[Pete Svarrior]

Glad you returned because half the time you FEers vanish.

Funny, that. That's usually what RE'ers do.

Did you stop to think that the first pulse time might have actually been "early" because it was measuring the time from the explosion to arrival of the shockwave and not its first trip around the globe?

No, I did not stop to consider that the graphs you presented might mean something else than what they're clearly stated to present. By that account, I have also not considered that your hypothesis might be internally inconsistent because of kittens.

If you want to patch the holes in your hypothesis, I invite you to do so. Otherwise, I think I'm ready to say that it's inadmissible, and that you haven't proven anything. Unless we accept that the shockwave travelled at two different velocities when observed from two different measurement stations (which I consider unlikely, but you're welcome to propose a model under which this makes sense), and that the Round Earth is only 73% of its advertised size, your hypothesis soundly disproves itself. This is not proof that the Earth is flat, but it does conclusively show that you failed to demonstrate it to be round.

To aid in your calculations, they provided the actual data in a linked doc. (ts1.docx) Below is an excerpt.
Station    Range(km)    Arrival time   Duration(s) Observed celerity(m/s)   
IS18 - Ig5   85091         D+3 13:40   >2000    289   

Thank you for yet another snippet of information which shows that the shockwave was not consistently travelling at 460-ish m/s.

You still haven't explained the multiple pulses on a flat Earth.

Yes - I haven't done the thing I explicitly said I wouldn't attempt due to insufficient data. I congratulate you on your observational prowess.

[StinkyOne]

Glad you returned because half the time you FEers vanish.

Funny, that. That's usually what RE'ers do.

Did you stop to think that the first pulse time might have actually been "early" because it was measuring the time from the explosion to arrival of the shockwave and not its first trip around the globe?

No, I did not stop to consider that the graphs you presented might mean something else than what they're clearly stated to present. By that account, I have also not considered that your hypothesis might be internally inconsistent because of kittens.

If you want to patch the holes in your hypothesis, I invite you to do so. Otherwise, I think I'm ready to say that it's inadmissible, and that you haven't proven anything. Unless we accept that the shockwave travelled at two different velocities when observed from two different measurement stations (which I consider unlikely, but you're welcome to propose a model under which this makes sense), and that the Round Earth is only 73% of its advertised size, your hypothesis soundly disproves itself. This is not proof that the Earth is flat, but it does conclusively show that you failed to demonstrate it to be round.

To aid in your calculations, they provided the actual data in a linked doc. (ts1.docx) Below is an excerpt.
Station    Range(km)    Arrival time   Duration(s) Observed celerity(m/s)   
IS18 - Ig5   85091         D+3 13:40   >2000    289   

Thank you for yet another snippet of information which shows that the shockwave was not consistently travelling at 460-ish m/s.

You still haven't explained the multiple pulses on a flat Earth.

Yes - I haven't done the thing I explicitly said I wouldn't attempt due to insufficient data. I congratulate you on your observational prowess.

Bad news for you. We were both reading the image wrong. I blame it on the small size of image. The image on the left is for Nambia, where the signal was not detected. If you notice, both time windows on the left are using dotted lines indicating a non-observed signal. The observed time is on the right and matches your speed estimates. This makes sense given the main topic of that paper was performance differences of the detection network during daylight and nighttime hours. So....now, if you'll agree that we misread the image, can we talk about that pesky double pulse?

From the paper:
It can be observed in Figure 1 and the additional material that diurnal variations of the noise level show
differences in the power spectrum of orders of magnitude between night and day. Especially for the very low
infrasonic frequencies from 0.005 to 0.2 Hz, this increased noise level during daytime can fully conceal and
thus prohibit low-frequency signal detections

the solid vertical lines in the
PSD plots indicate a 45 min time window of an observed (Chelyabinsk) signal arrival, while dashed lines indicate the time window of a hypothetic, nonobserved
signal arrival. Light and dark grey areas in the BLH plots indicate daytime and nighttime hours.

[Pete Svarrior]

Bad news for you. We were both reading the image wrong. I blame it on the small size of image. The image on the left is for Nambia, where the signal was not detected. If you notice, both time windows on the left are using dotted lines indicating a non-observed signal. The observed time is on the right and matches your speed estimates. This makes sense given the main topic of that paper was performance differences of the detection network during daylight and nighttime hours.

