seismology

Called it. Don't worry, I'll tear it to shreds later today.

Called it. Don't worry, I'll tear it to shreds later today.

You should have torn up your degree in geology a long time ago.

Your lack of knowledge of the faint young sun paradox, the comets' tail dispersion of matter dating method, not to mention many other topics which are way beyond your scientific reach, has been noted here many times before.

Quote from: RocksEverywhere on November 14, 2016, 07:04:51 AM

Called it. Don't worry, I'll tear it to shreds later today.

You should have torn up your degree in geology a long time ago.

Your lack of knowledge of the faint young sun paradox, the comets' tail dispersion of matter dating method, not to mention many other topics which are way beyond your scientific reach, has been noted here many times before.

You left out the Allais Effect...

Quote from: RocksEverywhere on November 14, 2016, 07:04:51 AM

Called it. Don't worry, I'll tear it to shreds later today.

You should have torn up your degree in geology a long time ago.

Your lack of knowledge of the faint young sun paradox, the comets' tail dispersion of matter dating method, not to mention many other topics which are way beyond your scientific reach, has been noted here many times before.

Only by you.

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.

How deep are these caves and bodies of water situated?

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!

Respectfully, if we would assume that every theory on which groups of scientists don't agree dismiss is flawed, we would have to dismiss FE for being flawed as well because even on this forums there is no consensus.

    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 way they explained it to me:  Think of continents as icebergs (or blocks of wood) floating in water; only a small part of it is above the surface, most is beneath the surface.  For actual continents:  where you have high mountains, take mount everest, you will have a very thick continental plate.  Something to think about:  If for some reasone an iceberg has a peak under the surface that stretches far deeper than it should compared to other icebergs, we don't assume the theory on how icebergs are made is flawed.
A research shows...  sounds to me the same as: 'a picture proves...'.  So unless you can link/quote/copy/... this research we'll have to assume that the research is flawed/incomplete/wrong/...

    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!

Assuming continents couldn't move could you explain the following:
-gps measurements of them moving. (And just for this ones i'll accept governmental conspiracy, although i personally find it far fetched)
-The magnecules inside rocks near ridges not pointing to magnetic North (or south)
-On the ridges in, for example, the atlantic ocean volcanoes almost continuously erupting.  They are thus adding rocks to the seabed.  However the ridge doesn't grow all that much (except for iceland, if you would i can explain), so where are these rocks going?
- http://i.imgur.com/giUItTQ.jpg  Yes it could be photoshoped, however why would a regular reporter, that is taking a photo for a story on an earthqaucke do such a thing?
-Somewhat the same as the previous: niagara falls
-... (I'm sure there is other stuff, they just don't come to mind atm)
If any of these need explanation (for a round earth); ask away.

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.

Pls explain these findings:
http://i.imgur.com/V3DPTbH.gif
http://i.imgur.com/s9a9IzV.jpg

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?!

Why are you assuming the earth is perfect globe?  And why is it that an anomaly at 5 km depth disproves the entire theory?  After all 5 km depth is only 0.1% of the earth's radius.  I would be suspicious if we didn't find any anomaly.

    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.

To answer this properly i have to know how you believe the earth was created.

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.

Could you explain how this disproves a round earth?  As i understand it volcanoes 'spit' rocks on top of the existing continents, causing them to 'sink' into the asthenosphere and melt, to be 'spit up' again by volcanoes.

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.

Who said the interior of the earth (round) was homogeneous?  Why do surface waves and waves that travel through the earth have to have the same speed decrease over distance?  Why can't they be physically different (one being slower then the other)?

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.

A simple science experiment (disclaimer: If you get hurt whilst doing this i can't be held responsible, use your brains)  go to the railroad.  Put your ear on the tracks and listen.  At a certain point you will hear a train coming. Now remove your ear from the track. Do you hear the train now? Answer: No. Conclusions soundwaves (which are similar to some seismic waves) travel faster through a solid mass then through air. (for those who can't do this: watch an old western, you'll see robbers/indian do it.)

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.

I don't say that you're right here but another example of circular arguments i came across while reading this forum:

The earth is flat because all the pictures about a round earth are photoshoped.  Governments pay people to photoshop pictures because the earth is actually flat.

Just saying even the best of us sometimes end up with circular arguments.


(more in the next post)

(look at the previous post for more)

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.

An example of 'declaration of faith' in maths:  There is an infinite amount of numbers between any 2 given numbers.  Nobody ever wrote down all the numbers between for example 0 and 1.  (It's rather hard to write down an infinite amount of numbers)  Does this mean that there isn't an infinite amount of numbers between any 2 given numbers?

Again because something didn't happen in the top 0.1% (5km) of the earth's radius doesn't mean it can't happen say 50% down.

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?

Earth's rotation (at the equator): 0,00436 rad /minute
some calculations: 0,00436 rad /minute * 6371 km = 27.77756 km/minute = 0.46 km/h = 1.667 m/s

comparisons:
-average walking speed: 5 km/h
-speed of some centrifuges: 5000 rpm
if the earth would spin at the same speed as the above mentioned centrifuge we would have 5000 sunrises and sunsets every minute.

