[Dr David Thork]

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?



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

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.


Now a real word example.

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! 

[Round Eyes]

why would the use of google be prohibited??

[Dr David Thork]

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)

[iamcpc]

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

[douglips]

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

[Max_Almond]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Dr David Thork]

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 ...


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

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.

[iamcpc]

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.

[Dr David Thork]

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.

[iamcpc]

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

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?

[Dr David Thork]

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.

[iamcpc]

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"

[Max_Almond]

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.

[Dr David Thork]

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. 

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.

[Max_Almond]

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.

[Dr David Thork]

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?

[Max_Almond]

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

[Dr David Thork]

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?


My eyes tell me it is. the file type .jpeg tells me it can't be.

[Max_Almond]

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!