seismology

  • 49 Replies
  • 9103 Views
*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
seismology
« on: November 10, 2016, 01:51:16 AM »
(Before I begin: yes the search-function wasnt working.  If my question has already been asked pls post a link to it,  tnx in advance.)

So last year my geography teacher taught us about seismology.  During those lessons everything seemed to add up for a round earth.  At this moment I don't understand how this adds up for a flat earth.  Could someone help me understand it for a flath earth?  (I'm referring to the "earths interior" part of the following wikipage:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology )  As I understand the theory on that wikipage is backed by measurements.  It could be that the creators of that theory have drawn the wrong conclusions due to the more popular believe that the earth is round.

(PS: Before you guys dismiss me as a hater/troll/...  I'd actually like to learn new stuff here.  For those who are going to do a 'backgroundcheck' on me: yes I posted something on this forum before that suggest I don't believe in a flat earth.  However i've did a lot of reading since then and at the moment I don't know what to believe.  For those who think my change in believes is too good to be true: what should I do to convince you that it's true? Post an open minded topic?)

send from my phone

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: seismology
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2016, 02:04:32 AM »


The truth is scientists predict the density of the layers based on the seismographic evidence, not the other way around. They say "there must be a fluid layer here reflecting these waves" to make the data fit the RE model. Not the other way around.

It would be entirely possible to create a FE model for seismic wave propagation. In fact, the military uses a FE model as well as a more publicized RE model.

In addition to making assumptions about the density and composition of the earth's core despite barely having scratched it, they come up with nifty things like anistropic wave propagation to make the data fit the model -- again, not the other way around.
"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.."

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: seismology
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2016, 02:10:05 AM »
You should realize that there is a lot of experimental research and thermodynamic modelling on the materials of the earth's mantle and core, as well as analogs from meteorites, and mantle xenoliths. They're not just guessing based on seismographic evidence.

Now Sandokhan is bound to come waltzing in here within 2 hours with his library of copy pastes, likely telling you about the uncertainties and assumptions involved in seismology and one or two examples where something didn't add up, claiming that it disproves the entire discipline. Don't listen to him, he nitpicks his sources and can't think for himself.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

Re: seismology
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2016, 02:16:57 AM »
he nitpicks his sources and can't think for himself.

"Cherry-picks" is the word you are looking for, I believe.

*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: seismology
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2016, 02:53:56 AM »
@Rockseverywhere: I dont care what he copy-pastes.  However, if it disproves the currently accepted theory he should also provide a new theory and back it with sufficient evidence.  And i'm a civil engineer student, I know scientist don't guess.  I however also know that many where proven wrong (example: daltons claim that an atom was the smallest particle, I hope I translated this right).  Note how I said proven wrong.

@ski. I didnt read the whole thing but it seems like they focus on the earths interior in that post.  I refered to the effects the earths interior has on seismic waves.  (note how they deduced the earths interior from this effect (not only this effect also some other stuff).  So saying that the current theory of the earths interior is wrong doesnt add anything to this topic)

I'll look for an illustration to explain what I mean this afternoon, because my knowledge of scientific English is rather limited.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25446
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: seismology
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2016, 03:00:19 AM »
Think about the earth as a ship. It shakes and swashes.

I want to explain how systemworks, under the pretext of this topic.

This the list of countries by has earth Seismic risk.

1.    JAPAN (80)   7.08   6.7188 %
2.    INDONESIA (57)   7.05   4.7646 %
3.    CHILE (52)   7.36   4.5405 %
4.    PAPUA NEW GUINEA (49)   6.91   4.0152 %
5.    MEXICO (36)   7.19   3.0677 %
6.    TURKEY (36)   7.01   2.9942 %
7.    ALASKA (28)   7.55    2.5056 %
8.    CALIFORNIA (30)   7.01   2.4938 %
9.    PERU (27)   7.45   2.3859 %
10.    CHINA (27)   7.38   2.3621 %
11.    VANUATU (28)   6.96   2.3112 %
12.    SOLOMON ISLANDS (23)   7.03   1.9175 %
13.    IRAN (22)   7.09   1.8499 %
14.    SUMATRA (20)   7.77    1.8428 %
15.    RUSSIA (20)   7.43   1.7621 %
16.    GREECE (19)   7.06   1.5902 %
17.    TAIWAN (18)   7.21   1.5392 %
18.    FIJI (18)   6.99   1.4918 %
19.    PHILIPPINES (16)   7.17   1.3601 %
20.    NEW ZEALAND (16)   7.16   1.3589 %

You can find out same list at: http://www.world-earthquakes.com/index.php?option=sta

Lets examine the countries in the list one by one, depends on "ship" theory.

First we should thik the earth as a ship that floating in the sea. The sea waves beats to edges. These beats cause to shaking. On the other way, the ship getting water from mediterranian area.