Fucking finally. It only took you three pages of pointing out that your hypothesis was inconsistent with the data, and that you were indeed presenting a hypothesis that was different from that of the researchers. But hey, you're one step ahead of most RE'ers in that you've at least admitted it... in a roundabout way, but hey-ho.

So....now, if you'll agree that we misread the image, can we talk about that pesky double pulse?

Well, no. I said I wouldn't attempt it without sufficient data, and your insistence on doing anything else is unlikely to affect me. You may have noticed that I don't find you very persuasive. Besides, I don't even know what you want to talk about. As everyone here already agreed, we'd need to see the timing of at least three pulses to differentiate between RET and FET, and even then the results would be far from conclusive.

[StinkyOne]

Bad news for you. We were both reading the image wrong. I blame it on the small size of image. The image on the left is for Nambia, where the signal was not detected. If you notice, both time windows on the left are using dotted lines indicating a non-observed signal. The observed time is on the right and matches your speed estimates. This makes sense given the main topic of that paper was performance differences of the detection network during daylight and nighttime hours.

Fucking finally. It only took you three pages of pointing out that your hypothesis was inconsistent with the data, and that you were indeed presenting a hypothesis that was different from that of the researchers. But hey, you're one step ahead of most RE'ers in that you've at least admitted it... in a roundabout way, but hey-ho.

So....now, if you'll agree that we misread the image, can we talk about that pesky double pulse?

Well, no. I said I wouldn't attempt it without sufficient data, and your insistence on doing anything else is unlikely to affect me. You may have noticed that I don't find you very persuasive. Besides, I don't even know what you want to talk about. As everyone here already agreed, we'd need to see the timing of at least three pulses to differentiate between RET and FET, and even then the results would be far from conclusive.

What is so hard for you to understand? The data is the right part of image. The left, the one you complained about, is hypothetical, and unobserved.

Explain how there is more than one pulse, which the data clearly show. There is NO requirement for more than two pulses as there should only be ONE if the Earth is flat. We both misread the graph and argued about something that was never observed.

[Pete Svarrior]

What is so hard for you to understand? The data is the right part of image. The left, the one you complained about, is hypothetical, and unobserved.

I understand the situation. Rather than complain, I'm expressing gratitude that you're finally starting to catch up on why your hypothesis fell apart.

Explain how there is more than one pulse, which the data clearly show. There is NO requirement for more than two pulses as there should only be ONE if the Earth is flat. We both misread the graph and argued about something that was never observed.

We already talked about why three pulses would be required to make a meaningful distinction. If you disagree with Tom and 3DG, please explain why. Just saying "NUH UH AIN'T NO REASON" will not cut it.

We also already talked about why I won't hypothesise about this. I don't have enough data, and, unlike you, I'm not interested in wasting time on potential blunders.

[StinkyOne]

What is so hard for you to understand? The data is the right part of image. The left, the one you complained about, is hypothetical, and unobserved.

I understand the situation. Rather than complain, I'm expressing gratitude that you're finally starting to catch up on why your hypothesis fell apart.

Explain how there is more than one pulse, which the data clearly show. There is NO requirement for more than two pulses as there should only be ONE if the Earth is flat. We both misread the graph and argued about something that was never observed.

We already talked about why three pulses would be required to make a meaningful distinction. If you disagree with Tom and 3DG, please explain why. Just saying "NUH UH AIN'T NO REASON" will not cut it.

We also already talked about why I won't hypothesise about this. I don't have enough data, and, unlike you, I'm not interested in wasting time on potential blunders.

You can stop playing games. The data is there and legit. You misread the image (as did I) and then used that mistake to try and prove something that wasn't observed. The observed data does not exhibit the concerns you raised. Our mistake does not invalidate the data and you know it.

You do not need 3 pulses for a VERY simple reason, there should be NO return pulses in a flat Earth. The second pulse arrived 35 hours after the initial event. That is shown in the OBSERVED data. This is also inline with how long it would take for the pulse to circle the world. The data are there, the data meet expectations. There have been other events where 3 pulses were detected, but the data is not online, so I have no way to "prove" to FEers that it happened. Which is ironic since I've yet to see anything more than faked youtube videos from them as their "proof."

HOW ON A FLAT EARTH CAN THERE BE A RETURN PULSE??? It is a very simple question.

[StinkyOne]

The data from 1908 isn't available online. I did find data from the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite. The International Monitoring System (IMS) detected infrasound from the event that circled the Earth twice. Their graphs can be found on page three of the linked PDF.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063482/pdf

Equal intervals is not required to show that it returned. Explain how the second shock returned in the expected amount of time if the Earth is flat.