Now i'm not an expert on centrifugal forces but to me it seems like the earth is rotation a bit to slow.  Taking into acout that the earth used to rotate faster: it never rotated 432 x10^6 times a day. (now we rotate one time per day)

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.

When a continental plate and an oceanic plate collide (or 2 oceanic) 1 of them 'dives' into the asthenosphere.  Because a big amount of rock doesn't melt instantly, you will find lithosphere deeper than you would normally expect.

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.

Bolivia, a country near the edge of a continental plate where a oceanic plate is being 'pulled under' (and 'pushed under').  So see above.

    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."

Again why is the fact that one scientist disagrees with the currently accepted theory proof that the entire theory is false?  When he had some proof we wouldn't be having this discussion.

David Pratt

So you quote one guy and expect to disprove hounders and thousands of other scientist without doing some actual calculations on each and every one of his arguments?

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.

Just telling a story is, in my opinion, not proof of anything.  Pls do the actual calculations.  And a hint: an illustration always helps.

Now I myself ain't an expert on seismology, so it is very well possible that i made a mistake in my explanation.  If so pls point me to such a mistake so i can do additional research and/or consult an expert.

Also: for posting this i assume some people will call me a non-believer/troll/...  I've already been called these things.  Unless you have something that contributes to proving/disproving either flat or round earth shut it.

A last thing: it is rather hard to keep an open mind if you guys throw so called proof at me that isn't complete.  Faulty theories also don't help (i'm talking about the thuruthel beneath the flat earth ).  On top of this it kind of reduces your credibility, so pls stop doing it.  OR mention that you have some extra stuff to add on that topic but won't because your post would get too big.

gps measurements of them moving

None of you can use GPS technology to support RE theory.

The missing orbital Sagnac effect decisively proves that the Earth does not orbit the Sun.


Pls explain these findings:
http://i.imgur.com/V3DPTbH.gif
http://i.imgur.com/s9a9IzV.jpg

In the beginning, there were no oceans at the surface of the Earth.

The land mass subsided; the cause being the first several massive geological/astronomical cataclysms which occurred on Earth.


ORIGIN OF OCEANS

http://www.varchive.org/itb/ecocean.htm


CHICXULUB SUPERVOLCANO

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1622182#msg1622182


An example of 'declaration of faith' in maths:  There is an infinite amount of numbers between any 2 given numbers.  Nobody ever wrote down all the numbers between for example 0 and 1.  (It's rather hard to write down an infinite amount of numbers)  Does this mean that there isn't an infinite amount of numbers between any 2 given numbers?

OFFICIAL CHRONOLOGY IRRATIONAL NUMBER HISTORY

The concept of the irrational number has its origins in the secret society led by Pythagoras, approximately 2,500 years ago. It could be said that the invention of the irrational number is the greatest "scientific" discovery ever made, as we are told by all the leading mathematical analysis textbooks.

'The idea that the size of every physical quantity could, in theory, be represented by a rational number was shattered in the fifth century B.C. by Hippasus of Metapontum, who demonstrated by geometric methods the existence of irrational numbers. This dramatic discovery of Hippasus is one of the most fundamental in the entire history of science. According to legend, Hippasus was thrown overboard at sea, by the Pythagoreans, because of his discovery.'

But Hippasus was not assasinated by Pythagoras' disciples for revealing the existence of irrational numbers; Hippasus had discovered something much more ominous about this matter.

The odd thing about the discovery of the irrational numbers is the fact that the most celebrated "proofs" (geometrical/algebraic) were offered by Pythagoras himself to the public through his disciples. What Hippasus had uncovered was something much more interesting; that is, that THERE ARE NO IRRATIONAL NUMBERS (there exist only natural and rational numbers [with a finite decimal part]), and that Pythagoras was planning to inject the false concept of the irrational number to the public (scientific/philosophical). The two proofs offered by Pythagoras do not demonstrate ANYTHING regarding the existence of irrational numbers; Hippasus was assasinated by his colleagues so as not to reveal to the world what Pythagoras was actually trying to do: to mislead the coming generations of mathematicians.


http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Kronecker.html

The only mathematician who realized that there were no irrational numbers in the real/physical world, and who continuously attacked R. Dedekind and G. Cantor for their mathematical pipe dreams, was Leopold Kronecker.

Kronecker is well known for his remark:-

God created the integers, all else is the work of man.
Irrational numbers are totally man-invented.

Kronecker believed that mathematics should deal only with finite numbers and with a finite number of operations. He was the first to doubt the significance of non-constructive existence proofs. It appears that, from the early 1870s, Kronecker was opposed to the use of irrational numbers, upper and lower limits, and the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, because of their non-constructive nature. Another consequence of his philosophy of mathematics was that to Kronecker transcendental numbers could not exist.

In 1870 Heine published a paper On trigonometric series in Crelle's Journal, but Kronecker had tried to persuade Heine to withdraw the paper. Again in 1877 Kronecker tried to prevent publication of Cantor's work in Crelle's Journal, not because of any personal feelings against Cantor (which has been suggested by some biographers of Cantor) but rather because Kronecker believed that Cantor's paper was meaningless, since it proved results about mathematical objects which Kronecker believed did not exist. Kronecker was on the editorial staff of Crelle's Journal which is why he had a particularly strong influence on what was published in that journal. After Borchardt died in 1880, Kronecker took over control of Crelle's Journal as the editor and his influence on which papers would be published increased.

