@Lou

Quote:

There are plenty of such videos. Both the History Channel and Discovery channel have such things. What's ridiculous is to label any and every one involved in the makings of them as zeolots who follow Von Daiken.

There's even more videos about how we're exploring space on the Starship Enterprise. Existence of a video is not proof of anything. One must demonstrate the ideas professed provide predictability to the interactions in the universe. It's important to understand the background research these people used, or didn't, to support their ideas. Was the rigor truly there that we should take them seriously?

Quote:

If Einstein was a convicted rapist, would his theories be thrown out the window by default? Would they be any less valid? This is the ridiculous reasoning I see here.

The problem here is not one of legality. It's lack of use of the scientific method. Ideas are very important and knowledge if those ideas are true comes from the rigors of observation, postulation, testing, and validation. Something that, for example, an astrologer does not use in their foundation.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Well to me, water and other liquids beading looks like the best small scale example of gravity but in reality it's just basic laws of thermodynamics. Interestingly, one scientist proposed that that is what we see as gravity and that even general relativity conforms to that. Makes sense as Laws of Thermodynamics are manifestiations of mass-energy transformations. You just gotta get 1 step deeper.

I'm one step closer?
Check this out!
Is the water exhibiting gravity?
What makes it any different?

Quote:

Quote: Superglue. This reads as unserious. If people have the respect to answer your question to the best of their ability why do take the disrepectful road?

The topic is gravity.

@Lou

Quote:

Check this out! Is the water exhibiting gravity?

Yes the water does produce gravity.

Quote:

What makes it any different?

Lou you have the burden of proving they are indeed the same. Nice demonstration on the micro scale but prove to us they are exactly the same forces when we get to the planetary.

EDIT 2: We're talking planets here. Again you have the burden of proving they are the same - scale it up from 130mm to earth for example.

Also I wanted to point out we have some very strong observational evidence against gravity being the reason for planets. The sun in 2003 had quite a few X-Class flares. We had some in Feb 2011 too. These kicked out magnetic fields that were thousands of times larger than that of the sun. It appears these had no effects on speed, rotation, or orbit. Where some impact was seen was our magnetic field had a raised amount of energy for a short period of time. ... Talking about small take two electro magnetics. Take one of the coils and ramp the energy up by 1000x and the effect is the opposite object changes position. Hmmm...
:End this part of EDIT 2.

Quote:

The topic is gravity.

I'll disagree. You claim 1 force EM in the universe. Science claims 4 forces and is working on a unified force theory.

The reason you didn't want to answer this is it provides exactly the example that's damning to your 1 force claim. Protons stick together due to STRONG forces. And on a smaller scale than that quarks are exchanged due to WEAK forces. What we've seem is EM has been combined with WEAK back in the 80s so it's now longer EM only but some modified version of EM. Weak and Strong lose their strength at distance and through interactions.

EDIT1: IMO gravity is a component of the medium, space-time. We won't see a gravity particle. Instead there might be gravity waves. Part of the question is what is the frequency of oscillation? If it's smaller than a Planck Lenght we're unlikely to detect them. :End EDIT 1

EDIT2 (another part): Earlier I mentioned the sun's magnetic field and how flares hit earth with a magnetic field thousands of times larger. What has happened in the past is satellites have been burnt out by this energy. Today we have controls such that when we see a flare we send a computer signal to the satellite to shut-off. This acts to prevent losing tens of millions of dollars if your satellite burns out. Imagine the cost of replacing Hubble, ouch!.... Now during these same flare 0 earthquakes happened. Now the Elenin's tell us this object and it's magical alignments are causing large spikes in EM energy, so much so that the earth itself is moving. Again somehow not only did satellites not see any EM change they didn't burn out. Clearly if it was EM that did this the amount of energy must exceed that of an X-Class solar flare (as they don't move the earth but do impact it.) Either ELEnin energy works differently than the sun or it being true is nothing less than Woo. And the cards say Woo it is. :EDIT2

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Jun-2011 at 01:20 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 27-Jun-2011 at 11:35 AM.

