The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Lorddave on August 08, 2010, 02:51:58 AM

Title: Earthquakes?
Post by: Lorddave on August 08, 2010, 02:51:58 AM
How does the FET deal with Earthquakes?

The distance from the epicenter can be measured by looking at the P and S Waves.  When measuring from the other side of the world (or any significant distance), it is found that the S wave no longer exists.  This is because S-Waves don't exist in a liquid so when the wave reaches the liquid outer core of our planet (liquid rock) it will only transmit the P-Wave.  On a flat earth, the P and S wave should travel along the flat crust of the Earth without ever hitting the liquid outer core. 
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Hortensius on August 08, 2010, 07:48:33 AM
How does the FET deal with Earthquakes?

The distance from the epicenter can be measured by looking at the P and S Waves.  When measuring from the other side of the world (or any significant distance), it is found that the S wave no longer exists.  This is because S-Waves don't exist in a liquid so when the wave reaches the liquid outer core of our planet (liquid rock) it will only transmit the P-Wave.  On a flat earth, the P and S wave should travel along the flat crust of the Earth without ever hitting the liquid outer core.  

And I'll tell you more; a short while ago I have (for the fun of it) done a stability analysis, and it showed that most p-waves (/pressure waves/sound waves) are instable on a flat earth. P-waves that move downward do also exist, but are even more instable. It all means that they will cause the flat earth to collapse into a sphere...
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: John Davis on August 09, 2010, 02:18:50 PM
How does the FET deal with Earthquakes?

The distance from the epicenter can be measured by looking at the P and S Waves.  When measuring from the other side of the world (or any significant distance), it is found that the S wave no longer exists.  This is because S-Waves don't exist in a liquid so when the wave reaches the liquid outer core of our planet (liquid rock) it will only transmit the P-Wave.  On a flat earth, the P and S wave should travel along the flat crust of the Earth without ever hitting the liquid outer core.  

And I'll tell you more; a short while ago I have (for the fun of it) done a stability analysis, and it showed that most p-waves (/pressure waves/sound waves) are instable on a flat earth. P-waves that move downward do also exist, but are even more instable. It all means that they will cause the flat earth to collapse into a sphere...
I'll have to get back to you on this, its been crazy with my work.  I should be done this week though, which leaves Saturday.  I was planning on taking the week off of flat earth stuff for my birthday and money work.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Hortensius on August 09, 2010, 02:55:38 PM
How does the FET deal with Earthquakes?

The distance from the epicenter can be measured by looking at the P and S Waves.  When measuring from the other side of the world (or any significant distance), it is found that the S wave no longer exists.  This is because S-Waves don't exist in a liquid so when the wave reaches the liquid outer core of our planet (liquid rock) it will only transmit the P-Wave.  On a flat earth, the P and S wave should travel along the flat crust of the Earth without ever hitting the liquid outer core.  

And I'll tell you more; a short while ago I have (for the fun of it) done a stability analysis, and it showed that most p-waves (/pressure waves/sound waves) are instable on a flat earth. P-waves that move downward do also exist, but are even more instable. It all means that they will cause the flat earth to collapse into a sphere...
I'll have to get back to you on this, its been crazy with my work.  I should be done this week though, which leaves Saturday.  I was planning on taking the week off of flat earth stuff for my birthday and money work.

Happy birthday! Take your time...
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: John Davis on August 09, 2010, 02:58:53 PM
How does the FET deal with Earthquakes?

The distance from the epicenter can be measured by looking at the P and S Waves.  When measuring from the other side of the world (or any significant distance), it is found that the S wave no longer exists.  This is because S-Waves don't exist in a liquid so when the wave reaches the liquid outer core of our planet (liquid rock) it will only transmit the P-Wave.  On a flat earth, the P and S wave should travel along the flat crust of the Earth without ever hitting the liquid outer core.  

And I'll tell you more; a short while ago I have (for the fun of it) done a stability analysis, and it showed that most p-waves (/pressure waves/sound waves) are instable on a flat earth. P-waves that move downward do also exist, but are even more instable. It all means that they will cause the flat earth to collapse into a sphere...
I'll have to get back to you on this, its been crazy with my work.  I should be done this week though, which leaves Saturday.  I was planning on taking the week off of flat earth stuff for my birthday and money work.

Happy birthday! Take your time...
Thanks =-).  Its nice to have someone on the RE side that is patient and not constantly complaining as well as educated and a gentleman.  Kudos.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Lorddave on August 10, 2010, 08:21:12 PM
Happy birthday.
Yeah take your time. I'm in no rush. Though I would like opinions other than yours. A good mix and variety.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Tewk on August 11, 2010, 12:14:51 PM
Fact: The Earth is not flat.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: John Davis on August 11, 2010, 11:50:30 PM
Fact: The Earth is not flat.
Fact: As far as humans are concerned, there are no true facts, only the interpretation of data.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Horatio on August 12, 2010, 12:34:42 AM
Fact: The Earth is not flat.

Fact: Facts are not welcome here.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 01:21:47 AM
Fact: The Earth is not flat.
Fact: As far as humans are concerned, there are no true facts, only the interpretation of data.

LOL, the spaghettie monster argument! FACT, I replied to this message, or existence exists because non-existence can not literally be a person, place, or thing of existing existence. But I guess in your world, facts don't matter  8)
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 06:55:25 AM
Fact: The Earth is not flat.
Fact: As far as humans are concerned, there are no true facts, only the interpretation of data.
False. As far as Science is concerned there are facts.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Hortensius on August 12, 2010, 07:18:39 AM
Fact: The Earth is not flat.
Fact: As far as humans are concerned, there are no true facts, only the interpretation of data.
False. As far as Science is concerned there are facts.

False, all sciences apart from mathematics are not about facts but about likelyhood. Strictly speaking scientific 'facts' are always subject to interpretation and are therefore no real facts. For example, before Einstein most physicists would have regarded it a fact that if you add up 10 km/s and 10 km/s the answer would be 20 km/s, whereas we now know that due to our knowledge of space-time we can't add up velocities this easy; the real answer should be somewhat less then 20 km/s. This is because our interpretation of space and time have changed and therefore our interpretation of velocities and adding up velocities.

This doesn't change the fact that we can with some certainty say that some models are highly unlikely.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 07:38:41 AM
Fact: The Earth is not flat.
Fact: As far as humans are concerned, there are no true facts, only the interpretation of data.
False. As far as Science is concerned there are facts.

