Under the Earth - Discussion

  • 34 Replies
  • 4117 Views
*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2011, 05:31:57 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.
Horribly fallacious?  Yeah, I suppose fallacious thinking is pretty horrible.  Like Socrates said, "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance."

And yes, I do think that, which is why scientists try to prove the Earth's rotundity with repeatable and falsifiable experiments.  A pretty well established idea, if you look into it.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2011, 11:57:47 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?

For a different shape, the composition would have to change. Locations of anisotropic material, differing refractive rates, etc would have to move to make the data fit the model. We both know (or perhaps you have forgotten) that the military have produced and use both round and flat earth seismic propagation models. Clearly the internal-composition of each model would differ. The point is that neither model proves the shape of the earth, just as a star-shaped model would not indicate the true nature of the earth. The internal-composition is only being guessed at by assuming a priori the earth's shape.
"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
  • 41938
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2011, 06:17:34 AM »
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?

For a different shape, the composition would have to change. Locations of anisotropic material, differing refractive rates, etc would have to move to make the data fit the model. We both know (or perhaps you have forgotten) that the military have produced and use both round and flat earth seismic propagation models. Clearly the internal-composition of each model would differ. The point is that neither model proves the shape of the earth, just as a star-shaped model would not indicate the true nature of the earth. The internal-composition is only being guessed at by assuming a priori the earth's shape.
Actually, a certain amount of internal composition can be verified by drilling core samples.
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.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Under the Earth - Discussion
« Reply #33 on: November 08, 2011, 07:49:49 PM »
Yes, Markjo, some small part can be sampled. Despite the name "core sample" these samples are not sampling the earth's core as commonly understood.
"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 #34 on: November 09, 2011, 07:26:21 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.

Not on this board. Answers to questions are simply fabricated out of thin air. Welcome to FES.
The FAQ needs updating to reflect the falsehood of the FAQ.