Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET

  • 25 Replies
  • 3380 Views
Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« on: October 21, 2010, 05:06:33 PM »
The earthquakes P and S waves get refracted by the Earths interior, which leads to small tremors at various points across the Earth.

The refraction also shows that the Earth has different layers consisting of different physical properties. Most notably is the liquid core. The liquid core cannot be present in FET.

For further reading of it:
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol111/earthint.htm  and
http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/notes/seismology/seismo_interior/seismo_interior.html

Also, why are frozen powerades so damn good?



?

Danukenator123

  • 520
  • My Alts: Parsifal
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2010, 06:37:03 PM »
The earthquakes P and S waves get refracted by the Earths interior, which leads to small tremors at various points across the Earth.

The refraction also shows that the Earth has different layers consisting of different physical properties. Most notably is the liquid core. The liquid core cannot be present in FET.

For further reading of it:
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol111/earthint.htm  and
http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/notes/seismology/seismo_interior/seismo_interior.html

Also, why are frozen powerades so damn good?




The Flat Earth is more akin to a pan not a pancake. It also has a liquid core, I think.

It makes them sweeter. 

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2010, 07:58:06 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.
"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.."

?

Atom Man

  • 195
  • Watch out for that tree
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2010, 05:11:25 AM »
I've asked a simmilar question in the past with no real resolve. It's basic wave property stuff.

How can it be sweeter, no more sugar gets into it? I've never tried frozen Powerade but I'll have to try this one experimentally.
Urinal Etiquette is like Ghost Busting: Never Cross the Streams

?

Danukenator123

  • 520
  • My Alts: Parsifal
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2010, 05:49:23 AM »
I've asked a simmilar question in the past with no real resolve. It's basic wave property stuff.

How can it be sweeter, no more sugar gets into it? I've never tried frozen Powerade but I'll have to try this one experimentally.

This is again proof that the FAQ needs updating. I also don't know how wave property would work on the can shape.


?

Atom Man

  • 195
  • Watch out for that tree
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2010, 05:59:10 AM »
A couple of years ago, the US worked out that North Korea were testing Nukes. They worked out that it was NK by the seismograph readings and trigonometry.
Urinal Etiquette is like Ghost Busting: Never Cross the Streams

Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2010, 08:48:41 AM »

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.
Prove it.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Danukenator123

  • 520
  • My Alts: Parsifal
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2010, 09:15:09 AM »

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.

You have any proof? At all?

Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2010, 10:03:32 AM »
On a flat Earth, S waves would be all over the place, since they can't go through the liquid core. However, since one side of the Earth doesn't get s waves, this means the Earth is spherical.

As for frozen powerade, I think the sweeter part freezes differently, that's why you think it's sweeter. It just has more concentration on one place. Not too sure though.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2010, 11:22:57 AM »
You have any proof? At all?

Of which claim?
"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.."

?

Danukenator123

  • 520
  • My Alts: Parsifal
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2010, 12:11:36 PM »
You have any proof? At all?

Of which claim?

The part I put in bold and the same part ClockTower put on red.  ::)

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2010, 03:53:15 PM »
If one is free to assume rock density/-composition (liquid/solid), anistropic material anywhere needed to make data fit a model, one could make a wave propagation model for ANY shape of the earth. Which is exactly what the military admits to doing by having both a round earth and flat earth model for wave propagation. One can assume only one of those models is correct, which leads one to wonder why have both.
"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.."

Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2010, 04:15:02 PM »
If one is free to assume rock density/-composition (liquid/solid), anistropic material anywhere needed to make data fit a model, one could make a wave propagation model for ANY shape of the earth. Which is exactly what the military admits to doing by having both a round earth and flat earth model for wave propagation. One can assume only one of those models is correct, which leads one to wonder why have both.
So still no evidence, just wild conjecture. Typical of an FEer.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17253
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2010, 04:36:39 PM »
Wave propagation doesn't tell you what shape the earth is.

Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2010, 04:39:15 PM »
Wave propagation doesn't tell you what shape the earth is.
Prove it.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2010, 04:41:16 PM »
You're typically completely devoid of imagination if you can't follow the logical conclusion that free to insert "any rock density/-composition (liquid/solid), anistropic material" as needed one could create a wave propagation model to cover any shape from cubes, spheres, cylinders, or hexagonal-pyramids. It would hardly be proof of any shape.  Further, I have previously provided links to a report on a program which does exactly this, but you are too lazy to look for it.
The question is why would the military and LASA use design programs to model both spherical and flat earth shapes for s-wave propagation as the earth is "obviously" not flat?
"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.."

Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2010, 04:48:52 PM »
You're typically completely devoid of imagination if you can't follow the logical conclusion that free to insert "any rock density/-composition (liquid/solid), anistropic material" as needed one could create a wave propagation model to cover any shape from cubes, spheres, cylinders, or hexagonal-pyramids. It would hardly be proof of any shape.  Further, I have previously provided links to a report on a program which does exactly this, but you are too lazy to look for it.
The question is why would the military and LASA use design programs to model both spherical and flat earth shapes for s-wave propagation as the earth is "obviously" not flat?
Science requires that you answer the question. What evidence do you have to support your outlandish claim? Since the waves travel around the edges of your model, do work hard at designing a solution. As soon as you produce a FE model that matches some data, I'll destroy your model with additional data. You might as well give up now.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2010, 04:59:47 PM »
Your zeal blinds you to the obvious. That there are already models which do this has been demonstrated, even if you find yourself unable to recognize the logical conclusion in the thought experiment. Your posts are increasingly repetitive and seem to consist mostly of trying to shout down opposition while plugging your ears and sticking out your tongue.
You're probably right, of course; I should give up now as it is written: "If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet."
"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.."

Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2010, 05:04:37 PM »
Your zeal blinds you to the obvious. That there are already models which do this has been demonstrated, even if you find yourself unable to recognize the logical conclusion in the thought experiment. Your posts are increasingly repetitive and seem to consist mostly of trying to shout down opposition while plugging your ears and sticking out your tongue.
You're probably right, of course; I should give up now as it is written: "If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet."
Tell you what... You tell me where the edges of your FE are or any rough map of the FE, and I'll provide proof that it's false within 24 hours by showing propagation of earthquake waves. Now if you can't hold up your end of this challenge, we'll all know that you are the zealot.

BTW, you might get farther in winning debates without the name calling.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Herr Scheisskopf

Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2010, 09:16:31 PM »
If we are to assume that this seismic activity proves the existence of a spherical world, we must start with the assumption that the shock wave from an earthquake originates from a very small area, or a focus as described by the article titled "Earthquakes and the Earth's Interior".  It is well known that the amount of energy from a single earthquake can exceed the amount of energy from a nuclear bomb by several thousand times.  Does it make sense that this amount of energy originates from one point, as this model shows?  Such a concentration of energy would create an explosion far greater than any man made weapon.  It is impossible to simplify natural phenomena to points and lines such as this. 

The author of the article started with the assumption that the earth was not flat.  To prove his own theory, he chose materials with which he though the earth's core was made of, which of course will work out in a model he himself designed.  Such circular logic can not and does not prove the shape of the earth.

Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2010, 10:40:32 PM »
If we are to assume that this seismic activity proves the existence of a spherical world, we must start with the assumption that the shock wave from an earthquake originates from a very small area, or a focus as described by the article titled "Earthquakes and the Earth's Interior".  It is well known that the amount of energy from a single earthquake can exceed the amount of energy from a nuclear bomb by several thousand times.  Does it make sense that this amount of energy originates from one point, as this model shows?  Such a concentration of energy would create an explosion far greater than any man made weapon.  It is impossible to simplify natural phenomena to points and lines such as this. 

The author of the article started with the assumption that the earth was not flat.  To prove his own theory, he chose materials with which he though the earth's core was made of, which of course will work out in a model he himself designed.  Such circular logic can not and does not prove the shape of the earth.
We know from the evidence that seismic activities are focused, though not at a single point as you mistakenly argue.

Please demonstrate that the author of the article started with the assumption that the Earth was not flat.

Please show that he chose materials based on his designed model.

Please offer an alternative model that fits the evidence. Especially provide a working model that explain how P-waves travel to the rim and then suddenly appear at the rim on the opposite side of the FE.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2010, 04:37:11 PM »
Yeah, this one does seem to be tricky to sort out for a flat earth.  Plus, I'm a final year Geology undergraduate, even though I'm specialising in igneous petrology rather than civil engineering where seismics are used all the time.