@BrianK

I would say it depends on the duration of the flare. It is was a millisecond, I doubt you'd see much effect. With bodies in orbit the effect is a process over time. The alignments cause peaks and they are sustained over the course of a couple of days.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54234248/Elenin-Planetary-Alignment-and-Earthquakes

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Check this out! Is the water exhibiting gravity? Yes the water does produce gravity.

H2O is a polar molecule, meaning one end of the molecule is negatively charged and one is positively charged. This is the reason water 'beads'. Each molecule is attracted to each one around it. How else would you explain the inner droplet rolling around the inner surface of water then having part of it be attracted to that inner surface which then repelled the remaining part into the 'air'...

@Lou

Quote:

I would say it depends on the duration of the flare. It is was a millisecond, I doubt you'd see much effect. With bodies in orbit the effect is a process over time. The alignments cause peaks and they are sustained over the course of a couple of days.

It seems you want others to find the science for you. Instead of if'ing all over the question why not do some research. One example for you is a recent solar flare. It lasted 3 hours LINK Early particles hit us about 8 minutes post event, aka traveling at the speed of light. Other particles may take as long as a day to hit us, cuz they are traveling slower. Why not do research? How many X-Class events last milliseconds and how do those impact earth's magnetic field?

Quote:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54234248/Elenin-Planetary-Alignment-and-Earthquakes

Again existence of an idea is not proof of that idea is a fair representation of reality. AFAIK this has not been confirmed.

Remember how we asked you to bring evidence. Let's do that here.
* Is it gravity?
Gravitational forces move our planet, we know this from the moon. We know that water is moved, and actually land a very small iota, again from the moon. But, in the case of these earthquakes we didn't see water move, the easier substance, but land only. Also, satellites are in space and they'd move too if large gravitational changes were at work. That didn't happen. The line of evidence shows us a gravitational force outside of earth is incredibily highly unlikely to be the cause.
* So the Elenians throw out it gravity is wrong it's all EM.
We know from X-Class flares from the sun that satellites detect this behavior as changes in our magnetic field. We know X-Class EM amounts can be large enough to take out a satellite. We also know that X-Class flare releases don't cause earthquakes. Thus, if EM is the cause it must be greater than an X-Class amount so the land is moved. It would knock out satellites, most likely, and at worst would change the magnetic field of the earth. Which would be measured since we're actively measuring all of this stuff. Well turns out nothing of the sort happened. So we see another factor ruled out.
* How about related bodies in space and their activities at the same time?
The moon is near the earth. If this activity is happening on earth certainly the moon has nearly the same Graviational or EM exposure. It's a smaller body with an even smaller magnetic field of protection. As such we'd see something on the moon. We actively monitor it. (You do realize we have placed seeismic monitoring equipment on the moon back in the 70s when we went there right?) And our monitors show... Surprise nothing!

For us to accept a postualate as accurate, let alone true, the evidence must back up the postulate. In the case of gravity or EM from Elenin alignments neither lines of evidence backs up this guess. This Elenin is doing it CRAP has failed. (Nimrod I hope you don't mind me borrowing this great acronymn.)


As for your water - yup the molecule as a + and - end. Your evidence must come in how this scales up to the planet sized object. We know planets do have some water but no where near this %. There are many more diversified types of molecules and not all molecules have the + and - sides that water does. So you must demonstrate still the scale from 130mm to tens - hundreds of thousands of km work exactly the same.

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Jun-2011 at 06:20 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I would say it depends on the duration of the flare. It is was a millisecond, I doubt you'd see much effect. With bodies in orbit the effect is a process over time. The alignments cause peaks and they are sustained over the course of a couple of days. It seems you want others to find the science for you. Instead of if'ing all over the question why not do some research. One example for you is a recent solar flare. It lasted 3 hours LINK Early particles hit us about 8 minutes post event, aka traveling at the speed of light. Other particles may take as long as a day to hit us, cuz they are traveling slower. Why not do research? How many X-Class events last milliseconds and how do those impact earth's magnetic field?

You can't compare the force that a flare which is sparse particles with almost no mass essentially which will be deflected by the earth's magnetic field tothe magnetic fields from solidish orbiting bodies that are not easily deflected.