Please quote the appropriate data for us.

It is an image of the shock front arrive times in a PDF. It is on page 3. You will have to click and scroll to page 3 on this one as there is no direct link to the image.

I only see two shocks. That's not enough to say whether they are coming in at equal intervals or not.

[Pete Svarrior]

You misread the image (as did I)

If it makes you feel better to pretend that I was complicit in this, feel free to. But as usual, your beliefs contradict readily-available data.

HOW ON A FLAT EARTH CAN THERE BE A RETURN PULSE??? It is a very simple question.

Tom has already presented you with a theory (which is why we need 3 pulses - you're the only one to still deny this). I'm not going to commit to one due to insufficient data. I also don't care whether you think a question is simple or not.

[StinkyOne]

You misread the image (as did I)

If it makes you feel better to pretend that I was complicit in this, feel free to. But as usual, your beliefs contradict readily-available data.

HOW ON A FLAT EARTH CAN THERE BE A RETURN PULSE??? It is a very simple question.

Tom has already presented you with a theory (which is why we need 3 pulses - you're the only one to still deny this). I'm not going to commit to one due to insufficient data. I also don't care whether you think a question is simple or not.

Sorry, but we both were. As I stated, it was an easy mistake to misread the image due to the small size. It doesn't invalidate the observed data, no matter how much you want it to.

Tom gave no theory as to why it is needed to show that it circled the globe more than once. I have shown you data that fits with a pulse wave circling the Earth. This is a classic strawman on your part. Can't refute what I have shown, so change the argument into something it isn't.(periodicity) We know the time and distance. If I walk around a circle of a known size at a known speed, do I have to walk around it again to prove it?

Fact: two pulses passed the same monitoring station in an amount of time that is consistent with a pulse wave traveling around the globe. We have the distance and time measurements that verify this.
Assertion: the pulse traveled around the globe. There is no need for another pulse to verify that the period is consistent unless there is a flat Earth explanation as to where that second pulse came from.

You can try to act superior and dismissive, but you still haven't shown how another pulse passed the same point 35 hours later. Maybe you could do like all the other FEers do and make something up?

[Pete Svarrior]

Sorry, but we both were.

As I said - if it makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead and believe that. It won't change much. 

As I stated, it was an easy mistake to misread the image due to the small size. It doesn't invalidate the observed data, no matter how much you want it to.

Do I? Your imagination must be quite something. 

Tom gave no theory as to why it is needed to show that it circled the globe more than once.

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. Of course, Tom's posts are here for everyone to read, and if you're not going to stick to the facts of what's already been said, I'm not sure if there's much benefit to us continuing. After all, you might just decide that I "said" things I didn't say and therefore I am wrong. If that's what you're after (and it's abundantly clear by now that it is), is there much point in me saying anything? Just make it up and tell your best friends about how you totally owned that guy on the Internet.

You can try to act superior and dismissive, but you still haven't shown how another pulse passed the same point 35 hours later. Maybe you could do like all the other FEers do and make something up?

I have already explained to you that I won't be doing that, and you continue to be about as persuasive as your average daffodil.

[StinkyOne]

Sorry, but we both were.

As I said - if it makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead and believe that. It won't change much. 

As I stated, it was an easy mistake to misread the image due to the small size. It doesn't invalidate the observed data, no matter how much you want it to.

Do I? Your imagination must be quite something. 

Tom gave no theory as to why it is needed to show that it circled the globe more than once.

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. Of course, Tom's posts are here for everyone to read, and if you're not going to stick to the facts of what's already been said, I'm not sure if there's much benefit to us continuing. After all, you might just decide that I "said" things I didn't say and therefore I am wrong. If that's what you're after (and it's abundantly clear by now that it is), is there much point in me saying anything? Just make it up and tell your best friends about how you totally owned that guy on the Internet.

You can try to act superior and dismissive, but you still haven't shown how another pulse passed the same point 35 hours later. Maybe you could do like all the other FEers do and make something up?

I have already explained to you that I won't be doing that, and you continue to be about as persuasive as your average daffodil.

Weren't you? Ok, right...

LOL - you won't because you can't. You're given proof of two pulses and now you're going to hide behind Tom's erroneous assertion that there HAS to be 3 without EVER touching the fact that on a flat Earth there should be only 1. Strawman much? I'm not here to persuade you. You are insignificant in all of this. I am here to show FET is fake and the people that believe it are unable to back up their claims. I did that. For fun, why don't you pull out a FE map and show us where Chelyabinsk is? We'll wait while you draw one.

I was really hoping for someone to say it bounced off of the ice wall or something. Sigh....

[Pete Svarrior]

Please learn to use quotes appropriately or refrain from using them. There's no need to copy my entire post every time you say something.

I was really hoping for someone to say it bounced off of the ice wall or something. Sigh....

3DG already did, and Tom took him up on it...  Wait, are you actually this dissociated from the things people here are saying?

[TomInAustin]

Wait, are you actually this dissociated from the things people here are saying?

My guess is he's too busy laughing at the things FE'ers say.   

[StinkyOne]

Wait, are you actually this dissociated from the things people here are saying?

My guess is he's too busy laughing at the things FE'ers say.

Exactly. It is freaking hilarious.

So Pete, you want to claim that what 3D said disproves me in some way? (And keep in mind, he posted prior to me posting data.) Go back and read what he said. The Krakatoa  event, according to what he posted, produced regular 36 hour repeating pulses. Let's see, WOW, that is shockingly consistent with the data recorded after the Chebyalinsk meteor. Maybe these events just occurred at the same distance from the ice wal...wait a sec! These pulses crossed several mountain ranges with no reflected pulse. How tall is this imaginary ice wall??? And honestly, what are the odds these two events both occurred equidistant from some imaginary border?? Fact is, if there was something reflecting signals, it would have created irregular returns, which was the thrust of his post.

So, prove me wrong because I'm the only one providing any sort of evidence here.

[3DGeek]

Please learn to use quotes appropriately or refrain from using them. There's no need to copy my entire post every time you say something.

I was really hoping for someone to say it bounced off of the ice wall or something. Sigh....

3DG already did, and Tom took him up on it...  Wait, are you actually this dissociated from the things people here are saying?

To be accurate - I said that the repeating seismic waves from Krakatoa (36 hours apart, it is claimed) would not have repeated on an infinite flat earth UNLESS the waves were reflected back from something fairly close.   The Ice Wall is the most likely candidate, I suppose.

I'm not claiming that the sound waves bounced off of the Ice wall - because I'm not claiming that the earth is flat or that the ice wall exists.

I'm saying that IF the earth were flat and IF seismic stations picked up regular repeats of these enormous seismic events THEN these waves would have to have been reflected off of something.

If we accept this as the FE explanation for these seismic readings - then unless both your seismograph and the source of those waves were in the precise center of the ice wall - then you'd expect to find doubled signals with a longer gap between them because you'd detect them on the way out - and on the way back from each side.

In truth (as someone pointed out) the waves would soon start interfering with each other and you'd pretty soon be unable to get a clear signal.

However, in RET, there is no problem with a coherent wave passing a particular point over and over again at a regular interval until friction eventually robs it of it's energy to the point where it becomes undetectable.

The problem I have with the Krakatoa story is that 36 hours seems to be an awful long time...but since I can't find a reference for the speed of SURFACE waves - it's not impossible.

[J-Man]

God in the building of the dome built something similar to this room as in he cancels the sideways effect and channels all of it directly back to the point of creation. Watch the girl spin as she screams and understand the sound will align behind her than project out from the corner. As in corner stone

[StinkyOne]

Please learn to use quotes appropriately or refrain from using them. There's no need to copy my entire post every time you say something.

I was really hoping for someone to say it bounced off of the ice wall or something. Sigh....

3DG already did, and Tom took him up on it...  Wait, are you actually this dissociated from the things people here are saying?

To be accurate - I said that the repeating seismic waves from Krakatoa (36 hours apart, it is claimed) would not have repeated on an infinite flat earth UNLESS the waves were reflected back from something fairly close.   The Ice Wall is the most likely candidate, I suppose.

I'm not claiming that the sound waves bounced off of the Ice wall - because I'm not claiming that the earth is flat or that the ice wall exists.

I'm saying that IF the earth were flat and IF seismic stations picked up regular repeats of these enormous seismic events THEN these waves would have to have been reflected off of something.

If we accept this as the FE explanation for these seismic readings - then unless both your seismograph and the source of those waves were in the precise center of the ice wall - then you'd expect to find doubled signals with a longer gap between them because you'd detect them on the way out - and on the way back from each side.

