The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Dr David Thork on June 13, 2018, 06:33:55 PM
-
Read me
This is going to be an unusual thread. Just to mix things up, in it, the Flat Earthers on this site are going to argue the earth is round, and the round earthers have to show it is flat.
I'm going to pick a topic, make an OP ... and lets see how well all you round earthers do without google for help.
You have a 180 year old text book for help http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm
You have a wiki ... https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki
You can use the site search function to find previous threads
Rules ...
You need to make a coherent argument ... you have to have a point to discuss and you need something to back your assertion ... something showing your point is valid
You need to die on that hill. If you get blown up, take it like a man and retire from the thread ... you lost
You are a team ... bail each other out and win at all costs. Don't leave a man behind
Squealing that you think the earth is round anyway so it doesn't matter is the ultimate dishonour. In this thread you think the earth is flat
This is an exercise in debating skill, problem solving and teamwork. FErs don't work alone. You don't want to be in that place either.
Depending on how much this was enjoyed, we can do it on a more regular basis with other topics but this one is about ...
The OP
It is my assertion that the earth can be shown to be round, comparing the difference between P-Waves and S-waves during an earthquake.
Both types of seismic wave can be detected near the earthquake centre but only P-waves can be detected on the other side of the Earth. This is because P-waves (primary waves) can travel through solids and liquids whereas S-waves (secondary waves) can only travel through solids. This means the liquid part of the core blocks the passage of S-waves.
On a flat earth, the s-waves should be able to travel across the plane unencumbered. But they are not registered. What happens to these s-waves and how does flat earth explain them?
(http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1011/topic3/SeismicWaves.gif)
Please note the shadow zones. You don't get any s-waves on the other side of the earth. There are shadow zones for p-waves, but they aren't on the other side of the earth. You'll note they tally up nicely with the sections of a round earth with mantle and core layers.
Focus on the s-waves
(http://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/uploads/A_006_shadowzone4_swave_thumbnail.jpg)
Absolutely no s-waves after 103 degrees. Why would s-waves abruptly stop on a flat earth?
Indeed it is using these waves that we calculate the epicentre of an earth quake, knowing the propagation times of p-waves and s-waves.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AnB9BkarPx4/VuVGzb3DAPI/AAAAAAAAC-w/ynTw6n4MKAcCCRCI6TUCVaiAEkfuQC86w/s1600/8.10.jpg)
Now a real word example.
(http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/hazards/earthquakes/activities/images/recordStation.jpg)
KEY
green marks show the arrival of direct P-waves
orange marks show the arrival of direct S-waves
red marks show the arrival of PP-waves (reflected at the surface)
yellow marks show the arrival of ScS-waves (reflected at the boundary with the outer core)
pink marks show the arrival of SS-waves (reflected at the surface)
Source
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/hazards/earthquakes/activities/dataFromSeveralStations.html
Note how the yellow and orange s-waves and the green primary p-waves (not reflected) both terminate at 103 degrees as predicted by the round earth model.
How does flat earth explain this phenomenon? Why are your s-waves stopping abruptly at 103 degrees on a flat earth with nothing in the way ... a flat surface right across earth? This is station data from 40 independent stations across the earth. It is no small sample set. How is it your s-waves radiate out from the epicenter exactly 11,465km and come to a dead stop, no matter where the earthquake?
I can pull this type of data from any earthquake. Always the same ... 103 degrees (round earth) or 11,456km (flat earth) from the epicenter.
*NOTE - posting this on https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/ and playing us off one against the other gets you an instant disqualification! >o<
-
why would the use of google be prohibited??
-
why would the use of google be prohibited??
You can use google. It isn't going to help flat earthers though, is it?
"OK Google, how do s-waves work on a flat earth?"
See how many useful returns you get.
But for us 'round earthers' ....
"Explain s-waves"
About 165,000,000 results (1.00 seconds)
-
It is my assertion that the earth can be shown to be round, comparing the difference between P-Waves and S-waves during an earthquake.
Both types of seismic wave can be detected near the earthquake centre but only P-waves can be detected on the other side of the Earth. This is because P-waves (primary waves) can travel through solids and liquids whereas S-waves (secondary waves) can only travel through solids. This means the liquid part of the core blocks the passage of S-waves.
On a flat earth, the s-waves should be able to travel across the plane unencumbered. But they are not registered. What happens to these s-waves and how does flat earth explain them?
In fact, seismic waves turn out to be one of the most ingenious proofs that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.
The discontinuities of the seismic waves assumed by modern science to occur at the crust mantle boundary are actually a network of huge caverns and large underground bodies of water and that they would match perfectly the seismic data.
Great masses of water are interpreted as molten rock.
Seismic waves travel faster north-south than east-west for a full four seconds.
"The S-wave shadow zone is larger than the P-wave shadow zones; direct S waves are not recorded in the entire region more than 103° away from the epicentre. It therefore seems that S waves do not travel through the core at all, and this is interpreted to mean that it is liquid, or at least acts like a liquid. The way P waves are refracted in the core is believed to indicate that there is a solid inner core. Although most of the earth's iron is supposed to be concentrated in the core, it is interesting to note that in the outer zones of the earth, iron levels decrease with depth.
Seismologists sometimes draw contradictory conclusions from the same seismic data. For instance, two groups of geophysicists produced completely different pictures of the core-mantle boundary, where there are believed to be 'mountains' and 'valleys' as high or deep as 10 km. The two groups used virtually the same data but used different equations to process them. Seismologists also disagree on the rate of rotation of the inner core: some say it is rotating faster than the rest of the planet, others that it is rotating more slowly, and yet others that it rotates at the same speed!
It is becoming increasingly evident that the earth model presented by the reigning theory of plate tectonics is seriously flawed. The rigid lithosphere, comprising the crust and uppermost mantle, is said to be fractured into several 'plates' of varying sizes, which move over a relatively plastic layer of partly molten rock known as the asthenosphere (or low-velocity zone). The lithosphere is said to average about 70 km thick beneath oceans and to be 100 to 250 km thick beneath continents. A powerful challenge to this model is posed by seismic tomography, which shows that the oldest parts of the continents have deep roots extending to depths of 400 to 600 km, and that the asthenosphere is essentially absent beneath them. Seismic research shows that even under the oceans there is no continuous asthenosphere, only disconnected asthenospheric lenses.
The more we learn about the crust and uppermost mantle, the more the models presented in geological textbooks are exposed as simplistic and unrealistic. The outermost layers of the earth have a highly complex, irregular, inhomogeneous structure; they are divided by faults into a mosaic of separate, jostling blocks of different shapes and sizes, generally a few hundred kilometres across, and of varying internal structure and strength. This fact, in conjunction with the existence of deep continental roots and the absence of a global asthenosphere, means that the notion of huge rigid plates moving thousands of kilometres across the earth is simply untenable. Continents are about as mobile as a brick in a wall!
here's the source:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68379.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68379.0)
-
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.
Heretic. Rowbotham shows that the inner parts of the earth are molten rock, you certainly can't be talking about caverns full of water being mistaken for them:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm
The true answer, of course, is that the data is fabricated.
Baby Thork, do you run a seismic station yourself? I didn't think so. Where is your evidence? I'm supposed to believe some squiggly lines on a drawing?
Admit it, seismic stations don't even exist.
inspired by: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8220.msg136236#msg136236
-
How can we know the graphs are real? If they can fake all the footage from space I'm sure they can fake a few printed out graphs and charts.
-
Max and doug, this thread is not here for you to satirise your opponents (take that back to AR), it's here for you to play devil's advocate. If you don't want to play, that's fine, but leave the option open to others.
-
In fact, seismic waves turn out to be one of the most ingenious proofs that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.
This was a most excellent answer. You win some FE Kudos points. Spend them wisely ... And now to shoot holes in it.
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.
I'd like you to look again at my graph in the OP. Specifically at the red line ... the p-wave (the one travelling through the core).
It starts at the epicentre at 11:15am. It reaches a station 165 degrees (111km per degree * 165 = 18315km on a flat earth) at 11:38am. 23 minutes later.
23mins is 1380 seconds ...
Now, the speed of sound in water is 1.5km/s.
Multiplying together (1.5*1380) I get 2070km. You are 16,000km too short. It can't be water.
However if the earth is made with liquid iron under pressure ...
(http://www.riken.jp/~/media/riken/pr/press/2015/20151124_2/fig2-500.jpg)
I can see the speed can get up to over 9km/s (upto 11km/s if I throw some impurities like nickel and silicon in there)
Now at 11km/s for 1380 seconds I get 15180km. But you are 3000km short I hear you cry. And yes I am, but a p-wave doesn't go across the surface of the earth. It takes the direct route through the middle. The diameter of a round earth is just 12,742km. I now have 3000km in hand and that is going to cover my acceleration and deceleration times under lower pressures near the surface. Its a double-whammy win for round earth ... less distance through the earth and faster medium to travel through ... you are woefully short ... your water p-wave only made it 1/8th of the way.
As a side note, are volcanoes actually geysers on a flat earth? Beware Mr Rowbotham ... sometimes he takes you to a place you won't like, but good FE knowledge all the same.
Seismic waves travel faster north-south than east-west for a full four seconds.
I don't understand where you got these numbers but being as your P-wave is going to need almost 3 hours instead of the registered 23 mins, you can keep your 4 seconds.
"The S-wave shadow zone is larger than the P-wave shadow zones; direct S waves are not recorded in the entire region more than 103° away from the epicentre. It therefore seems that S waves do not travel through the core at all, and this is interpreted to mean that it is liquid, or at least acts like a liquid. The way P waves are refracted in the core is believed to indicate that there is a solid inner core. Although most of the earth's iron is supposed to be concentrated in the core, it is interesting to note that in the outer zones of the earth, iron levels decrease with depth.
I have 3000km in hand ... I'm ok with this. I'm still sending my wave through a solid medium (rock) so I'm gonna blow your water time away.
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!
This is all fascinating, but it isn't proving the earth is flat. Only an attempt to muddy the waters and discredit the science we have.
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.
A moment ago you said the earth had water under it. Now you're quibbling over the size of the crust. 70km, 600km .... does it matter in general terms when the diameter of earth is over 12,000km to my p-wave propagation?
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!
here's the source:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68379.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68379.0)
I don't see any source. All I see is a bunch of lunatics on the internet discussing it.
Are you trying to discredit the very notion of earthquakes with that last post, arguing the plates don't move, ergo there can be no earthquakes? This would be a very brave and interesting tactic, but I fear one that will bring a very rapid close to this thread and a victory for Round Earth.
-
Now, the speed of sound in water is 1.5km/s.
I had to stop here.
You can't compare a flat earth distance to a round earth one. They are totally different. Since distance is a function of velocity you need to first determine the accurate flat earth velocity.
a Round Earth distance between two points will return a Round Earth result.
A mile is 5280 feet on a Flat Earth. I don't know what it is on a Round Earth since Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system devices appear to be inaccurate.
-
Now, the speed of sound in water is 1.5km/s.
I had to stop here.
You can't compare a flat earth distance to a round earth one. They are totally different. Since distance is a function of velocity you need to first determine the accurate flat earth velocity.
a Round Earth distance between two points will return a Round Earth result.
A mile is 5280 feet on a Flat Earth. I don't know what it is on a Round Earth since Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system devices appear to be inaccurate.
Is the discrepancy between a round and flat distance out by a factor of 8? A round earther walks into a bar and proudly proclaims to a lady he's packing 8 inches ... and the poor old flat earther is only packing 1 inch? That kind of discrepancy is the difference between buying the lady a drink and being laughed out of the bar. Right now you are being laughed out of the bar.
-
Is the discrepancy between a round and flat distance out by a factor of 8? A round earther walks into a bar and proudly proclaims to a lady he's packing 8 inches ... and the poor old flat earther is only packing 1 inch? That kind of discrepancy is the difference between buying the lady a drink and being laughed out of the bar. Right now you are being laughed out of the bar.
Before we can talk about velocity we first come up with a standard measurement system for both short (think a few round earth inches) and very long distances (a few thousand round earth miles) that is agreed upon by all.
Being laughed out of the bar or not this is a serious concern with a majority of the flat earth models.
If we can't come up with a standard measurement system then we need to come up with an accurate conversion formula. How can we convert round earth meters and round earth seconds to flat earth meters (Feters) and flat earth seconds (Feconds)
Also I've read that the round earth speed of sound in water range from 1450 to 1531 meters per seconds. This is different that what you claimed. Based on round earth studies things like temperature, particulates, solvents, density, altitude, atmospheric density etc can have change this speed.
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/NickyDu.shtml (https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/NickyDu.shtml)
What if part of the water is full of a very large, densely packed, school of krill? What experiments have been done on that?
What if part of the water is muddy? Would it depend on how muddy? How can we measure how thick the muddy water was?
How do these things affect the speed of sound in meters/second? How does that affect the speed of sound in Feters/Feconds?
What is the speed of sound in water in Feters/Feconds?
-
I'm not sure I'm going to dignify that with an answer.
Come on. This is the first one. It is easier than that. There is something obviously very weird about the data I gave you in the OP. Its real data ... but something isn't right.
-
I'm not sure I'm going to dignify that with an answer.
Well i think you broke one of your rules. not dignifying something with an answer makes no coherent argument.
"You need to make a coherent argument"
-
This is station data from 40 independent stations across the earth. It is no small sample set. How is it your s-waves radiate out from the epicenter exactly 11,465km and come to a dead stop, no matter where the earthquake?
I can pull this type of data from any earthquake. Always the same ... 103 degrees (round earth) or 11,456km (flat earth) from the epicenter.
1. You quote two different figures above for the distance s-waves travel. Very suspicious.
2. How can we know they travel around 11,500km on the flat earth? Distances on the flat earth aren't known. There is no map.
-
This is station data from 40 independent stations across the earth. It is no small sample set. How is it your s-waves radiate out from the epicenter exactly 11,465km and come to a dead stop, no matter where the earthquake?
I can pull this type of data from any earthquake. Always the same ... 103 degrees (round earth) or 11,456km (flat earth) from the epicenter.
1. You quote two different figures above for the distance s-waves travel. Very suspicious.
2. How can we know they travel around 11,500km on the flat earth? Distances on the flat earth aren't known. There is no map.
103 degrees can be looked at as a percentage. It is 28.6% of the distance across the earth.
We know the dimensions of a flat earth. The diameter of a flat earth is 40,000km. Flat earthers use this to determine the altitude of the sun using trigonometry... Voliva and Rowbotham for example. This makes the station 11,440km away. Take my rounding out and its the same distance.
(http://www.nmsr.org/flat-vs-globe.jpg)
I don't think there are too many flat earthers that would throw both Rowbotham and Voliva under the bus in the same thread. There wouldn't be a lot left of flat earth theory.
-
Voliva and Rowbotham were early pioneers, but we've learned a lot since then. The reason they think the sun was at 3000 miles was because they were measuring it from around 45°N - but obviously this doesn't work if you measure it from other latitudes.
So, because we don't really know the altitude of the sun, we don't really know the dimensions of the Earth.
I think it's a bit rich for a round earther to claim to know the size of the flat earth when we flat earthers have told you over and over that this isn't yet known.
-
Voliva and Rowbotham were early pioneers, but we've learned a lot since then. The reason they think the sun was at 3000 miles was because they were measuring it from around 45°N - but obviously this doesn't work if you measure it from other latitudes.
So, because we don't really know the altitude of the sun, we don't really know the dimensions of the Earth.
I think it's a bit rich for a round earther to claim to know the size of the flat earth when we flat earthers have told you over and over that this isn't yet known.
So you don't know the altitude of the sun, you don't know how big the earth is, you don't know how far any place is from any other place ... how do you know the earth is flat? You've distanced yourself from Rowbotham's works, Voliva went under the same bus ... what can you tell me about earth? Other than you have a hunch it might be flat? ::)
You just said ... we've learned a lot since then. Other than that they were wrong (my suspicion as a round earther all along), what have you learned? You have revised figures for me? You know more now ... you just said so. What do you know?
-
I only said they were wrong about this one thing, not about everything. And only wrong in the sense they were working at the early days of the theory, before things had been fine-tuned.
