Earthquakes?

  • 66 Replies
  • 5882 Views
*

Lorddave

  • 15235
Earthquakes?
« 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. 

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #1 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...
« Last Edit: August 08, 2010, 07:51:41 AM by Hortensius »
Quote from: Username
Horentius is correct.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15685
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #2 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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #3 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...
Quote from: Username
Horentius is correct.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15685
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #4 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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Lorddave

  • 15235
Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #5 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.

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2010, 12:14:51 PM »
Fact: The Earth is not flat.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15685
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #7 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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Horatio

  • Official Member
  • 4016
Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2010, 12:34:42 AM »
Fact: The Earth is not flat.

Fact: Facts are not welcome here.
How dare you have the audacity to demand my deposition. I've never even heard of you.

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #9 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)
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #10 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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #11 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.
Quote from: Username
Horentius is correct.

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #12 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. For example, evolution is considered a Fact.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #13 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. For example, evolution is considered a Fact.

I'm not going to play word games with you...
Quote from: Username
Horentius is correct.

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #14 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. 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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #15 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

« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 12:26:02 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #16 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.

?

Anteater7171

  • 9416
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2010, 12:07:46 PM »
Plate tectonics exists in FE, therefor the cause is the same as in RET.
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #18 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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #19 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. 


Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #20 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. 

Anyone can draw a cartoon. Do you have any evidence to support your diagram?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #21 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. 

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.



« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 01:20:16 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #22 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.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 01:13:00 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

Anteater7171

  • 9416
  • I am the FAQ!!!
Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #23 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.
I don't remember anything. Well, I do, but it's really vague. Like I was on drugs the whole time.

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #24 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.




« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 01:54:51 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #25 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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2010, 02:37:21 PM »


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

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2010, 02:43:04 PM »


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

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #28 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.

Re: Earthquakes?
« Reply #29 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.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards