The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: StinkyOne on September 15, 2017, 08:03:51 PM
-
Ok, so here is one I'm hoping is unique as far as disproofs go. In 1961, the Soviet Union detonated the largest bomb in history. It was rated at 50 megatons and shattered windows 500 miles away. The thing that shows FET is wrong is its shock wave. The shock from the blast was measured circling the globe 3 times. Obviously, if the Earth was flat, the shock wave would never return unless there was something at the edge of the Earth, but even that isn't likely because then the shock wave would have arrived a different times due to the edges not being equidistant.
-
We've tried this before with the even more powerful shock wave from the eruption of Krakatoa (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4816.0) back in 1883. Didn't convince anybody.
-
We've tried this before with the even more powerful shock wave from the eruption of Krakatoa (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4816.0) back in 1883. Didn't convince anybody.
Hmmm - we RE'ers should have worked a bit harder on that one.
If the FE is infinite (or at least VERY large) - then the sound waves would have radiated outwards like ripples on a pond - and never came back a second and subsequent time.
If the FE is finite (or perhaps if the claim is that the Ice Wall is somehow able to reflect these seismic waves - then the regular interval of the repeat would depend on how close you were to the edge/Ice-Wall.
If you were close to the thing that's reflecting the wave, then you'd get a trace like:
--------|----|-------------------|----|-------------------|----|-------------------|----|
...where the first blip was the wave going OUTWARDS - and the second would be the reflection from the nearby ice wall...then a long delay while it travels all across the world, reflects off of the opposite side and returns again.
What was actually recorded was a REGULAR 36 hour repeat:
--------|------------|------------|-----------|------------|------------|-----------|--------
...which can't be explained by something reflecting the wave back again unless you happened to be in the center of the FE.
(In fact, if you do throw a rock into a circular pond - but don't hit it dead-center - then the off-center ripples interfere with each other and rapidly degenerate into chaotic ripples with no obvious pattern...so the FE wouldn't sustain more than maybe one or two repeats of the effect before it all turned into mush.)
So - I believe that the Krakatoa and Tsar Bomba effects would have been VERY different in an FE world...either one detection of the ripple - then nothing (if there is no reflection of the seismic wave because the FE world is infinite) - or those distinctive paired detections if the event happened in the exact center of the world - or a couple of those paired detections and then mush if the event was off-center.
No possible FE model can explain regular 36 hour repetitions of the seismic wave.
-
Actually a globe earth would have had a destructive interference collision of the pressure waves meeting after each coming around cancelling the effect for the most part, where as, with a dome the wave would have equalized in one direction continually until it dissipated through heat making 3 complete rotations.
Thank you bye bye come again. Flat earth with a dome !
Silly RE'ers
J-Man drops the Mic...Kurplunk
Takes out three star fighters with one punch.
-
Actually a globe earth would have had a destructive interference collision of the pressure waves meeting after each coming around cancelling the effect for the most part, where as, with a dome the wave would have equalized in one direction continually until it dissipated through heat making 3 complete rotations.
Thank you bye bye come again. Flat earth with a dome !
Silly RE'ers
J-Man drops the Mic...Kurplunk
Takes out three star fighters with one punch.
Honestly, just stop with the mic drop. Put some thought into what you just said. Like all flat Earthers you say something and just expect it to be true. Bam, I said it, it's true. Now, take out a piece of paper, draw a fairy dome on it, then pick a spot close to the bottom of the paper and start drawing concentric circles. When you hit the dome, reflect them back down. What happened to your pressure wave? Did it make 3 clean "laps" around the world? No, you get a big reflective wave that adds to the waves going out radially. Work on your critical thinking skills before you drop anymore mics, you're gonna break a toe.
-
Actually a globe earth would have had a destructive interference collision of the pressure waves meeting after each coming around cancelling the effect for the most part, where as, with a dome the wave would have equalized in one direction continually until it dissipated through heat making 3 complete rotations.
Thank you bye bye come again. Flat earth with a dome !
Silly RE'ers
J-Man drops the Mic...Kurplunk
Takes out three star fighters with one punch.
Honestly, just stop with the mic drop. Put some thought into what you just said. Like all flat Earthers you say something and just expect it to be true. Bam, I said it, it's true. Now, take out a piece of paper, draw a fairy dome on it, then pick a spot close to the bottom of the paper and start drawing concentric circles. When you hit the dome, reflect them back down. What happened to your pressure wave? Did it make 3 clean "laps" around the world? No, you get a big reflective wave that adds to the waves going out radially. Work on your critical thinking skills before you drop anymore mics, you're gonna break a toe.
Better yet lets have out viewers draw their own conclusions. Like a pond the waves will bounce off the dome skipping along creating a world record just like this video.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2862293/The-perfect-way-skim-stone-Throwing-angle-20-degrees-boosts-number-bounces-water-skipping.html
-
Actually a globe earth would have had a destructive interference collision of the pressure waves meeting after each coming around cancelling the effect for the most part, where as, with a dome the wave would have equalized in one direction continually until it dissipated through heat making 3 complete rotations.
Oh jeez...interference doesn't magically cause flat water to appear. The energy in the wave has to go somewhere...and what ACTUALLY happens (as opposed to what you THINK might happen) with converging ripples is that the wave simply reappears as a circular wave radiating outwards again. Some energy is (of course) lost in wave propagation and reflection - but (oddly) NOT in interference - where energy is conserved.
And, by the way the "Dropping the Mic" meme refers to a situation in which:
a) Your response is so stunningly convincing that nobody has a response to it.
...and...
b) You believe that your statement is SO convincing that you'll have nothing more to say on the subject (which is why you drop the microphone).
The full version is "drop the mic and walk away".
Since you neither silenced (nor convinced) a single person here - and THEN you had to come back to clarify your previous statement, "dropping the mic" just makes you look even more ill-informed about the way water waves work than we'd previously imagined!
-
Actually a globe earth would have had a destructive interference collision of the pressure waves meeting after each coming around cancelling the effect for the most part, where as, with a dome the wave would have equalized in one direction continually until it dissipated through heat making 3 complete rotations.
Thank you bye bye come again. Flat earth with a dome !
Silly RE'ers
J-Man drops the Mic...Kurplunk
Takes out three star fighters with one punch.
Honestly, just stop with the mic drop. Put some thought into what you just said. Like all flat Earthers you say something and just expect it to be true. Bam, I said it, it's true. Now, take out a piece of paper, draw a fairy dome on it, then pick a spot close to the bottom of the paper and start drawing concentric circles. When you hit the dome, reflect them back down. What happened to your pressure wave? Did it make 3 clean "laps" around the world? No, you get a big reflective wave that adds to the waves going out radially. Work on your critical thinking skills before you drop anymore mics, you're gonna break a toe.
Better yet lets have out viewers draw their own conclusions. Like a pond the waves will bounce off the dome skipping along creating a world record just like this video.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2862293/The-perfect-way-skim-stone-Throwing-angle-20-degrees-boosts-number-bounces-water-skipping.html
LMAO - this is the dumbest thing I've read from you yet. Detonating a massive nuke is like skipping a stone across a pond. Not sure if you noticed, but it was the stone skimming the water that created multiple waves. Again, get a piece of paper and start drawing. You just look so ignorant.
-
Stinker and Geek
It's a proven fact the pressure waves will skim along the glass dome similar to Ruperts Drop and circle the sky until making landfall again.
3 times
Ivan was a big MoFo
Note: I'm going to take a few days off so hold the fort down till I return. I will sharpen my Mic skilz and attempt a 4 RE take down soon. I would buy you a few rounds of Drinks but I doubt your of legal age yet. Let us know, kk
-
Stinker and Geek
It's a proven fact the pressure waves will skim along the glass dome similar to Ruperts Drop and circle the sky until making landfall again.
3 times
Ivan was a big MoFo
Note: I'm going to take a few days off so hold the fort down till I return. I will sharpen my Mic skilz and attempt a 4 RE take down soon. I would buy you a few rounds of Drinks but I doubt your of legal age yet. Let us know, kk
Rupert's drops have literally nothing to do with what we a talking about. Smarter Everyday on Youtube did some really great videos on them. They are all about internal tension and have nothing to do with domes or reflecting shockwaves. I'm guessing you knew that already and are just throwing any old thing out to look like you have a clue.