False, all sciences apart from mathematics are not about facts but about likelyhood. Strictly speaking scientific 'facts' are always subject to interpretation and are therefore no real facts. For example, before Einstein most physicists would have regarded it a fact that if you add up 10 km/s and 10 km/s the answer would be 20 km/s, whereas we now know that due to our knowledge of space-time we can't add up velocities this easy; the real answer should be somewhat less then 20 km/s. This is because our interpretation of space and time have changed and therefore our interpretation of velocities and adding up velocities.

This doesn't change the fact that we can with some certainty say that some models are highly unlikely.
Sorry, but you're wrong. You've confused the lay definition of fact with Scientific Fact. Please reference: http://www.lycos.com/info/scientific-method--facts.html (http://www.lycos.com/info/scientific-method--facts.html). For example, evolution is considered a Fact.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Hortensius on August 12, 2010, 07:41:40 AM
Fact: The Earth is not flat.
Fact: As far as humans are concerned, there are no true facts, only the interpretation of data.
False. As far as Science is concerned there are facts.

False, all sciences apart from mathematics are not about facts but about likelyhood. Strictly speaking scientific 'facts' are always subject to interpretation and are therefore no real facts. For example, before Einstein most physicists would have regarded it a fact that if you add up 10 km/s and 10 km/s the answer would be 20 km/s, whereas we now know that due to our knowledge of space-time we can't add up velocities this easy; the real answer should be somewhat less then 20 km/s. This is because our interpretation of space and time have changed and therefore our interpretation of velocities and adding up velocities.

This doesn't change the fact that we can with some certainty say that some models are highly unlikely.
Sorry, but you're wrong. You've confused the lay definition of fact with Scientific Fact. Please reference: http://www.lycos.com/info/scientific-method--facts.html (http://www.lycos.com/info/scientific-method--facts.html). For example, evolution is considered a Fact.

I'm not going to play word games with you...
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 07:44:54 AM
Fact: The Earth is not flat.
Fact: As far as humans are concerned, there are no true facts, only the interpretation of data.
False. As far as Science is concerned there are facts.

False, all sciences apart from mathematics are not about facts but about likelyhood. Strictly speaking scientific 'facts' are always subject to interpretation and are therefore no real facts. For example, before Einstein most physicists would have regarded it a fact that if you add up 10 km/s and 10 km/s the answer would be 20 km/s, whereas we now know that due to our knowledge of space-time we can't add up velocities this easy; the real answer should be somewhat less then 20 km/s. This is because our interpretation of space and time have changed and therefore our interpretation of velocities and adding up velocities.

This doesn't change the fact that we can with some certainty say that some models are highly unlikely.
Sorry, but you're wrong. You've confused the lay definition of fact with Scientific Fact. Please reference: http://www.lycos.com/info/scientific-method--facts.html (http://www.lycos.com/info/scientific-method--facts.html). For example, evolution is considered a Fact.

I'm not going to play word games with you...
Here's another source regarding Facts: http://scientificinquiry.suite101.com/article.cfm/scientific_method_data_facts_theories_and_laws (http://scientificinquiry.suite101.com/article.cfm/scientific_method_data_facts_theories_and_laws).
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 11:46:28 AM
Fact: The Earth is not flat.
Fact: As far as humans are concerned, there are no true facts, only the interpretation of data.
False. As far as Science is concerned there are facts.

False, all sciences apart from mathematics are not about facts but about likelyhood. Strictly speaking scientific 'facts' are always subject to interpretation and are therefore no real facts. For example, before Einstein most physicists would have regarded it a fact that if you add up 10 km/s and 10 km/s the answer would be 20 km/s, whereas we now know that due to our knowledge of space-time we can't add up velocities this easy; the real answer should be somewhat less then 20 km/s. This is because our interpretation of space and time have changed and therefore our interpretation of velocities and adding up velocities.

This doesn't change the fact that we can with some certainty say that some models are highly unlikely.

So according to you, non-existence can be a person,place, or thing of existence.. Make sure you define those two key words before you respond ;) Hence, we also eat food to live and stay alive, perhaps that is something you can try and challenge in regards to your fact theory of interpretation lol. here is a little thing you need to learn about truth vs fallacy to understand why your argument is baseless.

TRUTH VS FALLACY:

So the first thing we must do is establish the differences between truth, faith, and belief.. You can say this is Truth VS Fallacy, and that we all know truth only comes to be realized when it has faced rigorously harsh doses of self scrutiny. So what is the differences between truth, belief, and faith? Well, how about we find out by taking a closer look at each of these terms so we can establish a foundation for determining how they apply to the world we live in.

* Truth: substantiated unarguable information that is validated without possible argument against it. (this doesn't mean you get to play circular games of denial of evidence constructed around baseless conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience)
* Faith: The hoping what you think is divine truth is actually true when there is no means of validation to give it substantiation.. It's a means to keep one believing irregardless if it's proven false, irrelevant, or impossible.
* Belief : believing in what you perceive to be true irregardless of validity, and in this case it is highly dependent on Faith for support. Otherwise a collapse of belief would likely occur.

Example Truths:

1) Absolute substantiated fact = Existence can be verified without argument to exist simply because non-existence can not be a literal person, place, or thing of existence. Non-existence can not be a literal noun!

2) -1 spatial space is impossible considering there can be no capacity to contain and support existence, or contian and support a place to exist in whithin a negative capacity. Hence 2 concurs with 1.

3) -1 energy is impossible because the sum total of existence is energy, and energy can not exist in a negative capacity either. Without energy there would be nothing, and since nothing can not literally exist as a person, place, or thing, it concurs with 1 and 2.

4) Time, speed, and distance calculations alone collapse the FE theory. Yeah, Mathematical factification of the falseness of the FE theory ;)

Example Fallacy:

A faith based belief = believing a GOD created existence without having to explain how one can preexist existence in order to create it, or explain how such a being can create that to which itself is slave to require in order to exist itself.. Hence, is a GOD existence as a whole, or is a GOD merely in existence like the rest of us as a product of existence, or does a god simply not exist? And how does solipsism play into this? It becomes heavily reliant on Faith, because logically it's trying to claim something to be of truth without substantiation or validation through simple blind assertions, and perceptual personal opinion. So this leads us to how FE supports it's position as it tries to assert itself without substantiation, or validation. It solely relies on conspiracy theories, assertions, assumptions, magical objects, and circular pseudoscience wrapped around an ideological construct. There is absolutely nothing of value in the FE argument vs the RE argument. And this is especially true in mathematics, consistency, or the simple fact that I can mathematically navigate the world according to spherical calculations and coordinates with the upmost accuracy. So far FE can't even provide an agreeable circumference to even begin making a map, and there is a very good reason for that ;D

Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Crustinator on August 12, 2010, 11:59:30 AM
And I'll tell you more; a short while ago I have (for the fun of it) done a stability analysis, and it showed that most p-waves (/pressure waves/sound waves) are instable on a flat earth. P-waves that move downward do also exist, but are even more instable. It all means that they will cause the flat earth to collapse into a sphere...