1    JAPAN : Is in the edge of the earth. So  the waves transfer energy by multiplying.
2.    INDONESIA: Is in the edge of the earth.
3.    CHILE : Is in the edge of the earth.
4.    PAPUA NEW GUINEA: Is in the edge of the earth.
5.    MEXICO : Is in the edge of the earth.
6.    TURKEY *: ...    We will examine it later. *
7.    ALASKA (28): Is in the edge of the earth.
8.    CALIFORNIA : Is in the edge of the earth.
9.    PERU (27) Is in the edge of the earth.
10.    CHINA (27) Is in the edge of the earth.
11.    VANUATU Is in the edge of the earth.
12.    SOLOMON ISLANDS Is in the edge of the earth.
13.    IRAN (22)*: ...    We will examine it later. *
14.    SUMATRA (20) Is in the edge of the earth.
15.    RUSSIA (20) Is in the edge of the earth.
16.    GREECE (19)*: ...    We will examine it later. *
17.    TAIWAN (18) Is in the edge of the earth.
18.    FIJI (18) Is in the edge of the earth.
19.    PHILIPPINES Is in the edge of the earth.
20.    NEW ZEALAND Is in the edge of the earth.

Lets examine other 3 countries:

6.    TURKEY
13.    IRAN
16.    GREECE

Since tousends of years Euro-Africa land crashed and got water. Then Mediterranian sea occured. Water is continue the way till that will destroy Greece-Turkey-Iran line. Will make them smaller like center America. In the other say the Turkey side of the ship is sinking in the water.



This is the sismology map that you can use it as an alternative theory.

For perspective of round map:



This map taken from here: http://earthquaketrack.com/

The situation is clear. Ocean wawes causes  to big earthquakes.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2016, 03:08:08 AM by İntikam »
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: seismology
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2016, 03:13:53 AM »
I see how this could add up but I still dont understand some things. Could you explain the midatlantic ridge (and other ridges), the orientation of the magnecules in the rocks surrounding the ridges, and Hawaii and Iceland?

Could you also refer to a reliable source for the euro-african crash?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2016, 03:15:30 AM by gg1gamer »

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25446
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: seismology
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2016, 03:24:48 AM »
I see how this could add up but I still dont understand some things. Could you explain the midatlantic ridge (and other ridges), the orientation of the magnecules in the rocks surrounding the ridges, and Hawaii and Iceland?

Could you also refer to a reliable source for the euro-african crash?

Iceland has no risk according to risk map.Iceland has no risk according to flat earth-earthquake map.

I don't understand the question exactly in the first part of.

I remember there is some sources about occuring mediterranian sea but can't see yet. I need to research about it.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25446
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: seismology
« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2016, 03:34:03 AM »
Quote
During 1970, when doing research in the Mediterranean Sea while supervised by Kenneth Hsu, geologists aboard the vessel brought up drill cores containing gypsum, anhydrite, rock salt, and various other evaporite minerals that often form from drying of brine or seawater. These were the first solid evidence for the ancient desiccation of the Mediterranean Sea, the Messinian salinity crisis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Challenger

In an Turkish dictionary it is written ad mediterranean occured 200 milion years before today, according to research of Glomar_Challenger. Another source saying 5 million years for occuring mediterranian sea. ı don't know which one is true because of weak english i can't search good enought. For more information about how mediterranian occured you can research about Glomar_Challenger. I accept the occuring mechanism but i'm rejecting 200 millions of years.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2016, 03:42:51 AM by İntikam »
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: seismology
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2016, 03:35:17 AM »
Intikam, your earthquake danger list specifically states this:

Quote
Global Seismic Risk by Countries (GSR-C) for Mw 6.5+ earthquakes

May I remind you that there are earthquakes below this magnitude?
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: seismology
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2016, 04:12:08 AM »
@intikan  Hawaii and Iceland are both volcanic islands.  Both have earthquakes.  Could you explain how they fit in your theory?  (What are the mechanics behind the creation of both?) 

According to your map Hawaii should be hit by 'big waves' and thus have earthquakes of a high magnitude.  Pls enlighten me why they don't.

As for the mediterranean:  During one of the previous ice-ages it was indeed dried up.  It however didn't sink/collapse, the landbridge between Spain and africa (don't know which country lies S of spain atm, srry for its inhabitants)  gave way.  Causing the mediterranean to flood (as it was below sea level, as it always was).  So pls explain to me when the land between Europe and Africa crashed.

Still waiting on an explanation for the ridges, which have earthquakes daily.  And I'm still waiting for an explanation for the orientation of the molecules near ridges.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25446
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: seismology
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2016, 04:21:33 AM »
@intikan  Hawaii and Iceland are both volcanic islands.  Both have earthquakes.  Could you explain how they fit in your theory?  (What are the mechanics behind the creation of both?) 