Quote:

Quote: http://www.scribd.com/doc/54234248/Elenin-Planetary-Alignment-and-Earthquakes Again existence of an idea is not proof of that idea is a fair representation of reality. AFAIK this has not been confirmed. Remember how we asked you to bring evidence. Let's do that here. * Is it gravity? Gravitational forces move our planet, we know this from the moon. We know that water is moved, and actually land a very small iota, again from the moon. But, in the case of these earthquakes we didn't see water move, the easier substance, but land only. Also, satellites are in space and they'd move too if large gravitational changes were at work. That didn't happen. The line of evidence shows us a gravitational force outside of earth is incredibily highly unlikely to be the cause. * So the Elenians throw out it gravity is wrong it's all EM. We know from X-Class flares from the sun that satellites detect this behavior as changes in our magnetic field. We know X-Class EM amounts can be large enough to take out a satellite. We also know that X-Class flare releases don't cause earthquakes. Thus, if EM is the cause it must be greater than an X-Class amount so the land is moved. It would knock out satellites, most likely, and at worst would change the magnetic field of the earth. Which would be measured since we're actively measuring all of this stuff. Well turns out nothing of the sort happened. So we see another factor ruled out. * How about related bodies in space and their activities at the same time? The moon is near the earth. If this activity is happening on earth certainly the moon has nearly the same Graviational or EM exposure. It's a smaller body with an even smaller magnetic field of protection. As such we'd see something on the moon. We actively monitor it. (You do realize we have placed seeismic monitoring equipment on the moon back in the 70s when we went there right?) And our monitors show... Surprise nothing! For us to accept a postualate as accurate, let alone true, the evidence must back up the postulate. In the case of gravity or EM from Elenin alignments neither lines of evidence backs up this guess. This Elenin is doing it CRAP has failed. (Nimrod I hope you don't mind me borrowing this great acronymn.)

I said I'd point out co-incidences. They exist. You don't have to like them for them to exist.

Quote:

As for your water - yup the molecule as a + and - end. Your evidence must come in how this scales up to the planet sized object. We know planets do have some water but no where near this %. There are many more diversified types of molecules and not all molecules have the + and - sides that water does. So you must demonstrate still the scale from 130mm to tens - hundreds of thousands of km work exactly the same.

But all molecules and atoms are polarized to one extent or another. Tempertature (which is affected by EM and vice-versa) is what controls how strongly they can be attracted to each other even to the point of changing state.

I detect some anger or frustration in your posts. Is it getting harder to disprove what I've been saying?

@Lou

Quote:

You can't compare the force that a flare which is sparse particles with almost no mass essentially which will be deflected by the earth's magnetic field tothe magnetic fields from solidish orbiting bodies that are not easily deflected.

Of course you can. In the above you are claiming an inequity in force between these two. In order for you to make that claim you had to determine a difference through use of some comparative.

We can take the postulate that Elenin's EM is greater on the planetary alignment and the cause of earthquakes and observe if that was the case. We can measure EM fields and see effects on satellites and other bodies, eg moon, at the same time. If Elenin's EM has a greater force than a solar flare it must have at least the same interactions on the system. When EM measuring equipment don't see any changes and satellites doesn't blow up, yet they do when the lower EM events occur, this is strong evidence that something strange is indeed afoot at the Circle-K. Since X-Classes EM is so well validated the problem is most likely with the hypothesis (it's Elenin's EM).

Quote:

I said I'd point out co-incidences. They exist. You don't have to like them for them to exist.

Co-incidence is but the first part in scientific understanding. It's the initial observation there might be something here. Because correlation is not causation the next step is to demonstrate through the use of evidence that the relationship truly exists. Unfortunately the paper you posted did lots to establish a co-incidence and little to establish a true causation. Thus, I brought the evidence we do have to try and answer this question. The evidence points against the hypothesis. Any co-incidence is accidental in nature and not causational in nature.

Quote:

But all molecules and atoms are polarized to one extent or another.

And that's the point. Recently an internet meme came from Insane Clown Posse . 'Fuckin' magnets how do they work?!' -- you seem to not understand this either. How do magnetic and non-magnetic materials differ?

Quote:

Is it getting harder to disprove what I've been saying?

