Earthquakes?

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 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.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:48:05 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 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.

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:49:07 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:48:05 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 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?

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:54:38 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:49:07 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:48:05 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 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?

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:56:47 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:54:38 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:49:07 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:48:05 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 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.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 03:02:15 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:56:47 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:54:38 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:49:07 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:48:05 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 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?

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 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
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?

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 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?

Quote from: Anteater7171 on August 12, 2010, 01:33:39 PM

Quote from: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 01:00:55 PM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on August 12, 2010, 12:07:46 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.

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.

Oh...

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

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

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

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

etc etc etc

Lesson: Do not feed the troll.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 01:55:27 PM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on August 12, 2010, 01:33:39 PM

Quote from: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 01:00:55 PM

Quote from: Anteater7171 on August 12, 2010, 12:07:46 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.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:48:05 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 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!

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/

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:48:05 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 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.

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:49:07 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:48:05 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 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

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:49:07 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:48:05 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 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?

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.

Oh...

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 10:21:51 AM

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

Quote from: parsec on July 22, 2010, 05:17:46 AM

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

Quote from: parsec on June 06, 2010, 02:28:39 PM

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

Quote from: parsec on January 16, 2010, 11:21:45 AM

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.

Quote from: Crustinator on August 12, 2010, 03:46:02 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 02:44:33 PM

links to wikipedia articles are not considered as evidence.

Oh...

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 10:21:51 AM

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

Quote from: parsec on July 22, 2010, 05:17:46 AM

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

Quote from: parsec on June 06, 2010, 02:28:39 PM

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

Quote from: parsec on January 16, 2010, 11:21:45 AM

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.

You have yet to show that current data is compatible with RE.

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?

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 07:42:28 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.

Quote from: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 08:51:50 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 07:42:28 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.

Quote from: TheJackel on August 12, 2010, 08:51:50 PM

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 07:42:28 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?

ITT: parsec asks for evidence, then doesn't bother reading it when it has been presented.

Its nice info.

Levee is just insane and posts the same off-topic shenanigans over and over. This is actually relevant and real, lol..

If REers model is "consistent with the data", how come you cannot predict where the next earthquake will actually strike?

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...

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.

Quote from: 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?

"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.