According to your map Hawaii should be hit by 'big waves' and thus have earthquakes of a high magnitude.  Pls enlighten me why they don't.

As for the mediterranean:  During one of the previous ice-ages it was indeed dried up.  It however didn't sink/collapse, the landbridge between Spain and africa (don't know which country lies S of spain atm, srry for its inhabitants)  gave way.  Causing the mediterranean to flood (as it was below sea level, as it always was).  So pls explain to me when the land between Europe and Africa crashed.

Still waiting on an explanation for the ridges, which have earthquakes daily.  And I'm still waiting for an explanation for the orientation of the molecules near ridges.

volcanic activites are not relevant with earthquakes.

Hawai is in the 47th place of earthquake risk. In here: http://www.world-earthquakes.com/index.php?option=sta

47.    HAWAII (4)   6.90   0.3273 %

Hawai is in the edge but Iceland isn't. So iceland has zero risk but hawai has.

There is no name as Iceland in the list. As i said that there is no connection between volcanic movements and earthquakes according to angle.

Quote
Pls enlighten me why they don't.

As all we see that Hawai name is in the risk map but you are saying it is not.

I think you are just triying to confuse by some arguments. I explained everything clearly. Pure, clear and understanable by ordinary human. No need anymore explanation. But according to the experience you'll not see this explanation enought. This is standart act for unbelievers that not makes me surprise. That's it for me enought.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Come on bro, just admit that the the earth isn't a sphere, you won't even be wrong

*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: seismology
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2016, 07:56:45 AM »
So here i am trying to keep an open mind, the first time i have a little bit of criticism on a theory and suddenly I'm a non believer?  I thought you guys were to scientifically prove that the earth is flat?  If so the way science works is that you come up with a theory and give everyone a shot to give criticism and then explain certain aspects they don't understand and thus have criticism on.

As for the personal stuff, no I'm not trying to confuse anyone, I am confused and would love it if you can help me understand some of the things i'm confused about.

One of the things i'm confused about: why Hawaii is so low on the list.  Seems like i'm not denying that is on there, by the way next time you quote me quote everything i said.  I said: According to your map Hawaii should be hit by 'big waves' and thus have earthquakes of a high magnitude.  Pls enlighten me why they don't..  I'll rephrase my question: Why doesn't hawaii have earthquakes similar to the once at the top of the list?

Know for Iceland: to be clear it's a country/an island between greenland and the UK.  It's completely made from volcanic rocks.  They have (small) earthquakes regularly.  In the round theory these are caused by the tectonic plates that are moving away from each other.  Could you tell me what the theory is for a flat earth?

And a thing i copied from my last post:
Still waiting on an explanation for the ridges, which have earthquakes daily.  And I'm still waiting for an explanation for the orientation of the molecules near ridges.

As to if i'm a non-believer or not:
I personally don't think it's about believing.  If someone has irrefutable proof of something one would be an idiot to believe otherwise.  So I came here to get the theories on how seismology works on a flat earth.  Does this make me a non believer?  If you define a non believer as a person who questions all (And with all i mean ALL, both flat and round) theories about the shape of the earth, then yes I am one.  I hope you guys don't define a non believer this way.

If intikam doesn't want to react to this thread anymore, I don't mind.  (I however don't get why, i only had some questions with the proposed theory, all you need to do is answer then)  Could someone else explain his theory further or give another one?

*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: seismology
« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2016, 08:05:47 AM »
Now for the thing i originally referred to, here is an illustration:



Before you stop reading and dismiss me as a non believer (again), here is some explanation:
This image is an illustration on seismic waves in the theory of a round earth.  The waves can be, and are being everytime there is a earthquake, measured across the earth.  Now I can't come up with an explanation for this in the theory of a flat earth.  So could anyone help me understand why there are shadow zones on a flat earth?

Re: seismology
« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2016, 08:12:13 AM »
Things Intikam says are lies:
Magnetic declination
Jet streams
Southern hemisphere star trails around pole
Satellites
He is a troll
(there's probably more I'm forgetting)

Try not to expect serious discussion with him.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: seismology
« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2016, 10:37:05 AM »
Now for the thing i originally I referred to, ...

That image is a highly simpified depiction to demonstrate a concept. As I mentioned above,  the actual data is far less consistent or simple. All evidence of inner core materials is inferred by the presumption of the globular model, not the other way around. Where/when the simple model as above, scientists are forced to introduce anisotropic material or material with different indices of refraction to make the data fit the model. Again, not the otherway around.   There is no reason they could not similarly infer material make up of a flat earth to produce a similarly consistent 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.."