Although Kronecker's view of mathematics was well known to his colleagues throughout the 1870s and 1880s, it was not until 1886 that he made these views public. In that year he argued against the theory of irrational numbers used by Dedekind, Cantor and Heine giving the arguments by which he opposed:-

... the introduction of various concepts by the help of which it has frequently been attempted in recent times (but first by Heine) to conceive and establish the 'irrationals' in general. Even the concept of an infinite series, for example one which increases according to definite powers of variables, is in my opinion only permissible with the reservation that in every special case, on the basis of the arithmetic laws of constructing terms (or coefficients), ... certain assumptions must be shown to hold which are applicable to the series like finite expressions, and which thus make the extension beyond the concept of a finite series really unnecessary.

Lindemann had proved that π is transcendental in 1882, and in a lecture given in 1886 Kronecker complimented Lindemann on a beautiful proof but, he claimed, one that proved nothing since transcendental numbers did not exist.

He believed that all mathematics could be reduced to arguments using only the integers and finite numbers of operations. He was violently opposed to such things as the use of irrational numbers, transcendental numbers, upper and lower limits, and the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem (well, much of the new mathematics being developed by Karl Weierstrass for that matter), as these devices he felt produced objects that did not exist. This extreme philosophical viewpoint on mathematics caused him to quarrel with many mathematicians, even going so far as to block publication of papers by Heinrich Heine (of the Heine-Borel theorem) on Fourier series and papers by Georg Cantor on transfinite numbers and set theory (not because he personally didn't like Cantor, as asserted by some of Cantor's biographers, but only because he was violently opposed to Cantor's ideas) in the influential Crelle's Journal. In 1889 Ferdinand von Lindemann produced a proof that π was transcendental, and Kronecker was said to have given von Lindemann the backhanded compliment: 'Of what use is your beautiful proof, since π does not exist!'

This extreme point of view, which made Kronecker many enemies in his time, was actually a view first propounded by Pythagoras, who called the irrational numbers that he discovered to his consternation 'unutterable' (this is the reason why the word surd is used to designate the irrational roots discovered by the Pythagoreans, it is ultimately derived from the Latin for 'deaf-mute'). Leibniz himself spoke of the 'labyrinth of the continuum' when referring to the philosophical troubles that the very idea of real numbers is fraught with. In fact the term 'real number' is something of a misnomer, as they are actually quite unreal! In fact, it can be shown that almost all real numbers are transcendental, uncomputable, and cannot even be named! Mathematicians in the century after Kronecker managed to show all of these, and with these discoveries, Kronecker's position doesn't seem quite as untenable as it seemed to his contemporaries.


First of all, we start with the theory of real numbers that was proposed by Cantor and Richard Dedekind, which Kronecker was so vehemently opposed to. Dedekind managed to give a definition of a real number in terms of what are today known as Dedekind cuts, and Cantor managed to show that the real numbers are non-denumerable, that they are a higher-order infinity than the integers by using the diagonal argument that bears his name. Since the integers, rational numbers, and algebraic numbers are all denumerable, then that means that most real numbers are actually transcendental.

However, in the early twentieth century there began to appear intimations that there was something terribly wrong with the notion of a real number as it has been thus developed. Emile Borel in 1927 pointed out that if you consider a real number as an infinite sequence of digits then you could put an infinite amount of information into a single number. He came up with a number, known as Borel's constant, that could serve as an oracle to answer any yes/no question put to it. Today, Borel's argument might be stated a bit like this: let us treat each possible ASCII text as though it were a single number, for instance 'Do real numbers exist?' would correspond to the hexadecimal number 0x446F207265616C206E786973743F, or 1,388,008,220,904,010,789,705,024,363,787,327 in decimal. Then we take, say, the 1,388,008,220,904,010,789,705,024,363,787,327th digit of Borel's constant in base 4. If the digit is 0, then the number does not correspond to a valid question, if it is 1 then the question is unanswerable (e.g. 'Is the answer to this question 'no'?'), 2 if the answer is no, and 3 if the answer is yes. Such a 'know it all' real number is certainly present in the set of all reals. But then Borel asks this troubling question: 'Why should we believe in this real number that answers every possible yes/no question?' And he concludes that he doesn't believe it, there is no reason to believe it, that such a thing should exist is totally absurd!


The proof by contradiction, suggested by Pythagoras and made public by his disciples, where it is shown that rad(2) [radical of 2, square root of 2] cannot equal p/q, where p and q are natural numbers 0, is not a valid proof as it deliberately misses the essential point; rad(2) is a continued fraction algorithm which in turn is a sequence of finite fractions, used to a desired accuracy.

There are no perfect circles or perfect squares in the natural world, this was Pythagoras' greatest secret regarding his mathematics research; any perfect circle implies the concept of the irrational number;

a[2] + b[2] = c[2] is a formula involving natural or rational numbers; its geometric representation is a right triangle with sides a and b, c being the hypothenuse. 1[2] + 1[2] = rad(2)[2] is a meaningless formula with no geometric representation.


To construct proper solutions to 1[2] + 1[2] = rad(2)[2], with proper geometric representations, we need to use the continued fraction algorithm. Using this algorithm, to three decimal places, we obtain 1.414,

1 = .414 x 1/.414 = a
c = (0.414 + 1/0.414)/2, b = (1/0.414 - 0.414)/2

We obtain, (2 x 0.414)(2) + (1 - 0.414(2))(2) = (0.414(2) + 1)(2)

* (0.828 )(2) + (0.828604)(2) = (1.171396)(2) * or, after multiplying by 1000 and dividing by 4,
207000(2) + 207151(2) = 292849(2), further,

207000/292849 + 207151/292849 = 1.414213468

If we multiply * (the equation above marked with *) by, for example, 1.207 we get:

(0.999396)(2) + (1.000125028 )(2) = (1.413874972)(2), and this is a proper solution to three decimal places accuracy.


Pythagoras also knew that there are only rational numbers with finite decimal part; in the real world there are no fractions such as 1/3, 1/7 which imply infinity, and infinity cannot exist in the physical world. It is possible, using the continued fraction algorithm, to obtain very close (as close as we please) approximations to 1/3, 1/7 whose denominators are in the form 2(n), 5(m), which can be divided exactly, b/c, where b is a multiple of 3 (ex: 0.999396/3).

Elementary transcendental functions can be reduced to calculating a series of nested roots, thus obtaining approximations which do not involve irrational numbers (I obtained such a representation for the logarithm function, back in 1998).


Earth's rotation (at the equator): 0,00436 rad /minute

The Earth couldn't possibly rotate around its own axis.

We have the cloud trajectories paradox, the fact that the atmosphere could not possibly rotate at the same speed as that of the Earth, the gases in the atmosphere paradox, the barometer pressure paradox, and the Allais effect.


All of your other arguments can be dismissed immediately: I can prove to you that the age of the Earth is much shorter than you are implying.

You are going to have to deal with the faint young sun paradox, the genetics/molecular biology proofs, comets' tail paradox, and much more.

I can save you the trouble by proving directly that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth using the Tunguska event file.

This will be fun.

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.

This is as implausible as it sounds. "huge caverns" and "large underground bodies of water" can not exist at this depth, they would collapse in geologically insignificant time and there is no mechanism to generate them quickly enough to keep up with the rate at which they would disappear.

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

I can't find any decent source on this. Where did you read it?

"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.

So this part is putting question marks at both the outer core being liquid and the inner core being solid, as well as why it is iron when the trend in the "outer zones" of the earth is that iron decreases with depth. First of all, iron is very common, stable and heavy. IIRC, heavier elements rely on supernovas to be created. So we have a really common, stable, heavy element. Guess what it'll do? It sinks. The reason why it's not cluttered with all the heavy elements down there is based on the preference for each element for bonding with other elements. Lots of elements are lithophile; these elements tend to stay near the surface of the earth.

Lithophile elements are those that remain on or close to the surface because they combine readily with oxygen, forming compounds that do not sink into the core. The lithophile elements include:[citation needed] Al, At, B, Ba, Be, Br, Ca, Cl, Cr, Cs, F, I, Hf, K, Li, Mg, Na, Nb, O, P, Rb, Sc, Si, Sr, Ta, Tc, Th, Ti, U, V, Y, Zr, W and the lanthanides.

Siderophile (from sideron, "iron", and philia, "love") elements are the high-density transition metals which tend to sink into the core because they dissolve readily in iron either as solid solutions or in the molten state. The siderophile elements include: gold, cobalt, iron, iridium, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium, germanium, silver and tungsten.[2] Manganese may also be included in the siderophilic classification by some.[citation needed]

Yeah I quoted wikipedia, sue me. Here's probably a good source but sadly I do not have access from home. http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F1-4020-4496-8_136

Anyway, so iron is a very common, stable, heavy element and it likes to sink as it prefers to not bond with the kind of minerals/ions we find at or near the surface, while a lot of other heavy elements do, and/or are a lot less abundant.

As for the liquid/solid part; that's just basic physics and phase diagrams. Model/calculate the pressure/temperature and you can figure out if it's solid or liquid.

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!

That's the whole point of science. It's okay to come up with different hypotheses, as long as you eventually figure out how to disprove either of them. Nothing wrong here, move along.

It is becoming increasingly evident that the earth model presented by the reigning theory of plate tectonics is seriously flawed.

No it's not.

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.

I see no issue with this. What's the issue here? PS. 400-600km is probably a huge exaggeration.

100-450 km: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/23/3/205.short
250-350 km: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Scott_King/publication/245541888_Archean_cratons_and_mantle_dynamics/links/543096bc0cf277d58e96b15b.pdf

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!

This is the statement of someone who has no idea how geology works. I don't know where to begin with describing how wrong this is.

1. Most tectonic activity takes place at plate boundaries.
2. Faults definitely occur within plates but they do not just break them in half, and faults usually heal quickly on a geologic timescale, as brines/fluids flow along the faults and precepitate new material.
3. Plates tend to be pushed. If they get pulled, they fall apart.
4. "a highly complex, irregular, inhomogeneous structure" does not mean that they're weak and will crumble apart if you as much as look at it.
5. We can literally measure plate movement. We can literally measure subduction happening. How do you get subduction? Converging plates, thank you very much. We can also see the creation of new oceanic crust happening at mid oceanic ridges. We can also see plates falling apart in extensional zones like the East African Rift.