-
Actually a globe earth would have had a destructive interference collision of the pressure waves meeting after each coming around cancelling the effect for the most part, where as, with a dome the wave would have equalized in one direction continually until it dissipated through heat making 3 complete rotations.
Thank you bye bye come again. Flat earth with a dome !
I'm glad J-Child brings this up, because these two events both provide evidence against the dome. Look at the location of the Krakatoa eruption. It is much closer to "the dome" due south, and four times as far (or more) to the north over the pole and south again. Sound waves reflecting off "the dome" would form a much different pattern than was observed, and would only be coherent along the north/south line from Krakatoa to the nearest and farthest dome edges. Everywhere else, the sound would be striking the dome at an angle, and would reflect off the dome at the complement of that angle, not back toward the source.
Here is how sound would behave under a dome:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/lqI2ntpmD2DT6N-g_vx2vf4KYsvQ-lW5hagbWczobMzGeKjrsoFpXgWs7FFKMn0Osr9xzSrQJmBW7i71MZk9fikSKOs5_JwACkJrHYzizd2xGbPedLwxWl6ScfmkuRW-8VaG8NK4NsqNtwGMHXd9uFpIYWjSp7wqH6r1HquANCJTi1I60ha-XbbIcpr7mZqTPJ7wyngrok6b1XgoWZ515BDnbH8_ZLg4Yf_TTDbinSssQomk9DvVfB-6zsFeXa9kD5y0WiyuYblJl4Gz_0iAev7XyN4ypIyozwdYKq7BDLxzPTrs5Cirn8J3mJ0uO76g7Eq4BBMpNth-AjPmHOrihjEdnFD3cBFBvnU3aNiIZGDQ1L89M4SoINNOdEQ1zLwvrdjDuTJQ2hFA5RS6-8vfEB-yoFOGrNWOju2JdgSK7dc4SUiYPTbcbhGkdpv-IRyG01aTc0Voizd9W6ouX3iD9DOHF6WpOHrHdvr38-Ae7k2aW8dQFge0xvXmzKwZAY6pQodSwNeLewPitUjibwkRyRpLu9AbthxUqWKjsA4EUh9nbSlKDZ6_DvRiXzwtRP_sONk9xayE7HKXSVUvmJ2xNPfRo1y296Gp-5NutR3JjjLMHzZtLaHlmIDdhByNms2kiT8hxHbfjddA08n2OmJANjhghUFj0CQbs3DA=w678-h671-no)
And here's how it DID behave on the globe:
(http://i0.wp.com/altereddimensions.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/image3.png)
The round and slightly-off-round lines represent simultaneous arrival times, in two hour increments. The radial lines illustrate the great-circle path from Krakatoa to various recording barometers, and the dots show the locations of those barometers. The sound wave diverges away from the point of origin (the map on the right), expanding at the speed of sound in all directions until it reaches the distance where the earth's diameter is greatest. Then it continues propagating away from Krakatoa but in an ever shrinking diameter toward the antipodes (the map on the left). The wave front becomes non-circular due to various effects such as geography and meteorology, but still shows a clear pattern of expansion on the near side and convergence on the far side.
-
Actually a globe earth would have had a destructive interference collision of the pressure waves meeting after each coming around cancelling the effect for the most part, where as, with a dome the wave would have equalized in one direction continually until it dissipated through heat making 3 complete rotations.
Thank you bye bye come again. Flat earth with a dome !
I'm glad J-Child brings this up, because these two events both provide evidence against the dome. Look at the location of the Krakatoa eruption. It is much closer to "the dome" due south, and four times as far (or more) to the north over the pole and south again. Sound waves reflecting off "the dome" would form a much different pattern than was observed, and would only be coherent along the north/south line from Krakatoa to the nearest and farthest dome edges. Everywhere else, the sound would be striking the dome at an angle, and would reflect off the dome at the complement of that angle, not back toward the source.
Here is how sound would behave under a dome:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/lqI2ntpmD2DT6N-g_vx2vf4KYsvQ-lW5hagbWczobMzGeKjrsoFpXgWs7FFKMn0Osr9xzSrQJmBW7i71MZk9fikSKOs5_JwACkJrHYzizd2xGbPedLwxWl6ScfmkuRW-8VaG8NK4NsqNtwGMHXd9uFpIYWjSp7wqH6r1HquANCJTi1I60ha-XbbIcpr7mZqTPJ7wyngrok6b1XgoWZ515BDnbH8_ZLg4Yf_TTDbinSssQomk9DvVfB-6zsFeXa9kD5y0WiyuYblJl4Gz_0iAev7XyN4ypIyozwdYKq7BDLxzPTrs5Cirn8J3mJ0uO76g7Eq4BBMpNth-AjPmHOrihjEdnFD3cBFBvnU3aNiIZGDQ1L89M4SoINNOdEQ1zLwvrdjDuTJQ2hFA5RS6-8vfEB-yoFOGrNWOju2JdgSK7dc4SUiYPTbcbhGkdpv-IRyG01aTc0Voizd9W6ouX3iD9DOHF6WpOHrHdvr38-Ae7k2aW8dQFge0xvXmzKwZAY6pQodSwNeLewPitUjibwkRyRpLu9AbthxUqWKjsA4EUh9nbSlKDZ6_DvRiXzwtRP_sONk9xayE7HKXSVUvmJ2xNPfRo1y296Gp-5NutR3JjjLMHzZtLaHlmIDdhByNms2kiT8hxHbfjddA08n2OmJANjhghUFj0CQbs3DA=w678-h671-no)
And here's how it DID behave on the globe:
(http://i0.wp.com/altereddimensions.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/image3.png)
The round and slightly-off-round lines represent simultaneous arrival times, in two hour increments. The radial lines illustrate the great-circle path from Krakatoa to various recording barometers, and the dots show the locations of those barometers. The sound wave diverges away from the point of origin (the map on the right), expanding at the speed of sound in all directions until it reaches the distance where the earth's diameter is greatest. Then it continues propagating away from Krakatoa but in an ever shrinking diameter toward the antipodes (the map on the left). The wave front becomes non-circular due to various effects such as geography and meteorology, but still shows a clear pattern of expansion on the near side and convergence on the far side.
Very cool!
I had a somewhat simpler observation. If you at (say) the southernmost tip of S.America - you'd detect the red wave going past you LONG after the explosion - but the reflection from the ice-wall/dome/whatever would return very rapidly along the pink arrow. Then you'd have a VERY long wait for the pink wave to cross all the way across the world - bounce off the other wall, then travel all the way back again. So those regular reappearances of the signal would be impossible on a flat earth.
You'd "hear"...LONG PAUSE, blip, blip, LONG PAUSE, blip, blip, LONG PAUSE. What they actually heard was MEDIUM PAUSE, blip, MEDIUM PAUSE, blip, MEDIUM PAUSE.
That simply couldn't happen in a circular flat earth.
In an infinite flat earth - you'd never get a reflection.
It just doesn't work.
It's even worse than that because seismologists detect four different kinds of seismic waves (from the direction in which they vibrate). Some of them go through the solid body of the Earth and others along the surface.
If the earth were flat, these waves would not behave in the ways that they do - so we either have to put seismic wave experts into the "Conspiracy" with NASA - or we have to use their expertise to tell us the shape of the Earth...which they all say is round.
-
If you were close to the thing that's reflecting the wave, then you'd get a trace like:
--------|----|-------------------|----|-------------------|----|-------------------|----|
...where the first blip was the wave going OUTWARDS - and the second would be the reflection from the nearby ice wall...then a long delay while it travels all across the world, reflects off of the opposite side and returns again.
What was actually recorded was a REGULAR 36 hour repeat:
--------|------------|------------|-----------|------------|------------|-----------|--------
How do you know which pattern was recorded? Why are you making things up? The web links of this supposed phenomena do not provide any sensor data.