*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: seismology
« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2016, 11:09:19 AM »
@IonSpen:  I'm trying to keep an open mind but I'm not an idiot.  I know about all the things you mentioned and was asking them to explain them in a rational way to me.  Again open minded.

@Ski:  Yes it is a highly simplified illustration.  And yes due to technical limitations (for example: you can't drill deep enough, you can't simply create an earthquake of the desired magnitude, ...)  a lot of measuring faults sneak in the collected data.  Because of this they might have to 'fit the data to the model' a bit.  This however doesn't prove that the model is wrong. 
As for the model for a flat earth: could you quote a reliable source that has done this?


Important note:  Because of my rather limited knowledge of scientific english and my rather limited amount of sleep I have made some mistakes in 2 posts.  The 2 posts in question are the one 2 posts prior to this one and the one 3 posts prior to this one.  In these post i said this: Still waiting on an explanation for the ridges, which have earthquakes daily.  And I'm still waiting for an explanation for the orientation of the molecules near ridges.
I here said something about molecules, this was a wrong correction of the wrong translation of the dutch word "magneculen", this actually translates to magnecules in english.

My questions still remain though and I'd love to get an answer to the questions i posted below so i can better understand how things work in a flat earth theory.

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: seismology
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2016, 12:01:40 PM »
As I mentioned above,  the actual data is far less consistent or simple. All evidence of inner core materials is inferred by the presumption of the globular model, not the other way around.

This is not true at all. For example, we have meteorites as analogues for planetary bodies. There's stony meteorites made of material like the Earth's mantle (which we know from xenoliths in volcanic material, and kimberlites, and ophiolites). Then stony iron meteorites are basically a mix of this and iron/nickle, and finally iron meteorites are mostly iron/nickle. We just did a mantle-core transect through a planet. Furthermore, this metal core is a likely source for the magnetic field, which you'd have to explain through some other magic way if you don't have a metal core. And then there's numerical modelling (for example thermodynamic modelling, where you tell your model how physical chemistry works and then to calculate what phases you expect under certain conditions) and probably a boatload of other methods I am not familiar with. We know the outer core is liquid, because under the circumstances we expect and calculate for that part of the core, it simply is liquid. Increase the pressure some more, like the inner core, and it turns solid.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: seismology
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2016, 07:54:06 PM »
All of that evidence is inferential evidence, re  :-\



Quote
As for the model for a flat earth: could you quote a reliable source that has done this?
I've linked to DTIC studies before, but the database is no longer available to the public.  I'm sure you can find flat earth seismic models in most academic depositories.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?redir_esc&client=tablet-android-samsung&hl=en-US&safe=images&devloc=0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:aqEz6FpOCA0KCM:scholar.google.com/

Quick examples
"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.."

*

scabbage

  • 95
  • 486f772043616e205370616365204265205265616c20496620596f752041726520412053706f6e6765
Re: seismology
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2016, 10:04:18 PM »
how things work in a flat earth theory

Short answer: they don't.

Could someone else explain his theory further or give another one?

Of course, all seismic activity is cause by the shifting turtle underneath the Earth when he gets restless. What else could be big enough to cause an earthquake from beneath our feet?
c̴̢̧̛͉̰̬͓͙̼̹͚̠̱̱̝̝̠̤̼͎̠̺͔͔̞̼̞̩͖̬̗̼̞̻̖̞̞͙̃̍̄̓̆̂̇̽̊͑̽͆̈́̉̕͘͜͜͝͝a̸̧̛̦͍̘̣͖̮̻̙͖̯̮̼̲͈̖̹͖̘̺̲͙̦͇͍̖̝̾͌̐̉̊̓̔̓̀̀̐͒́͑̔͒͌̊̈́̉͑͛͑́́͗̾͐͗̊̐̌̔́́̽̚̕̚͝͠k̷̡̛̛͕̬̮̯̘̯̜̳͇͓͔̰̮͚͉͈̰͕̮̖̰̟̘̥̦͓̣̪͍̯̺̪̼̟̯͇͚̝̺̹̗̳͒̊̓̂̍̾́͐̃̈́͐̀̐̐͋̓̈́̐̿̽͌͊̌̏̎̈́̿͆̃̓̏̍͑̇́̆͋͑͒̑̀̚͘̚̕̚̚͠͝͝͝͠͝ͅe̶̛̎̅̑̎̂̎̿̔̊̈̒͆̄̎̀̈́̿̀̑͒̀̈́̀͂̓͌͊͛̀͝͠

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: seismology
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2016, 01:54:00 AM »
All of that evidence is inferential evidence, re  :-\
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this but it is evidence nevertheless.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

Re: seismology
« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2016, 07:16:13 AM »
Quote
As for the model for a flat earth: could you quote a reliable source that has done this?
I've linked to DTIC studies before, but the database is no longer available to the public.  I'm sure you can find flat earth seismic models in most academic depositories.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?redir_esc&client=tablet-android-samsung&hl=en-US&safe=images&devloc=0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:aqEz6FpOCA0KCM:scholar.google.com/

Quick examples

So I read the abstract of the first two studies from your link. Neither one supports your statement. Both studies are about predicting deformations after earthquakes based on certain simplifying assumptions, one of which includes ignoring the curvature of the earth. Neither one attempts to explain seismic data with a flat earth model. (I could be wrong. I am not particularly fluent in all the terminology that they used.)