It's hardly a hunch that the earth is flat: that's a known. NASA fakery is obvious. Motion and curvature has never been detected. You look at the horizon and it's perfectly flat and always rises to eye level - which it could never do on a sphere, only on a flat plane.
The starting position is "flat": that's what your senses tell you. It's only what you've been taught and swallowed about the 'globe' that tells you otherwise. And a part of you knows it, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
Finally, if you really want to learn about this subject, why not just google it? It's already been discussed to death on here and disproven several times, going back over a decade:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=p-waves+and+s-waves+flat+earth+site:www.theflatearthsociety.org&rlz=1C1CHZL_enGB754GB754&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwii4MXUptXbAhXUe8AKHVPEDlsQrQIINCgEMAA&biw=1366&bih=675
-
So, you are giving me nothing about the earth, other than your starting place is 'it is flat'.
Regarding my senses, is the image below moving?
(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotolip.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F05%2FOptical-illusions-10.jpg&f=1)
My eyes tell me it is. the file type .jpeg tells me it can't be.
-
I get your point, but that image doesn't really have anything to do with whether we're on a spinning ball or not: more relevant would be for you to drive in your car at 1040mph and tell me if you can feel motion. My prediction is you will. But you're not feeling it now, are you, sitting at your computer? Even though we're supposed to be hurtling through space at 666,000mph!
-
There is no map.
I disagree with this 100%. There is a map of the earth. I've used it hundreds of times. I've used it to drive from Alaska to Mexico. I've used it to travel across Europe and Asia. I can assure you it's pretty damn accurate with millions of photographs at ground level to support it's accuracy. This map supports the infinite plane flat earth model.
(https://www.google.com/maps)
If you still don't believe that a map of the earth exist then please answer these questions:
1. If no map of the earth exists how am I able to accurately travel long distances all over the world on a consistent basis using a map of the earth?
2. If i'm able to use a map of the earth to accurately travel long distances all over the world would that not make my map accurate?
-
I get your point, but that image doesn't really have anything to do with whether we're on a spinning ball or not: more relevant would be for you to drive in your car at 1040mph and tell me if you can feel motion. My prediction is you will. But you're not feeling it now, are you, sitting at your computer? Even though we're supposed to be hurtling through space at 666,000mph!
If I spin around several times and then stop, my senses tell me the earth is moving and I fall over. Its called being dizzy. I can fool my senses very easily. Eyes, ears, sense of touch etc.
When I spin, my ears tell me the earth is moving even when I stop. Once upon a time I was a pilot. We used to do an exercise where we'd blind fold people to show them how easy their senses are fooled and they are instructed to trust the instruments ... not what they feel. We'd roll the aircraft and put it into a one g turn. Then ask, what's happening. They'd say we we rolled and now are straight again. They'd remove the blind fold and realise they are actually at about 45 degrees angle of bank and falling out of the sky at the same time (losing altitude). You could actually get people inverted and they wouldn't know.
The upshot is your senses are easily fooled. And looking out at a vast landscape will tell you the earth looks flat ... but looks can be deceiving. You have to trust the instruments, you need to look at the data.
-
There is no map.
I disagree with this 100%. There is a map of the earth. I've used it hundreds of times. I've used it to drive from Alaska to Mexico. I've used it to travel across Europe and Asia. I can assure you it's pretty damn accurate with millions of photographs at ground level to support it's accuracy. This map supports the infinite plane flat earth model.
https://www.google.com/maps (https://www.google.com/maps)
If you still don't believe that a map of the earth exist then please answer these questions:
1. If no map of the earth exists how am I able to accurately travel long distances all over the world on a consistent basis using a map of the earth?
2. If i'm able to use a map of the earth to accurately travel long distances all over the world would that not make my map accurate?
I honestly have no idea. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Fact is: the published maps are incompatible with the flat earth, therefore the maps must be wrong.
That's just logic.
-
Fact is: the published maps are incompatible with the flat earth, therefore the maps must be wrong.
That's just logic.
The map i just linked to you in the previous post is 100% compatible with the flat earth.
You can verify 100% that it is by traveling around this flat earth and comparing your location on this flat earth to your location on this flat earth map.
since you have no idea what the answers are I have a theory i've been working on
Questions:
1. If no map of the flat earth exists how am I able to accurately travel long distances all over the flat world on a consistent basis using a map of the flat earth?
2. If i'm able to use a map of the flat earth to accurately travel long distances all over the flat world would that not make my map accurate?
Answers
1. If you are able to use a map to accurately travel long distances all over the flat earth on a consistent basis then there is a map of the earth.
2. If you can use a map of the flat earth to accurately travel long distances all over the flat earth then that would be an accurate flat earth map.
-
How do you travel? Have you got your own private jet???
Or do you just sit in the seat and go wherever they take you?
-
How do you travel? Have you got your own private jet???
Or do you just sit in the seat and go wherever they take you?
Usually by car. sometimes by train. a few times by plane. I don't sit in the seat and go wherever "they" take me. Most of the time I drive myself. I just wanted to let you know that there is an accurate flat earth map using the infinite plane model of the flat earth.
If you don't believe me that it's accurate then, by all means, take a week off and take a road trip using only that map to navigate.
-
How do you travel? Have you got your own private jet???
Or do you just sit in the seat and go wherever they take you?
Usually by car. sometimes by train. a few times by plane. I don't sit in the seat and go wherever "they" take me. Most of the time I drive myself. I just wanted to let you know that there is an accurate flat earth map using the infinite plane model of the flat earth.
If you don't believe me that it's accurate then, by all means, take a week off and take a road trip using only that map to navigate.
Maybe a road trip in England would work, but not in Australia or the US.
-
Huhg-hem.
Chaps, I'm the OP, you are supposed to be on the same side. In order for me to countenance the absurdity of a flat earth you are going to need to
1) Show me why my evidence and reasoning is false
2) Using that show how Flat Earth repairs these issues (ie is the superior model).
-
Maybe a road trip in England would work, but not in Australia or the US.
Why? What's the difference?
-
... fine, organise yourselves. I'll look in once you get your act together ::)
-
Maybe a road trip in England would work, but not in Australia or the US.
Why? What's the difference?
Australia is really stretched on the flat earth. And the US has criss-crossing roads that are supposed to be north-south/east-west that should form rectangles, but don't.
-
Maybe a road trip in England would work, but not in Australia or the US.
First off I would like to point out that "England", "Australia" and the "US" are all terms which represent an area on an accurate flat earth map. If there is no accurate flat earth map then those named areas could not exist.
Secondly I would like to point out that i have backpacked/driven/trained across Europe, North America, South America, and Asia.
The only reason why you know what i'm talking about when I say "Europe", or "North America" (which are also terms which represent and area on an accurate flat earth map) is because there is this accurate flat earth map:
https://www.google.com/maps/
-
Australia is really stretched on the flat earth.
If you are looking at a flat earth map that shows Australia is really stretched out you are looking at a very inaccurate flat earth map. Have you tried looking at this map:
https://www.google.com/maps/
And the US has criss-crossing roads that are supposed to be north-south/east-west that should form rectangles, but don't.
The US has north-south/east-west roads that form rectangles on this flat earth map:
https://www.google.com/maps/
-
Australia is really stretched on the flat earth.
If you are looking at a flat earth map that shows Australia is really stretched out you are looking at a very inaccurate flat earth map. Have you tried looking at this map:
https://www.google.com/maps/
And the US has criss-crossing roads that are supposed to be north-south/east-west that should form rectangles, but don't.
The US has north-south/east-west roads that form rectangles on this flat earth map:
https://www.google.com/maps/
Maybe you should add the link to Google maps One more time....
-
The US has north-south/east-west roads that form rectangles on this flat earth map:
https://www.google.com/maps/
I guess you've never heard of "Jeffersonian Grid Corrections" then?
https://hyperallergic.com/292429/aerial-views-of-where-americas-grid-bends-to-the-curvature-of-the-earth/
-
I guess you've never heard of "Jeffersonian Grid Corrections" then?
https://hyperallergic.com/292429/aerial-views-of-where-americas-grid-bends-to-the-curvature-of-the-earth/
I have now. These things just further confirm that the flat earth map that I have discovered is an accurate flat earth map.