-
If you were close to the thing that's reflecting the wave, then you'd get a trace like:
--------|----|-------------------|----|-------------------|----|-------------------|----|
...where the first blip was the wave going OUTWARDS - and the second would be the reflection from the nearby ice wall...then a long delay while it travels all across the world, reflects off of the opposite side and returns again.
What was actually recorded was a REGULAR 36 hour repeat:
--------|------------|------------|-----------|------------|------------|-----------|--------
How do you know which pattern was recorded? Why are you making things up? The web links of this supposed phenomena do not provide any sensor data.
Not able to find reference to the barograph data online, but I did find a paper on measuring infrasound related to explosions. It does have some data concerning the Tsar bomb, but far more interesting is the Tunguska event. As you likely know, in 1908 there was a massive explosion in Russia that level a large area of forest. The shock wave was recorded twice in London. This is before space flight, this is before NASA, this should be before any round Earth conspiracy to tamper with data. This pre-NASA data aligns with what was seen in later detonations.
http://www.synerjetics.ru/article/acoustics_eng.pdf (http://www.synerjetics.ru/article/acoustics_eng.pdf)
-
If you were close to the thing that's reflecting the wave, then you'd get a trace like:
--------|----|-------------------|----|-------------------|----|-------------------|----|
...where the first blip was the wave going OUTWARDS - and the second would be the reflection from the nearby ice wall...then a long delay while it travels all across the world, reflects off of the opposite side and returns again.
What was actually recorded was a REGULAR 36 hour repeat:
--------|------------|------------|-----------|------------|------------|-----------|--------
How do you know which pattern was recorded? Why are you making things up? The web links of this supposed phenomena do not provide any sensor data.
Not able to find reference to the barograph data online, but I did find a paper on measuring infrasound related to explosions. It does have some data concerning the Tsar bomb, but far more interesting is the Tunguska event. As you likely know, in 1908 there was a massive explosion in Russia that level a large area of forest. The shock wave was recorded twice in London. This is before space flight, this is before NASA, this should be before any round Earth conspiracy to tamper with data. This pre-NASA data aligns with what was seen in later detonations.
http://www.synerjetics.ru/article/acoustics_eng.pdf (http://www.synerjetics.ru/article/acoustics_eng.pdf)
I can't find any information about the timing of the repeats in that link. Please quote it for us.
-
If you were close to the thing that's reflecting the wave, then you'd get a trace like:
--------|----|-------------------|----|-------------------|----|-------------------|----|
...where the first blip was the wave going OUTWARDS - and the second would be the reflection from the nearby ice wall...then a long delay while it travels all across the world, reflects off of the opposite side and returns again.
What was actually recorded was a REGULAR 36 hour repeat:
--------|------------|------------|-----------|------------|------------|-----------|--------
How do you know which pattern was recorded? Why are you making things up? The web links of this supposed phenomena do not provide any sensor data.
Not able to find reference to the barograph data online, but I did find a paper on measuring infrasound related to explosions. It does have some data concerning the Tsar bomb, but far more interesting is the Tunguska event. As you likely know, in 1908 there was a massive explosion in Russia that level a large area of forest. The shock wave was recorded twice in London. This is before space flight, this is before NASA, this should be before any round Earth conspiracy to tamper with data. This pre-NASA data aligns with what was seen in later detonations.
http://www.synerjetics.ru/article/acoustics_eng.pdf (http://www.synerjetics.ru/article/acoustics_eng.pdf)
I can't find any information about the timing of the repeats in that link. Please quote it for us.
3rd page - Shock wave from Tunguska explosion was recorded twice in London[20, 21], which is remote from the epicenter of almost 6 megameters as shown in line 4 of Table 2
-
If you were close to the thing that's reflecting the wave, then you'd get a trace like:
--------|----|-------------------|----|-------------------|----|-------------------|----|
...where the first blip was the wave going OUTWARDS - and the second would be the reflection from the nearby ice wall...then a long delay while it travels all across the world, reflects off of the opposite side and returns again.
What was actually recorded was a REGULAR 36 hour repeat:
--------|------------|------------|-----------|------------|------------|-----------|--------
How do you know which pattern was recorded? Why are you making things up? The web links of this supposed phenomena do not provide any sensor data.
Not able to find reference to the barograph data online, but I did find a paper on measuring infrasound related to explosions. It does have some data concerning the Tsar bomb, but far more interesting is the Tunguska event. As you likely know, in 1908 there was a massive explosion in Russia that level a large area of forest. The shock wave was recorded twice in London. This is before space flight, this is before NASA, this should be before any round Earth conspiracy to tamper with data. This pre-NASA data aligns with what was seen in later detonations.
http://www.synerjetics.ru/article/acoustics_eng.pdf (http://www.synerjetics.ru/article/acoustics_eng.pdf)
I can't find any information about the timing of the repeats in that link. Please quote it for us.
3rd page - Shock wave from Tunguska explosion was recorded twice in London[20, 21], which is remote from the epicenter of almost 6 megameters as shown in line 4 of Table 2
You need to find a regular repeat interval like 3D depicted in his quote above. A two point recording does not show how regular the repeated interval is.
I can't even find time data for the intervals in that PDF. Please quote the appropriate data.
-
The data from 1908 isn't available online. I did find data from the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite. The International Monitoring System (IMS) detected infrasound from the event that circled the Earth twice. Their graphs can be found on page three of the linked PDF.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf)
-
The data from 1908 isn't available online. I did find data from the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite. The International Monitoring System (IMS) detected infrasound from the event that circled the Earth twice. Their graphs can be found on page three of the linked PDF.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf)
Please quote the appropriate data for us.
-
The data from 1908 isn't available online. I did find data from the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite. The International Monitoring System (IMS) detected infrasound from the event that circled the Earth twice. Their graphs can be found on page three of the linked PDF.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf)
Please quote the appropriate data for us.
It is an image of the shock front arrive times in a PDF. It is on page 3. You will have to click and scroll to page 3 on this one as there is no direct link to the image.
-
The data from 1908 isn't available online. I did find data from the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite. The International Monitoring System (IMS) detected infrasound from the event that circled the Earth twice. Their graphs can be found on page three of the linked PDF.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf)
Please quote the appropriate data for us.
It is an image of the shock front arrive times in a PDF. It is on page 3. You will have to click and scroll to page 3 on this one as there is no direct link to the image.
I only see two shocks. That's not enough to say whether they are coming in at equal intervals or not.
-
The data from 1908 isn't available online. I did find data from the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite. The International Monitoring System (IMS) detected infrasound from the event that circled the Earth twice. Their graphs can be found on page three of the linked PDF.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf)
Please quote the appropriate data for us.
It is an image of the shock front arrive times in a PDF. It is on page 3. You will have to click and scroll to page 3 on this one as there is no direct link to the image.
I only see two shocks. That's not enough to say whether they are coming in at equal intervals or not.
I believe the left two are the first two, and the right ones are showing #3 and sort of a #4. #4 being more visible on the bottom graph than the top.
-
The data from 1908 isn't available online. I did find data from the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite. The International Monitoring System (IMS) detected infrasound from the event that circled the Earth twice. Their graphs can be found on page three of the linked PDF.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf)
Please quote the appropriate data for us.
It is an image of the shock front arrive times in a PDF. It is on page 3. You will have to click and scroll to page 3 on this one as there is no direct link to the image.
I only see two shocks. That's not enough to say whether they are coming in at equal intervals or not.
It circled the Earth twice, so yeah, two pulses. They are almost 24 apart, so it isn't from multiple explosions. It isn't like this is a frequent event. I know of a handful of events that have had their shock wave measured circling the globe more than once. I gave you 3 examples and data for the most recent. This wouldn't happen in FET. There is no way to get the wave back to the starting point!
-
Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to be magically befuddled by supersonic sound!
It circled the Earth twice, so yeah, two pulses. They are almost 24 apart
They do appear to be very close to 24 hours apart. Let's assume that the circumference of the hypothetical Round Earth is 40,075km. With these two numbers, we can easily find out that the shockwave allegedly travelled at the speed of ~464m/s. Considering that the speed of sound is considerably lower than that (340m/s), your data does an excellent job at disproving your hypothesis.