Did you just see the words "flat earth model" in the title, and assume they supported your position?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: seismology
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2016, 05:07:02 PM »
All of that evidence is inferential evidence, re  :-\
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this but it is evidence nevertheless.
I'm not disputing that. I am simply saying that the same manner of inference could be applied to any given shape to produce a 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.."

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: seismology
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2016, 05:21:46 PM »
Quote from: TotesReptilian
Did you just see the words "flat earth model" in the title, and assume they supported your position?

No, there are plenty of studies. Try seismic ray or seismic wave propagation along with flat earth model in whatever database you are searching.
"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.."

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: seismology
« Reply #24 on: November 13, 2016, 04:22:20 AM »
All of that evidence is inferential evidence, re  :-\
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this but it is evidence nevertheless.
I'm not disputing that. I am simply saying that the same manner of inference could be applied to any given shape to produce a model.
And I'm saying that that's not possible. What do we do now?
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: seismology
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2016, 02:34:25 AM »
@Ski:  Yes it is a highly simplified illustration.  And yes due to technical limitations (for example: you can't drill deep enough, you can't simply create an earthquake of the desired magnitude, ...)  a lot of measuring faults sneak in the collected data.  Because of this they might have to 'fit the data to the model' a bit.  This however doesn't prove that the model is wrong. 
As for the model for a flat earth: could you quote a reliable source that has done this?

A few topics later

No, there are plenty of studies. Try seismic ray or seismic wave propagation along with flat earth model in whatever database you are searching.

We are back where we started: could YOU pls quote a reliable source (preferably from this decade) that has done the math?

*

gg1gamer

  • 566
  • time enjoyed wasting is not wasted
Re: seismology
« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2016, 02:44:08 AM »
how things work in a flat earth theory

Short answer: they don't.

Could someone else explain his theory further or give another one?

Of course, all seismic activity is cause by the shifting turtle underneath the Earth when he gets restless. What else could be big enough to cause an earthquake from beneath our feet?

First thing:  unless someone is going to post a provable theory we are going to have to conclude this.

Second thing:  Unfortunately that's the best explenation I've seen so far (for a FE).

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: seismology
« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2016, 04:52:23 AM »
Theres something special about watching a noob troll another noob.

Well played Scabbage.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

Re: seismology
« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2016, 05:51:53 AM »
Quote
As for the model for a flat earth: could you quote a reliable source that has done this?
I've linked to DTIC studies before, but the database is no longer available to the public.  I'm sure you can find flat earth seismic models in most academic depositories.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?redir_esc&client=tablet-android-samsung&hl=en-US&safe=images&devloc=0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:aqEz6FpOCA0KCM:scholar.google.com/

Quick examples

You should read the papers under that link.  They don't support the flat earth position.  Here's a good bit from the first one on the list:
Quote
Furthermore, {results} confirm the relevant role of sphericity in the amplitude of coseismic and post-seismic motions.  The far-field displacements and stress fields are seriously affected by the sphericity of the earth.  Further studies, which are underway, demonstrate that the results obtained here are qualitatively unchanged when realistic seismic faults with finite geometry are employed to predict co- and post-seismic motions, and definitively show that precise estimates of displacements and stresses due to faulting, in the far field, can only be obtained by means of spherical earth models.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: seismology
« Reply #29 on: November 14, 2016, 06:07:20 AM »
In fact, seismic waves turn out to be one of the most ingenious proofs that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.


The discontinuities of the seismic waves assumed by modern science to occur at the crust mantle boundary are actually a network of huge caverns and large underground bodies of water and that they would match perfectly the seismic data.

Great masses of water are interpreted as molten rock.

Seismic waves travel faster north-south than east-west for a full four seconds.

"The S-wave shadow zone is larger than the P-wave shadow zones; direct S waves are not recorded in the entire region more than 103° away from the epicentre. It therefore seems that S waves do not travel through the core at all, and this is interpreted to mean that it is liquid, or at least acts like a liquid. The way P waves are refracted in the core is believed to indicate that there is a solid inner core. Although most of the earth's iron is supposed to be concentrated in the core, it is interesting to note that in the outer zones of the earth, iron levels decrease with depth.

Seismologists sometimes draw contradictory conclusions from the same seismic data. For instance, two groups of geophysicists produced completely different pictures of the core-mantle boundary, where there are believed to be 'mountains' and 'valleys' as high or deep as 10 km. The two groups used virtually the same data but used different equations to process them. Seismologists also disagree on the rate of rotation of the inner core: some say it is rotating faster than the rest of the planet, others that it is rotating more slowly, and yet others that it rotates at the same speed!

    It is becoming increasingly evident that the earth model presented by the reigning theory of plate tectonics is seriously flawed. The rigid lithosphere, comprising the crust and uppermost mantle, is said to be fractured into several 'plates' of varying sizes, which move over a relatively plastic layer of partly molten rock known as the asthenosphere (or low-velocity zone). The lithosphere is said to average about 70 km thick beneath oceans and to be 100 to 250 km thick beneath continents. A powerful challenge to this model is posed by seismic tomography, which shows that the oldest parts of the continents have deep roots extending to depths of 400 to 600 km, and that the asthenosphere is essentially absent beneath them. Seismic research shows that even under the oceans there is no continuous asthenosphere, only disconnected asthenospheric lenses.

    The more we learn about the crust and uppermost mantle, the more the models presented in geological textbooks are exposed as simplistic and unrealistic. The outermost layers of the earth have a highly complex, irregular, inhomogeneous structure; they are divided by faults into a mosaic of separate, jostling blocks of different shapes and sizes, generally a few hundred kilometres across, and of varying internal structure and strength. This fact, in conjunction with the existence of deep continental roots and the absence of a global asthenosphere, means that the notion of huge rigid plates moving thousands of kilometres across the earth is simply untenable. Continents are about as mobile as a brick in a wall!

    The plate-tectonic hypothesis that the present oceans have formed by seafloor spreading since the early Mesozoic (within the last 200 million years) is also becoming increasingly implausible. Numerous far older continental rocks have been discovered in the oceans, along with 'anomalous' crustal types intermediate between standard 'continental' and 'oceanic' crust (e.g. plateaus, ridges, and rises), and the evidence for large (now submerged) continental landmasses in the present oceans continues to mount.

At the Kola hole, scientists expected to find 4.7 km of metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rock, then a granitic layer to a depth of 7 km (the 'Conrad discontinuity'), with a basaltic layer below it. The granite, however, appeared at 6.8 km and extends to more than 12 km; no basaltic layer was ever found! Seismic-reflection surveys, in which sound waves sent into the crust bounce back off contrasting rock types, have detected the Conrad discontinuity beneath all the continents, but the standard interpretation that it represents a change from granitic to basaltic rocks is clearly wrong. Metamorphic changes brought about by heat and pressure are now thought to be the most likely explanation.

The superdeep borehole at Oberpfälz, Germany, was expected to pass through a 3-to-5-km-thick nappe complex into a suture zone formed by a supposed continental collision. The borehole reached a final depth of 9101 m in 1994, but no evidence supporting the nappe concept was found. What the scientists did find was a series of nearly vertical folds that had failed to show up on seismic-reflection profiles.

 Rock density is generally expected to increase with depth, as pressures rise. Results from the Kola hole indicated that densities did increase with depth initially, but at 4.5 km the drill encountered a sudden decrease in density, presumably due to increased porosity. The results also showed that increases in seismic velocity do not have to be caused by an increase in rock basicity. The Soviet Minister of Geology reported that 'with increasing depth in the Kola hole, the expected increase in rock densities was therefore not recorded. Neither was any increase in the speed of seismic waves nor any other changes in the physical properties of the rocks detected. Thus the traditional idea that geological data obtained from the surface can be directly correlated with geological materials in the deep crust must be reexamined.'

    The results of superdeep drilling show that seismic surveys of continental crust are being systematically misinterpreted. Much of the modelling of the earth's interior depends on the interpretation of seismic records. If these interpretations are wrong at depths of only a few kilometres, how much reliance can be placed on interpretations of the earth's structure at depths of hundreds or thousands of kilometres beneath the surface?!

    Contrary to expectations, signs of rock alteration and mineralization were found as deep as 7 km in the Kola well. The hole intercepted a copper-nickel ore body almost 2 km below the level at which ore bodies were thought to disappear. In addition, hydrogen, helium, methane, and other gases, together with strongly mineralized waters were found circulating throughout the Kola hole. The presence of fractures open to fluid circulation at pressures of more than 3000 bars was entirely unexpected. The drillers at Oberpfälz discovered hot fluids in open fractures at 3.4 km. The brine was rich in potassium and twice as salty as ocean water, and its origin is a mystery.

Another surprise at the Kola hole was that lifeforms and fossils were discovered several kilometres down. Microscopic fossils were found at depths of 6.7 km. 24 species were identified among these microfossils, representing the envelopes or coverings of single-cell marine plants known as plankton. Unlike conventional shells of limestone or silica, these coverings were found to consist of carbon and nitrogen and had remained remarkably unaltered despite the high pressures and temperatures to which they had been subjected.

The oceanic crust is commonly divided into three main layers: layer 1 consists of ocean-floor sediments and averages 0.5 km in thickness; layer 2 consists largely of basalt and is 1.0 to 2.5 km thick; and layer 3 is assumed to consist of gabbro and is about 5 km thick. A drillhole in the eastern Pacific Ocean has been reoccupied four times in a 12-year span, and has now reached a total depth of 2000 m below the seafloor. Seismic evidence suggested that the boundary between layers 2 and 3 would be found at a depth of about 1700 m, but the drill went well past that depth without finding the contact between the dikes of layer 2 and the expected gabbro of layer 3. Either the seismic interpretation or the model of layer 3's composition must be wrong.

If the earth's interior were homogeneous, consisting of materials with the same properties throughout, seismic waves would travel in a straight line at a constant velocity. In reality, waves reach distant seismometers sooner than they would if the earth were homogeneous, and the greater the distance, the greater the acceleration. This implies that the waves arriving at the more distant stations have been travelling faster. Since seismic waves travel not only along the surface but also through the body of the earth, the earth's curvature will clearly result in stations more distant from an earthquake focus receiving waves that have passed through greater depths in the earth. From this it is inferred that the velocity of seismic waves increases with depth, due to changes in the properties of the earth's matter.

    Seismic velocity in different media depends not just on the substance's density but also on its elastic properties (i.e. rigidity and incompressibility). In the case of solids and liquids, for instance, there is no correlation between sound-wave velocity and density. Here are some examples involving metals:

Substance      Density (g/cm³)         Velocity of longitudinal waves (km/s)
       aluminium         2.7      6.42
       zinc      7.1      4.21
       iron      7.9      5.95
       copper      8.9      4.76
       nickel      8.9      6.04
       gold      19.7      3.24
There is a correlation between density and seismic velocity in the case of gases: velocity decreases with increasing density due to the increased number of collisions.

    According to the relevant equations, the velocity of seismic waves will become slower, the denser the rocks through which they pass, if the rocks' elastic properties change in the same proportion as density. Since seismic waves accelerate with depth, this would imply that density decreases. However, scientists are convinced that the density of the rocks composing the earth's interior increases with depth. To get round this problem, they simply assume that the elastic properties change at a rate that more than compensates for the increase in density. As one textbook puts it:

Since the density of the Earth increases with depth you would expect the waves to slow down with increasing depth. Why, then, do both P- and S-waves speed up as they go deeper? This can only happen because the incompressibility and rigidity of the Earth increase faster with depth than density increases.

Thus geophysicists simply adjust the values for rigidity and incompressibility to fit in with their preconceptions regarding density and velocity distribution within the earth! In other words, their arguments are circular.

Drilling results at the Kola borehole revealed significant heterogeneity in rock composition and density, seismic velocities, and other properties. Overall, rock porosity and pressure increased with depth, while density decreased, and seismic velocities showed no distinct trend. In the Oberpfälz pilot hole, too, density and seismic velocity showed no distinct trend with increasing depth. Many scientists believe that at greater depths, the presumed increase in pressures and temperatures will lead to greater homogeneity and that reality will approximate more closely to current models. But this is no more than a declaration of faith.

    Scientists' conviction that density increases with depth is based on their belief that, due to the accumulating weight of the overlying rock, pressure must increase all the way to the earth's centre where it is believed to reach 3.5 million atmospheres (on the earth's surface the pressure is one atmosphere). They also believe that they know by how much rock density increases towards the earth's centre. This is because they think they have accurately determined the earth's mass (5.98 x 1024 kg) and therefore its average density (5.52 g/cm³). Since the outermost crustal rocks -- the only ones that can be sampled directly -- have a density of only 2.75 g/cm³, it follows that deeper layers of rock must be much denser. At the centre of the earth, density allegedly reaches 13.5 g/cm³.

Pari Spolter casts doubt on this model:

About 71% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans at an average depth of 3795 m and mean density of 1.02 g cm-3. The average thickness of the crust is 19 km and the mean crustal density is 2.75 g cm-3. From studies of seismic wave travel time, geophysicists have outlined a layered structure in the interior of the earth. There is no accurate way currently known of estimating the density distribution from seismic data alone. To come up with a mean density of 5.5, earth models assuming progressively higher density values for the inner zones of the earth have been devised. . . .
    Except for the ocean and the crust, direct measurements of the density of the inner layers of the earth are not available. This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the law of sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for some 4.5 billion years. When it was first formed, the earth was in a molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest density of matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Except for the inner core, . . . the density of the other layers of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.
    Also, heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could so much of materials with such low stellar abundances have concentrated in the earth's interior?

The seismic radiation of deep earthquakes is similar to that of shallow earthquakes. It used to be said that deep-focus earthquakes were followed by fewer aftershocks than shallow ones, but there are indications that many of the aftershocks are simply difficult to detect, and that there is much more activity at such depths than is currently believed. The fact that deep earthquakes share many characteristics with shallow earthquakes suggests that they may be caused by similar mechanisms. However, most earth scientists are incapable of entertaining the notion that the earth could be rigid at such depths. One exception is E.A. Skobelin, who draws the logical conclusion that since deep-focus earthquakes cannot originate in plastic material but must be linked to some kind of stress in solid rock, the solid, rigid lithosphere must extend to depths of up to 700 km.

On 8 June 1994, one of the largest deep earthquakes of the 20th century, with a magnitude of 8.3 on the Richter scale, exploded 640 km beneath Bolivia. It caused the whole earth to ring like a bell for months on end; every 20 minutes or so, the entire planet expanded and contracted by a minute amount. A significant feature of the Bolivian earthquake was that it extended horizontally across a 30- by 50-km plane within the 'subducting slab'. This undermines the hypothesis that such quakes are caused by olivine within the 'cold' centre of a slab suddenly being transformed into spinel in a runaway reaction when the temperature rises above 600°C. It also undermines the theory that gravity increases with depth; if this were true, the motion of earthquakes at such depths should be nearly vertical. There appears to be something very wrong with scientific theories about what exists and what is happening deep within the earth.

    The acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s² at the earth's surface and the prevailing view is that it rises to a maximum of 10.4 m/s² at the core-mantle boundary (2900 km), before falling to zero at the earth's centre. But not all earth scientists agree. Skobelin argues that the normal, downwardly-directed gravitational force may be replaced by a reversed, upwardly-directed force at depths of 2700 to 4980 km, and that the widely-accepted figure of 3500 kilobars for the pressure at the earth's centre, may be an order of magnitude too high."

David Pratt

see also: http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#s5


As we have seen, none of the assumptions made by geologists are true about the composition of inner earth, therefore no one at the present time has any idea how actually seismic waves propagate at very large depths.

In order to make claims about the shape of the Earth based on seismic waves, you must know exactly the composition of inner earth: I have given you plenty of examples which do show that this composition is very different than what was assumed to be true.

Please read:

The oceanic crust is commonly divided into three main layers: layer 1 consists of ocean-floor sediments and averages 0.5 km in thickness; layer 2 consists largely of basalt and is 1.0 to 2.5 km thick; and layer 3 is assumed to consist of gabbro and is about 5 km thick. A drillhole in the eastern Pacific Ocean has been reoccupied four times in a 12-year span, and has now reached a total depth of 2000 m below the seafloor. Seismic evidence suggested that the boundary between layers 2 and 3 would be found at a depth of about 1700 m, but the drill went well past that depth without finding the contact between the dikes of layer 2 and the expected gabbro of layer 3. Either the seismic interpretation or the model of layer 3's composition must be wrong.

If the earth's interior were homogeneous, consisting of materials with the same properties throughout, seismic waves would travel in a straight line at a constant velocity. In reality, waves reach distant seismometers sooner than they would if the earth were homogeneous, and the greater the distance, the greater the acceleration. This implies that the waves arriving at the more distant stations have been travelling faster. Since seismic waves travel not only along the surface but also through the body of the earth, the earth's curvature will clearly result in stations more distant from an earthquake focus receiving waves that have passed through greater depths in the earth. From this it is inferred that the velocity of seismic waves increases with depth, due to changes in the properties of the earth's matter.

There is a correlation between density and seismic velocity in the case of gases: velocity decreases with increasing density due to the increased number of collisions.


NOW, I CAN PROVE TO YOU THAT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH IS FLAT BASED STRICTLY ON SEISMIC WAVES.

SINCE THE EARTH'S INTERIOR STRUCTURE IS MARKEDLY DIFFERENT THAN WAS ASSUMED, THE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING CURVATURE AND VELOCITY ARE SIMPLY WRONG.

THAT IS, THE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING MORE DISTANT STATIONS NO LONGER HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CURVATURE: THE VELOCITY INCREASES DUE TO THE CHANGES IN THE PROPERTIES OF THE EARTH'S MATTER, AND NOT DUE TO CURVATURE.

Since the interior structure is completely different, the assumed calculations made taking curvature into consideration are wrong.

Once we exclude the curvature, we can simply explain the velocity of the seismic wave strictly based on the newly discovered properties of earth's matter, on A FLAT SURFACE OF THE EARTH.