| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
 |
|
| Now come on! You must know that all of us here simply adore questions of this kind! |
It is a philosophical difference as I see it. You either believe in the standard orthodox view that the Earth is a closed system or you don't. Based on the evidence I have read, I don't.
As you well know my only reservation on SLOT is the cause of the dam walls breaking, which I believe is a product of volcanic or earthquake activity.
And again like SCUM it stand or falls on the orthodox beliefs
A. in a closed system
B. in the standard model of geological uniformitarianism
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Sun-Earth environment study to understand earthquake prediction
American Geophysical Union 2007
Earthquake prediction is possible by looking into the location of active sunspots before it harbours energy towards earth.
A correlation of earth directed coronal mass ejection (CME) from the active sunspots has been possible to develop as a precursor of the earthquake.
More than hundreds of case studies show that before the occurrence of the earthquakes the atmospheric temperature increases and suddenly drops before the occurrence of the earthquakes. These changes are being monitored by using Sun Observatory Heliospheric observatory (SOHO) satellite data.
There is a positive correlation of CMEs with change in magnetic field followed by aurora borealis or sudden spark of light from the sky before an earthquake.
Recent scientific research confirms a connection between high energy charged particles in the ionosphere and earthquakes. A study conducted in 2008 by Jann-Yeng Liu, from the Center for Space and Remote Sensing Research in Chung-Li, Taiwan, examined more than 100 earthquakes with magnitudes of 5.0 or larger in Taiwan over several decades. The results indicate that almost all of the quakes down to a 35 km depth were preceded by distinct electrical disturbances in the ionosphere.
Geophysicists have observed minor short term changes such as a very minor slowing of the Earth rotation speed and minor wobbles of the Earth's rotational axis after average periodic CME - Earth Magnetic Field interaction. Higher flux CME outbursts could cause much larger effects including severe changes in the rotation speed and possibly variations in the rotation angle in relation to the ecliptic plane.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051221earthquake.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Amazing!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Komorikid wrote: | The timing of these proton storms ( again a poor analogy) can be linked chronologically to Earthquakes. The recent Haiti and Chile quakes were both precursored by solar ion storms. So the question is
did the piddling quake cause the wobble or did the wobble cause the piddling quake. |
Major earthquakes often correlate with "lights in the sky" caused by bursts of gamma radiation
This page gives a long list of such correlations. It comes from a site that has an awful lot of crazy stuff... but as Mick has pointed out, the crazies sometimes latch onto something worth pursuing.
Don't know if these gamma bursts correlate with Komoro's CMEs... but if they do...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
I should mention at this point that my own work (known only to a select few - and understood by fewer) does acknowledge a link between earthquakes and inter-planetary electro-magnetism -- it's just that I presumed this to have been a rare event that occurred periodically in the distant past under circumstances that no longer exist.
It looks like I was wrong!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Komorikid wrote: | | It is a philosophical difference as I see it. You either believe in the standard orthodox view that the Earth is a closed system or you don't. Based on the evidence I have read, I don't. |
It's more like this.
No one is going to accept my crazy stuff if it is derived in part from someone else's crazy stuff. One level of crazy someone might swallow. Two levels of crazy is just too much to ask for from a rational mind.
So if I can show how my material works using orthodox science, I'm sticking with it. Unless I absolutely must invoke something new to explain observations, I'll stick with what's accepted (even if we suspect it's wrong).
Case in Point: I am a huge skeptic concerning the dating of Pompeii (to put it mildly). Yet, I have begun a book project with Wireloop on Pompeii but will not be mentioning within that book my skepticism concerning its proper place in history. Why? Because the book already has one level of crazy. It can't go to level two without losing the audience completely (and also the historical stuff is not my original theory).
Same here with this electro-magnetism stuff. I'm only going to mention it where I absolutely must. If the orthodoxy works, I gotta stick with it. Only where I must will I introduce novel theories pioneered by others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
Look, this is all fascinating stuff (I am rather fond of electric universe theories myself) but I find it frustrating that KK ignores simple objections that torpedo his claims. For example, from Chad:
| The Perihelion-aphelion mismatch is not fixed (regardless of what Komoro keeps stating) and oscillates about a mean... sometimes Perihelion-aphelion is longer and at other times Aphelion-perihelion is longer. |
KK rejects Newton and claims instead that the movement of the Sun is the cause of the apparent A-P, P-A time difference. In which case it ought to be constant. But instead of responding to this quite reasonable and simple objection, we are now distracted by new information. One baby step at a time, please Komori, if you are to overthrow the fundamentals of physics. If Chad's information is correct, why does it not completely invalidate your claim?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | Ishmael wrote: | Komori;
Your posts are providing food for thought but I have no means of verifying your claims or of looking into them further -- as you do not provide any sources! Where are you getting this information from? |
Here maybe? |
Yes, well found Chad, the whole thing from the first topic of this thread seems to be there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
|
And on the subject of this Bros guy, it is he that makes the mistake that the sun is 'moving toward the winter solstice' - he thinks that the sun is moving but the earth (its orbit) is not. As I said before, the whole system is moving in the same direction - the sun and the earth's orbit. So the sun is not 'moving toward the winter solstice', and the sun's movement cannot explain the wonky ellipse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | So the sun is not 'moving toward the winter solstice', and the sun's movement cannot explain the wonky ellipse. |
Yes. Komori has stated a number of times that the sun "drags the planets along with it" but, according to Newtonian thinking, it's really that the Sun is just one object among many (including the planets) that all happen to be moving in the same general direction while influencing one another's path through space.
One might as well say the Earth drags the Sun as the Sun drags the Earth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | Look, this is all fascinating stuff (I am rather fond of electric universe theories myself) but I find it frustrating that KK ignores simple objections that torpedo his claims. For example, from Chad:
| The Perihelion-aphelion mismatch is not fixed (regardless of what Komoro keeps stating) and oscillates about a mean... sometimes Perihelion-aphelion is longer and at other times Aphelion-perihelion is longer. | |
Ok Komori. So let's deal with just this one objection. Let's see how you handle it!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | If Chad's information is correct... |
The average of the perihelion-aphelion and aphelion-perihelion periods for the years 2007 to 2020 (as shown in the table I posted) appear to be almost exactly equal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
| Ok Komori. So let's deal with just this one objection. Let's see how you handle it! |
Well Chad is indeed correct and if you take 2000 to 2020 it works out about the same as well. There is just one problem. For half the time the Earth 'appears' to be speeding up towards the Sun and for the other half it is speeding up away from the Sun.
Oh! And the thing Chad forgot to mention. Not once does it sweep out equal areas in equal times. In fact the time difference varies from 2 to 5 days.
Chad's statement is coincidentally one of the orthodox excuses.
'Well it evens out over the long term.' Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The average is the same, etc etc. Nothing to see here, folks, move along, move along.
I get highly suspicious when orthodoxy resorts to multiple special pleadings when this is mentioned on at least half a dozen science blogs.
Well it's the gravity of Jupiter; no it's the Earth/Moon baricentre; no it's the Moon's torque; no, there is a leap day in there every four years; well, it averages out over time; etc etc.
No one has explained how the perihelion/aphelion is somehow more accurate than the solstice points. No one can explain why no matter which reference point you use, the Earth sweeps out equal areas in unequal times.
Of the twenty years I calculated, not one even comes close.
Kepler was talking perfect ellipses. Without perfect ellipses there is no r2 in the formula. Without r2 Newton has no reason to assume the alleged speeding up and slowing down was by an inverse square factor. Therefore the force that causes matter to fall is not the same force that caused planets to orbit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Brian wrote:
| ...he thinks that the sun is moving but the earth (its orbit) is not. As I said before, the whole system is moving in the same direction - the sun and the earth's orbit. So the sun is not 'moving toward the winter solstice', and the sun's movement cannot explain the wonky ellipse. |
This is not what Bros says at all. Brian seem to have a problem with 3D spacial movement. Bros clearly says the Earth is orbiting the Sun WHILE the Sun is moving forward. You cannot determine there is an orbital time difference if the Earth is not moving. The Earth is continually moving in the direction of the Sun's movement for one half of the orbit and against the direction of the Sun's movement for the other half of its orbit.
Orbits don't move, planets do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Imagine two people in a open park. One is walking down a straight path. The other is some distance away directly to your right. You are walking forward while your partner is walking counter clockwise in a circle around you. As your partner walks forward he appears to be paralleling your movement. As he arcs towards your 12 o'clock you are catching up to him, as he passes dead ahead he is now walking in the opposite direction to you and you catch up even further. He remains travelling in the opposite direction until he reaches your 6 o'clock. You have continued to move forward while he was moving away from your direction of travel. He now starts to move in the same direction as you are moving but you have moved further ahead and he now has to catch up not only the distance to where he started but also the additional distance you have travelled while he was moving away from your direction of travel.
Seems pretty clear cut to me
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