One can only disprove something that's been proven. You've clearly failed there.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: You can't compare the force that a flare which is sparse particles with almost no mass essentially which will be deflected by the earth's magnetic field tothe magnetic fields from solidish orbiting bodies that are not easily deflected. Of course you can. In the above you are claiming an inequity in force between these two. In order for you to make that claim you had to determine a difference through use of some comparative. We can take the postulate that Elenin's EM is greater on the planetary alignment and the cause of earthquakes and observe if that was the case. We can measure EM fields and see effects on satellites and other bodies, eg moon, at the same time. If Elenin's EM has a greater force than a solar flare it must have at least the same interactions on the system. When EM measuring equipment don't see any changes and satellites doesn't blow up, yet they do when the lower EM events occur, this is strong evidence that something strange is indeed afoot at the Circle-K. Since X-Classes EM is so well validated the problem is most likely with the hypothesis (it's Elenin's EM). Quote: I said I'd point out co-incidences. They exist. You don't have to like them for them to exist. Co-incidence is but the first part in scientific understanding. It's the initial observation there might be something here. Because correlation is not causation the next step is to demonstrate through the use of evidence that the relationship truly exists. Unfortunately the paper you posted did lots to establish a co-incidence and little to establish a true causation. Thus, I brought the evidence we do have to try and answer this question. The evidence points against the hypothesis. Any co-incidence is accidental in nature and not causational in nature. Quote: But all molecules and atoms are polarized to one extent or another. And that's the point. Recently an internet meme came from Insane Clown Posse . 'Fuckin' magnets how do they work?!' -- you seem to not understand this either. How do magnetic and non-magnetic materials differ? Quote: Is it getting harder to disprove what I've been saying? One can only disprove something that's been proven. You've clearly failed there.

Solar flares are already known to be caused by magnet ropes. Why doesn't the almight gravity of the Sun keep these flare contained? Unless a flare has substantial mass to it it will not be felt on the earth and only satellites will feel it. The problem with strong EM but low mass ones is unprotected equipment in space will get a shock, but they won't necessarily be moved by the force and there isn't enough mass behind. With celestial bodies there is alot more mass despite lower EM hence no electronics will be affected but physical force is present. The earth will not magically bounce a comet off it's magnetic field like it does gas. However a comet penetrating the field with a field of its own could cause a bit of a nudge.

You can attempt to discredit that paper all you want. You can ignore coincidences all you want. I do not need to prove anything to anyone, only to myself which I have already done.

As for your question, it depends on whether or not the atoms can form magnetic domains by the use of heat and strong magnetic field. Individual atoms and small groups of them form these domains, and the domains can be caused to "face the same way" when exposed to a magnetic field. When the field that aligned them is removed, some of the domains don't return to their previous orientation. They stay aligned leaving a residual magnetic field. The materials that cannot be used as magnets don't have magnetic domains. Magnetic and non-magnetic materials don't differ by as much as you may think...
http://www.sciencecodex.com/study_finds_new_properties_in_non_magnetic_materials

@Lou

Quote:

With celestial bodies there is alot more mass despite lower EM hence no electronics will be affected but physical force is present

Another claim with a lack of evidence. I think we get how you believe it fits together but when you come up with no evidence it's fairly unconvincing.

Quote:

The earth will not magically bounce a comet off it's magnetic field like it does gas.

Evidence is against you here. Gases burning up on entry to our atmosphere is well established. So clearly not all gas bounces off.

Quote:

You can attempt to discredit that paper all you want.

I reviewed the evidence outside of the paper to see if reality validated the hypothesis. You hadn't produced evidence in support of the hypothesis so I tried. Unfortunately for those true believers (tm) reality rejects the hypothesis.

Quote:

I do not need to prove anything to anyone

Would it be improper of me to congratulate you for meeting and exceeding your goal?


@THREAD
If there's anyone besides Lou and I reading may I suggest Phil Plait's Planet X which was actually written in 2003. See Nancy Lieder and others have been pushing this whole extra body is entering unseen, planetary alignment is causing disasters, poles are gonna flip since the 90s, at least. Happened in 2000, 2003, and now 2011 going into 2012.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Jun-2011 at 03:26 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: With celestial bodies there is alot more mass despite lower EM hence no electronics will be affected but physical force is present Another claim with a lack of evidence. I think we get how you believe it fits together but when you come up with no evidence it's fairly unconvincing.

I guess common sense laws of physics are not good enough for you.

Quote:

Quote: The earth will not magically bounce a comet off it's magnetic field like it does gas. Evidence is against you here. Gases burning up on entry to our atmosphere is well established. So clearly not all gas bounces off.

By gas I was referring to a solar flare discharge. But no, not all gas atoms/molecules will be repelled by a magnetic field, some will be attracted to it.
Clearly you are not reading into what I'm saying.

Quote:

Quote: You can attempt to discredit that paper all you want. I reviewed the evidence outside of the paper to see if reality validated the hypothesis. You hadn't produced evidence in support of the hypothesis so I tried. Unfortunately for those true believers (tm) reality rejects the hypothesis.

I believe Stan Lee has the trademark on that phrase...

Quote:

Quote: I do not need to prove anything to anyone Would it be improper of me to congratulate you for meeting and exceeding your goal?

Nope. Please do.

Quote:

@THREAD If there's anyone besides Lou and I reading may I suggest Phil Plait's Planet X which was actually written in 2003. See Nancy Lieder and others have been pushing this whole extra body is entering unseen, planetary alignment is causing disasters, poles are gonna flip since the 90s, at least. Happened in 2000, 2003, and now 2011 going into 2012.

Ugh. Why do you continue to associate me with stuff relating to a Zeta-sucker as well as Niburu in 2012? Perhaps we need a new thread...

@Lou

Quote:

I guess common sense laws of physics are not good enough for you.

You are right. There is no such thing as common sense science. That stuff is better known as Woo such as creationism, astrology, homopathy and their ilk. This is why several of us have asked you to bring evidence.

Some physical difference between a non-solid body producing EM and a solid body producing EM certainly has not been established. EM is measured in Volts per meter, for one example. As understood a charge is a charge and a distance is a distance there is no factor in there for production from a solid, or gas, or plasma. Does that exist? Always a chance in hell but you've got to bring EVIDENCE. Common sense is worth squat when it comes to the the establishment of validity.

Quote:

Clearly you are not reading into what I'm saying.

You're making broad over generalizations without taking the time to understand the nuance. A comet can skip off a planet. We do it frequently enough to generate it can be done. And you tell us there's no gravity it's really EM therefore it must be EM that's causing that satellite to skip. Between a lack of nuance and a understanding that your CRAP is internetally conflicting it doesn't get this guess far.

EDIT: An asteroid is body comprised of dirt, typically rock or metal. A comet is a body comprised of dirt and water. These objects can be fairly small such as baseball sized. And those objects can skip off the earth too. The nuances are established by the forces at play. Measure the bend of the planet and you can determine the angle of attack that will cause the body to go away from the planet rather than into the planet. ... And since your universe is all EM then of course this is due to Magnetism. : End EDIT

Quote:

Why do you continue to associate me with stuff relating to a Zeta-sucker as well as Niburu in 2012? Perhaps we need a new thread

I didn't. Had I thought it applied to you I would have asked you to read it and put it in a reply to you. I recently ran across that and thought it might be interesting to the Thread to show the claims of a NASA cover up of a brown dwarf are over a decade old. Planet X already hasn't shown on several occasions. That's why I marked it THREAD and not Lou.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Jun-2011 at 11:16 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I guess common sense laws of physics are not good enough for you. You are right. There is no such thing as common sense science. That stuff is better known as Woo such as creationism, astrology, homopathy and their ilk. This is why several of us have asked you to bring evidence. Some physical difference between a non-solid body producing EM and a solid body producing EM certainly has not been established. EM is measured in Volts per meter, for one example. As understood a charge is a charge and a distance is a distance there is no factor in there for production from a solid, or gas, or plasma. Does that exist? Always a chance in hell but you've got to bring EVIDENCE. Common sense is worth squat when it comes to the the establishment of validity.

What you are conveniently ignoring is that EM produces a force. Force is force and bound by the laws of force. So if a particle of solar flare produces an EM field that rather than attracting but repells the earth's magnetosphere, it is the particle not the earth that will be displaced. Until the mass of a solar flare can be defined, I will assume it's a gas with insignificant mass in relation to the earth-moon system.

Quote:

Quote: Clearly you are not reading into what I'm saying. You're making broad over generalizations without taking the time to understand the nuance. A comet can skip off a planet. We do it frequently enough to generate it can be done. And you tell us there's no gravity it's really EM therefore it must be EM that's causing that satellite to skip. Between a lack of nuance and a understanding that your CRAP is internetally conflicting it doesn't get this guess far.

Clearly you think F=MA no longer applies when talking about EM... I simply expected better common sense from you rather than pandering me to present every detail. You can see by many videos online that such flare typical only touch down on the poles thanks to the earth's magnetic field.

Quote:

EDIT: An asteroid is body comprised of dirt, typically rock or metal. A comet is a body comprised of dirt and water. These objects can be fairly small such as baseball sized. And those objects can skip off the earth too. The nuances are established by the forces at play. Measure the bend of the planet and you can determine the angle of attack that will cause the body to go away from the planet rather than into the planet. ... And since your universe is all EM then of course this is due to Magnetism. : End EDIT

Considering Elenin has never done any documented fly-bys, I'm amazed at your knowledge of it's composition... Care to point me to your references or are you just making assumptions that Elenin is a comet by standard definition...?

Last edited by Lou on 28-Jun-2011 at 01:46 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

What you are conveniently ignoring is that EM produces a force. Force is force and bound by the laws of force.

I'm not ignoring that EM produces a force. What we see here is I was the one that said X-Class EM forces
1) Caused measured increase in the planet's EM.
2) Caused satellites to short out and even be rendered unusable
3) Haven't caused earthquakes.
*Then I demanded a greater EM force must have at least these same attributes, because a Force is a Force.

You are the one that said the EM force for Elenin is different.
1) Can't increase the planet's EM so there is no change to measure
2) Can't cause satellites to short out
3) Can cause earthquakes.

In keeping with a force is a force if Elenin's EM force is greater than solar flare forces they must have at least the same behavior on the system. This is what I stated. I hope this makes it more clear. It is in your system these forces behaviors are incongruent and inconsistent. You ascribed an EM force and a greater EM force as having different properties.

Quote:

So if a particle of solar flare produces an EM field that rather than attracting but repells the earth's magnetosphere, it is the particle not the earth that will be displaced.

False, the answer is both. F=ma. The Force is the same on both objects. The particle's small mass results in displaying a great amount of acceleration. Whereas the earth's large mass results in display a very small amount of acceleration.

Quote:

Considering Elenin has never done any documented fly-bys, I'm amazed at your knowledge of it's composition... Care to point me to your references or are you just making assumptions that Elenin is a comet by standard definition...?

You can view NASA and Lenord Elenin's observational work on the object. And feel free to review other observatory records. Since this object has a tail and tails are the result of off-gassing it's thought to have water on it and therefore a comet.

Of course the question of asteroid or comet is fairly unimportant. If gravity exists we know mass / distance ^2 is the interaction it'll have on earth. If an EM field exists we know charge / distance ^2 is the interaction it'll have on earth. If either case causes earthquakes we'd see impacts on smaller objects (moon and man-made satellites). Subsequently we'd observe and measure the resulting change of the force on not only the earth, but on the moon, and on those satellites. Co-incidence fails when moons and satellites are involved, because they're uneffected. Co-incidence fails when rates of earthquakes are within the statistical norms. A broader set of data demonstrates there is no co-incidence here because Elenin's forces reaching earth, at present, are clearly insufficent in size to cause the expected earthquakes. In fact even at the closest point ot earth the EM or Gravity from Elenin is insufficent to cause earthquakes on earth.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Jun-2011 at 09:10 PM.

@BrianK

The dead horse has been beaten.

In the meantime, ufos don't exist but gravity does...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/does-video-show-ufo-over-uk-144046138.html


Get my stick, I see a dead horse...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_DvXf45n3k&feature=related

Last edited by Lou on 29-Jun-2011 at 12:45 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

In the meantime, ufos don't exist but gravity does...

Gravity's existence is clearly independent of Undentified Floating Object's existence so the relationship laid out here has no value to any proof or the discussion..

I don't believe anyone said UFOs don't exist. There's lots of UFOs. It isn't until they become IFOs (Identified Flying Objects) when one can safely conclude what's truly happening. Here's a great example of people who act on the U.nidentified FOs that dropped them objects: Cargo Cults . Like UFOs a great example of people confusing the unexplained with the unexplainable.

Quote:

Get my stick, I see a dead horse...

No doubt this idea should be dead. USGS indicates a 6 or better happens about 150x per year. Of all types about 50 per day.

Here's a fun exercise pick a random date, I used my birthday, and see how many quakes are just a coincidence. Mine is Nov 15.
2002 - 7.3 in Russia on 11/17
2003 - 7.8 in Alaska on 11/17
2004 - 7.2 in Columbia on 11/15
2005 - 7.0 in Japan 11/14, 6.9 Boliva on 11/17
2006 - 6.8 in Argentina on 11/14, 8.3 in the Muir Islands on 11/15
2007 - 7.7 in Chile on 11/14, 6.8 in Peru on 11/16
2008 - 7.4 in Indonesia on 11/16
2009 - 6.6 in the BC, Canada on 11/17, 5.3 in Chile, 11/13
2010 - 4.7 in Tunisa on 11/13

WOW! Look at this coincidences clearly I'm the cause of earthquakes. (See BrianK is a pseudonym. I use to cover up my real name Erik Lensherr.)
....Now while tongue-in-cheek this more then clearly highlights the failure to understand statistics and tricking one's self into falsely believing it's a related event. I used a random date +/- 2 days. We see better than 100% hit for a major earthquake within that 5 day period over the last 9 years. If I were to extend this to the +/- 1 week that Eleniners claim I'd, roughly, triple the event count.

It is no surpise a major quake happens within a week before or after any date. This is statistics, not proof of causality.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Jun-2011 at 03:37 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

This Elenin is doing it CRAP has failed. (Nimrod I hope you don't mind me borrowing this great acronymn.)

Help yourself, I "acquired" it from a financial journalist when he described an investment plan as being based on a Clearly Ridiculous Alternative Premise, and Currently Resembles A Pyramid. He concluded his article with the line Can't Recommend A Purchase. The journalist was sacked, and the paper published a retraction. Unfortunately I am not sure whose investment plan it was.

Quote:

Here's a fun exercise pick a random date, I used my birthday, and see how many quakes are just a coincidence. Mine is Nov 15. 2002 - 7.3 in Russia on 11/17 2003 - 7.8 in Alaska on 11/17 2004 - 7.2 in Columbia on 11/15 2005 - 7.0 in Japan 11/14, 6.9 Boliva on 11/17 2006 - 6.8 in Argentina on 11/14, 8.3 in the Muir Islands on 11/15 2007 - 7.7 in Chile on 11/14, 6.8 in Peru on 11/16 2008 - 7.4 in Indonesia on 11/16 2009 - 6.6 in the BC, Canada on 11/17, 5.3 in Chile, 11/13 2010 - 4.7 in Tunisa on 11/13

Nice to see that I am not the only one who has problems with birthday bumps as a result of middle age spread

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

What you are conveniently ignoring is that EM produces a force.

From reading his posts, I do not think that he is, but I certainly do not. I realise that you find this to be inconvenient, but I have a habit of investigating details, and as a result I am aware of how much force is produced by EM, and its relationship to other forces present.

Quote:

Force is force and bound by the laws of force.

Very astutely spotted. Now could you explain why it is that you feel that the lesser EM force, being at its maximum less than one tenth of one percent of the greater force, should be able to selectively overwhelm the greater force.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: What you are conveniently ignoring is that EM produces a force. From reading his posts, I do not think that he is, but I certainly do not. I realise that you find this to be inconvenient, but I have a habit of investigating details, and as a result I am aware of how much force is produced by EM, and its relationship to other forces present. Quote: Force is force and bound by the laws of force. Very astutely spotted. Now could you explain why it is that you feel that the lesser EM force, being at its maximum less than one tenth of one percent of the greater force, should be able to selectively overwhelm the greater force.

You have not defined what 'greater' force is not that I care. EM has been shown to exist everywhere and at every level. The sun (with it's 'huge' gravitational force) cannot contain the magnetic ropes that caused the solar flares we were talking about. So your lesser/greater view is not correct and your excersise pointless.

Hey, why don't we lower the threshold to 1.0!!!!? /fail