I notice the road curving left. My accurate flat earth map also shows the road curving to the left.
I notice the road curving to the right. My accurate flat earth map shows the road curving to the right.
I notice a river 20 miles northwest on my flat earth map and, low and behold, there is a river roughly 20 miles northwest of where I was.
I notice on my flat earth map the roads which claim to be running north and south form squares and rectangles with the roads that claim to be running east and west.
My flat earth map says that Austria is 300 KM away. The street sign says Austria is 300 km away. I sync both of those up with my odometer and they all three confirm as i'm entering Austria after having traveled about 300 KM that my map, the street sign, and my odometer are all on the same page.
-
Yes, but that map you linked to isn't a 'flat earth map', it's a 'globe earth map'. So why do you keep calling it a 'flat earth map'?
-
Yes, but that map you linked to isn't a 'flat earth map', it's a 'globe earth map'. So why do you keep calling it a 'flat earth map'?
That's 100% incorrect. that is a map of this flat earth. Where on that map did you find any sort of an indication that it's a round earth map?
This is an example of a round earth map.
(https://i.imgur.com/MbHbVz8.jpg)
-
Yes, but that map you linked to isn't a 'flat earth map', it's a 'globe earth map'. So why do you keep calling it a 'flat earth map'?
That's 100% incorrect. that is a map of this flat earth. Where on that map did you find any sort of an indication that it's a round earth map?
1. If I zoom fully out I see a giant rectangle that scrolls infinitely left to right
2. There's no south pole, no ice wall
3. If I ask the makers, they'll tell me it's a projection of the globe
4. If I measure long distances between two places, the lines are curved
5. If I fly north and keep going in a straight line, I exit the map.
-
1. If I zoom fully out I see a giant rectangle that scrolls infinitely left to right
So what? The flat earth is an infinitely repeating plane.
2. There's no south pole, no ice wall
The flat earth does not have an edge or an ice wall. If it did it would have been seen by now.
3. If I ask the makers, they'll tell me it's a projection of the globe
The inaccurate map you linked is a projection of the globe too. But it's not a globe. It's a FLAT circle. just like my map is FLAT. NOT A GLOBE.
4. If I measure long distances between two places, the lines are curved
I'm able to use a ruler on my map to connect two far points in a PERFECTLY STRAIGHT LINE.
5. If I fly north and keep going in a straight line, I exit the map.
1.on your map if i fly south and keep going in a straight line i exit the map
2. WRONG. this map it's an infinitely repeating plane.
-
So you're saying that if I was high enough to see the entire planet that's what it would look like?
And how does it work that I can fly either east or west from, say, the US to Russia and still end up in the same place?
-
So you're saying that if I was high enough to see the entire planet that's what it would look like?
I don't know. No one knows what the world looks like from super high. The dome/firmament prevents it. That's the whole reason why there is a debate about the shape of the earth remember?
And how does it work that I can fly either east or west from, say, the US to Russia and still end up in the same place?
If you ever fly from New York to Moscow you can see, plain as day, that you leave New York and immediately flying over water for most of the flight. This is REALITY. I've flown to Germany. I've flown to Italy. I've flown to Moscow. You are NOT flying over Canada. If you don't believe me then take a trip overseas yourself.
My map, in addition to corroborating the flight times that we see in REALITY, it also corroborates the New York - Moscow flight path over the ocean instead of over Canada.
Personally I have never flown to Russia from California. But I have an Aunt who has many times. She said that you fly over the ocean from LA to get to Russia too which is also corroborated by the map I have presented.
-
What I mean is: what if I fly from New York to Moscow to Japan, and meet my friend who has flown from New York to Los Angeles to Japan. How does that work?
-
What I mean is: what if I fly from New York to Moscow to Japan, and meet my friend who has flown from New York to Los Angeles to Japan. How does that work?
1. First off there is a nonstop flight between new york and japan which passes over the United states:
I don't know anyone who has personally taken this flight.
(https://i.imgur.com/hFCjrIo.jpg)
I do have a close friend who went to Tokyo who left from Kansas City. He flew to Minneapolis first and then to Japan. He verified he flew over the west coast (northern California/Oregon area) and was able to see California/Washington outside of the window. I don't think he is lying to me.
(https://i.imgur.com/NX91hNU.jpg)
So united states -> japan flights are verified through GPS evidence, flight log evidence, and visual evidence as having passed over the west coast of the United states. All of which are corroborated by my accurate flat earth map. All of these flights provide VERY strong evidence that the earth is flat.
I know the New York -> Moscow flight goes over the ocean to the east of New York. I've taken this flight
(https://i.imgur.com/SgUxSdS.jpg)
I've verified this flight.
I have no idea what path the Moscow -> Japan flight takes.
1. I don't know the area enough to identify landmarks from the window
2. I don't personally know anyone who has taken this flight.
-
But I think you're smart enough to know that the Moscow-Japan flight doesn't go west, over the US, and over the Pacific.
So how do you explain that the west travelling guy and the east travelling guy meet in the same place on this infinitely scrolling rectangular plane?
-
But I think you're smart enough to know that the Moscow-Japan flight doesn't go west, over the US, and over the Pacific.
So how do you explain that the west travelling guy and the east travelling guy meet in the same place on this infinitely scrolling rectangular plane?
The plane repeats itself. This is why no one has ever seen or photographed the edge.
OR
The moscow-Japan flight is just the same as it shows on this map flying over russia and the water between russia and japan.
Imagine on your map one plane taking a curved path clockwise from america to japan and another plan taking a curved path counterclockwise from america to japan.
-
The plane repeats itself?
So, in a sense, there are an infinite number of Japans - but yet, they're all the same Japan, since they all contain the same people doing the same thing.
Doesn't that just sound a little bit like magic? Especially when compared to the well-established globe?
-
The plane repeats itself?
So, in a sense, there are an infinite number of Japans - but yet, they're all the same Japan, since they all contain the same people doing the same thing.
Doesn't that just sound a little bit like magic? Especially when compared to the well-established globe?
Just because I don't have all the answers does not at all reduce the FACT that the map I have provided is accurate. If you don't believe me take a road trip from Alaska to South America. If you don't have that much time then take a road trip from Canada to Mexico. If you live in Europe then take a road trip from France to Russia.
I've used it to navigate several continents over a good chunk of the world. It provided photographic evidence suggesting its accuracy as well.
-
Soooo .... as enjoyable as this was ... is anyone going to tackle the OP? You know, seismology. Not maps.
-
The plane repeats itself?
So, in a sense, there are an infinite number of Japans - but yet, they're all the same Japan, since they all contain the same people doing the same thing.
Doesn't that just sound a little bit like magic? Especially when compared to the well-established globe?
Just because I don't have all the answers does not at all reduce the FACT that the map I have provided is accurate. If you don't believe me take a road trip from Alaska to South America. If you don't have that much time then take a road trip from Canada to Mexico. If you live in Europe then take a road trip from France to Russia.
I've used it to navigate several continents over a good chunk of the world. It provided photographic evidence suggesting its accuracy as well.
Where is the North Pole on that map?
-
Where is the North Pole on that map?
The "North pole" only exist in a globe earth model. It's a sphere earth term to represent an area on the sphere earth.
On the flat earth map provided the spherical "north pole" would be north of Alaska. The northern part of Greenland is in the spherical "north pole"
-
Max and doug, this thread is not here for you to satirise your opponents (take that back to AR), it's here for you to play devil's advocate. If you don't want to play, that's fine, but leave the option open to others.
Hopefully this thread has sat long enough that I'm not stepping on any toes here.
The thing is, my post WAS my honest attempt at the best possible argument that could be made against this. Given that this is very similar to arguments Baby Thork has made, it seemed appropriate.
I honestly have no idea how to use any kind of logic or rational thought to counter the OP's argument.
-
Come on. This is the first one. It is easier than that. There is something obviously very weird about the data I gave you in the OP. Its real data ... but something isn't right.
I find it really strange that you are able to research seismology and come up with a reasonable looking argument for the round earth theory, when I haven't seen you do the same thing for flat earth theories. You've insisted that there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain, and never came back to that thread to acknowledge you were wrong. You've claimed that pictures of Mt. Rainier casting shadows on clouds is explained by the ocean near Mt. Rainier ("case closed"), and never came back after it was pointed out that many of these views are at SUNRISE, eliminating the "reflection off the ocean" idea. You insist the sun doesn't move across the sky at 15 degrees per hour, and walk away from the discussion.
So, for this thread, did you take real numbers and reverse something as a gotcha? Did you invert something in a diagram somewhere? I don't know - at first glance, your argument seems quite sound. Or, do you just have some inane thing up your sleeve and plan to say "case closed" and walk away? I really don't know what to expect from you, or how to engage with you in a meaningful way.
If you want to engage in conversations like this thread, it would be helpful if you went back to threads where you erroneously declared victory and admitted you were wrong.
-
Thork is a round earther playing flat earther: that may explain your finding his manner "strange".
-
*** Turning the tables ***
When I was a small boy, I used to play my father at chess. He was far better than me because I was 8 and he was an Oxford educated business professional. The reality was he was actually very good even for an adult. He could play 8 club players at once and consistently win the majority of games. He could also play a single game against a club player completely blindfolded and would beat an average club player. My mother once remarked she knew he wasn't a normal man having watched him do an exhibition like this (It was a slight, she hated him after he became an alcoholic and left the family home). I'm not a bad chess player to this day, but if I could go back in time ... I still wouldn't come close to beating my dad. When I was a younger man and played more often, I had an elo rating of between 1605 and 1630. So me at my best as an adult
United States Chess Federation ratings
The United States Chess Federation (USCF) uses its own classification of players:[9]
2400 and above: Senior Master
2200–2399: National Master
2200–2399 plus 300 games above 2200: Original Life Master[10]
2000–2199: Expert
1800–1999: Class A
1600–1799: Class B
1400–1599: Class C
1200–1399: Class D
1000–1199: Class E
800–999: Class F
600–799: Class G
400–599: Class H
200–399: Class I
0–199: Class J
My father's rating when he played a lot was well over 2000. As an 8 year old, I'd have had to be the next Gary Kasparov to stand a chance.
But we'd play, and at some point the writing would be on the wall. I'd see things weren't going well and the tears would well up. As soon as he saw checkmate was unavoidable ... say check mate in 5 and nothing I could do about it, he'd make me an offer. "Would you like to swap the board around?". I'd agree and now with the odds pushed back we'd have a tight game where depending on how dominant his position when he made the offer, I might win the game ... but I could still lose and in those games in my head, at least I gave my dad a good game and wasn't annihilated.
I've told you round earthers many times ... arguing the earth is round is no challenge. You are already starting with the board set up 5 moves from checkmate. Its not hard to argue the earth is round. Any idiot can do that. What is hard, is making a fight of it the other way around. Within about 3 posts from me, you guys resigned. The tears were in your eyes, it was over.
I made this thread in response to Tom's plans for a debate club. To encourage you to improve your skills. To look at problems and make your best fist of trying to argue the hard side. To get you used to arguing the earth is flat, without feeling embarrassed about it. Honestly, I'd be embarrassed to come here and argue the earth was round. We wanted those of you who are better at debating, to become flat earthers, to engage those with weaker skills visiting for the first time and to take the load off me and Tom and Pete and all the other same old faces, using your experience. We wanted you to play each other, not always rely on us for a game.
*** So, lets swap the board around ... ***
Being a flat earther is an exercise in mastery. You have to absolutely understand the topic, learn other people's misconceptions about it, and also spot things that others might struggle to explain or better yet, find a way to explain something 'incorrectly' in a way that makes sense at first glance.
So that is what I'm going to do. I'm going to pick something from my OP that could muddy the water or if the science is bad (Spoiler: there are some pretty shitty scientists about), I'm going to utterly discredit the evidence removing your queen and making the game more even. This technique will make you a better scientist, because looking at your own work through 'flat earth eyes' encourages you to spot misconceptions others might have about your own work, or spot errors in your methodology and the data you present. How would a flat earther rip your thesis apart?
The premise of the OP, is that these waves travel through a molten core and can't be on a flat earth because they'd have to break the speed of sound to do it. And I kept using the same graph to beat you into submission.
(http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/hazards/earthquakes/activities/images/recordStation.jpg)
So that graph is my problem. But it has a lot of data ... if you are using it against me, do you actually understand it, or are you just copy pasting something without understanding? If that's the case, I'm not going to let you win this debate.
So, *clears throat ... *
The OP mentions the use of shadow zones for s and p waves. And the OP showed the yellow line reading in the graph proves the s waves can only travel 103 degrees and come to a dead stop .... using this graphic to explain why.
(http://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/uploads/A_006_shadowzone4_swave_thumbnail.jpg)
But you also gave me this diagram.
(http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1011/topic3/SeismicWaves.gif)
In it, the p waves also have a shadow zone from 103 degrees to 150 degrees.
The yellow line perfectly demonstrates the shadow zone for s waves, with no readings after 103 degrees, but I'm expecting a gap in the p-waves - the red line on the graph. Why is it no less than 8 stations are reporting p-wave values between 103 degrees and 150 degrees on the graph? Where is the shadow zone for p-waves that the theory predicts and why are scientists making up data they can't possibly have? (now I'm going to bait you into a response ... a challenge) Your own data doesn't fit your model. You've only succeeded in proving the earth is not round. This is a fine example of round earthers ignoring evidence against their own theories and blindly championing rotundity. The very fact a p-wave travels unencumbered across the earth shows it must be of a uniform density like the surface of a flat earth.
(my father only ever swapped the board around once in a game. I'm not going to argue against my self for 40 pages).
I'm going to add two further points. There is a reason flat earthers get bored of gravity and sunset threads. Its like you are using the same opening on us every game. You come at me with the Ruy Lopez and I'm going to respond with a standard defense myself. I already know your objections, I know my responses, I've played that gravity game 14 moves deep a hundred times. Its why we moan at your to find innovative proofs ... like this OP. A new challenge.
I'm also sick of established members like Junker constantly telling me I'm stupid. That I'm Thorkish and have retarded ideas. No, I'm making a retarded OP full of holes so you might actually engage me on it because if I make my OPs harder, none of you respond. If I just make a post about my new computer, you'll ignore it. If I tell you my heatpipes have magical properties, you'll engage and talk about my computer which I wanted to do because I was excited about it, and you'll respond because someone was wrong about something on the internet. If everyone agrees, there is no debate. What kind of forum would this be if we all decided to just agree earth was round? A busy one? That is not how TES works.
protip: you're not trying to put the fire out. you can't. you're just trying to contain it until it burns out on its own.
You’re a better man than me, gg. I started to make a post earlier agreeing with your previous post and then explaining to thork what containment is. I closed my browser and went and had a drink instead.
Thork, I don’t know if you’re memeing or not, but just read gary’s post. This thread is heavily bordering on CN material. I’ll give it a few posts before I punt it down there for its sheer stupidity.
Was just meant to be a fun thread in the lounge where people could make silly suggestions. Not my fault everyone has a broom up their arse. Move it where you like.
That is the thing, Thork. You aren't fun. No one goes into a Thork thread thinking "oh hey, this is a light-hearted and fun thread." They think "wow what did he post this time?" <- that is a nice way of putting it
Maybe just preface it to let everyone know, because you are the definition of Poe's law.
Thanks for that. Appreciated. ... oh have a ::) in case I fall foul of Poe's law.
-
I find it really strange that you are able to research seismology and come up with a reasonable looking argument for the round earth theory, when I haven't seen you do the same thing for flat earth theories. You've insisted that there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain, and never came back to that thread to acknowledge you were wrong. You've claimed that pictures of Mt. Rainier casting shadows on clouds is explained by the ocean near Mt. Rainier ("case closed"), and never came back after it was pointed out that many of these views are at SUNRISE, eliminating the "reflection off the ocean" idea. You insist the sun doesn't move across the sky at 15 degrees per hour, and walk away from the discussion.
