What about geologists?

Yet another point I just thought of.  Geologists (specifically geophysicists) use the propagation of seismic waves through the Earth to measure the density of various layers that make up our planet.  Now, given that this research is also done on the assumption of a round planet, then all the world's geologists would have to be in on the conspiracy too, wouldn't they?  That's another several million people around the Earth too, isn't it?

They just add people to the "conspiracy" who can disprove their theory absolutely. Heck, judging by my arguments about the magnetic field, soon, everyone with a compass will be part of the conspiracy.... Good point though, I sorta touched on it in my other thread, but you defined it better. Lots of people in this conspiracy. Which begs the question, if so many people are in on this conspiracy, surely they've infiltrated every ISP, tapped every internet line, and so on; which begs the question...why haven't all the flat earther's been assassinated? Or are they doing this on the run, constantly tapping into unsecured wireless networks........

I don't think a conspiracy that involves hundreds of millions of people can successfully be called a conspiracy anymore.

Really?  Is Divito the only worthy adversary here?  Sure is quiet in most of my threads without him.

Yeah I know. Some of them are just too easy

Yet another point I just thought of.  Geologists (specifically geophysicists) use the propagation of seismic waves through the Earth to measure the density of various layers that make up our planet.  Now, given that this research is also done on the assumption of a round planet, then all the world's geologists would have to be in on the conspiracy too, wouldn't they?  That's another several million people around the Earth too, isn't it?

Could you explain what aspects  of geologists deal with the sphericity assumption?

But in short, no, geologists do not need to be in on the conspiracy. REers tend to overextend the conspiracy usage to make it sound more outlandish than it really is.

Quote from: cwolfe on December 27, 2007, 02:12:09 PM

Yet another point I just thought of.  Geologists (specifically geophysicists) use the propagation of seismic waves through the Earth to measure the density of various layers that make up our planet.  Now, given that this research is also done on the assumption of a round planet, then all the world's geologists would have to be in on the conspiracy too, wouldn't they?  That's another several million people around the Earth too, isn't it?

Could you explain what aspects  of geologists deal with the sphericity assumption?

But in short, no, geologists do not need to be in on the conspiracy. REers tend to overextend the conspiracy usage to make it sound more outlandish than it really is.

OK, correction, all seismic geologists would have to be "in". They measure the time it takes earthquake vibrations to reach certain areas, in order to measure the epicenters of earthquakes. During the Sumatra quake, the entire Earth shook, and its rotation slowed slightly. However, in a flat earth theory, such quakes would die off faster, as they could not travel the distance in order to reach the far side of the world. However, with the sphere theory, the quake vibrations can go through the center of the earth and propagate better. Such differences would be easily noticed, and every seismic initiative would notice this, the USGS, and many others. Therefore what I said was correct. Either way, there's a lot of people in this conspiracy.

OK, correction, all seismic geologists would have to be "in". They measure the time it takes earthquake vibrations to reach certain areas, in order to measure the epicenters of earthquakes. During the Sumatra quake, the entire Earth shook, and its rotation slowed slightly. However, in a flat earth theory, such quakes would die off faster, as they could not travel the distance in order to reach the far side of the world. However, with the sphere theory, the quake vibrations can go through the center of the earth and propagate better. Such differences would be easily noticed, and every seismic initiative would notice this, the USGS, and many others. Therefore what I said was correct. Either way, there's a lot of people in this conspiracy.

I'd probably have to read up on the propagation and everything, but perhaps there is material in which mimics that of a sphere? It allows for certain bouncing of the waves. I'd hate to invoke DE again, but that is an outside possibility again.

Also, I believe Jack had a diagram for earthquakes on a flat Earth. I didn't pay much attention to any details or how accurate it was, but maybe he'll see this and repost.

Such a material would again, have extraordinary properties. Such a material would need to have total internal reflection at some points, but not at others(specifically, seismic sensory stations ). Combined with the "WTF are the conspirators gaining from the conspiracy" argument, I invoke Occam's Razor.

Such a material would again, have extraordinary properties. Such a material would need to have total internal reflection at some points, but not at others(specifically, seismic sensory stations ). Combined with the "WTF are the conspirators gaining from the conspiracy" argument, I invoke Occam's Razor.

Well, the point of thinking up physical properties is to avoid the conspiracy argument. I hate having to resort to it.

I know, but I'm merely pointing out that if humans aren't conspiring against FE, the universe is

The fact of the matter that I'm trying to point out, either a good portion of the world's scientists are in on this massive conspiracy, or the Earth is in fact round.  There really aren't any other options.  I myself am a scientist... am I in on the conspiracy?

as you can see on this picture some places around the world can receive S waves that havnt passed through any liquid( in the diagram its called "SS" but on a flat earth surely it would always go into a the liquid mantel.

as you can see on this picture some places around the world can receive S waves that havnt passed through any liquid( in the diagram its called "SS" but on a flat earth surely it would always go into a the liquid mantel.

Hmm... that's a good point, and adds to my original argument.

Seismological readings are detecting phenomenas on the Flat Earth. Since the most popular model of the earth is a globe, Seismology takes earthquake results and applies it to a Round Earth Model. If we take those same results and apply it to the Flat Earth model, unwrapping the diagrams, the bounce back of the waves becomes an almost perfect 90 degree angle. This essentially tells us the shape of the Flat Earth's core: Flat.

The Crust, Mantle, Outer Core, and Inner Core of the Flar Earth model exists as a series of flat layers, increasing in temperature and density the deeper down we go. The true depth of the Flat Earth is, of course, unknown. Since the waves bounce back after hitting the outer and inner cores we have no true way of telling how far down the core extends, or if anything exists beyond it.

Seismological readings are detecting phenomenas on the Flat Earth. Since the most popular model of the earth is a globe, Seismology takes earthquake results and applies it to a Round Earth Model. If we take those same results and apply it to the Flat Earth model, unwrapping the diagrams, the bounce back of the waves becomes an almost perfect 90 degree angle. This essentially tells us the shape of the Flat Earth's core: Flat.

The Crust, Mantle, Outer Core, and Inner Core of the Flar Earth model exists as a series of flat layers, increasing in temperature and density the deeper down we go. The true depth of the Flat Earth is, of course, unknown. Since the waves bounce back after hitting the outer and inner cores we have no true way of telling how far down the core extends, or if anything exists beyond it.

Okay, but Seismology also predicts when and where earthquakes will happen.  If those predictions are based on a round earth when it is in fact flat, they wouldn't happen in the same place.

edit:  In addition, there's no possible way that a spherical earth with a solid spherical core will produce the same seismic wave patterns as a cylindrical earth with a solid cylindrical core.

Ya Bishop. Its fairly impossible. Your also operating under the odd sort of assumption that earthquakes would only produce waves at or above the critical angle for internal reflection. It would be clearly noticeable, and nobody's mentioned it. As in clearly noticeable as in an earthquake in Peru showing up on Bolivia. Or worse.

If those predictions are based on a round earth when it is in fact flat, they wouldn't happen in the same place.

You'll have to explain why.

edit:  In addition, there's no possible way that a spherical earth with a solid spherical core will produce the same seismic wave patterns as a cylindrical earth with a solid cylindrical core.

There's always a possibility; that should go unsaid.

You'll have to explain why.

You don't see how predictions of earthquakes would require an assumption as to the shape of the Earth?  Look at the diagram tommo posted.  The P-style waves that enter the mantle return to the surface would do so at a drastically different position if the surface was not curved.

Here's a closer diagram of the same phenomenon:



I'm assuming the geologists at a prestigious university like Purdue know a little bit more about geophysics than our friend Tom Bishop here.

You don't see how predictions of earthquakes would require an assumption as to the shape of the Earth?

Nope, not even after reading how they are predicted, where no mention of the shape of the Earth is involved.

Quote from: cwolfe on December 28, 2007, 10:55:20 AM

You don't see how predictions of earthquakes would require an assumption as to the shape of the Earth?

Nope, not even after reading how they are predicted, where no mention of the shape of the Earth is involved.

Where did you read about how they are predicted?   And did you look at the diagram I posted above?  Wouldn't the seismograph measure the position of the wave as it exits the surface at a drastically different point if the Earth were flat?

Where did you read about how they are predicted?

USGS and Wikipedia.   

And did you look at the diagram I posted above?

Wouldn't the seismograph measure the position of the wave as it exits the surface at a drastically different point if the Earth were flat?

Why do you assume that?

Quote from: cwolfe on December 28, 2007, 11:14:49 AM

Where did you read about how they are predicted?

USGS and Wikipedia.   

Quote from: cwolfe on December 28, 2007, 11:14:49 AM

And did you look at the diagram I posted above?

Quote from: cwolfe on December 28, 2007, 11:14:49 AM

Wouldn't the seismograph measure the position of the wave as it exits the surface at a drastically different point if the Earth were flat?

Why do you assume that?

Could I have a link to these articles?  And also, I assume that because based the propagation of the wave through the material of the outer mantle, the wave curves back outward, and if the Earth were flat, it would end up in a different place than if it were curved.

Could I have a link to these articles?

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/aki00/node3.html#SECTION00021000000000000000

http://www.geophys.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/INFO_GENERAL/eq_prediction.html

http://scec.ess.ucla.edu/%7Eykagan/perspective.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_prediction

I assume that because based the propagation of the wave through the material of the outer mantle, the wave curves back outward, and if the Earth were flat, it would end up in a different place than if it were curved.

Oh, because you're assuming that the information given is accurate and correct. Now I get you. Even if it was correct, I don't see why it has to be any different.

Quote from: cwolfe on December 28, 2007, 11:25:46 AM

Could I have a link to these articles?

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/aki00/node3.html#SECTION00021000000000000000

http://www.geophys.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/INFO_GENERAL/eq_prediction.html

http://scec.ess.ucla.edu/%7Eykagan/perspective.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_prediction

Quote from: cwolfe on December 28, 2007, 11:25:46 AM

I assume that because based the propagation of the wave through the material of the outer mantle, the wave curves back outward, and if the Earth were flat, it would end up in a different place than if it were curved.

Oh, because you're assuming that the information given is accurate and correct. Now I get you. Even if it was correct, I don't see why it has to be any different.

So you think you know better than some of the nation's top scientists in the field?  Oh, okay...

So you think you know better than some of the nation's top scientists in the field?  Oh, okay...

Where did I say that?

Quote from: cwolfe on December 28, 2007, 11:33:23 AM

So you think you know better than some of the nation's top scientists in the field?  Oh, okay...

Where did I say that?

By implying that the figure I posted may not be accurate or correct.

By implying that the figure I posted may not be accurate or correct.

Only because you're invoking a fallacy.

Quote from: cwolfe on December 28, 2007, 11:36:58 AM

By implying that the figure I posted may not be accurate or correct.

Only because you're invoking a fallacy.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

You're appealing to authority. Because the figures and information come from scientists or government officials, they must be accurate and correct.

You're assuming that they're correct, and that they actually happen the way they do. Probabilistically, they do; however, I haven't really seen anything more than conjecture in that the waves would perform any differently with the Earth less curved than it is now, except at the larger distances.

And even more than that, none of this needs to invoke conspiracy.