Now, I admit that my calculations are based on very rough estimates, but I strongly doubt that making them more precise would help you any - your graph should be showing a returning wave after something like 1.36 days (or 32.64 hours), which it very clearly does not.
Note that I do not have enough information to present my own speculation regarding what happened - but it quite certainly was not what you allege.
But wait, there's more!
I believe the left two are the first two, and the right ones are showing #3 and sort of a #4. #4 being more visible on the bottom graph than the top.
No - please read the caption accompanying these figures:
Power spectral densities (PSDs) and time series of corresponding boundary layer height (BLH) for IMS infrasound stations (left) IS35 (Namibia) and (right) IS53 (Alaska, USA) between 15 February 2013, 02:00 UTC and 16 February 2013, 23:30 UTC.
Each graph corresponds to a station.
As I do not know the precise location of each station, I will assume the distance between them to be 15,500km. Dividing that by the speed of sound gives us a shift of just over 12.5 hours. This is consistent with what we see in the graphs. Now, pray tell - how come that the shockwave travelled between Namibia and Alaska at the speed of sound, while simultaneously travelling between Alaska and Alaska (circumventing the hypothetical globe) at something close to 1.36 times that velocity?
-
Ladies and gentlemen, prepare to be magically befuddled by supersonic sound!
It circled the Earth twice, so yeah, two pulses. They are almost 24 apart
They do appear to be very close to 24 hours apart. Let's assume that the circumference of the hypothetical Round Earth is 40,075km. With these two numbers, we can easily find out that the shockwave allegedly travelled at the speed of ~464m/s. Considering that the speed of sound is considerably lower than that (340m/s), your data does an excellent job at disproving your hypothesis.
Now, I admit that my calculations are based on very rough estimates, but I strongly doubt that making them more precise would help you any - your graph should be showing a returning wave after something like 1.36 days (or 32.64 hours), which it very clearly does not.
Note that I do not have enough information to present my own speculation regarding what happened - but it quite certainly was not what you allege.
I believe the left two are the first two, and the right ones are showing #3 and sort of a #4. #4 being more visible on the bottom graph than the top.
No - please read the caption to these figures:
Power spectral densities (PSDs) and time series of corresponding boundary layer height (BLH) for IMS infrasound stations (left) IS35 (Namibia) and (right) IS53 (Alaska, USA) between 15 February 2013, 02:00 UTC and 16 February 2013, 23:30 UTC.
Each graph corresponds to a station.
You should spend less time being a condescending prick - especially when you are 100% wrong.
You do know that shock waves, by definition, travel faster than the sound of sound, right? And for the record, it isn't a hypothesis. It is fact. Data recorded by actual scientists. I am merely reporting their data. Who should I believe? (Hint, it isn't you) I'll stick with the international organization that monitors for nuclear blasts. I'm guessing they know more than you.
Further, you conveniently ignored the fact that two pulses wouldn't happen in FET.
More info can be had here.
https://www.iris.edu/hq/files/programs/education_and_outreach/retm/tm_130215_russia/130215Russia.pdf (https://www.iris.edu/hq/files/programs/education_and_outreach/retm/tm_130215_russia/130215Russia.pdf)
-
Who should I believe?
If your personal epistemology predicates truth based on who said things, rather than on mathematical evaluation of data, you probably shouldn't debate things. After all, you already know what the "right" people said.
Thank you very much for the source which precisely confirms my claims.
(https://i.imgur.com/wdaFcMc.png)
As you can see, it draws a distinction between two speeds - the shockwave in the ground (3.4km/s, approximately 10 times the speed of sound in the air) and the waves in the atmosphere which are "much slower, ~0.3km/s". Can you, the reader, guess what ~0.3km/s is in this case? I'll spoil it for you - it's the speed of sound. Because they're soundwaves.
We also have a reference to "the waves reaching the eastern US, after almost 10 hours travelling through the atmosphere across the Arctic from the impact site in Russia" - which also seem to have travelled slower than the speed of sound, if the figures are to be believed!
Now, are you claiming that the wave in question travelled 7.35 times too slowly, or 1.36 times too fast?
Further, you conveniently ignored the fact that two pulses wouldn't happen in FET.
On the contrary - I made a clear statement that I do not have enough data to propose an alternative. I merely have enough data (entirely provided by yourself) to show that your hypothesis is soundly false.
-
I believe the left two are the first two, and the right ones are showing #3 and sort of a #4. #4 being more visible on the bottom graph than the top.
No - please read the caption accompanying these figures:
Power spectral densities (PSDs) and time series of corresponding boundary layer height (BLH) for IMS infrasound stations (left) IS35 (Namibia) and (right) IS53 (Alaska, USA) between 15 February 2013, 02:00 UTC and 16 February 2013, 23:30 UTC.
Each graph corresponds to a station.
Ah, thank you. I suspected I might have read what was being presented wrong during my quick peek at the data. Should have waited until I had more time to peruse it before saying anything!
-
Ah, thank you. I suspected I might have read what was being presented wrong during my quick peek at the data. Should have waited until I had more time to peruse it before saying anything!
It's fine, we all make mistakes! Plus it helped us double-check the inconsistency
-
Who should I believe?
If your personal epistemology predicates truth based on who said things, rather than on mathematical evaluation of data, you probably shouldn't debate things. After all, you already know what the "right" people said.
Thank you very much for the source which precisely confirms my claims.
(https://i.imgur.com/wdaFcMc.png)
As you can see, it draws a distinction between two speeds - the shockwave in the ground (3.4km/s, approximately 10 times the speed of sound in the air) and the waves in the atmosphere which are "much slower, ~0.3km/s". Can you, the reader, guess what ~0.3km/s is in this case? I'll spoil it for you - it's the speed of sound.
We also have a reference to "the waves reaching the eastern US, after almost 10 hours travelling through the atmosphere across the Arctic from the impact site in Russia" - which bizarrely also seems to have travelled at the speed of sound!
Now, are you claiming that the wave in question travelled 7.35 times too slowly, or 1.36 times too fast?
Sigh, children. What I am claiming is that the IMS detected the shockwave from the blast twice. Prove that it didn't or explain how that happens on a flat Earth.
Obfuscate all you like, that is what you guys do here, but that fact is that "I" didn't come up with the numbers. Competent PEER REVIEWED professionals did. Your miscalculation of the data based on variables you can even possibly claim to fully understand is not worthy of consideration.
I brought up that a shockwave moves at supersonic speeds since you made a quip about supersonic sound. If the air molecules are being accelerated faster than the speed of sound and that pulse wave hits your ear, that "sound" (which is simply pressure waves traveling through air) is traveling at supersonic speeds. A meteor traveling at 40,000 mph is going to create supersonic pressure waves in the atmosphere. You're still young and think you know it all.
-
Sigh, children. What I am claiming is that the IMS detected the shockwave from the blast twice. Prove that it didn't
I just did that - the blasts detected happened too soon after one another for it to be physically possible to be the same blast. You personally provided all the data necessary to deduce this (except for the Earth's circumference, but I don't suspect you're going to object to that). If you believe my calculations (dividing one the distance by the time you gave me) are incorrect, or that my understanding of physics (velocity = distance/time) is incorrect, please feel free to state your objection in a coherent manner.
This is combined with the fact that you presented us with data for two locations - and between those two locations, the wave did obey the speed of sound. It only magically didn't do that when it was doing its round trip.
While we're poking at the inconsistencies in your hypotheses - how come that the Tsar Bomba was detected circling the Earth three times, but a more recent impact which was 10 times as powerful was only detectable twice? Did our measurement instruments become less reliable or sensitive over time?
I brought up that a shockwave moves at supersonic speeds since you made a quip about supersonic sound. If the air molecules are being accelerated faster than the speed of sound and that pulse wave hits your ear, that "sound" (which is simply pressure waves traveling through air) is traveling at supersonic speeds. A meteor traveling at 40,000 mph is going to create supersonic pressure waves in the atmosphere.
You presented me with a source which shows something else entirely - a somewhat similar event, over a somewhat shorter distance, ended up producing a slower-than-sound wave. Of course, we all know that the wave was caused by the impact, so the velocity of the meteor is not particularly relevant here.
-
Sigh, children. What I am claiming is that the IMS detected the shockwave from the blast twice. Prove that it didn't
I just did that - the blasts detected happened too soon after one another for it to be physically possible to be the same blast. You personally provided all the data necessary to deduce this (except for the Earth's circumference, but I don't suspect you're going to object to that). If you believe my calculations (dividing one the distance by the time you gave me) are incorrect, or that my understanding of physics (velocity = distance/time) is incorrect, please feel free to state your objection in a coherent manner.
This is combined with the fact that you presented us with data for two locations - and between those two locations, the wave did obey the speed of sound. It only magically didn't do that when it was doing its round trip.
While we're poking at the inconsistencies in your hypotheses - how come that the Tsar Bomba was detected circling the Earth three times, but a more recent impact which was 10 times as powerful was only detectable twice? Did our measurement instruments become less reliable or sensitive over time?
I brought up that a shockwave moves at supersonic speeds since you made a quip about supersonic sound. If the air molecules are being accelerated faster than the speed of sound and that pulse wave hits your ear, that "sound" (which is simply pressure waves traveling through air) is traveling at supersonic speeds. A meteor traveling at 40,000 mph is going to create supersonic pressure waves in the atmosphere.
You presented me with a source which shows something else entirely - a somewhat similar event, over a somewhat shorter distance, ended up producing a slower-than-sound wave. Of course, we all know that the wave was caused by the impact, so the velocity of the meteor is not particularly relevant here.
What account did you make for air temperature? What about wind speed? Did you factor in air density? What figure did you use for the orthodromic circumference of the Earth? I've linked a document concerning the propagation of infrasound. Please note the increase in speed to roughly 380m/s in the stratosphere. Do you have much experience with this area of science or do you just assume you know what you're talking about because you know the speed of sound at sea level.
Check you units. Tsar bomba was 50 MEGAtons. Chelyabinsk was only 500 KILOton.
I think you need to understand that you, nor I, understand NEARLY enough about how the sound propagates in the atmosphere to completely throw out their data out the window. This event was heavily studied, if the numbers didn't work it would have been an area of study. Remember, these people think the Earth is round.
And for the last effing time, learn what a hypothesis is. I am making no claim, I am reporting what was observed.
-
forgot the link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor)
Wait - did you use ROUND EARTH distances between Alaska and Namibia? That kinda confirms round Earth distances. One more nail... Tom would tell you that FEers don't have a map or know the distance between locations. He seems to be a trusted member here. Is he wrong?
-
Check you units. Tsar bomba was 50 MEGAtons. Chelyabinsk was only 500 KILOton.
My bad.
What account did you make for air temperature? What about wind speed? Did you factor in air density?
Are you suggesting that any of this could potentially affect the speed of sound by a factor of 1.36? Of course, I already admitted this and explained why I don't believe it to be significant - if you believe otherwise, please explain yourself.
Now, I admit that my calculations are based on very rough estimates, but I strongly doubt that making them more precise would help you any - your graph should be showing a returning wave after something like 1.36 days (or 32.64 hours), which it very clearly does not.
I think you need to understand that you, nor I, understand NEARLY enough about how the sound propagates in the atmosphere to completely throw out their data out the window. This event was heavily studied, if the numbers didn't work it would have been an area of study. Remember, these people think the Earth is round.
I am not throwing the data out the window - I'm merely using it to dismiss your hypothesis, which you personally crafted here.
Also, why are you presenting us with data you do not understand? I thought you were trying to prove something here. Why are you suddenly moving to "I don't know what this means but we should trust the science man"?
-
Wait - did you use ROUND EARTH distances between Alaska and Namibia?
Of course - why would I use anything else when verifying if your conclusion is internally consistent?
Tom would tell you that FEers don't have a map or know the distance between locations. He seems to be a trusted member here. Is he wrong?
Tom is quite open about his disagreements with the standard model, as am I about mine. That by itself makes us neither right or wrong. But, as you may have noticed, I haven't made a single claim here that pertains to FET - I am merely dismantling your conclusions by highlighting multiple internal inconsistencies.
-
Again, try to twist what I'm saying and not facing the big picture. I understand, and so do you, what a pressure wave is. Saying we don't know all of the variables that affect how it moves in the atmosphere does not in any way invalidate what was said, nor, what was measured.
The question stands, how does flat Earth explain shock waves passing the same point more than once. There were 2 pulses after the event. This is not the only time that has been observed, just the only data I could find online.
-
StinkyOne, lay off personal attacks in the upper fora. Warned.
-
Again, try to twist what I'm saying and not facing the big picture. I understand, and so do you, what a pressure wave is. Saying we don't know all of the variables that affect how it moves in the atmosphere does not in any way invalidate what was said, nor, what was measured.
I have a sufficient understanding of physics to know that it cannot travel 1.36 times faster than the speed of sound. If we were talking about a smaller discrepancy, you could try to get away with it. But we're not.
Now, if you want to deny that or pretend that "we just don't know man!!!", that's on you - it just reinforces my recent statement that talking to devout RE'ers is a waste of valuable time. But your proof is still inconsistent even if we let go of that - because we also know the speed of the same wave between two locations on Earth. Either the speed changes magically, or the distance is about (at least!) 1.3 times as much as round Earth predicts.
-
Again, try to twist what I'm saying and not facing the big picture. I understand, and so do you, what a pressure wave is. Saying we don't know all of the variables that affect how it moves in the atmosphere does not in any way invalidate what was said, nor, what was measured.
I have a sufficient understanding of physics to know that it cannot travel 1.36 times faster than the speed of sound. If we were talking about a smaller discrepancy, you could try to get away with it. But we're not.
Now, if you want to deny that or pretend that "we just don't know man!!!", that's on you - it just reinforces my recent statement that talking to devout RE'ers is a waste of valuable time. But your proof is still inconsistent even if we let go of that - because we also know the speed of the same wave between two locations on Earth. Either the speed changes magically, or the distance is about (at least!) 1.3 times as much as round Earth predicts.
So glad you returned to this conversation. Are you standing by your statement that the speed of sound is 340m/s or would you like to amend that? You may want to review the speed of infrasound at different altitudes. Also, how do you know the speed of sound? Did you measure it yourself or did you trust the science man? Honestly, some science is ok because it appears to give you an edge, but other science can't be correct because it doesn't match your expectations?
I still stand by the original doc I posted, but I also found this.
http://www.earthscope.org/articles/Chelyabinsk_Meteor_TA (http://www.earthscope.org/articles/Chelyabinsk_Meteor_TA)
"The IMS stations have shown that the sound waves circled the entire globe (returning to Chelyabinsk in over 35 hours)." And yes, there are IMS stations in Russia.
Here is a document on the effect of azimuth on infrasound speeds.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209099771630075X#bb0040 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209099771630075X#bb0040)
From the conclusion:
"The signals recorded from meteorites is characterized by a changing wave azimuth with time due to the movement of the source. The apparent velocity becomes large as the meteor accelerate while approaching the Earth, sometimes exceeds the sound speed" - not saying the trajectory did or did not affect the sound arrival times, but it could be a factor. The main takeaway is that the speed of infrasound is variable, is affected by many factors, and can travel slower or faster than 340m/s. At times approaching 400m/s.
Are you saying the IMS is fabricating their data on the event or that the scientists who actually do this work day in and day out completely missed this glaring (by your assertion) problem with their data? Your undergrad level knowledge of basic physics doesn't win out over the pros. Sorry.
The fact remains that there were two measured pulses and you've yet to explain how that happens on a flat Earth. This isn't an isolated case. Please answer how that happens on a flat Earth.
-
So glad you returned to this conversation.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you somehow confused by the fact that a human being went offline for the duration of one night? I'm sure you can work out what happened there, Stinky. I believe in you.
Are you standing by your statement that the speed of sound is 340m/s or would you like to amend that? You may want to review the speed of infrasound at different altitudes. Also, how do you know the speed of sound? Did you measure it yourself or did you trust the science man? Honestly, some science is ok because it appears to give you an edge, but other science can't be correct because it doesn't match your expectations?
Once again, you attempt to misdirect the conversation. I am verifying your claims for internal consistency. You already provided a source for the speed of (infra)sound - you're the only one who has anything to "stand by" here. If you prefer to use the approximate figure of 0.3km/s from your slides instead of 340m/s, that's fine by me, but it only makes your problem bigger.
Are you saying the IMS is fabricating their data on the event or that the scientists who actually do this work day in and day out completely missed this glaring (by your assertion) problem with their data?
Neither. There is no problem with their data. You're simply trying to shoehorn an invalid conclusion on top of it, and it is your hypothesis that is under dispute here. The "pros"' data directly contradicts you.
The main takeaway is that the speed of infrasound is variable, is affected by many factors, and can travel slower or faster than 340m/s. At times approaching 400m/s.
Temporarily, that is possible. But your hypothesis requires much more than that. It requires for your wave to simultaneously move at two average speeds which are not compatible with one another (by virtue of being very different speeds). Since your hypothesis produces a contradiction with the data provided, we have to either question the data or the hypothesis consistently for 24 hours. You know this, which is why you've been screaming about how absurd it would be to dispute the data. But you also know it's not the data that's being disputed.
The fact remains that there were two measured pulses and you've yet to explain how that happens on a flat Earth. This isn't an isolated case. Please answer how that happens on a flat Earth.
I told you that I do not have enough data to ascertain what actually happened in my very first post here. I'm not going to construct a hypothesis with insufficient data just because a whiny RE'er really wants to see one. Asking the same question again and again will neither fill the gaps in the data, nor will it address the simple fact that your hypothesis is self-disproving.
Are you saying the IMS is fabricating their data on the event or that the scientists who actually do this work day in and day out completely missed this glaring (by your assertion) problem with their data? Your undergrad level knowledge of basic physics doesn't win out over the pros. Sorry.
Once again - if your personal epistemology emphasises only who said things rather than what is being said, you are doomed to be extremely ineffective in a debate.
-
Glad you returned because half the time you FEers vanish.
For the very last time, and read this slowly so you understand it, this is NOT MY "HYPOTHESIS." I am NOT taking their data and saying it shows something, THEY are taking their data and saying it shows something. Again, if you want to say they are wrong and you are right, you can do that. You would likely be wrong, but hey, I've only seen one topic that you were right on, so it wouldn't be out of character.
Read the abstract:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50619/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50619/full)
To aid in your calculations, they provided the actual data in a linked doc. (ts1.docx) Below is an excerpt.
Station Range(km) Arrival time Duration(s) Observed celerity(m/s)
IS18 - Ig5 85091 D+3 13:40 >2000 289
I was asked to show the data from the tunguska event, which doesn't exist online. I took the next best thing. I offered up links to the best available data. I don't think your criticisms hold water because I understand that there are factors you never accounted for. Did you stop to think that the first pulse time might have actually been "early" because it was measuring the time from the explosion to arrival of the shockwave and not its first trip around the globe?
I have shown peer reviewed data. Tell me how it works on a flat earth/.
You still haven't explained the multiple pulses on a flat Earth.
-
Glad you returned because half the time you FEers vanish.
Funny, that. That's usually what RE'ers do.
Did you stop to think that the first pulse time might have actually been "early" because it was measuring the time from the explosion to arrival of the shockwave and not its first trip around the globe?
No, I did not stop to consider that the graphs you presented might mean something else than what they're clearly stated to present. By that account, I have also not considered that your hypothesis might be internally inconsistent because of kittens.
If you want to patch the holes in your hypothesis, I invite you to do so. Otherwise, I think I'm ready to say that it's inadmissible, and that you haven't proven anything. Unless we accept that the shockwave travelled at two different velocities when observed from two different measurement stations (which I consider unlikely, but you're welcome to propose a model under which this makes sense), and that the Round Earth is only 73% of its advertised size, your hypothesis soundly disproves itself. This is not proof that the Earth is flat, but it does conclusively show that you failed to demonstrate it to be round.
To aid in your calculations, they provided the actual data in a linked doc. (ts1.docx) Below is an excerpt.
Station Range(km) Arrival time Duration(s) Observed celerity(m/s)
IS18 - Ig5 85091 D+3 13:40 >2000 289
Thank you for yet another snippet of information which shows that the shockwave was not consistently travelling at 460-ish m/s.
You still haven't explained the multiple pulses on a flat Earth.
Yes - I haven't done the thing I explicitly said I wouldn't attempt due to insufficient data. I congratulate you on your observational prowess.
-
Glad you returned because half the time you FEers vanish.
Funny, that. That's usually what RE'ers do.
Did you stop to think that the first pulse time might have actually been "early" because it was measuring the time from the explosion to arrival of the shockwave and not its first trip around the globe?
No, I did not stop to consider that the graphs you presented might mean something else than what they're clearly stated to present. By that account, I have also not considered that your hypothesis might be internally inconsistent because of kittens.
If you want to patch the holes in your hypothesis, I invite you to do so. Otherwise, I think I'm ready to say that it's inadmissible, and that you haven't proven anything. Unless we accept that the shockwave travelled at two different velocities when observed from two different measurement stations (which I consider unlikely, but you're welcome to propose a model under which this makes sense), and that the Round Earth is only 73% of its advertised size, your hypothesis soundly disproves itself. This is not proof that the Earth is flat, but it does conclusively show that you failed to demonstrate it to be round.
To aid in your calculations, they provided the actual data in a linked doc. (ts1.docx) Below is an excerpt.
Station Range(km) Arrival time Duration(s) Observed celerity(m/s)
IS18 - Ig5 85091 D+3 13:40 >2000 289
Thank you for yet another snippet of information which shows that the shockwave was not consistently travelling at 460-ish m/s.
You still haven't explained the multiple pulses on a flat Earth.
Yes - I haven't done the thing I explicitly said I wouldn't attempt due to insufficient data. I congratulate you on your observational prowess.
Bad news for you. We were both reading the image wrong. I blame it on the small size of image. The image on the left is for Nambia, where the signal was not detected. If you notice, both time windows on the left are using dotted lines indicating a non-observed signal. The observed time is on the right and matches your speed estimates. This makes sense given the main topic of that paper was performance differences of the detection network during daylight and nighttime hours. So....now, if you'll agree that we misread the image, can we talk about that pesky double pulse?
From the paper:
It can be observed in Figure 1 and the additional material that diurnal variations of the noise level show
differences in the power spectrum of orders of magnitude between night and day. Especially for the very low
infrasonic frequencies from 0.005 to 0.2 Hz, this increased noise level during daytime can fully conceal and
thus prohibit low-frequency signal detections
the solid vertical lines in the
PSD plots indicate a 45 min time window of an observed (Chelyabinsk) signal arrival, while dashed lines indicate the time window of a hypothetic, nonobserved
signal arrival. Light and dark grey areas in the BLH plots indicate daytime and nighttime hours.
-
Bad news for you. We were both reading the image wrong. I blame it on the small size of image. The image on the left is for Nambia, where the signal was not detected. If you notice, both time windows on the left are using dotted lines indicating a non-observed signal. The observed time is on the right and matches your speed estimates. This makes sense given the main topic of that paper was performance differences of the detection network during daylight and nighttime hours.
Fucking finally. It only took you three pages of pointing out that your hypothesis was inconsistent with the data, and that you were indeed presenting a hypothesis that was different from that of the researchers. But hey, you're one step ahead of most RE'ers in that you've at least admitted it... in a roundabout way, but hey-ho.
So....now, if you'll agree that we misread the image, can we talk about that pesky double pulse?
Well, no. I said I wouldn't attempt it without sufficient data, and your insistence on doing anything else is unlikely to affect me. You may have noticed that I don't find you very persuasive. Besides, I don't even know what you want to talk about. As everyone here already agreed, we'd need to see the timing of at least three pulses to differentiate between RET and FET, and even then the results would be far from conclusive.
-
Bad news for you. We were both reading the image wrong. I blame it on the small size of image. The image on the left is for Nambia, where the signal was not detected. If you notice, both time windows on the left are using dotted lines indicating a non-observed signal. The observed time is on the right and matches your speed estimates. This makes sense given the main topic of that paper was performance differences of the detection network during daylight and nighttime hours.