What do you want from us here at TFES? Lets take an example. You post a bunch of photos showing Mt Rainier. Its pretty simple isn't it? Why did you pick those 3 thread examples? Because they're examples where you didn't get a hiding in the upper fora. Because you picked the absolute easiest examples because you have been getting so roundly beaten in more complex debates ... despite still having all the advantages. Yeah, its a photo ... how would you object to it?
I have two choices. I can ignore your facile post, or I can think ... well in an effort to encourage you to start venturing towards something actually worth debating, I'll give an answer and see where you want to take the conversation. I'll quite literally sink down to your level. Look, a shadow on a cloud! Look, its near the sea!
When you start losing debates, you become reductionist. You go to the simplest possible explanation of earth's shape. For fear of losing again. If you are going to post a photo and say hah! look at that, and my response humouring you is met with something equally trivial ... where do you think I should go with that? I'm already bored. There is nothing in that thread for me. No one is going to learn anything, no one is challenged, there is nothing I can enjoy in it. This isn't a forum for the Mickey Mouse club. Its for people who like science and want to explore it, and you do that by meeting challenges and having to understand things thoroughly to 'explain to the alien', how that thing works. If you are interested in geology, make a thread about sedimentary layering, and how that proves earth round. Trust me, you'll learn a lot about geology as the flat earthers put you through your paces. But if you find straight lines and shadows interesting ... .Hey look powerlines ... so what? What do you want me to discuss about a bunch of stupid power lines in a row? Where is the science in looking at a straight or curved line? I can talk about photography and lenses, but you shut that down, no interest. I can talk about google's mapping techniques but no on wanted to let me go down that route. Just 'look at the picture'. I saw it. I left the thread. You aren't discussing anything of interest. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not a bot. I'm a person and I come here with needs of my own. Mental stimulation, human interaction, humour, friendship.
I can't be a round earther on this forum. This thread shows why. There is zero opposition for me in that. It becomes intimidating to the point no one wants to engage with me. How are you going to beat me in a debate about maps if I take the round earth side? I'm a qualified commercial pilot. I got 100% in my flight school navigation exams. That's the hardest exam in flight school. 100% is practically unheard of.
How would you beat me in a debate about air travel? a) I'm a qualified pilot, b) I have a degree in Aerospace engineering and used to design aircraft wings for Airbus. I worked in the Flight Physics department. I enjoy talking about aircraft, but I'm going to have to take the flat side and hint at things you should look at to make any kind of a debate out of it. Me just slamming proofs on Tom Bishop is unenjoyable for both him and me and just leaves the rest of you cheer leading.
I first discovered TFES over 10 years ago. I made a thread and engaged a forum moderator called 'The Engineer'. Hah, I thought, we'll see what kind of an engineer you are. In the words of Starwars, negotiations were short. After a few of posts I thought ... mmm. Why is this seemingly intelligent person arguing these things and letting me beat him up so badly on here? And I saw how vociferously he defended his community, how he didn't care about being humiliated and how he'd selflessly debate something he must of seen 100 times before with me and entertain me. For free. And I felt sorry for him. I thought he could use a hand. I thought I could do better in certain debates on his behalf. In about 3 posts, I understood TFES and how the bloody game works. I didn't need hints. I certainly didn't need someone so fed up with it all that they have to explain it in terms like these. New people read these threads. It breaks the mystery and solves the puzzle. Posting that ruddy mountain again and asking over and over for someone to debate it with you is no show of intellect. It is the exact opposite.
I find it really strange that you are able to research seismology and come up with a reasonable looking argument for the round earth theory, when I haven't seen you do the same thing for flat earth theories.
Yeah, its meant to be strange. Its a clue. A hint. Why can't you take a hint?
-
*** Turning the tables ***
When I was a small boy, I used to play my father at chess.
...we'd play, and at some point the writing would be on the wall. I'd see things weren't going well and the tears would well up. As soon as he saw checkmate was unavoidable ... say check mate in 5 and nothing I could do about it, he'd make me an offer. "Would you like to swap the board around?". I'd agree and now with the odds pushed back we'd have a tight game where depending on how dominant his position when he made the offer, I might win the game ... but I could still lose and in those games in my head, at least I gave my dad a good game and wasn't annihilated.
I've told you round earthers many times ... arguing the earth is round is no challenge. You are already starting with the board set up 5 moves from checkmate. Its not hard to argue the earth is round. Any idiot can do that. What is hard, is making a fight of it the other way around. Within about 3 posts from me, you guys resigned. The tears were in your eyes, it was over.
A) This is not a game like chess where there are sides you can pick that are almost equal. There's an objective truth we are trying to get to.
B) When your father turned the tables, did you ever just start drooling on the pieces, or rectally inserting his pieces to prevent him from using them? Because that's what you're doing when you make inane arguments like "The powerlines don't exist."
I made this thread in response to Tom's plans for a debate club. To encourage you to improve your skills. To look at problems and make your best fist of trying to argue the hard side. To get you used to arguing the earth is flat, without feeling embarrassed about it. Honestly, I'd be embarrassed to come here and argue the earth was round. We wanted those of you who are better at debating, to become flat earthers, to engage those with weaker skills visiting for the first time and to take the load off me and Tom and Pete and all the other same old faces, using your experience. We wanted you to play each other, not always rely on us for a game.
People might be coming here because they aren't sure, and then they see your facile arguments and they might start believing in nonsense. Believing in nonsense gets people killed. (https://www.smh.com.au/national/dead-babys-parents-ignored-advice-qc-20090504-asmt.html)
If the evidence points at something curious, I'll say that, and I won't blindly argue that it means round earth. I follow the evidence. I'm not on any side.
Being a flat earther is an exercise in mastery. You have to absolutely understand the topic, learn other people's misconceptions about it, and also spot things that others might struggle to explain or better yet, find a way to explain something 'incorrectly' in a way that makes sense at first glance.
So, please start doing that. Go back to the Lake Pontchartrain thread and retract your utterly ridiculous statement that the powerlines don't exist. Go back to the mountains casting shadows on clouds and retract "case closed". Come up with something less inane.
So that is what I'm going to do. I'm going to pick something from my OP that could muddy the water or if the science is bad (Spoiler: there are some pretty shitty scientists about), I'm going to utterly discredit the evidence removing your queen and making the game more even. This technique will make you a better scientist, because looking at your own work through 'flat earth eyes' encourages you to spot misconceptions others might have about your own work, or spot errors in your methodology and the data you present. How would a flat earther rip your thesis apart?
The premise of the OP, is that these waves travel through a molten core and can't be on a flat earth because they'd have to break the speed of sound to do it. And I kept using the same graph to beat you into submission.
(http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/hazards/earthquakes/activities/images/recordStation.jpg)
So that graph is my problem. But it has a lot of data ... if you are using it against me, do you actually understand it, or are you just copy pasting something without understanding? If that's the case, I'm not going to let you win this debate.
So, *clears throat ... *
The OP mentions the use of shadow zones for s and p waves. And the OP showed the yellow line reading in the graph proves the s waves can only travel 103 degrees and come to a dead stop .... using this graphic to explain why.
(http://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/uploads/A_006_shadowzone4_swave_thumbnail.jpg)
But you also gave me this diagram.
(http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1011/topic3/SeismicWaves.gif)
In it, the p waves also have a shadow zone from 103 degrees to 150 degrees.
The yellow line perfectly demonstrates the shadow zone for s waves, with no readings after 103 degrees, but I'm expecting a gap in the p-waves - the red line on the graph. Why is it no less than 8 stations are reporting p-wave values between 103 degrees and 150 degrees on the graph? Where is the shadow zone for p-waves that the theory predicts and why are scientists making up data they can't possibly have? (now I'm going to bait you into a response ... a challenge) Your own data doesn't fit your model. You've only succeeded in proving the earth is not round. This is a fine example of round earthers ignoring evidence against their own theories and blindly championing rotundity. The very fact a p-wave travels unencumbered across the earth shows it must be of a uniform density like the surface of a flat earth.
Are you freaking kidding me? Read your original post again:
KEY
green marks show the arrival of direct P-waves
orange marks show the arrival of direct S-waves
red marks show the arrival of PP-waves (reflected at the surface)
yellow marks show the arrival of ScS-waves (reflected at the boundary with the outer core)
pink marks show the arrival of SS-waves (reflected at the surface)
So now you come here and say that the red marks are P waves, when they aren't - they are PP waves, which can be detected at any angle. You also say that the yellow waves are the S waves, but they are ScS waves.