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.

far older continental rocks have been discovered in the oceans
Yep. Microcontinents for example. When you pull apart a continent and form new oceanic crust in between, sometimes a chunk of continental crust will be stuck in the middle as the continent is tore apart. No big deal.

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.

So they were wrong, they learned, told the world and moved along. Science happening, nothing else.

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.

Interesting. I can't find a single source on this, except for your good buddy David Pratt who's website is the least scientific thing since the movie "The Core", where scientists stumble upon giant amethyst geodes in the mantle and then reactivate the outer core with a series of nuclear warheads in order to re-start the magnetic field that somehow stopped working. LOL, right?

[/quote]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.'[/quote]Funny how earlier on, you tell us that the crust is very heterogeneous, then now you're surprised that density does not constantly increase with depth.

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?!

Much, as you are grasping this "systematical misinterpretation" out of thin air. Besides, there are more analogues for the composition of the earth, such as meteorites. Stony meteorites represent the mantle of rocky planets, stony-iron meteorites the mantle-core boundary (look up pallasite, you won't regret it - they're amazing) and iron meteorites the core. They match our idea of the interior of the earth amazingly well. Coincidence? I think not.

Contrary to expectations, signs of rock alteration and mineralization were found as deep as 7 km in the Kola well.

How is this contrary to expectations? This is exactly according to expectations. Rock alteration and mineralization happen all the time everywhere.

The hole intercepted a copper-nickel ore body almost 2 km below the level at which ore bodies were thought to disappear.

Says who? If anyone said it then people realize by now that it's horribly outdated. I worked on an ore body that re-mineralized well over 15 km below the surface. No big deal.

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.

No it's not. Brines are very common in deeper rocks. They're often saturated in fluids, even. Dissolution happens readily (for example, pressure solution; look it up) and this enriches the fluid in ions. It may be deposited in a pore space elsewhere with a lower pressure than where it dissolved.

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.

Neat. So? This kinda proves that you didn't write this text, as it is not even mildly related.

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.

First I wonder what the source for this is (it's very possible that the real author of this text misinterpreted something) and secondly, not all oceanic crust is identical.

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.

Except it's not homogeneous, which is the entire concept on which seismic tomography relies (imaging the structure of the deep crust and mantle using anomalies in seismic wave travel times, showing for example, subducting (cold) slabs).

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.

Did this even take into account temperature at all?

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.

This is a gross misinterpretation of the earlier mentioned observations from this borehole. Encountering a point where density suddenly decreases, doesn't imply a trend at all.

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.

Once again. Probably a big misinterpretation, or simply not at the right scale. Tectonics screws up your crust, man. And I still can't find a source on this borehole.

Part 2:

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.

What exactly is wrong with this? The author makes it sound like the scientists are ridiculous for thinking it but it actually makes sense.

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.

First of all, gravity is stronger than outward force due to rotation and it has always been. If not, all the lava back in the Hadean would simply have been flung back into space. Secondly, we do have measurements from materials from deeper in the earth. Mantle xenoliths and ultramafic rocks from ophiolite sections show us the composition of the mantle, and mineral inclusions in diamonds can tell us about the mineralogy from even deeper. Recently, inclusions of a mineral named ringwoodite have been found; this mineral forms at pressures that correspond to depths of around 500-600km. It gets trapped inside a diamond; the diamond makes its way up in a kimberlite and the ringwoodite inclusion never reverts to a lower density chemical equivalent.

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?

I think you're thinking of the way heavier elements that are only formed in supernovae. Read up for an explanation as to why the core is made of mostly iron.

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.

And it is called subduction.

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.

Have some sources on this.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v341/n6244/abs/341733a0.html
http://search.proquest.com/openview/787dc00d45bf60f2d5ba0014e0339e7b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB093iB09p10521/full

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 does not; it merely implies that there can be alternative mechanisms.

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.

Why? If the earthquake is focused along a diagonal structure, why should it be vertical?

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."

How would you suddenly have an upward gravity in the core? Also, if one scientist thinks it, that does not mean it's true. Welcome to the world of peer review.

David Pratt

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

From the least scientific website in the world.

I'm just going to start crossing out false statements here:

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:

<snip>

I commented on these two paragraphs again, why use them twice?

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.[/b]

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.

No, you can't. Besides, you didn't even "prove" anything. You tried to disprove something and then came running with an alternative hypothesis without a shrap of evidence to support it. Only speculation. That's not proof.

An example of 'declaration of faith' in maths:  There is an infinite amount of numbers between any 2 given numbers.  Nobody ever wrote down all the numbers between for example 0 and 1.  (It's rather hard to write down an infinite amount of numbers)  Does this mean that there isn't an infinite amount of numbers between any 2 given numbers?

OFFICIAL CHRONOLOGY IRRATIONAL NUMBER HISTORY

The concept of the irrational number has its origins in the secret society led by Pythagoras, approximately 2,500 years ago. It could be said that the invention of the irrational number is the greatest "scientific" discovery ever made, as we are told by all the leading mathematical analysis textbooks.