In truth (as someone pointed out) the waves would soon start interfering with each other and you'd pretty soon be unable to get a clear signal.

However, in RET, there is no problem with a coherent wave passing a particular point over and over again at a regular interval until friction eventually robs it of it's energy to the point where it becomes undetectable.

The problem I have with the Krakatoa story is that 36 hours seems to be an awful long time...but since I can't find a reference for the speed of SURFACE waves - it's not impossible.

Thanks for posting. After I showed Peter the error of his thinking he bailed. I'm sure he'd say he stopped posting because I was too stupid or something, he is extremely predictable, but I have that pesky data. Being so heavily studied, the event really is VERY solid proof of a round Earth. (as if that is needed)

36 hours matches very closely the travel time of the Chelybinsk infrasound waves. (35 hours)

[Rounder]

God in the building of the dome built something similar to this room as in he cancels the sideways effect and channels all of it directly back to the point of creation.

The observed timing of the sound waves does not match the timing that would have occurred under this proposed mechanism.

[3DGeek]

Please learn to use quotes appropriately or refrain from using them. There's no need to copy my entire post every time you say something.

I was really hoping for someone to say it bounced off of the ice wall or something. Sigh....

3DG already did, and Tom took him up on it...  Wait, are you actually this dissociated from the things people here are saying?

To be accurate - I said that the repeating seismic waves from Krakatoa (36 hours apart, it is claimed) would not have repeated on an infinite flat earth UNLESS the waves were reflected back from something fairly close.   The Ice Wall is the most likely candidate, I suppose.

I'm not claiming that the sound waves bounced off of the Ice wall - because I'm not claiming that the earth is flat or that the ice wall exists.

I'm saying that IF the earth were flat and IF seismic stations picked up regular repeats of these enormous seismic events THEN these waves would have to have been reflected off of something.

If we accept this as the FE explanation for these seismic readings - then unless both your seismograph and the source of those waves were in the precise center of the ice wall - then you'd expect to find doubled signals with a longer gap between them because you'd detect them on the way out - and on the way back from each side.

In truth (as someone pointed out) the waves would soon start interfering with each other and you'd pretty soon be unable to get a clear signal.

However, in RET, there is no problem with a coherent wave passing a particular point over and over again at a regular interval until friction eventually robs it of it's energy to the point where it becomes undetectable.

The problem I have with the Krakatoa story is that 36 hours seems to be an awful long time...but since I can't find a reference for the speed of SURFACE waves - it's not impossible.

Thanks for posting. After I showed Peter the error of his thinking he bailed. I'm sure he'd say he stopped posting because I was too stupid or something, he is extremely predictable, but I have that pesky data. Being so heavily studied, the event really is VERY solid proof of a round Earth. (as if that is needed)

36 hours matches very closely the travel time of the Chelybinsk infrasound waves. (35 hours)

Yeah - I guess so.

Wikipedia told me that the speed of "p-waves" is 5000 m/s and that "s-waves" are only 60% of that speed...so 3,000 m/s...so with the circumference of the Earth being 40 million meters, that would produce circumnavigation times of 2 to 3 hours...not 36 hours.

However, those speeds are for "body waves" - the ones that go more directly through the mantle and crust.  I've been unable to find speeds for "surface waves" - which are the ones that would travel around the earth multiple times - and which had the right orientation for the detection results after Krakatoa.

However, in an infinite flat earth, there is no reasonable grounds for there to be any reflection of seismic waves and the seismic results from either of these big events should have been one p-wave within (at most) two hours, and one s-wave within (at most) three hours - plus a surface wave some unknown time afterwards...and then no more.  That's CLEARLY not what the data shows.

My suggestion that the seismic waves would bounce off of the Ice Cliff was factetious.   There is no way something just 200 meters high and made of low-density ice could reflect a seismic wave like that.   We don't even see reflections from mountain ranges ten times that high made of solid granite...so it's not plausible.

If I were a Flat Earther, I'd be seriously thinking about claiming that there is a layer of Kryptonite 324,000 kilometers below the surface of the Flat Earth and that p-waves were reflected back upwards and downwards between the surface of the Earth and the Kryptonite.

The trouble with this entire thread is that it requires a lot of deep knowledge about seismology, that I don't think anyone here has.   I wouldn't rate this as a "solid" disproof of FET - although it definitely points in that direction.

Sunsets, however...HA!