Thanks for, once again, demonstrating your inability to comprehend even the most basic of text.
I'm going to add two further points. There is a reason flat earthers get bored of gravity and sunset threads. Its like you are using the same opening on us every game. You come at me with the Ruy Lopez and I'm going to respond with a standard defense myself. I already know your objections, I know my responses, I've played that gravity game 14 moves deep a hundred times. Its why we moan at your to find innovative proofs ... like this OP. A new challenge.
You will notice that if some noob comes by and claims that the earth must have accelerated to greater than the speed of light, or some other nonsense, that people like me will correct them. This doesn't mean we're taking the flat earth side, it means we're correcting incorrect ideas, and seeking truth.
If you don't want to participate in the 80th sunset thread, great - but don't drive by the chess game and drool on the pieces. Let someone else who hasn't become so cynical respond, and the world will be a better place.
-
People might be coming here because they aren't sure, and then they see your facile arguments and they might start believing in nonsense. Believing in nonsense gets people killed. (https://www.smh.com.au/national/dead-babys-parents-ignored-advice-qc-20090504-asmt.html)
I'm responsible or the deaths of babies? How about you try to paint me as more of a monster. This is far too tame. ::)
My sister used to be a teacher. When she started her job, she was told "Some children will understand the first time you tell them something. Some will understand the second time. Some will never understand. Forget about them."
It is an important lesson in life. Some people are just dumb. You can't expect to hold the world back to cater for the stupidest individuals in it at the expense of everyone else. You don't hold your future brain surgeons back, because you want your future cleaners to learn at the same rate.
This site does not cater for the stupid. If someone comes here 'believing nonsense' ... forget about them. We aren't advocating anything dangerous. But for those who want to use THEIR brains ... not your brain ... you don't need to 'save' anyone, for those who want to use their brains, this is the place. You aren't a shining white knight, defending the hoards of imbeciles from the malevolence of flat earthers. You are more like the kid who was held back a year at school and keeps shouting out all the answers. It doesn't help anyone.
If the evidence points at something curious, I'll say that, and I won't blindly argue that it means round earth. I follow the evidence. I'm not on any side.
If you are unable to exercise your brain other than to repeat things parrot style, you play the game that way.
So, please start doing that. Go back to the Lake Pontchartrain thread and retract your utterly ridiculous statement that the powerlines don't exist. Go back to the mountains casting shadows on clouds and retract "case closed". Come up with something less inane.
How about YOU come up with something less inane? How about YOU provide those people with some interaction? Or do you think we should just ignore people and not give them an opportunity to figure things out for themselves?
Back to the thread ...
OK,
So ... if the ORANGE lines are s-waves and they still stop at 130 degrees as predicted (I should have said orange, not yellow), and the red line is still the one I want because I want the REFRACTED p-waves, not direct p-waves, I'm still getting data in the shadow zone. I shouldn't get readings everywhere as you say. I want to see the shadow zone. Where is it?
Just for your enjoyment, a video of me giving my brother some colourblind glasses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tiXy4xLt7U
Somehow 37,000 people have watched this video ... Youtube is weird.
-
People might be coming here because they aren't sure, and then they see your facile arguments and they might start believing in nonsense. Believing in nonsense gets people killed. (https://www.smh.com.au/national/dead-babys-parents-ignored-advice-qc-20090504-asmt.html)
I'm responsible or the deaths of babies? How about you try to paint me as more of a monster. This is far too tame. ::)
My sister used to be a teacher. When she started her job, she was told "Some children will understand the first time you tell them something. Some will understand the second time. Some will never understand. Forget about them."
It is an important lesson in life. Some people are just dumb. You can't expect to hold the world back to cater for the stupidest individuals in it at the expense of everyone else. You don't hold your future brain surgeons back, because you want your future cleaners to learn at the same rate.
Does your teacher then tell these stupid children they should place plastic bags over their heads, or play in traffic?
This site does not cater for the stupid. If someone comes here 'believing nonsense' ... forget about them. We aren't advocating anything dangerous.
I see threads about using common grocery store items to cure cancer. That's dangerous.
But for those who want to use THEIR brains ... not your brain ... you don't need to 'save' anyone, for those who want to use their brains, this is the place. You aren't a shining white knight, defending the hoards of imbeciles from the malevolence of flat earthers. You are more like the kid who was held back a year at school and keeps shouting out all the answers. It doesn't help anyone.
Except - why are YOU the one who continues to be unable to demonstrate reading comprehension? You're the one who keeps shouting out the answers, but the best part is they are FREAKING OBVIOUSLY WRONG answers.
If the evidence points at something curious, I'll say that, and I won't blindly argue that it means round earth. I follow the evidence. I'm not on any side.
If you are unable to exercise your brain other than to repeat things parrot style, you play the game that way.
Yes, apparently you do.
So, please start doing that. Go back to the Lake Pontchartrain thread and retract your utterly ridiculous statement that the powerlines don't exist. Go back to the mountains casting shadows on clouds and retract "case closed". Come up with something less inane.
How about YOU come up with something less inane? How about YOU provide those people with some interaction? Or do you think we should just ignore people and not give them an opportunity to figure things out for themselves?
I did. If you had bothered to read, you would have seen that I found COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT PICTURES OF THE POWERLINES that demonstrated the curvature. Not inane, useful. And yet, you just walked away after sticking the queen up your bum and calling it checkmate.
Back to the thread ...
OK,
So ... if the ORANGE lines are s-waves and they still stop at 130 degrees as predicted (I should have said orange, not yellow), and the red line is still the one I want because I want the REFRACTED p-waves, not direct p-waves, I'm still getting data in the shadow zone. I shouldn't get readings everywhere as you say. I want to see the shadow zone. Where is it?
Oh for the love of Tom Freaking Bishop. READ YOUR FREAKING KEY. READ IT.
KEY
green marks show the arrival of direct P-waves
orange marks show the arrival of direct S-waves
red marks show the arrival of PP-waves (reflected at the surface)
yellow marks show the arrival of ScS-waves (reflected at the boundary with the outer core)
pink marks show the arrival of SS-waves (reflected at the surface)
You say you don't want direct p-waves, you want refracted p-waves, but then you point to the REFLECTED p-waves marks.
The shadow zone only applies to DIRECT P-WAVES.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?term=shadow%20zone
The shadow zone is the area of the earth from angular distances of 104 to 140 degrees from a given earthquake that does not receive any direct P waves.
(emphasis added).
Why are you looking for refracted or any other kind of non-direct p-waves? Why do you think this is somehow demonstrating your great intellect while completely failing to even read the things you are posting?
-
The well is dry. I've had 9 pints of beer and I come back to read this. My sister is right.
My sister used to be a teacher. When she started her job, she was told "Some children will understand the first time you tell them something. Some will understand the second time. Some will never understand. Forget about them."
You're an idiot. And that's ok, you can't help it. But I'm done trying to reason with you. Think whatever the hell you want. Its time to forget about you. You can't even read a fucking graph.
And you'll win this bout. My post will be AR'd. But I don't care. I'm too shit faced to give a shit about a person with a double digit IQ. Enjoy your life. It'll be one hell of a challenge ... but if you manage to feed yourself and wash yourself, you're punching above your weight.
-
All you have to do is read your own crap.
"Direct p-wave shadow zone"
does not equal
"refracted p-wave shadow zone"
and the line is "reflected p-waves".
Which one of us is the moron?
-
I can't be a round earther on this forum. This thread shows why.
I get it Baby Thork. You've convinced me.
I'll take it slow, but this is my pivot point.
-
I can't be a round earther on this forum. This thread shows why.
I get it Baby Thork. You've convinced me.
I'll take it slow, but this is my pivot point.
I don't get it. Thork is the one who can't read graphs, and then flips the table in frustration, saying I can't read graphs. Am I missing something?
A p-wave shadow zone is not a pp-wave shadow zone.
-
I don't get it. Thork is the one who can't read graphs, and then flips the table in frustration, saying I can't read graphs. Am I missing something?
A p-wave shadow zone is not a pp-wave shadow zone.
My advice is to not worry about the p-waves and s-waves and let this thread disappear into oblivion. Just let it go. I agree that Baby Thork is a frustrating guy, but he is right about one thing...
From the time I discovered tfes.org I have loved it. This site is fantastic. It is time for me to assist in making sure new comers have the chance to enjoy it as much as I have. Thanks Thork.
-
I don't get it. Thork is the one who can't read graphs, and then flips the table in frustration, saying I can't read graphs. Am I missing something?
A p-wave shadow zone is not a pp-wave shadow zone.
My advice is to not worry about the p-waves and s-waves and let this thread disappear into oblivion. Just let it go. I agree that Baby Thork is a frustrating guy, but he is right about one thing...
From the time I discovered tfes.org I have loved it. This site is fantastic. It is time for me to assist in making sure new comers have the chance to enjoy it as much as I have. Thanks Thork.
I salute you, sir. Good luck.
@douglips .... all the waves refract ... s-waves and p-waves - you can see they all bend. I don't care about the s-waves ... I want to know why I get p-waves in the shadow zone.
(http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1011/topic3/SeismicWaves.gif)
I absolutely shouldn't. That's what a shadow zone is.
-
You do not get p-waves, you get pp-waves - it says it right in your graph key.
A pp-wave is a refection of a p-wave - the reflection restarts the angle from the point of reflection, so you have no shadow zone for them.
-
Doug, look at the diagram.
On the right hand side between 0 and 103 degrees you get p-waves. ... it is written in purple.
Between 142 degrees and 180 degrees you get refracted p-waves. You don't get any p-waves in the shadow zone. Its not possible. No p-wave can enter that area ... not a p-wave, not a pp-wave, no type of primary wave can enter.
Look, here is a wiki page telling you ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-wave#P-wave_shadow_zone
no p-waves ... shadow zone ... why am i not seeing the shadow zone in the graph. If you can't understand why p-waves have a shadow zone, there is no point in trying to work out why the graph might be reporting them despite their not being there.
As a result, there is a P-wave "shadow zone" between 103° and 142°[5] from the earthquake's focus, where the initial P-waves are not registered on seismometers.
Not registered on seismometers. So, I want to see on the graph primary wave readings from 0-103 and some kind of p-waves from 142-180 degrees. I don't want any from 103-142. But that's not what I am seeing. Why Doug? Why? And if you don't know, let someone else have a go. Don't just keep saying I shouldn't have a shadow zone ... I should.
-
I have quoted your post, and emphasized the words in your own post that you are either choosing to ignore, or don't understand.
No p-wave can enter that area ... not a p-wave, not a pp-wave, no type of primary wave can enter.
Look, here is a wiki page telling you ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-wave#P-wave_shadow_zone
no p-waves ... shadow zone ... why am i not seeing the shadow zone in the graph. If you can't understand why p-waves have a shadow zone, there is no point in trying to work out why the graph might be reporting them despite their not being there.
As a result, there is a P-wave "shadow zone" between 103° and 142°[5] from the earthquake's focus, where the initial P-waves are not registered on seismometers.
Not registered on seismometers. So, I want to see on the graph primary wave readings from 0-103 and some kind of p-waves from 142-180 degrees. I don't want any from 103-142. But that's not what I am seeing. Why Doug? Why? And if you don't know, let someone else have a go. Don't just keep saying I shouldn't have a shadow zone ... I should.
You have conflated P-waves with PP-waves. You absolutely don't get P-waves in the shadowzone, and you absolutely DO get PP-waves in the shadow zone - a PP wave is a P wave that has reflected off the surface. Do you see how it says "initial P-waves"? A PP-wave is reflected and is therefore not "initial".
Here again is the key to your diagram, with the relevant lines emphasized by me, and the definition of P-waves and PP-waves extra-extra-emphasized by me. You really don't have any excuse for not understanding that a PP-wave is not a direct P-wave.
KEY
green marks show the arrival of direct P-waves
orange marks show the arrival of direct S-waves
red marks show the arrival of PP-waves (reflected at the surface)
yellow marks show the arrival of ScS-waves (reflected at the boundary with the outer core)
pink marks show the arrival of SS-waves (reflected at the surface)
From this PDF file: https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/Monitoring/Doc/Srr_2006/GUIDE.PDF
Here's a diagram showing SS waves reflecting off the surface. The PP waves follow similar paths and therefore CAN GO ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET. No shadow zones for PP-waves.
https://imgur.com/a/uVoeFYW? (https://imgur.com/a/uVoeFYW?)
(https://i.imgur.com/l2JZpFh.png)
-
I get this, now show me on the graph how this translates. I have all kinds of p-waves. Many in my shadow zone. Why? None should be in my shadow zone. This isn't a trick question. Why are my P waves showing up in a place they cannot show up, according to the theory. This has taken 2 pages already. Its a very simple question.
Ask yourself ... what is the shadow zone? What type of waves don't enter? Where are these on the graph? Why is it even called a shadow zone if I get waves inside there?
-
a) The shadow zone is only for direct P-waves, as you have shown in all your quotes so far.
b) The only line on your graph that is direct P-waves is the green marks. Look at your key, and see that it says green marks are direct P-waves.
c) All other waves you see in the shadow zone are not direct P-waves. Look at your key, The types of waves you see in the shadow zone are PP, SS, and PKIKP (not originally quoted by you in your key, but in the graphic)
A PP-wave is a P-wave that is reflected off of a point on the surface at some distance from the epicenter. The new PP-wave radiates from that new reflection point.
Look, if you are casting a shadow in the sunlight, and then someone comes along and aims a reflector to shine sunlight into your shadow, this wouldn't be confusing, would it? Would you ask how sunlight can possibly get into your shadow? The reflected waves are coming from where they are reflected from. If the original P-wave goes to, say, 90 degrees and then is reflected as a PP-wave, the new PP-wave can go another 90 degrees again FROM THE POINT IT WAS REFLECTED AT.
You seemed to understand this in your OP, so it kind of feels like you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand now. From your OP:
Note how the yellow and orange s-waves and the green primary p-waves (not reflected) both terminate at 103 degrees as predicted by the round earth model.
Why when you made your OP did you understand the difference between primary p-waves and reflected pp-waves and you don't understand it now?
-
a) perfect
b) ... so where are the reports from 142 degrees to 180 degrees on the green line?
Answer (because you are taking all year) ... those are the cyan lines. PKiKP lines.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/G5D4p.jpg)
Soooooo ... why am I getting P-waves (the PKIKP in cyan) between 103 and 142 degrees when the theory says I shouldn't?
-
a) perfect
b) ... so where are the reports from 142 degrees to 180 degrees on the green line?
Answer (because you are taking all year) ... those are the cyan lines. PKiKP lines.
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/G5D4p.jpg)
Soooooo ... why am I getting P-waves (the PKIKP in cyan) between 103 and 142 degrees when the theory says I shouldn't?
What theory says you shouldn't get those? The diagram you show with a shadow zone between 103 and 142 is referring specifically to "refracted P-waves". Those are PKP waves, and do not appear to be on your graph at all.
The cyan lines in your graph are PKIKP lines, which are different from PKP lines. The PDF I linked before explains it pretty well, here it is again:
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/Monitoring/Doc/Srr_2006/GUIDE.PDF
Specifically, here are the "refracted P-waves" which are PKP waves:
https://imgur.com/a/oYsDLFN (https://imgur.com/a/oYsDLFN)
(https://i.imgur.com/xC6xbVv.png)
Here are the PKIKP waves:
(https://i.imgur.com/TgZZb1x.png)
I think I see the cause of our misunderstanding. In your original post, the shadow zone diagram says "refracted P-waves". But, all the words you posted were specifically for "direct" or "initial" P-waves. When you did mention "refracted" p-waves, you pointed to the red line which is NOT refracted p-waves. I was unable to unravel what you were talking about.
Now that you have pointed at the cyan lines, it's clear: Those lines do not correspond to what your shadow diagram refers to as "refracted P-waves" for purposes of the shadow zone. Cyan refers to the EVEN MORE REFRACTED waves, PKIKP, which are visible over a much broader range.