Fucking finally. It only took you three pages of pointing out that your hypothesis was inconsistent with the data, and that you were indeed presenting a hypothesis that was different from that of the researchers. But hey, you're one step ahead of most RE'ers in that you've at least admitted it... in a roundabout way, but hey-ho.
So....now, if you'll agree that we misread the image, can we talk about that pesky double pulse?
Well, no. I said I wouldn't attempt it without sufficient data, and your insistence on doing anything else is unlikely to affect me. You may have noticed that I don't find you very persuasive. Besides, I don't even know what you want to talk about. As everyone here already agreed, we'd need to see the timing of at least three pulses to differentiate between RET and FET, and even then the results would be far from conclusive.
What is so hard for you to understand? The data is the right part of image. The left, the one you complained about, is hypothetical, and unobserved.
Explain how there is more than one pulse, which the data clearly show. There is NO requirement for more than two pulses as there should only be ONE if the Earth is flat. We both misread the graph and argued about something that was never observed.
-
What is so hard for you to understand? The data is the right part of image. The left, the one you complained about, is hypothetical, and unobserved.
I understand the situation. Rather than complain, I'm expressing gratitude that you're finally starting to catch up on why your hypothesis fell apart.
Explain how there is more than one pulse, which the data clearly show. There is NO requirement for more than two pulses as there should only be ONE if the Earth is flat. We both misread the graph and argued about something that was never observed.
We already talked about why three pulses would be required to make a meaningful distinction. If you disagree with Tom and 3DG, please explain why. Just saying "NUH UH AIN'T NO REASON" will not cut it.
We also already talked about why I won't hypothesise about this. I don't have enough data, and, unlike you, I'm not interested in wasting time on potential blunders.
-
What is so hard for you to understand? The data is the right part of image. The left, the one you complained about, is hypothetical, and unobserved.
I understand the situation. Rather than complain, I'm expressing gratitude that you're finally starting to catch up on why your hypothesis fell apart.
Explain how there is more than one pulse, which the data clearly show. There is NO requirement for more than two pulses as there should only be ONE if the Earth is flat. We both misread the graph and argued about something that was never observed.
We already talked about why three pulses would be required to make a meaningful distinction. If you disagree with Tom and 3DG, please explain why. Just saying "NUH UH AIN'T NO REASON" will not cut it.
We also already talked about why I won't hypothesise about this. I don't have enough data, and, unlike you, I'm not interested in wasting time on potential blunders.
You can stop playing games. The data is there and legit. You misread the image (as did I) and then used that mistake to try and prove something that wasn't observed. The observed data does not exhibit the concerns you raised. Our mistake does not invalidate the data and you know it.
You do not need 3 pulses for a VERY simple reason, there should be NO return pulses in a flat Earth. The second pulse arrived 35 hours after the initial event. That is shown in the OBSERVED data. This is also inline with how long it would take for the pulse to circle the world. The data are there, the data meet expectations. There have been other events where 3 pulses were detected, but the data is not online, so I have no way to "prove" to FEers that it happened. Which is ironic since I've yet to see anything more than faked youtube videos from them as their "proof."
HOW ON A FLAT EARTH CAN THERE BE A RETURN PULSE??? It is a very simple question.
-
The data from 1908 isn't available online. I did find data from the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite. The International Monitoring System (IMS) detected infrasound from the event that circled the Earth twice. Their graphs can be found on page three of the linked PDF.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf)
Equal intervals is not required to show that it returned. Explain how the second shock returned in the expected amount of time if the Earth is flat.
Please quote the appropriate data for us.
It is an image of the shock front arrive times in a PDF. It is on page 3. You will have to click and scroll to page 3 on this one as there is no direct link to the image.
I only see two shocks. That's not enough to say whether they are coming in at equal intervals or not.
-
You misread the image (as did I)
If it makes you feel better to pretend that I was complicit in this, feel free to. But as usual, your beliefs contradict readily-available data.
HOW ON A FLAT EARTH CAN THERE BE A RETURN PULSE??? It is a very simple question.
Tom has already presented you with a theory (which is why we need 3 pulses - you're the only one to still deny this). I'm not going to commit to one due to insufficient data. I also don't care whether you think a question is simple or not.
-
You misread the image (as did I)
If it makes you feel better to pretend that I was complicit in this, feel free to. But as usual, your beliefs contradict readily-available data.
HOW ON A FLAT EARTH CAN THERE BE A RETURN PULSE??? It is a very simple question.
Tom has already presented you with a theory (which is why we need 3 pulses - you're the only one to still deny this). I'm not going to commit to one due to insufficient data. I also don't care whether you think a question is simple or not.
Sorry, but we both were. As I stated, it was an easy mistake to misread the image due to the small size. It doesn't invalidate the observed data, no matter how much you want it to.
Tom gave no theory as to why it is needed to show that it circled the globe more than once. I have shown you data that fits with a pulse wave circling the Earth. This is a classic strawman on your part. Can't refute what I have shown, so change the argument into something it isn't.(periodicity) We know the time and distance. If I walk around a circle of a known size at a known speed, do I have to walk around it again to prove it?
Fact: two pulses passed the same monitoring station in an amount of time that is consistent with a pulse wave traveling around the globe. We have the distance and time measurements that verify this.
Assertion: the pulse traveled around the globe. There is no need for another pulse to verify that the period is consistent unless there is a flat Earth explanation as to where that second pulse came from.
You can try to act superior and dismissive, but you still haven't shown how another pulse passed the same point 35 hours later. Maybe you could do like all the other FEers do and make something up?
-
Sorry, but we both were.
As I said - if it makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead and believe that. It won't change much.
As I stated, it was an easy mistake to misread the image due to the small size. It doesn't invalidate the observed data, no matter how much you want it to.
Do I? Your imagination must be quite something.
Tom gave no theory as to why it is needed to show that it circled the globe more than once.
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. Of course, Tom's posts are here for everyone to read, and if you're not going to stick to the facts of what's already been said, I'm not sure if there's much benefit to us continuing. After all, you might just decide that I "said" things I didn't say and therefore I am wrong. If that's what you're after (and it's abundantly clear by now that it is), is there much point in me saying anything? Just make it up and tell your best friends about how you totally owned that guy on the Internet.
You can try to act superior and dismissive, but you still haven't shown how another pulse passed the same point 35 hours later. Maybe you could do like all the other FEers do and make something up?
I have already explained to you that I won't be doing that, and you continue to be about as persuasive as your average daffodil.
-
Sorry, but we both were.
As I said - if it makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead and believe that. It won't change much.
As I stated, it was an easy mistake to misread the image due to the small size. It doesn't invalidate the observed data, no matter how much you want it to.
Do I? Your imagination must be quite something.
Tom gave no theory as to why it is needed to show that it circled the globe more than once.
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. Of course, Tom's posts are here for everyone to read, and if you're not going to stick to the facts of what's already been said, I'm not sure if there's much benefit to us continuing. After all, you might just decide that I "said" things I didn't say and therefore I am wrong. If that's what you're after (and it's abundantly clear by now that it is), is there much point in me saying anything? Just make it up and tell your best friends about how you totally owned that guy on the Internet.
You can try to act superior and dismissive, but you still haven't shown how another pulse passed the same point 35 hours later. Maybe you could do like all the other FEers do and make something up?
I have already explained to you that I won't be doing that, and you continue to be about as persuasive as your average daffodil.
Weren't you? Ok, right...
LOL - you won't because you can't. You're given proof of two pulses and now you're going to hide behind Tom's erroneous assertion that there HAS to be 3 without EVER touching the fact that on a flat Earth there should be only 1. Strawman much? I'm not here to persuade you. You are insignificant in all of this. I am here to show FET is fake and the people that believe it are unable to back up their claims. I did that. For fun, why don't you pull out a FE map and show us where Chelyabinsk is? We'll wait while you draw one.
I was really hoping for someone to say it bounced off of the ice wall or something. Sigh....
-
Please learn to use quotes appropriately or refrain from using them. There's no need to copy my entire post every time you say something.