'The idea that the size of every physical quantity could, in theory, be represented by a rational number was shattered in the fifth century B.C. by Hippasus of Metapontum, who demonstrated by geometric methods the existence of irrational numbers. This dramatic discovery of Hippasus is one of the most fundamental in the entire history of science. According to legend, Hippasus was thrown overboard at sea, by the Pythagoreans, because of his discovery.'

But Hippasus was not assasinated by Pythagoras' disciples for revealing the existence of irrational numbers; Hippasus had discovered something much more ominous about this matter.

The odd thing about the discovery of the irrational numbers is the fact that the most celebrated "proofs" (geometrical/algebraic) were offered by Pythagoras himself to the public through his disciples. What Hippasus had uncovered was something much more interesting; that is, that THERE ARE NO IRRATIONAL NUMBERS (there exist only natural and rational numbers [with a finite decimal part]), and that Pythagoras was planning to inject the false concept of the irrational number to the public (scientific/philosophical). The two proofs offered by Pythagoras do not demonstrate ANYTHING regarding the existence of irrational numbers; Hippasus was assasinated by his colleagues so as not to reveal to the world what Pythagoras was actually trying to do: to mislead the coming generations of mathematicians.


http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Kronecker.html

The only mathematician who realized that there were no irrational numbers in the real/physical world, and who continuously attacked R. Dedekind and G. Cantor for their mathematical pipe dreams, was Leopold Kronecker.

Kronecker is well known for his remark:-

God created the integers, all else is the work of man.
Irrational numbers are totally man-invented.

Kronecker believed that mathematics should deal only with finite numbers and with a finite number of operations. He was the first to doubt the significance of non-constructive existence proofs. It appears that, from the early 1870s, Kronecker was opposed to the use of irrational numbers, upper and lower limits, and the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, because of their non-constructive nature. Another consequence of his philosophy of mathematics was that to Kronecker transcendental numbers could not exist.

In 1870 Heine published a paper On trigonometric series in Crelle's Journal, but Kronecker had tried to persuade Heine to withdraw the paper. Again in 1877 Kronecker tried to prevent publication of Cantor's work in Crelle's Journal, not because of any personal feelings against Cantor (which has been suggested by some biographers of Cantor) but rather because Kronecker believed that Cantor's paper was meaningless, since it proved results about mathematical objects which Kronecker believed did not exist. Kronecker was on the editorial staff of Crelle's Journal which is why he had a particularly strong influence on what was published in that journal. After Borchardt died in 1880, Kronecker took over control of Crelle's Journal as the editor and his influence on which papers would be published increased.

Although Kronecker's view of mathematics was well known to his colleagues throughout the 1870s and 1880s, it was not until 1886 that he made these views public. In that year he argued against the theory of irrational numbers used by Dedekind, Cantor and Heine giving the arguments by which he opposed:-

... the introduction of various concepts by the help of which it has frequently been attempted in recent times (but first by Heine) to conceive and establish the 'irrationals' in general. Even the concept of an infinite series, for example one which increases according to definite powers of variables, is in my opinion only permissible with the reservation that in every special case, on the basis of the arithmetic laws of constructing terms (or coefficients), ... certain assumptions must be shown to hold which are applicable to the series like finite expressions, and which thus make the extension beyond the concept of a finite series really unnecessary.

Lindemann had proved that π is transcendental in 1882, and in a lecture given in 1886 Kronecker complimented Lindemann on a beautiful proof but, he claimed, one that proved nothing since transcendental numbers did not exist.

He believed that all mathematics could be reduced to arguments using only the integers and finite numbers of operations. He was violently opposed to such things as the use of irrational numbers, transcendental numbers, upper and lower limits, and the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem (well, much of the new mathematics being developed by Karl Weierstrass for that matter), as these devices he felt produced objects that did not exist. This extreme philosophical viewpoint on mathematics caused him to quarrel with many mathematicians, even going so far as to block publication of papers by Heinrich Heine (of the Heine-Borel theorem) on Fourier series and papers by Georg Cantor on transfinite numbers and set theory (not because he personally didn't like Cantor, as asserted by some of Cantor's biographers, but only because he was violently opposed to Cantor's ideas) in the influential Crelle's Journal. In 1889 Ferdinand von Lindemann produced a proof that π was transcendental, and Kronecker was said to have given von Lindemann the backhanded compliment: 'Of what use is your beautiful proof, since π does not exist!'

This extreme point of view, which made Kronecker many enemies in his time, was actually a view first propounded by Pythagoras, who called the irrational numbers that he discovered to his consternation 'unutterable' (this is the reason why the word surd is used to designate the irrational roots discovered by the Pythagoreans, it is ultimately derived from the Latin for 'deaf-mute'). Leibniz himself spoke of the 'labyrinth of the continuum' when referring to the philosophical troubles that the very idea of real numbers is fraught with. In fact the term 'real number' is something of a misnomer, as they are actually quite unreal! In fact, it can be shown that almost all real numbers are transcendental, uncomputable, and cannot even be named! Mathematicians in the century after Kronecker managed to show all of these, and with these discoveries, Kronecker's position doesn't seem quite as untenable as it seemed to his contemporaries.