This has kind of been recognised as a flaw in FET for a long while, but the effort required to prove it is more than the lulz that would be returned.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Anteater7171 on August 12, 2010, 12:07:46 PM
Plate tectonics exists in FE, therefor the cause is the same as in RET.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 12:12:59 PM
Plate tectonics exists in FE, therefor the cause is the same as in RET.
You missed the point. Earthquakes and their resultant waves can only be explained by RET. The shadow zone for example is explained by the Earth's liquid core. The time waves take to travel and that they travel over the SP are rather conclusive evidence that the Earth is a sphere.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 12:13:55 PM
How does the FET deal with Earthquakes?

The distance from the epicenter can be measured by looking at the P and S Waves.  When measuring from the other side of the world (or any significant distance), it is found that the S wave no longer exists.  This is because S-Waves don't exist in a liquid so when the wave reaches the liquid outer core of our planet (liquid rock) it will only transmit the P-Wave.  On a flat earth, the P and S wave should travel along the flat crust of the Earth without ever hitting the liquid outer core. 

(http://a.imageshack.us/img405/1954/pic1sg.png)
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 12:16:20 PM
How does the FET deal with Earthquakes?

The distance from the epicenter can be measured by looking at the P and S Waves.  When measuring from the other side of the world (or any significant distance), it is found that the S wave no longer exists.  This is because S-Waves don't exist in a liquid so when the wave reaches the liquid outer core of our planet (liquid rock) it will only transmit the P-Wave.  On a flat earth, the P and S wave should travel along the flat crust of the Earth without ever hitting the liquid outer core. 

(http://a.imageshack.us/img405/1954/pic1sg.png)
Anyone can draw a cartoon. Do you have any evidence to support your diagram?
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 12:32:19 PM
How does the FET deal with Earthquakes?

The distance from the epicenter can be measured by looking at the P and S Waves.  When measuring from the other side of the world (or any significant distance), it is found that the S wave no longer exists.  This is because S-Waves don't exist in a liquid so when the wave reaches the liquid outer core of our planet (liquid rock) it will only transmit the P-Wave.  On a flat earth, the P and S wave should travel along the flat crust of the Earth without ever hitting the liquid outer core. 

(http://a.imageshack.us/img405/1954/pic1sg.png)
Anyone can draw a cartoon. Do you have any evidence to support your diagram?

Transverse waves can travel along the surface tension of the ocean, creating water waves for example. And your argument is false, they get S-wave readings from the Liquid magma of the molten core, but as you can see the core itself also prevents S-waves from being read on the oposite side of the Earth. It would do you good to read on what exactly S-waves are, or how they can reflect as P-waves before posting cartoons without anything to back them up with..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_core

Quote
For example:

ScP is a wave that begins traveling towards the center of the Earth as an S wave. Upon reaching the outer core the wave reflects as a P wave.
sPKIKP is wave path that begins traveling towards the surface as an S-wave. At the surface it reflects as a P-wave. The P-wave then travels through the outer core, the inner core, the outer core, and the mantle.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Earthquake_wave_paths.gif/250px-Earthquake_wave_paths.gif)

Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 01:00:55 PM
Plate tectonics exists in FE, therefor the cause is the same as in RET.

Wrong, the physics and results would be completely different. That statement is again asserting pseudoscience. The Earthquakes are directly consistent with RE and not FE. And you can't get the same dynamo results from a FE lol. UA only states vertical electromagnetic velocity and thus fails utterly in terms of generating a dynamo mechanism to generate the electromagnetic field. This is caused by the rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid we call Earths core. This can not be replicated in FE, or even in a cylinder shaped object with a flat disk surface even if you claimed that FE had Rotation.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Anteater7171 on August 12, 2010, 01:33:39 PM
Plate tectonics exists in FE, therefor the cause is the same as in RET.

Wrong, the physics and results would be completely different. That statement is again asserting pseudoscience. The Earthquakes are directly consistent with RE and not FE. And you can't get the same dynamo results from a FE lol. UA only states vertical electromagnetic velocity and thus fails utterly in terms of generating a dynamo mechanism to generate the electromagnetic field. This is caused by the rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid we call Earths core. This can not be replicated in FE, or even in a cylinder shaped object with a flat disk surface even if you claimed that FE had Rotation.

Convection and the electromagnetic charge of the "core" are exist in FE.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 01:40:44 PM
Plate tectonics exists in FE, therefor the cause is the same as in RET.

Wrong, the physics and results would be completely different. That statement is again asserting pseudoscience. The Earthquakes are directly consistent with RE and not FE. And you can't get the same dynamo results from a FE lol. UA only states vertical electromagnetic velocity and thus fails utterly in terms of generating a dynamo mechanism to generate the electromagnetic field. This is caused by the rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid we call Earths core. This can not be replicated in FE, or even in a cylinder shaped object with a flat disk surface even if you claimed that FE had Rotation.

Convection and the electromagnetic charge of the "core" are exist in FE.

You really didn't comprehend this argument did you?  Making a claim and then asserting it as a fact without evidence doesn't make it a reality son. I can claim that my baseball has the electromagnetic charge with a core, and this is the sumtotal of your baseless assertion. No, the physics would not be the same, and sorry the dynamo mechanism would not exist under FE, nor would it produce the same electromagnetic field we get in the RE model. You have provided nothing of value in regards to this subject, nor have you provided any data.. All you are relying on is the circular assumption or assertion that the two models would be identical lol. This is like comparing a cirlce to a sphere again in mathematics, they are not compatible in this regard.

And under UA the magnetic field would be incredibly weak to the point where I could levetate above ground with just the use of a magnets, or even lauch a spaceship into space with polar magnetic purpulsion. Or I could simply use the electromagnetic vertical acceleration to toss a baseball in the air and never have it come down. FE is an utter fail in so many areas of physics that it's ridiculous.




Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 01:55:27 PM
Plate tectonics exists in FE, therefor the cause is the same as in RET.

Wrong, the physics and results would be completely different. That statement is again asserting pseudoscience. The Earthquakes are directly consistent with RE and not FE. And you can't get the same dynamo results from a FE lol. UA only states vertical electromagnetic velocity and thus fails utterly in terms of generating a dynamo mechanism to generate the electromagnetic field. This is caused by the rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid we call Earths core. This can not be replicated in FE, or even in a cylinder shaped object with a flat disk surface even if you claimed that FE had Rotation.