I was really hoping for someone to say it bounced off of the ice wall or something. Sigh....
3DG already did, and Tom took him up on it... Wait, are you actually this dissociated from the things people here are saying?
-
Wait, are you actually this dissociated from the things people here are saying?
My guess is he's too busy laughing at the things FE'ers say.
-
Wait, are you actually this dissociated from the things people here are saying?
My guess is he's too busy laughing at the things FE'ers say.
Exactly. It is freaking hilarious.
So Pete, you want to claim that what 3D said disproves me in some way? (And keep in mind, he posted prior to me posting data.) Go back and read what he said. The Krakatoa event, according to what he posted, produced regular 36 hour repeating pulses. Let's see, WOW, that is shockingly consistent with the data recorded after the Chebyalinsk meteor. Maybe these events just occurred at the same distance from the ice wal...wait a sec! These pulses crossed several mountain ranges with no reflected pulse. How tall is this imaginary ice wall??? And honestly, what are the odds these two events both occurred equidistant from some imaginary border?? Fact is, if there was something reflecting signals, it would have created irregular returns, which was the thrust of his post.
So, prove me wrong because I'm the only one providing any sort of evidence here.
-
Please learn to use quotes appropriately or refrain from using them. There's no need to copy my entire post every time you say something.
I was really hoping for someone to say it bounced off of the ice wall or something. Sigh....
3DG already did, and Tom took him up on it... Wait, are you actually this dissociated from the things people here are saying?
To be accurate - I said that the repeating seismic waves from Krakatoa (36 hours apart, it is claimed) would not have repeated on an infinite flat earth UNLESS the waves were reflected back from something fairly close. The Ice Wall is the most likely candidate, I suppose.
I'm not claiming that the sound waves bounced off of the Ice wall - because I'm not claiming that the earth is flat or that the ice wall exists.
I'm saying that IF the earth were flat and IF seismic stations picked up regular repeats of these enormous seismic events THEN these waves would have to have been reflected off of something.
If we accept this as the FE explanation for these seismic readings - then unless both your seismograph and the source of those waves were in the precise center of the ice wall - then you'd expect to find doubled signals with a longer gap between them because you'd detect them on the way out - and on the way back from each side.
In truth (as someone pointed out) the waves would soon start interfering with each other and you'd pretty soon be unable to get a clear signal.
However, in RET, there is no problem with a coherent wave passing a particular point over and over again at a regular interval until friction eventually robs it of it's energy to the point where it becomes undetectable.
The problem I have with the Krakatoa story is that 36 hours seems to be an awful long time...but since I can't find a reference for the speed of SURFACE waves - it's not impossible.
-
God in the building of the dome built something similar to this room as in he cancels the sideways effect and channels all of it directly back to the point of creation. Watch the girl spin as she screams and understand the sound will align behind her than project out from the corner. As in corner stone :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXVGIb3bzHI
-
Please learn to use quotes appropriately or refrain from using them. There's no need to copy my entire post every time you say something.
I was really hoping for someone to say it bounced off of the ice wall or something. Sigh....
3DG already did, and Tom took him up on it... Wait, are you actually this dissociated from the things people here are saying?
To be accurate - I said that the repeating seismic waves from Krakatoa (36 hours apart, it is claimed) would not have repeated on an infinite flat earth UNLESS the waves were reflected back from something fairly close. The Ice Wall is the most likely candidate, I suppose.
I'm not claiming that the sound waves bounced off of the Ice wall - because I'm not claiming that the earth is flat or that the ice wall exists.
I'm saying that IF the earth were flat and IF seismic stations picked up regular repeats of these enormous seismic events THEN these waves would have to have been reflected off of something.
If we accept this as the FE explanation for these seismic readings - then unless both your seismograph and the source of those waves were in the precise center of the ice wall - then you'd expect to find doubled signals with a longer gap between them because you'd detect them on the way out - and on the way back from each side.
In truth (as someone pointed out) the waves would soon start interfering with each other and you'd pretty soon be unable to get a clear signal.
However, in RET, there is no problem with a coherent wave passing a particular point over and over again at a regular interval until friction eventually robs it of it's energy to the point where it becomes undetectable.
The problem I have with the Krakatoa story is that 36 hours seems to be an awful long time...but since I can't find a reference for the speed of SURFACE waves - it's not impossible.
Thanks for posting. After I showed Peter the error of his thinking he bailed. I'm sure he'd say he stopped posting because I was too stupid or something, he is extremely predictable, but I have that pesky data. Being so heavily studied, the event really is VERY solid proof of a round Earth. (as if that is needed)
36 hours matches very closely the travel time of the Chelybinsk infrasound waves. (35 hours)
-
God in the building of the dome built something similar to this room as in he cancels the sideways effect and channels all of it directly back to the point of creation.
The observed timing of the sound waves does not match the timing that would have occurred under this proposed mechanism.
-
Please learn to use quotes appropriately or refrain from using them. There's no need to copy my entire post every time you say something.
I was really hoping for someone to say it bounced off of the ice wall or something. Sigh....
3DG already did, and Tom took him up on it... Wait, are you actually this dissociated from the things people here are saying?
To be accurate - I said that the repeating seismic waves from Krakatoa (36 hours apart, it is claimed) would not have repeated on an infinite flat earth UNLESS the waves were reflected back from something fairly close. The Ice Wall is the most likely candidate, I suppose.
I'm not claiming that the sound waves bounced off of the Ice wall - because I'm not claiming that the earth is flat or that the ice wall exists.
I'm saying that IF the earth were flat and IF seismic stations picked up regular repeats of these enormous seismic events THEN these waves would have to have been reflected off of something.
If we accept this as the FE explanation for these seismic readings - then unless both your seismograph and the source of those waves were in the precise center of the ice wall - then you'd expect to find doubled signals with a longer gap between them because you'd detect them on the way out - and on the way back from each side.
In truth (as someone pointed out) the waves would soon start interfering with each other and you'd pretty soon be unable to get a clear signal.
However, in RET, there is no problem with a coherent wave passing a particular point over and over again at a regular interval until friction eventually robs it of it's energy to the point where it becomes undetectable.
The problem I have with the Krakatoa story is that 36 hours seems to be an awful long time...but since I can't find a reference for the speed of SURFACE waves - it's not impossible.
Thanks for posting. After I showed Peter the error of his thinking he bailed. I'm sure he'd say he stopped posting because I was too stupid or something, he is extremely predictable, but I have that pesky data. Being so heavily studied, the event really is VERY solid proof of a round Earth. (as if that is needed)
36 hours matches very closely the travel time of the Chelybinsk infrasound waves. (35 hours)
Yeah - I guess so.
Wikipedia told me that the speed of "p-waves" is 5000 m/s and that "s-waves" are only 60% of that speed...so 3,000 m/s...so with the circumference of the Earth being 40 million meters, that would produce circumnavigation times of 2 to 3 hours...not 36 hours.
However, those speeds are for "body waves" - the ones that go more directly through the mantle and crust. I've been unable to find speeds for "surface waves" - which are the ones that would travel around the earth multiple times - and which had the right orientation for the detection results after Krakatoa.
However, in an infinite flat earth, there is no reasonable grounds for there to be any reflection of seismic waves and the seismic results from either of these big events should have been one p-wave within (at most) two hours, and one s-wave within (at most) three hours - plus a surface wave some unknown time afterwards...and then no more. That's CLEARLY not what the data shows.
My suggestion that the seismic waves would bounce off of the Ice Cliff was factetious. There is no way something just 200 meters high and made of low-density ice could reflect a seismic wave like that. We don't even see reflections from mountain ranges ten times that high made of solid granite...so it's not plausible.
If I were a Flat Earther, I'd be seriously thinking about claiming that there is a layer of Kryptonite 324,000 kilometers below the surface of the Flat Earth and that p-waves were reflected back upwards and downwards between the surface of the Earth and the Kryptonite.
The trouble with this entire thread is that it requires a lot of deep knowledge about seismology, that I don't think anyone here has. I wouldn't rate this as a "solid" disproof of FET - although it definitely points in that direction.
Sunsets, however...HA!