First of all, we start with the theory of real numbers that was proposed by Cantor and Richard Dedekind, which Kronecker was so vehemently opposed to. Dedekind managed to give a definition of a real number in terms of what are today known as Dedekind cuts, and Cantor managed to show that the real numbers are non-denumerable, that they are a higher-order infinity than the integers by using the diagonal argument that bears his name. Since the integers, rational numbers, and algebraic numbers are all denumerable, then that means that most real numbers are actually transcendental.

However, in the early twentieth century there began to appear intimations that there was something terribly wrong with the notion of a real number as it has been thus developed. Emile Borel in 1927 pointed out that if you consider a real number as an infinite sequence of digits then you could put an infinite amount of information into a single number. He came up with a number, known as Borel's constant, that could serve as an oracle to answer any yes/no question put to it. Today, Borel's argument might be stated a bit like this: let us treat each possible ASCII text as though it were a single number, for instance 'Do real numbers exist?' would correspond to the hexadecimal number 0x446F207265616C206E786973743F, or 1,388,008,220,904,010,789,705,024,363,787,327 in decimal. Then we take, say, the 1,388,008,220,904,010,789,705,024,363,787,327th digit of Borel's constant in base 4. If the digit is 0, then the number does not correspond to a valid question, if it is 1 then the question is unanswerable (e.g. 'Is the answer to this question 'no'?'), 2 if the answer is no, and 3 if the answer is yes. Such a 'know it all' real number is certainly present in the set of all reals. But then Borel asks this troubling question: 'Why should we believe in this real number that answers every possible yes/no question?' And he concludes that he doesn't believe it, there is no reason to believe it, that such a thing should exist is totally absurd!


The proof by contradiction, suggested by Pythagoras and made public by his disciples, where it is shown that rad(2) [radical of 2, square root of 2] cannot equal p/q, where p and q are natural numbers 0, is not a valid proof as it deliberately misses the essential point; rad(2) is a continued fraction algorithm which in turn is a sequence of finite fractions, used to a desired accuracy.

There are no perfect circles or perfect squares in the natural world, this was Pythagoras' greatest secret regarding his mathematics research; any perfect circle implies the concept of the irrational number;

a[2] + b[2] = c[2] is a formula involving natural or rational numbers; its geometric representation is a right triangle with sides a and b, c being the hypothenuse. 1[2] + 1[2] = rad(2)[2] is a meaningless formula with no geometric representation.


To construct proper solutions to 1[2] + 1[2] = rad(2)[2], with proper geometric representations, we need to use the continued fraction algorithm. Using this algorithm, to three decimal places, we obtain 1.414,

1 = .414 x 1/.414 = a
c = (0.414 + 1/0.414)/2, b = (1/0.414 - 0.414)/2

We obtain, (2 x 0.414)(2) + (1 - 0.414(2))(2) = (0.414(2) + 1)(2)

* (0.828 )(2) + (0.828604)(2) = (1.171396)(2) * or, after multiplying by 1000 and dividing by 4,
207000(2) + 207151(2) = 292849(2), further,

207000/292849 + 207151/292849 = 1.414213468

If we multiply * (the equation above marked with *) by, for example, 1.207 we get:

(0.999396)(2) + (1.000125028 )(2) = (1.413874972)(2), and this is a proper solution to three decimal places accuracy.


Pythagoras also knew that there are only rational numbers with finite decimal part; in the real world there are no fractions such as 1/3, 1/7 which imply infinity, and infinity cannot exist in the physical world. It is possible, using the continued fraction algorithm, to obtain very close (as close as we please) approximations to 1/3, 1/7 whose denominators are in the form 2(n), 5(m), which can be divided exactly, b/c, where b is a multiple of 3 (ex: 0.999396/3).

Elementary transcendental functions can be reduced to calculating a series of nested roots, thus obtaining approximations which do not involve irrational numbers (I obtained such a representation for the logarithm function, back in 1998).

To be honest: I didn't read the entire thing but damn, I thought maths was a safe subject in here, guess i was wrong.  However if i read my own post I believe i said an infinite amount of numbers.  I did not mention irrational numbers.  Even without irrational numbers (I don't claim they don't exist but this should be in another topic) there are an infinite amount of numbers.
I'll prove this rather simply.

Take the closed interval [0,1].  By definition 1 is in this interval and 1/1 also is.  Now I think everyone sees that 1/10 is also in this interval. So are 1/100, 1/1000, 1/10000, ...  If you go on like this you will get really really small numbers.  They will however never be 0. 

For those with a bit more background knowledge on maths:  Let's define a mathematical row, R. 
Let's suppose: R -> 1/n (with n being an element of the natural numbers).
Now if one was to calculate the limit (for n->+infinity) of this row one would find that it is equal to 0.
If you have some knowledge of maths this will suffice as prove, if you don't get it stick with the first one. (If someone has something to say on these, pls do, I'd like to know how I can f up such easy sht).

Pls explain these findings:
http://i.imgur.com/V3DPTbH.gif
http://i.imgur.com/s9a9IzV.jpg

In the beginning, there were no oceans at the surface of the Earth.

The land mass subsided; the cause being the first several massive geological/astronomical cataclysms which occurred on Earth.

Problem:
No oceans = No live
No live = No fossils
So care to explain this?