The S wave shadow zone is the big one I've never seen a good explanation for in a FE model, whereas there are plenty of good books available explaining it very nicely for a RE.
Seismics (including earthquake waves) are used fairly well (and moderately accurately) to give us information about the internal structure of the earth.  It's why we can estimate the thickness of the mantle, place the Moho on a section through the earth, and how we know the size of the core.
BSc (Hons) Geology
Fellow of the Geological Society of London

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #22 on: October 26, 2010, 04:42:38 PM »
The author of the article started with the assumption that the earth was not flat.  To prove his own theory, he chose materials with which he though the earth's core was made of, which of course will work out in a model he himself designed.  Such circular logic can not and does not prove the shape of the earth.

Precisely.
"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.."

*

Averti

  • 122
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2010, 11:22:00 AM »
Which has nothing to do with the argument. In order to demonstrate the spherical nature of the earth via seismic waves all you would need is: three people, three seismographs, and a decent amount of explosives. What you do is;

1) place explosives and seismograph#1 and one person at any continental location on the earth (place the explosives far enough away from the seismograph so that it will not be destroyed by the inevitable blast, and the seismograph on continental bedrock)

2) place one person and seismograph#2 1.5 million meters away in any direction, as long as the destination point is on a continental bedrock.

3) place one person and seismograph#3 3.15 million meters away from the original location in any direction, as long as the destination is on continental bedrock.

4) set off explosives at location 1

5) each of the three people records the activity, or lack of activity identified on each seismograph.

6) congratulations, assuming you didn't blow yourself up, you just proved that the earth is a sphere. Why you might ask? you will, upon the completion of this activity notice that the results are as follows:

location one: both Primary and Secondary waves will be identified by the seismograph.

location two: both Primary and Secondary waves will be identified by the seismograph.

location three: only Primary waves will be identified by the seismograph.


How does this prove a round earth?

Primary waves and secondary waves are both produced by the initial release of energy from the explosion, however secondary waves are incapable of passing through liquid material, while primary waves are able to pass through virtually any material. You can prove this for yourselves by testing this activity at a smaller scale in a solid material and in the middle of a pool of water.

This means that at location#3, which was 3.15 million meters away (the opposite side of the spherical earth), the waves must have passed through liquid material (Ie: the core of the earth) which prevented the secondary waves from reaching that location. However, Secondary waves did reach the location 1.5 million meters from the original location (one quarter of the way around the spherical earth), which means that there was no liquid material between that point and the original location through the earths interior.

Were the earth flat, even with a liquid bottom, or core, or whatever garbage you would prefer to call it, you would identify secondary waves at ANY location on the earth, because they would simply pass above the liquid bottom/core/what ever you want to term it along the plane of the planet. This is not the case, and this simple activity proves just that.

Happy testing gentleman!
LoLz for all,
St. Averti ESKP ERIS
~fnord

Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2010, 11:34:01 AM »
Which has nothing to do with the argument. In order to demonstrate the spherical nature of the earth via seismic waves all you would need is: three people, three seismographs, and a decent amount of explosives. ...
While I commend the effort, I shudder to think about FEer, who believe in magic, handling such explosives. May I suggest an alternative?

Place three observers on continental bedrock, as far south as possible, each on the three continents of Africa, South America, and Australia. Wait for an earthquake to occur farther south than any of the observers. Record the time each observes the p-wave arrival. Calculate the travel time, and distance, from the epicenter to each observer. If the distance for all observers is less than the radius of the FE, then FE is false for all models except the lame Wilmore model. (The Wilmore model can be rejected by common sense alone. If you don't know how, then lurk moar.)

You can do this experiment virtually by examining the seismograph records at the stations to the south and performing the calculations post hoc for previous earthquakes or for the next such earthquake.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« Reply #25 on: November 02, 2010, 11:30:36 PM »
i think the above post has a good point

and also, if the earth was flat, then how does the s waves not travel through some part of it? and why do we have time delays on flip sides of the earth, not "instantaneous" travle between them?
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy