Seismic waves

If a FE model cannot be produced which fits.

One can always work backwards from a premise to build a model which fits.  RET does exactly this. Even were the earth not flat, one could build a model that works by introducing varying densities in the FE model to produce the desired result; or invent things like anistropic seismic propagation to make the model work.

Quote from: crimsonak on March 03, 2009, 11:33:14 AM

If a FE model cannot be produced which fits.

One can always work backwards from a premise to build a model which fits.  RET does exactly this. Even were the earth not flat, one could build a model that works by introducing varying densities in the FE model to produce the desired result; or invent things like anistropic seismic propagation to make the model work.

True, but we should always agree that the model, which again in this case is RET, that makes better predictions with less 'working backwards is the better model.

Quote from: crimsonak on March 03, 2009, 11:33:14 AM

If a FE model cannot be produced which fits.

One can always work backwards from a premise to build a model which fits.  RET does exactly this. Even were the earth not flat, one could build a model that works by introducing varying densities in the FE model to produce the desired result; or invent things like anistropic seismic propagation to make the model work.

That's funny, so does FET.  I'm sorry, but who has personally observed the DEF or UA again?

Quote

You don't need millions of dollars to think about something.

What will thinking prove?

Well, part of the Zetetic philosophy is reaching logical conclusions, and to do that, you require thinking.

There is a type of experiment called a "Gedanken Experiment" (or thought experiment). This is a thought process that is used to test the bound of a claim by analysing the logic and assumptions behind it. It is a "What would happen if..." experiment.

See, an explanation might sound reasonable, but upon extrapolation of the explanation can lead to bizarre consequences. The Gedanken Experiment is a mental tool that allows you to to check for such things.

You use these every day. Say you want to save money to buy a new car. You work out how much money you can save each day, then you do a Gedanken Experiment to work out how much money oyu will have after a certain amount of time.

The logic and processes are the same. So if you can accept the validity of using a Gedanken Experiment for working out how long it will take you to save, then you also have to accept that it is a valid method of working out if a theory has validity.

The big problem for FET that Gedanken Experiment have, is that whenever it has been applied to the explanations that FET presents, FET Fails. Bendy Light, Universal Acceleration, Earth Acceleration, Angle of the Sunrise/set at the Equator during Solstice, and so forht. Again and again, FET fails these checks.

FET seems to explain the local phenomena, but when these phenomena are placed in context with all the other FET explanation, they contradict each other and fail to explain what can be seen.

So, while Bendy Light might successfully explain the position of the sun at a certain point on the Earth at a certain time, if you use the same values for another point and/or another time, it gives incorrect results. And, if you apply Bendy light to other light based phenomena (like reflecting light between mirrors), it completely fails to explain what is observed, going so far as to state something that completely contradict observation.

If a claim is made about how a FE works, then later, when a situation that that explanation applies to, but the explanation give a different result than what is observed, you either have to admit that the explanation is wrong, or give a reason that it doesn't apply there.