ORIGIN OF OCEANS

http://www.varchive.org/itb/ecocean.htm

Quoting religous texts form back in 1874-1896?  I thought we were trying to give a scientific explanation for FE?
Apart from this, one should always approach religious with caution.  Most of the time the writings aren't meant to be followed literally.  They often symbolise something and are a bit exaggerated.
Again I didn't read the whole thing (only the sources).  The second you post an on topic, scientific study I will read it from front to back without skipping a single word.

Earth's rotation (at the equator): 0,00436 rad /minute

The Earth couldn't possibly rotate around its own axis.

We have the cloud trajectories paradox, the fact that the atmosphere could not possibly rotate at the same speed as that of the Earth, the gases in the atmosphere paradox, the barometer pressure paradox, and the Allais effect.

As i understand (my own posts) i was reacting to a FE believer saying something about centrifugal forces.  Again I'm not an expert but I believe that for centrifugal forces you have to have something that's rotating.

All of your other arguments can be dismissed immediately: I can prove to you that the age of the Earth is much shorter than you are implying.

Please, please do.
(to be clear i think the earth is 4,543E9 years old, give or take a few million years)

I can save you the trouble by proving directly that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth using the Tunguska event file.

Again pls do.
Oh and next time you throw a lot of names at me, pls do what i would do: throw them in google.  Now I threw "Tunguska event file" into google, this is the first link google gave me:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_(The_X-Files)
This is the first sentence of this wikipedia page: " "Tunguska" is the eighth episode of the fourth season of the American science fiction television series The X-Files."
Now again guys these kind of small mistakes really don't do good at all for FE believers credibility.

The Tunguska event is actually a real thing.

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

The Tunguska event is actually a real thing.

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

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  Usually when i find a fairly reliable source, that says that something is science fiction i stop searching.  We could have saved 2-3 posts if this link was posted with the first mentioning of this effect, imo.

A general remark:

I take the time to answer to post as completely as i can.  For example I answered to every paragraph in sandokhan ginormous post (for those paying attention, yes i skipped 1, I didn't have the time to do proper research on it).

It however seems that a lot of people read a post and cherry pick which arguments they want to answer to and which ones to ignore.  Most of the time the people that do this are FE believers, this is an unbiased, objective observation of reality.  (SO no need to call me a non believer)  And it always seems like they seem to ignore the arguments they might have a hard time explaining.

Now I've said it a few times already, by doing so you guys are flushing your credibility down the toilet.  Please, please answer only if you have something to say about the topic, if you know what you're talking about, if you can react to all counter-arguments (and/or say that you will address certain counter arguments later on), ...

And finally for those thinking i'm a hypocrite here because i didn't reply to thing sandokhan said about GPS:  as i said before I've spend a lot of time reading.  One of the things i found out:  trying to convince any FE believer that satellites/photos of a round earth are real is a waste of time.  So i didn't feel like wasting my time.  And for the people that are looking for the opportunity to call me a nonbeliever: I can accept that the government would fake the first moon landing, and a few other stuff.  However without proof I'm rather sceptical of the global conspiracy to hide the fact that the earth is actually flat. Feel free to provide this proof.

Now I've said it a few times already, by doing so you guys are flushing your credibility down the toilet. 

Welcome to the FES.

Quote from: gg1gamer on November 14, 2016, 03:18:57 PM

Now I've said it a few times already, by doing so you guys are flushing your credibility down the toilet. 

Welcome to the FES.

And was naïve enough to think i could have a science debate at a fairly high level.

I'm still open to any flatearther to prove that this is possible.

Quote from: disputeone on November 14, 2016, 08:03:59 PM

Quote from: gg1gamer on November 14, 2016, 03:18:57 PM

Now I've said it a few times already, by doing so you guys are flushing your credibility down the toilet. 

Welcome to the FES.

And was naïve enough to think i could have a science debate at a fairly high level.

I'm still open to any flatearther to prove that this is possible.

Jane usually brings up some interesting arguments.

How do we summon Jane?

Quote from: disputeone on November 14, 2016, 08:03:59 PM

Quote from: gg1gamer on November 14, 2016, 03:18:57 PM

Now I've said it a few times already, by doing so you guys are flushing your credibility down the toilet. 

Welcome to the FES.

And was naïve enough to think i could have a science debate at a fairly high level.

I'm still open to any flatearther to prove that this is possible.

At the moment there isn't a complete working FE model, you got them, the jig is up guys...

Seriously man, this forum has a lot to offer even if they can't scientifically prove the earth is flat at this time.

Maybe take Sandokhan with a grain of salt.

At the moment there isn't a complete working FE model, you got them, the jig is up guys...

Seriously man, this forum has a lot to offer even if they can't scientifically prove the earth is flat at this time.

Maybe take Sandokhan with a grain of salt.

Maybe add that to the FAQ?

What does these forums have to offer for someone looking to scientifically explain almost everything?

I take everything anyone, and I mean everyone; flatearthers/roundearthers/..., said with a grain of salt.

What does these forums have to offer for someone looking to scientifically explain almost everything?

Heaps, please stick around and find out.

Quote from: gg1gamer on November 15, 2016, 07:29:53 AM

What does these forums have to offer for someone looking to scientifically explain almost everything?

Heaps, please stick around and find out.

I certainly agree, there's much to be had.