Convection and the electromagnetic charge of the "core" are exist in FE.
Really? Please provide the evidence that allows you to make that statement. Perhaps you're just speculating again? Do tell us what model has the dynamo and where the model places that dynamo. For example does Wilmore's model core run from MNP to MSP?. How about Tom Bishop's unknown size model? How about John Davis's infinite slab model? Do tell.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:37:21 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Earthquake_wave_paths.gif/250px-Earthquake_wave_paths.gif)

Anyone can draw a cartoon. Do you have any evidence to support your diagram?
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Earthquake_wave_paths.gif/250px-Earthquake_wave_paths.gif)

Anyone can draw a cartoon. Do you have any evidence to support your diagram?

You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:48:05 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.
Right, just follow the citations to even more evidence. Of course, it's a lot more than what you've present, and I asked you first. Another dismal failure for parsec.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:49:07 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.
Right, just follow the citations to even more evidence. Of course, it's a lot more than what you've present, and I asked you first. Another dismal failure for parsec.
the citations link to obvious RE propaganda.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:54:38 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.
Right, just follow the citations to even more evidence. Of course, it's a lot more than what you've present, and I asked you first. Another dismal failure for parsec.
the citations link to obvious RE propaganda.
Prove it.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:56:47 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.
Right, just follow the citations to even more evidence. Of course, it's a lot more than what you've present, and I asked you first. Another dismal failure for parsec.
the citations link to obvious RE propaganda.
Prove it.
how many articles advocating a FE have been published in those journals?
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 03:02:15 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.
Right, just follow the citations to even more evidence. Of course, it's a lot more than what you've present, and I asked you first. Another dismal failure for parsec.
the citations link to obvious RE propaganda.
Prove it.
how many articles advocating a FE have been published in those journals?
I don't know, and why would ask?
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 03:04:18 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.
Right, just follow the citations to even more evidence. Of course, it's a lot more than what you've present, and I asked you first. Another dismal failure for parsec.
the citations link to obvious RE propaganda.
Prove it.
how many articles advocating a FE have been published in those journals?
I don't know, and why would ask?
Then please perform some relevant research before spewing nonsense on the Internet.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 03:06:50 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.
Right, just follow the citations to even more evidence. Of course, it's a lot more than what you've present, and I asked you first. Another dismal failure for parsec.
the citations link to obvious RE propaganda.
Prove it.
how many articles advocating a FE have been published in those journals?
I don't know, and why would ask?
Then please perform some relevant research before spewing nonsense on the Internet.
I perform relevant research all of the time. Where is your evidence to go with your cartoon? Why can't you seem to ever provide evidence? Could it be that you don't have any?
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 03:15:52 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.

Links to wiki are to explain the meaning of the words.. If you want evidence you can feel free to visit places where scientists take readings on Earths siesmic activity. Where do you think Wiki gets it's information from. I could list hundreds of places that will concur with wiki. And it might help you to extend beyond wiki and actually investigate their sources to understand why your argument here is nothing more than a poor attempt to deny information and evidence.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hydromagnetic_dynamo_theory
http://physics.nmt.edu/~dynamo/dynsExp131.pdf
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~colloq/Talk2006_forest/dynamo_forest.pdf
http://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/00/08/75/PDF/CBJN_Arxiv.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v416614811h34159/
http://iopscience.iop.org/0741-3335/43/12A/311;jsessionid=6FED239A77AF9997CD3366A42677A4DC.c2
http://www.cmso.info/cmsopdf/cmso_oct09/Cary.pdf

These are also consistent with the geomagnetic data base:
http://www.ngu.no/geodynamics/gpmdb/
http://www.serg.unicam.it/pmag.htm
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/hazard/reroute.pl?urltable=segweb.txt&requrl=/seg/geomag/paleo.shtml
http://idn.ceos.org/KeywordSearch/Metadata.do?Portal=GCMD&KeywordPath=%5BKeyword%3D'PALEOMAGNETISM'%5D&OrigMetadataNode=GCMD&EntryId=Earth_INT_SPACE_ING_PALEOMAG_DB&MetadataView=Full&MetadataType=0&lbnode=mdlb3

Natural Hazards: Tsunami, Earthquake, Volcano, Geothermal http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard
Geomagnetism, Magnetic Models, Declination Calculators http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag
Gravity http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/gravity
Topography http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/topo
World Data Center for Earth Geophysics http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/wdc
Ecosystems Informatics, Soils, Groundcover http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/ecosys

I could literally list thousands of concrring data to RE dynamo, and electromagnetic field data. There is literally an ocean of data out there that is entirely consistent with RE dynamo mechanism, and electromagnetic field. THey didn't simply come up with a theory, they created a world wide data base, and conducted hundreds of experiments.. It's also layed in a solid foundation of mathenmatics. Everything is entirely consistent with a spherical Earth with a molten core. None of this is even remotely consistent with a FE because it simply can not be. Hence, you can not magically change the size and shape of Earth, or even the physics without skrewing up. When you can provide consistent and accurate real world data to support your hypothesis to which doesn't attempt to copy paste from RE, you let me know.. You can't copy paste RE models, physics, or electromagnetic field data from an RE to an FE and have it make any logical sense.

And you do realize we can measure the time, distance, and speed of these waves to determine that Earth is spherical in shape correct?


Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 03:19:04 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.

Links to wiki are to explain the meaning of the words.. If you want evidence you can feel free to visit places where scientists take readings on Earths siesmic activity. Where do you think Wiki gets it's information from. I could list hundreds of places that will concur with wiki. And it might help you to extend beyond wiki and actually investigate their sources to understand why your argument here is nothing more than a poor attempt to deny information and evidence.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hydromagnetic_dynamo_theory
http://physics.nmt.edu/~dynamo/dynsExp131.pdf
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~colloq/Talk2006_forest/dynamo_forest.pdf
http://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/00/08/75/PDF/CBJN_Arxiv.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v416614811h34159/
http://iopscience.iop.org/0741-3335/43/12A/311;jsessionid=6FED239A77AF9997CD3366A42677A4DC.c2
http://www.cmso.info/cmsopdf/cmso_oct09/Cary.pdf

These are also consistent with the geomagnetic data base:
http://www.ngu.no/geodynamics/gpmdb/
http://www.serg.unicam.it/pmag.htm
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/hazard/reroute.pl?urltable=segweb.txt&requrl=/seg/geomag/paleo.shtml

Natural Hazards: Tsunami, Earthquake, Volcano, Geothermal http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard
Geomagnetism, Magnetic Models, Declination Calculators http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag
Gravity http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/gravity
Topography http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/topo
World Data Center for Earth Geophysics http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/wdc
Ecosystems Informatics, Soils, Groundcover http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/ecosys

I could literally list thousands of concrring data to RE dynamo, and electr

cool story bro. what does 'electr' mean?
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Anteater7171 on August 12, 2010, 03:39:09 PM
Plate tectonics exists in FE, therefor the cause is the same as in RET.

