logical place to ask.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2009, 10:20:08 AM by crimsonak »
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2009, 11:01:21 AM »
You should be appreciative of the financial strength of the society. If we had the kind of funds and staffing devoted to RE seismology, I have no doubt we would have a predictive model of our own.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

MayTheBetterModelWin

  • 656
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2009, 01:52:27 PM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on March 02, 2009, 11:01:21 AM
You should be appreciative of the financial strength of the society. If we had the kind of funds and staffing devoted to RE seismology, I have no doubt we would have a predictive model of our own.
I am grateful that our society channels resources to the most promising models. With such economics, we progress wonderfully.
Logged
?

RoundSquares

  • 47
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2009, 04:01:00 PM »
Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 02, 2009, 09:47:04 AM
Quote from: RoundSquares on March 02, 2009, 03:08:19 AM
"If you want a counter theory, you're going to have to fund us"

It's true, nobody's said anything of the kind in this thread yet.
Emphasis added...aaand, 4 posts later, we are getting closer:
Quote from: NEEMAN on March 02, 2009, 11:01:21 AM
You should be appreciative of the financial strength of the society. If we had the kind of funds and staffing devoted to RE seismology, I have no doubt we would have a predictive model of our own.


Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 02, 2009, 09:47:04 AM
EDIT: My main point is that science in cases like these don't really care about being 'right' in the sense of whether or not the Earth is round or flat, they only care about creating a model that accurately predicts the observed phenomena, they just happened to have assumed the earth was round in creating their model.

Although a fair point, they can always conclude the Earth is round or flat from data, it doesn't have to be assumed. It's more likely though, that no one is even trying to prove or disprove it anymore. It's more or less universally accepted, hence why finding a solid full data'd detailed argument for either side up to Tom Bishops ever increasing standards is hard to find. People have moved on and are spending resources on other things, they accept, not assume the Earth is round (in their mind). Of course, they could be wrong yada yada yada.
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2009, 12:44:10 AM »
Quote from: RoundSquares on March 02, 2009, 04:01:00 PM
Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 02, 2009, 09:47:04 AM
Quote from: RoundSquares on March 02, 2009, 03:08:19 AM
"If you want a counter theory, you're going to have to fund us"

It's true, nobody's said anything of the kind in this thread yet.
Emphasis added...aaand, 4 posts later, we are getting closer:
Quote from: NEEMAN on March 02, 2009, 11:01:21 AM
You should be appreciative of the financial strength of the society. If we had the kind of funds and staffing devoted to RE seismology, I have no doubt we would have a predictive model of our own.

Are you saying funding would not be an issue? If it is an issue, I have every right to raise it.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

RoundSquares

  • 47
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #23 on: March 03, 2009, 01:00:21 AM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on March 03, 2009, 12:44:10 AM
Are you saying funding would not be an issue? If it is an issue, I have every right to raise it.

Simply stating that you, the person who instantly belittled my comment of common quotes, nearly used one. It might be an issue, it might not be an issue, I don't really care because saying "We don't have adequate funding" isn't an appropriate response when sometimes all that is needed is a hypothetical theory. You don't need millions of dollars to think about something.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2009, 02:26:31 AM »
Quote
You don't need millions of dollars to think about something.

What will thinking prove?
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2009, 03:23:19 AM »
Quote from: RoundSquares on March 03, 2009, 01:00:21 AM
Quote from: NEEMAN on March 03, 2009, 12:44:10 AM
Are you saying funding would not be an issue? If it is an issue, I have every right to raise it.

Simply stating that you, the person who instantly belittled my comment of common quotes, nearly used one. It might be an issue, it might not be an issue, I don't really care because saying "We don't have adequate funding" isn't an appropriate response when sometimes all that is needed is a hypothetical theory. You don't need millions of dollars to think about something.

How did I belittle it? I said if those statements were valid, then we have every right to use them. It's not our fault you ask questions which have obvious answers, and it isn't our fault if time after time you keep asking them.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2009, 06:38:01 AM »
Quote
What will thinking prove?

Well, you take the data that exists and think about what it suggests.

I do wonder what all this funding stuff is. What do you need money for? People have already done experiments. Does doing them while thinking the Earth is a globe skew the results?
Logged
?

user99

  • 282
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #27 on: March 03, 2009, 08:08:39 AM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on March 03, 2009, 12:44:10 AM
Quote from: RoundSquares on March 02, 2009, 04:01:00 PM
Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 02, 2009, 09:47:04 AM
Quote from: RoundSquares on March 02, 2009, 03:08:19 AM
"If you want a counter theory, you're going to have to fund us"

It's true, nobody's said anything of the kind in this thread yet.
Emphasis added...aaand, 4 posts later, we are getting closer:
Quote from: NEEMAN on March 02, 2009, 11:01:21 AM
You should be appreciative of the financial strength of the society. If we had the kind of funds and staffing devoted to RE seismology, I have no doubt we would have a predictive model of our own.

Are you saying funding would not be an issue? If it is an issue, I have every right to raise it.

If you don't have the money or wherewithall to prove your case, keep your mouth shut.
Logged
?

crimsonak

  • 8
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2009, 11:33:14 AM »
For this particular example/topic.
Funding is not a short term issue.
The way I see the process of proof to this going is, learning through self reasearch calculations involved in the pathing process of waves through different densities. (IE the sensities of earth mantle/core.) Then using your knowledge of FET. Applying this calculation process to a FE model to replicate detection results from the RE model.
This first part would require dedication and free time only. Which I'm assuming atleast one person within the community possesses.


If a FE model cannot be produced which fits. Then the next step would be to hire a seismologist to teach a group of you how to accuratly read siesmograph results, then once this information was aquired you'd have to buy/rent 500 or so Seismographs and place them at equidistance throughout the Earth and waiting for an event to occur. Then collecting the data and referring the results to the hired seismologist to see if it matches the results of the RE model accuratly. This would be the part that would require funds.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 03, 2009, 02:26:31 AM
Quote
You don't need millions of dollars to think about something.

What will thinking prove?
As for this, I think you should agree a feasibility study is the first step in all major changes from accepted processes.
So while thinking doesn't strictly "prove" anything, it sets the ball rolling towards that.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2009, 11:38:41 AM by crimsonak »
Logged
?

MayTheBetterModelWin

  • 656
Re: Seismic waves
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2009, 07:29:00 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 03, 2009, 02:26:31 AM
Quote
You don't need millions of dollars to think about something.

What will thinking prove?
Science is replete with accepted and useful thought experiments, so the answer to your question is simply, "a lot".
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »