Under the Earth - Discussion

  • 34 Replies
  • 3860 Views
*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Under the Earth - Discussion
« on: October 28, 2011, 08:32:34 PM »
This is a discussion about what is underground, according to the Flat Earth Theory.

Here are some references I found on the FAQ to things under the ground:

"Q: 'What is underneath the Earth?'

A: This is unknown. Most FE proponents believe that it is generally composed of rocks. Please note that in Hinduism, the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle."

So, we're noting this, but not accepting it, apparently.

"Rocks" could mean molten rock, and there certainly are volcanoes on Earth, but the plural form of this seems to suggest multiple rocks, which is meaningless in the concept of magma.  There is no experimental proof or even a reason for making such a claim. 

"Q: 'Exactly what shape is the Earth if it is flat? Square or circle?'

A: Circle, like in the UN logo. However, the earth is NOT 2D; it is in the shape of a cylinder."

This is the only mention of this.  No experimental proof is given.

"Q: 'How do volcanic eruptions happen?'

A: The Earth is thick enough to have a core of molten lava. Once there is too much of it in too confined a space, it finds its way out, just like the water will come out of a full bottle if you squeeze it too hard."

This implies that there is a core.  Core is generally meant to mean "center," (the core of an apple, the core of one's body) which implies that perhaps there is another side to the Earth?  It also implies that somehow, lava is either added, into a finite space, so that it can be squeezed out, or that this space is compressed.  It also implies that there is no solid core, like in the Round Earth Theory, but simply lava all the way through to an alleged other side.

I also searched "under the earth" in quotes across the whole forum.  I found things such as "We don't know.  Neither does RET," "There are four elephants and a turtle," "Dark energy," "The sun moves under the Earth," and (mostly) there seems to be a general consensus that there is another side.


What does experimental science tell us?  Well, we can only deduce things based on properties of seismic waves and such.

The following passage is from this URL:  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/12/981211083655.htm

Confirming a long-held scientific notion, a Northwestern University seismologist and a colleague at the French Atomic Energy Commission have provided the first direct evidence that -- inside a liquid core -- the very center of the Earth is solid.
 
The long sought finding, which had been hinted at but never proven, came from analysis of seismic waves generated by the June 1996 earthquake in Indonesia and recorded at a large-array seismic network spread across France. The finding will be presented Thursday at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco and will appear in the Dec. 15 issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
 
For decades, seismologists have used seismic waves as a sort of probe of the Earth's insides. They look at how the waves created by an earthquake at the surface of the Earth reverberate through the interior before being detected on the other side.
 
"The general picture of the Earth at the turn of the last century was that it had a rocky mantle floating on a liquid core of molten iron," says Emile A. Okal, professor of geological sciences at Northwestern and an author of the new study. The fluidity of the iron explained the existence of the Earth's magnetic field, he said.
 
But geophysicists also assumed that at some great depth, the pressure would be so high that even at temperatures of thousands of degrees the iron would freeze solid. In the 1930s, seismologists did find a "discontinuity" in the velocity of waves propagated through the center of the Earth, suggesting some sort of stratification of the core.
 
The problem, for 60 years now, is that those waves never carried the signature of a solid.
 
"A solid has a very distinctive mechanical property, which is that it can sustain two different kinds of waves," Okal said. "It can transmit a wave that oscillates in the direction of travel, sort of a pulsing compression-and-relaxation, and it can transmit a wave that vibrates perpendicular to the direction of travel, like a guitar string."
 
A liquid can propagate only the first type of wave, which corresponds to a change of volume and pressure, as it propagates, he said. "The second type requires memory of a shape for its restoring force, and a liquid has no shape."
 
Only the first type of wave, characteristic of liquids, had ever been observed coming from the Earth's core.
 
Okal and his colleague in France, Yves Cansi, used an eight-station French seismic network to study the Indonesian earthquake, and for the first time detected the telltale second vibration.
 
"The 1996 Flores Sea earthquake, which was a big earthquake at about 600 kilometers depth, was perfect in geometry for recording in France," Okal said. "If you want to sample the deepest part of the Earth, you need a big, deep earthquake," he said. "And they are rare." A deep earthquake gives rise to cleaner signals, he said.
 
Improvements in instrumentation over the last 15 years were crucial to the new finding, Okal said, as were computer capabilities, developed in France, to extract signals from noise.
 
Okal's expectations for the significance of the finding are, well, down to earth.
 
"We look at the interior of the Earth because we would like to know what is below us," Okal said. "But this may turn out to be interesting to the field of materials science because it indicates that under tremendous pressures, iron is behaving in a different way," he said. "Understanding how the qualities of materials are affected under extremely high pressures -- millions of times the atmospheric pressure -- might be applicable for different materials at not-so-heavy pressures."
 
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation.




The data is, of course, based on the assumption of a round Earth, and therefore, measurements are accounted for in this manner.  Therefore, if the Earth were flat, we would have to justify this, which is impossible.  According to RET, the Earth is round and the core is round; to convert this, with the correct distances from points on the surface to points on the edge of the core, we would need a flat Earth and a flat core.  This will, unfortunately, affect the seismic waves, because it is now at a different angle.  You cannot have a flat core and an angled core that will reflect seismic waves in exactly the same way it does in a RET. Therefore, it is completely impossible to explain this using FET.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2011, 02:10:37 AM »
We could just assume the presence of anisotropic material like globularism does to squeeze the data into their model.
"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.."

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2011, 11:30:55 AM »
We could just assume the presence of anisotropic material like globularism does to squeeze the data into their model.
I looked up the word "anisotropic," and I find that it means "treating different directions differently."  To the contrary!  I can assure you that any RE'er will always treat every direction the same.  However, FET argues that, the further south you go, the more bendy light gets (not explained how this affects distance and not just perception of distance).  FET is anisotropic, but any RE'er will tell you that every direction is the same.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2011, 12:01:59 PM »
So, if a globularist had to introduce anisotropic material to make seismic wave behaviour fit a globe, it would be unscientific?
"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.."

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2011, 12:12:39 PM »
So, if a globularist had to introduce anisotropic material to make seismic wave behaviour fit a globe, it would be unscientific?
Surely you admit that there are very few people who are in on the conspiracy!  Most people accept that the Earth is a globe unquestioningly.  If somebody found data that showed that the Earth was flat, they would have never thought about it before, and would say "OMG!  The Earth is flat!"  It would cause a scientific upheaval, as they wondered about whether there could possibly be alternate explanations, or whether the Earth really and truly was flat.

It would make all the news, to be sure.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2011, 12:20:58 PM »
I think that most people (including scientists) are simply so convinced of their world view that they will add any theory/exotic matter/etc to maintain it as opposed to changing their mind. I don't think that scientists at large are part of an active conspiracy to deceive us as to the earth's shape. They simply take it for granted.
You say that no globularist would invent anisotropy to explain seismic behaviour, yet they do exactly that. And they introduce it because the data would not fit their globular model any other way.
"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: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2011, 12:32:57 PM »
You say that no globularist would invent anisotropy to explain seismic behaviour, yet they do exactly that.

Evidence for this statement?

How about treating the results of this experiment for what they are, rather than dismissing it as fake right off the bat in order to fit your own preconceptions of a flat earth?

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2011, 12:39:50 PM »
Perhaps we could find the data for these measurements.  They've likely been published.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2011, 12:53:35 PM »
You say that no globularist would invent anisotropy to explain seismic behaviour, yet they do exactly that. And they introduce it because the data would not fit their globular model any other way.

Evidence for this statement?


http://tinyurl.com/43y45yd
"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: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2011, 01:08:06 PM »
What is under the Earth? Monsters. Never go under the Earth. Plenty of roundies have been eaten already do you want to be the next one?

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2011, 01:19:22 PM »
What is under the Earth? Monsters. Never go under the Earth. Plenty of roundies have been eaten already do you want to be the next one?
But there has to be something else, a layer of rock, or something.  I say this because if I dig into the dirt I don't immediately pierce through to "another side."  There has to be something.

Besides, what of volcanoes, Earth's magnetic field, plate tectonics?  There are a million objections.  Your answer does not explain anything.  Also, how do you know?  Or are you just making it up?  I assume you have seen a documented case of a roundie being eaten by monsters.

Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2011, 03:04:01 PM »
You say that no globularist would invent anisotropy to explain seismic behaviour, yet they do exactly that. And they introduce it because the data would not fit their globular model any other way.

Evidence for this statement?

http://tinyurl.com/43y45yd

Very clever; however, this does nothing for your position. You need to explain why seismic anisotropy would not exist, i.e. why the factors that purportedly cause changes in wavelength direction (cracks in rock, etc.) would in fact not cause it. You would also need to show that when seismic anisotropy is not taken into account, the data would decisively reject a round earth model in active favor of a flat earth hypothesis. It is not enough to simply claim that seismic anisotropy is fake and link to a definition to establish a flat- earth as the superior model
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 03:07:06 PM by frivolity »

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2011, 07:21:41 PM »
You say that no globularist would invent anisotropy to explain seismic behaviour, yet they do exactly that. And they introduce it because the data would not fit their globular model any other way.

Evidence for this statement?

http://tinyurl.com/43y45yd

Very clever; however, this does nothing for your position. You need to explain why seismic anisotropy would not exist, i.e. why the factors that purportedly cause changes in wavelength direction (cracks in rock, etc.) would in fact not cause it. You would also need to show that when seismic anisotropy is not taken into account, the data would decisively reject a round earth model in active favor of a flat earth hypothesis. It is not enough to simply claim that seismic anisotropy is fake and link to a definition to establish a flat- earth as the superior model
I like this.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2011, 08:00:29 PM »
The simple fact is that seismologists create a model of the composition working backwards from the assumed shape, not the other way around. If one introduces anisotropic material, liquids and solids of varying refractive indices and other such "tricks" it is possible to create a model of any shape.
Lest you be deceived, I am not so naive to suggest that the existence of these things is not possible, nor that the fact they must be used to predict wave propagation proves the earth is flat. I am stating simply and honestly that the data can be made to fit any shape by means of introducing this materials.
"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.."

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2011, 08:14:33 PM »
Still, FET has not produced a clear explanation of exactly what does go on down there.  Unless you do so, you cannot compare the results that could be expected by RET and FET, and your claims can never be validated to be true for certain.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2011, 08:17:11 PM »
That is not true. I can with very little imagination see a model of any given shape using seismic data.
"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.."

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2011, 08:47:47 PM »
Go ahead.  Show me it.

Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2011, 09:02:46 PM »
That is not true. I can with very little imagination see a model of any given shape using seismic data.

Are you saying that you are a seismologist, and know how to interpret seismic data? If so, why have you not conducted your own experiments that could support FET?
If not, you are in no position to accuse other seismologists of misinterpreting their data. We're not talking about random people off the street publishing their findings at their local science academy; these people are very knowledgeable in their field. You would be disingenuous. In fact, it seems to me that you are operating under your own preconception that the earth is flat, when you accuse data that supports RET to be wrong without studying it yourself.
If anisotropy exists, it is pointless to claim that the data is useless simply because it could be changed to prove anything. It would have to deviate by a very large margin before anything could be called into question. If my laboratory sample boils at 98 degrees C instead of 100, should that automatically make me concerned that I'm not boiling water, but maple syrup instead? The possibility for experimental error exists in all sciences, and anisotropy is one source. This cannot be helped; however, the final results are more or less consistent with the conclusions. This is called margin of error, and you can't rely on that alone to toss out established scientific theories left and right.

Go ahead.  Show me it.

I agree. Show us your interpretation of the data

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2011, 08:34:32 PM »
I am not a seismologist. I am saying that one can force data into any model if we give the data the liberties seismologists are giving the data. If you cannot comprehend why, I do not know how to help you.
"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: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2011, 11:23:40 PM »
I am saying that one can force data into any model if we give the data the liberties seismologists are giving the data.

You're not a seismologist, and yet, by making this statement, you claim that seismologists are not serious enough to actually measure the precise effect that anisotropy has and to what extent it affects their data. You instead claim that, because finer points are taken into account at higher levels of research, that somehow makes the data less accurate.

If one introduces anisotropic material, liquids and solids of varying refractive indices and other such "tricks" it is possible to create a model of any shape.

This statement displays so much ignorance that it's painful to read, and all but convinces me that you cannot be a serious scientist. Do water and air not have different indices of refraction? Does the wave speed not depend on its medium of transmission? Well, mechanical physics is all right, but when you introduce things like friction, air resistance, and all that complicated tosh, then you can make up data however you want. I can now conclude that pigs are capable of flight. Are you not aware of the sheer ridiculousness of your words?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41780
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2011, 06:14:07 AM »
I am not a seismologist. I am saying that one can force data into any model if we give the data the liberties seismologists are giving the data. If you cannot comprehend why, I do not know how to help you.

That isn't how models are made.  Models are made to fit the data, not the other way around.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2011, 12:34:40 PM »
I am not a seismologist. I am saying that one can force data into any model if we give the data the liberties seismologists are giving the data. If you cannot comprehend why, I do not know how to help you.

That isn't how models are made.  Models are made to fit the data, not the other way around.

Ideally, yes.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2011, 03:45:28 PM »
If one introduces anisotropic material, liquids and solids of varying refractive indices and other such "tricks" it is possible to create a model of any shape.

This statement displays so much ignorance that it's painful to read, and all but convinces me that you cannot be a serious scientist. Do water and air not have different indices of refraction? Does the wave speed not depend on its medium of transmission? Well, mechanical physics is all right, but when you introduce things like friction, air resistance, and all that complicated tosh, then you can make up data however you want. I can now conclude that pigs are capable of flight. Are you not aware of the sheer ridiculousness of your words?
You are painfully misrepresenting what I said.
"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.."

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2011, 03:46:46 PM »
I am not a seismologist. I am saying that one can force data into any model if we give the data the liberties seismologists are giving the data. If you cannot comprehend why, I do not know how to help you.

That isn't how models are made.  Models are made to fit the data, not the other way around.

They are attempting to model the earth's composition, not it's shape. The assume the shape to determine the composition. It is possible to assume another shape and determine a differing composition.
"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.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41780
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2011, 06:50:28 PM »
It is possible to assume another shape and determine a differing composition.

How so?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2011, 09:31:04 PM »
You are painfully misrepresenting what I said.

Then would you like to explain exactly what you meant?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2011, 03:27:15 PM »
It is possible to assume another shape and determine a differing composition.

How so?

How not?
"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.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41780
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2011, 06:45:57 PM »
It is possible to assume another shape and determine a differing composition.

How so?

How not?

How now brown cow?   Or, if you would care to answer my question, how does assuming another determine a different composition?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2011, 03:34:13 PM »
I am not a seismologist. I am saying that one can force data into any model if we give the data the liberties seismologists are giving the data. If you cannot comprehend why, I do not know how to help you.

That isn't how models are made.  Models are made to fit the data, not the other way around.

They are attempting to model the earth's composition, not it's shape. The assume the shape to determine the composition. It is possible to assume another shape and determine a differing composition.
It's possible to do a lot of things.  For example, it's possible to assume that monkeys can fly; from that, we must determine that they only do it when we aren't looking, because we've never seen them do so.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2011, 05:17:59 PM »
It's possible to do a lot of things.  For example, it's possible to assume that monkeys can fly; from that, we must determine that they only do it when we aren't looking, because we've never seen them do so.
Ah, so you agree that assuming the Earth's rotundity is horribly fallacious? How nice.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)