Wrong, the physics and results would be completely different. That statement is again asserting pseudoscience. The Earthquakes are directly consistent with RE and not FE. And you can't get the same dynamo results from a FE lol. UA only states vertical electromagnetic velocity and thus fails utterly in terms of generating a dynamo mechanism to generate the electromagnetic field. This is caused by the rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid we call Earths core. This can not be replicated in FE, or even in a cylinder shaped object with a flat disk surface even if you claimed that FE had Rotation.

Convection and the electromagnetic charge of the "core" are exist in FE.
Really? Please provide the evidence that allows you to make that statement. Perhaps you're just speculating again? Do tell us what model has the dynamo and where the model places that dynamo. For example does Wilmore's model core run from MNP to MSP?. How about Tom Bishop's unknown size model? How about John Davis's infinite slab model? Do tell.

There is a measurable electromagnetic field surrounding earth. If there weren't we'd have no atmosphere. Also there is much evidence surrounding plate tectonics, use Google.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Crustinator on August 12, 2010, 03:46:02 PM
links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.

Oh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_sources)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Integrated_Services_Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Integrated_Services_Network)

etc etc etc

Lesson: Do not feed the troll.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 03:49:28 PM
Plate tectonics exists in FE, therefor the cause is the same as in RET.

Wrong, the physics and results would be completely different. That statement is again asserting pseudoscience. The Earthquakes are directly consistent with RE and not FE. And you can't get the same dynamo results from a FE lol. UA only states vertical electromagnetic velocity and thus fails utterly in terms of generating a dynamo mechanism to generate the electromagnetic field. This is caused by the rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid we call Earths core. This can not be replicated in FE, or even in a cylinder shaped object with a flat disk surface even if you claimed that FE had Rotation.

Convection and the electromagnetic charge of the "core" are exist in FE.
Really? Please provide the evidence that allows you to make that statement. Perhaps you're just speculating again? Do tell us what model has the dynamo and where the model places that dynamo. For example does Wilmore's model core run from MNP to MSP?. How about Tom Bishop's unknown size model? How about John Davis's infinite slab model? Do tell.

There is a measurable electromagnetic field surrounding earth. If there weren't we'd have no atmosphere. Also there is much evidence surrounding plate tectonics, use Google.
Please explain how the EM field surrounding Earth was measured. Please concentrate on the "surrounding" part of your claim.

Please answer my other questions.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: General Disarray on August 12, 2010, 03:51:25 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.
Right, just follow the citations to even more evidence. Of course, it's a lot more than what you've present, and I asked you first. Another dismal failure for parsec.
the citations link to obvious RE propaganda.

A great example of moving the goalposts!
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 03:52:33 PM
Quote
cool story bro. what does 'electr' mean?

I had to post and then edit due to a bug in the reply box that kept scrolling up so I couldn't see what I was typing. Feel free to read again. And pay very close attention to time, speed, and distance calculations of P waves, and S-waves and why those directly constradict your entire argument.

And nice try at circular argument of claiming my argument to be a "story" lol. Typical circular religious dogmatic behavior. This is obviously above your head or out of your league, and all you can do is deny information and data lol. Yeah, have fun giving us a consistent model of FE to which relfects the real world lol

Ahh hell lets post more information: Pay very close attention to this first one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Kf8fyvRd280C&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=seismic+waves+show+earth+to+be+spherical&source=bl&ots=orDrFWTX0P&sig=SErs2NpoeUwZfMbg9Osk_NfJyIE&hl=en&ei=QX1kTOubB8H_nAf31OXLDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=seismic%20waves%20show%20earth%20to%20be%20spherical&f=false

http://earthsci.org/education/teacher/basicgeol/earthq/earthq.html
http://www.aktsunami.com/lessons/5-8/unit6/5-8_2SeismicWaves.pdf
http://mahi.ucsd.edu/Guy/sio227a/ch3.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w685065w478h0770/

Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Pseudointellect on August 12, 2010, 05:17:35 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.
Right, just follow the citations to even more evidence. Of course, it's a lot more than what you've present, and I asked you first. Another dismal failure for parsec.
the citations link to obvious RE propaganda.

Haha, there is no RE propaganda. You really think there is some group of people trying to push the notion of a round earth because they benefit from confusing people? Or do you think instead there are just a whole bunch of people trying to be as logical as they can to figure out the truth? I'd go with the second option.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: MrBoB on August 12, 2010, 05:28:38 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.
Right, just follow the citations to even more evidence. Of course, it's a lot more than what you've present, and I asked you first. Another dismal failure for parsec.
the citations link to obvious RE propaganda.

Haha, there is no RE propaganda. You really think there is some group of people trying to push the notion of a round earth because they benefit from confusing people? Or do you think instead there are just a whole bunch of people trying to be as logical as they can to figure out the truth? I'd go with the second option.
its the devil himself, trust me
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 05:30:24 PM
You do realize that evidence has already been posted in this thread, right?

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.
Right, just follow the citations to even more evidence. Of course, it's a lot more than what you've present, and I asked you first. Another dismal failure for parsec.
the citations link to obvious RE propaganda.

Haha, there is no RE propaganda. You really think there is some group of people trying to push the notion of a round earth because they benefit from confusing people? Or do you think instead there are just a whole bunch of people trying to be as logical as they can to figure out the truth? I'd go with the second option.
LOL, indded! It's the only avenue he has since he can't logically put forth an argument worth listening to. This is what happens when you back a theist into a corner, they deny information and rationalize it to propaganda or some conspiracy theory. And of course he deosn't read any of the information provided, so does this mean I get to use the lurk more line? Parsec needs to go back to page 2 and read my post on why FE is behaves like a religious faith based ideological construct.

And what evidence does Parsec have that any link or citation we provide is magically RE propaganda? Sounds like he's using the Christian Realism doctrine to which anything the contradicts his ideological construct is magically evil, propaganda, or conspiracy theory out to currupt him into a life of sin.

Can I cast magic missile yet?
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 05:43:45 PM
links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.

Oh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_sources)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Integrated_Services_Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Integrated_Services_Network)

etc etc etc

Lesson: Do not feed the troll.

Please explain where I have used those links as proof.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 06:35:01 PM
links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.

Oh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_sources)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Integrated_Services_Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Integrated_Services_Network)

etc etc etc

Lesson: Do not feed the troll.

Please explain where I have used those links as proof.
It doesn't matter if you had or hadn't, you will have to show and provide evidence to your claim that any link or citation we provide is magically void. And I do see FE people regularly use wiki as a resource. However, I don't just rely on Wiki for source data, I aslo make sure other sources back it up. The math backs it up, hundreds of other resources back it up, and this include data you can find at any siesmic research facility. I provided data bases as well, I can also provide detailed atlases, nautical maps to which are all accurate according to spherical Earth. You can't even provide us with the circumference of your FE, or anything other than cartoons. I could sit here all day long posting thousands of resources.

What strikes me funny is how FE theists like to cherry pick scientific data from sources they claim aren't sources lol.. Hence, what are you doing using S and P waves in your theory if you think modern science is magically RE propaganda lol. This is kinda of what I mean by copy pasting RE to FE without realizing you can't logically do that and have it be sensical.

So Parsec, you need to start providing data, and you can begin by starting with your circumference because untill you can establish the exact size and shape of your FE, you can't even apply dynamo mechanisms, electromagnetic models, or anything for that matter in regards to this subject. You essentially have nothing, That big zero "0" to which is interestingly the same shape of your FE. 

So again, current data on Earth is according to RE and is not compatible with FE for obvious reasons. So I don't think I have to teach people what their basic shapes are again to understand why this is. :/ So please try to actually contribute to this argument by providing us with your data.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 07:42:28 PM
You have yet to show that current data is compatible with RE.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 08:51:50 PM
You have yet to show that current data is compatible with RE.
Oh the denial of evidence game again, yay for you Parsec! Mathematically it's all according spherical calculations lol. Talk about desperate, and did you bother to read the links? And I would say that 2001 is pretty damn current for data son. Seriously, do you think people repeat their experiments every year lol? You want current data as of today's data, I suggest you take a trip to your nearest seismic research center.. And I also think you failed to realize that much of that data base has been currently updated over the last 3 years. And just because something doesn't say "2010" doesn't make it magically void of validity. If this is your argument to support your total lack of any data, you have long lost this argument Parsec.

But hey, here are some between 2001 and 2009

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-246x.2000.00079.x/abstract
http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/notes/mag_earth/earth.htm
http://www.sdsc.edu/~allans/specfem3D_161TF.updated.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081129173952.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902112117.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091204092447.htm
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/pub/stanley_glatzmaier_space_sci_rev_2009.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010130072508.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7RNH-4S875R1-4&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1979&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1429406408&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b4b9826a4e3f3b2b88789aa32c4b2597
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~cjohnson/Research.htm
http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/85/1/19001
http://www.jhu.edu/~polson1/pdfs/DipoleMomentScalingConvectionDriven.pdf

Hence all the data is accurate according to global spherical harmonics. None of this even remotely reflects FE lol.. Hence, try again Parsec. And lets just say that there are thousands more citations and data links I can provide you from more sources than you could probably count. I'm in no short supply of data here, and I find it rather funny that you still can't give me even so much as the circumference of your FE.

Hell, here is a few for 2010, Just for you parsec. However you will have to register to read the full paper on one of them (a good read btw)  :)

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9507.abstract
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/2010/
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php

Here is another good resource:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/?topicID=53&topic=Prediction


Again, all are completely consistent with RE and incompatible with FE.. And we are still waiting on you Parsec to provide your data, and data sources. 

Edit:

You might also want to google spheric divergence and coordinates:

https://moodle.polymtl.ca/file.php/1183/Autres_Documents/Derivation_for_Spherical_Co-ordinates.pdf
http://www.cramster.com/week-11-summary-lecture-notes-spherical-coordinates-surface-area-surface-integrals-divergence-theorem-vector-fields-3d-lecture-note-r30-20500.aspx
http://sepwww.stanford.edu/public/docs/sep77/patrick1/paper_html/node7.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/diverg.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/diverg.html#c3

FE would have to at best rely on cylindrical divergence and coordinates and this is completely not compatible with RE, or real world observations of Earth's Core, P and S waves, or any of the data seen. Hence the physics would be completely different and incompatible with what we currently see in the real world, not to mention incompatible with UA with just vertical electromagnetic velocity. It's a fail all around for FE. What's even worse is that your cartoon diagram is incompatible with cylindrical, and spherical divergence and coordinates. So what magical model are are you attempting to use, and what data do you have to support it with?


Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 10:43:12 PM
You have yet to show that current data is compatible with RE.
Oh the denial of evidence game again, yay for you Parsec! Mathematically it's all according spherical calculations lol. Talk about desperate, and did you bother to read the links? And I would say that 2001 is pretty damn current for data son. Seriously, do you think people repeat their experiments every year lol? You want current data as of today's data, I suggest you take a trip to your nearest seismic research center.. And I also think you failed to realize that much of that data base has been currently updated over the last 3 years. And just because something doesn't say "2010" doesn't make it magically void of validity. If this is your argument to support your total lack of any data, you have long lost this argument Parsec.

But hey, here are some between 2001 and 2009

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-246x.2000.00079.x/abstract
http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/notes/mag_earth/earth.htm
http://www.sdsc.edu/~allans/specfem3D_161TF.updated.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081129173952.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902112117.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091204092447.htm
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/pub/stanley_glatzmaier_space_sci_rev_2009.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010130072508.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7RNH-4S875R1-4&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1979&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1429406408&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b4b9826a4e3f3b2b88789aa32c4b2597
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~cjohnson/Research.htm
http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/85/1/19001
http://www.jhu.edu/~polson1/pdfs/DipoleMomentScalingConvectionDriven.pdf

Hence all the data is accurate according to global spherical harmonics. None of this even remotely reflects FE lol.. Hence, try again Parsec. And lets just say that there are thousands more citations and data links I can provide you from more sources than you could probably count. I'm in no short supply of data here, and I find it rather funny that you still can't give me even so much as the circumference of your FE.

Hell, here is a few for 2010, Just for you parsec. However you will have to register to read the full paper on one of them (a good read btw)  :)

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9507.abstract
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/2010/
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php

Here is another good resource:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/?topicID=53&topic=Prediction


Again, all are completely consistent with RE and incompatible with FE.. And we are still waiting on you Parsec to provide your data, and data sources. 

Edit:

You might also want to google spheric divergence and coordinates:

https://moodle.polymtl.ca/file.php/1183/Autres_Documents/Derivation_for_Spherical_Co-ordinates.pdf
http://www.cramster.com/week-11-summary-lecture-notes-spherical-coordinates-surface-area-surface-integrals-divergence-theorem-vector-fields-3d-lecture-note-r30-20500.aspx
http://sepwww.stanford.edu/public/docs/sep77/patrick1/paper_html/node7.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/diverg.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/diverg.html#c3

FE would have to at best rely on cylindrical divergence and coordinates and this is completely not compatible with RE, or real world observations of Earth's Core, P and S waves, or any of the data seen. Hence the physics would be completely different and incompatible with what we currently see in the real world, not to mention incompatible with UA with just vertical electromagnetic velocity. It's a fail all around for FE. What's even worse is that your cartoon diagram is incompatible with cylindrical, and spherical divergence and coordinates. So what magical model are are you attempting to use, and what data do you have to support it with?




So, you adopted levee's method of proof. I see.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 10:45:32 PM
You have yet to show that current data is compatible with RE.
Oh the denial of evidence game again, yay for you Parsec! Mathematically it's all according spherical calculations lol. Talk about desperate, and did you bother to read the links? And I would say that 2001 is pretty damn current for data son. Seriously, do you think people repeat their experiments every year lol? You want current data as of today's data, I suggest you take a trip to your nearest seismic research center.. And I also think you failed to realize that much of that data base has been currently updated over the last 3 years. And just because something doesn't say "2010" doesn't make it magically void of validity. If this is your argument to support your total lack of any data, you have long lost this argument Parsec.

But hey, here are some between 2001 and 2009

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-246x.2000.00079.x/abstract
http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/notes/mag_earth/earth.htm
http://www.sdsc.edu/~allans/specfem3D_161TF.updated.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081129173952.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902112117.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091204092447.htm
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/pub/stanley_glatzmaier_space_sci_rev_2009.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010130072508.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7RNH-4S875R1-4&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1979&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1429406408&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b4b9826a4e3f3b2b88789aa32c4b2597
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~cjohnson/Research.htm
http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/85/1/19001
http://www.jhu.edu/~polson1/pdfs/DipoleMomentScalingConvectionDriven.pdf

Hence all the data is accurate according to global spherical harmonics. None of this even remotely reflects FE lol.. Hence, try again Parsec. And lets just say that there are thousands more citations and data links I can provide you from more sources than you could probably count. I'm in no short supply of data here, and I find it rather funny that you still can't give me even so much as the circumference of your FE.

Hell, here is a few for 2010, Just for you parsec. However you will have to register to read the full paper on one of them (a good read btw)  :)

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9507.abstract
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/2010/
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php

Here is another good resource:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/?topicID=53&topic=Prediction


Again, all are completely consistent with RE and incompatible with FE.. And we are still waiting on you Parsec to provide your data, and data sources. 

Edit:

You might also want to google spheric divergence and coordinates:

https://moodle.polymtl.ca/file.php/1183/Autres_Documents/Derivation_for_Spherical_Co-ordinates.pdf
http://www.cramster.com/week-11-summary-lecture-notes-spherical-coordinates-surface-area-surface-integrals-divergence-theorem-vector-fields-3d-lecture-note-r30-20500.aspx
http://sepwww.stanford.edu/public/docs/sep77/patrick1/paper_html/node7.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/diverg.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/diverg.html#c3

FE would have to at best rely on cylindrical divergence and coordinates and this is completely not compatible with RE, or real world observations of Earth's Core, P and S waves, or any of the data seen. Hence the physics would be completely different and incompatible with what we currently see in the real world, not to mention incompatible with UA with just vertical electromagnetic velocity. It's a fail all around for FE. What's even worse is that your cartoon diagram is incompatible with cylindrical, and spherical divergence and coordinates. So what magical model are are you attempting to use, and what data do you have to support it with?




So, you adopted levee's method of proof. I see.

I didn't adopt anything. Again you need to read before you make statements :) So once again Parsec you are dodging with circular arguments and unable to provide any data. Hence, keep pleading Parsec.

So let's take this in baby steps for you. Your first baby step is to asses the circumference of your FE, the mass, the area, the volume, and at least provide a 1sq meter navigationable map. You can not apply any method's concerning electromagnetic fields, dynamos, or anything for that matter untill you actually establish those very simple things first. Once you do that, you then need to validate them and then subject them to peer review. After that,  you can try and asses your theoreticals and try to prove them through real world experimentation and observation. So far you have none of this.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Horatio on August 12, 2010, 10:45:47 PM
You have yet to show that current data is compatible with RE.
Oh the denial of evidence game again, yay for you Parsec! Mathematically it's all according spherical calculations lol. Talk about desperate, and did you bother to read the links? And I would say that 2001 is pretty damn current for data son. Seriously, do you think people repeat their experiments every year lol? You want current data as of today's data, I suggest you take a trip to your nearest seismic research center.. And I also think you failed to realize that much of that data base has been currently updated over the last 3 years. And just because something doesn't say "2010" doesn't make it magically void of validity. If this is your argument to support your total lack of any data, you have long lost this argument Parsec.

But hey, here are some between 2001 and 2009

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-246x.2000.00079.x/abstract
http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/notes/mag_earth/earth.htm
http://www.sdsc.edu/~allans/specfem3D_161TF.updated.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081129173952.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902112117.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091204092447.htm
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/pub/stanley_glatzmaier_space_sci_rev_2009.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010130072508.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7RNH-4S875R1-4&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1979&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1429406408&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b4b9826a4e3f3b2b88789aa32c4b2597
http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~cjohnson/Research.htm
http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/85/1/19001
http://www.jhu.edu/~polson1/pdfs/DipoleMomentScalingConvectionDriven.pdf

Hence all the data is accurate according to global spherical harmonics. None of this even remotely reflects FE lol.. Hence, try again Parsec. And lets just say that there are thousands more citations and data links I can provide you from more sources than you could probably count. I'm in no short supply of data here, and I find it rather funny that you still can't give me even so much as the circumference of your FE.

Hell, here is a few for 2010, Just for you parsec. However you will have to register to read the full paper on one of them (a good read btw)  :)

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9507.abstract
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/2010/
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php

Here is another good resource:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/?topicID=53&topic=Prediction


Again, all are completely consistent with RE and incompatible with FE.. And we are still waiting on you Parsec to provide your data, and data sources. 

Edit:

You might also want to google spheric divergence and coordinates:

https://moodle.polymtl.ca/file.php/1183/Autres_Documents/Derivation_for_Spherical_Co-ordinates.pdf
http://www.cramster.com/week-11-summary-lecture-notes-spherical-coordinates-surface-area-surface-integrals-divergence-theorem-vector-fields-3d-lecture-note-r30-20500.aspx
http://sepwww.stanford.edu/public/docs/sep77/patrick1/paper_html/node7.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/diverg.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/diverg.html#c3

FE would have to at best rely on cylindrical divergence and coordinates and this is completely not compatible with RE, or real world observations of Earth's Core, P and S waves, or any of the data seen. Hence the physics would be completely different and incompatible with what we currently see in the real world, not to mention incompatible with UA with just vertical electromagnetic velocity. It's a fail all around for FE. What's even worse is that your cartoon diagram is incompatible with cylindrical, and spherical divergence and coordinates. So what magical model are are you attempting to use, and what data do you have to support it with?




So, you adopted levee's method of proof. I see.

Valid proof is not welcome here, eh?
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: General Disarray on August 12, 2010, 11:03:30 PM
ITT: parsec asks for evidence, then doesn't bother reading it when it has been presented.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: deanial09 on August 13, 2010, 12:22:25 AM
Its nice info.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Pseudointellect on August 13, 2010, 04:35:16 AM
Levee is just insane and posts the same off-topic shenanigans over and over. This is actually relevant and real, lol..
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: parsec on August 13, 2010, 07:03:26 AM
If REers model is "consistent with the data", how come you cannot predict where the next earthquake will actually strike?
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Hortensius on August 13, 2010, 07:25:25 AM
If REers model is "consistent with the data", how come you cannot predict where the next earthquake will actually strike?

"If you understand birds so well, how come you can't predict when the next bird is going to shit on your head?" Same kind of stupid question...
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: MrBoB on August 13, 2010, 07:42:48 AM
If REers model is "consistent with the data", how come you cannot predict where the next earthquake will actually strike?

You can actually predict the chances of earthquakes striking in certain places over a certain time. For example, its just a matter of time that the san andreas thing (dont exactly know what its called, the long tectonic line in western america) will cause another earthquake.
Surely its hard if not impossible to say which potential earthquake will be the next one realising, however there are many studies to where, how often and with what intensity earthquakes may strike certain areas.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: parsec on August 13, 2010, 08:30:39 AM
If REers model is "consistent with the data", how come you cannot predict where the next earthquake will actually strike?

"If you understand birds so well, how come you can't predict when the next bird is going to shit on your head?" Same kind of stupid question...

How is a bird like an earthquake  ???

You can actually predict the chances of earthquakes striking in certain places over a certain time. For example, its just a matter of time that the san andreas thing (dont exactly know what its called, the long tectonic line in western america) will cause another earthquake.
Surely its hard if not impossible to say which potential earthquake will be the next one realising, however there are many studies to where, how often and with what intensity earthquakes may strike certain areas.

Irrelevant.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: MrBoB on August 13, 2010, 08:34:29 AM
You can actually predict the chances of earthquakes striking in certain places over a certain time. For example, its just a matter of time that the san andreas thing (dont exactly know what its called, the long tectonic line in western america) will cause another earthquake.
Surely its hard if not impossible to say which potential earthquake will be the next one realising, however there are many studies to where, how often and with what intensity earthquakes may strike certain areas.

Irrelevant.

If REers model is "consistent with the data", how come you cannot predict where the next earthquake will actually strike?
Oh yeah, Im sorry, I forgot: evidence and explanation always is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: parsec on August 13, 2010, 08:38:16 AM
You can actually predict the chances of earthquakes striking in certain places over a certain time. For example, its just a matter of time that the san andreas thing (dont exactly know what its called, the long tectonic line in western america) will cause another earthquake.
Surely its hard if not impossible to say which potential earthquake will be the next one realising, however there are many studies to where, how often and with what intensity earthquakes may strike certain areas.

Irrelevant.

If REers model is "consistent with the data", how come you cannot predict where the next earthquake will actually strike?
Oh yeah, Im sorry, I forgot: evidence and explanation always is irrelevant.

Statistical analysis of previous recorded data has nothing to do with the predictive power of a theoretical model and certainly nothing to do with the true shape of the Earth.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 13, 2010, 09:46:23 AM
If REers model is "consistent with the data", how come you cannot predict where the next earthquake will actually strike?

This is irrelevant Parsec because you can't with 100% accuracy predict stress and resistance levels, or predict exactly when something is going to suddenly move. This has nothing to do with this subject. They can however make a general prediction according to levels of activity or inactivity according to recorded history to which is highly dependent on geology, geography, and even what kind of material is involved. Your argument here is like demanding evidence to predict the weather with 100% accuracy while knowing Emergence of pattern from chaotic systems is largely unpredictable with 100% accuracy. Again Parsec, you need to read the information before you make baseless arguments.

So parsec, I want you to predict for me in either RE or FE train of thought as to when the exact time and place to which the *first* snowflake will make contact with the roof of my house. The best you could ever do is make a general prediction based on such an event, and the same concept applies here regardless if you think your planet is flat or not Parsec. Asking for unrealistic predictions is dishonest discourse, if not a poor attempt at trying to be deflective or sly.

Again, all you have here Parsec is circular arguments without providing anything to support your position. Predictability of when an Earthquake will occur does not effect the subject here what-so-ever.

Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 13, 2010, 10:36:53 AM
Quote
Statistical analysis of previous recorded data has nothing to do with the predictive power of a theoretical model and certainly nothing to do with the true shape of the Earth.

This shows your failure to comprehend the information provided to you, or your magical ability to cast magic ignore. It has everything to do with the shape of the Earth. This because the shape, mass, area, density, and volume of the Earth has everything to due with how P-waves, and S-waves behave and travel. All of this completely effects the Dynamo, and the dynamics of the data recorded. It effects the time, speed, and distance, as well as the harmonics. It effects how these waves reflect, converge, diverge, deflect, or refract, and it also show's in both the mathematics and the real world data according to RE.. There is absolutely nothing in the data that shows an FE model to which you seemingly can't even establish Parsec.

Is your argument stating that the Shape of the Earth would have no influence on the data? Well if that is your argument here, I hate to break it to you, but it has everything to do with it!

All I want you to do parsec is to stop playing little circular games and either admit FE has no data, or provide your data. If you can't provide any data Parsec, you have no room here to be making arguments, circular or otherwise.

 
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: markjo on August 13, 2010, 11:05:35 AM
If REers model is "consistent with the data", how come you cannot predict where the next earthquake will actually strike?

"If you understand birds so well, how come you can't predict when the next bird is going to shit on your head?" Same kind of stupid question...

How is a bird like an earthquake  ???

Both are hard to predict.
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: Crustinator on August 13, 2010, 11:55:03 AM
Please explain where I have used those links as proof.

In pressing the keys on your keyboard and then clicking the "post" button marked on the visual display device currently in use. For more information I suggest you google "the internet"

Also: Feeding time is over. :(
Title: Re: Earthquakes?
Post by: TheJackel on August 13, 2010, 07:27:43 PM
Please explain where I have used those links as proof.

In pressing the keys on your keyboard and then clicking the "post" button marked on the visual display device currently in use. For more information I suggest you google "the internet"

Also: Feeding time is over. :(

And yet we still await his evidence.. :)