We have our Brown Dwarf, interacting with and Bombarding asteroids of Oort against Pluto and Jupiter

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Your really funny you know.. you say EU has been debunked.. I read through your links and it seems to me no one debunked anything. Some scientist disagreed with it, and others disagreed with them.

The EU model explains a lot of things other theories cannot explain. This is a trend in science. No science is written in stone therefore no science can neither be 100% proven as fact and no science can be proven 100% as non fact.

Science itself is NOT a science. It is a philosophy. Everything in science is subjective greatly depending on the model you use and types of experiments you do with them. A Good thread on this is here: String Theory - Science or Philosophy ? www.scienceforums.net...

If you look into enough theories you find that always the newest theories cause observations to be made that older theories cannot account for. This is the case with relativity seeing things that Newtons gravitational laws don't account for and also Quantum Physics seeing things that relativity cannot account for.

A great example of this is found in Nova's documentary The Elegant Universe.:www.youtube.com.../u/40/ULlR_pkHjUQ (It' in 10 minute parts)


Yet EU is able to account for these things with it's model. So you see, just as Newtonian science didn't have all the answers nor did Relativity or Quantum Physics, so too EU is a valid part of the puzzle of the whole that we are still trying to grasp.




[edit on 10-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]

reply to post by Phage


Anyone with an ounce of common sense would attribute the curent swarm of earthquakes to the fact there is far more reliable instrumentation out there to record geo-disturbance....

However, the swarms of 7 to 8 point magnitude earthquakes, even in deep crustal margins away from any kind of civilization, at a specific time (another question in itself), from september to october, were above average in terms of magnitude..
This may have been to internal forces releasing energy at these active plates to equalize internal pressure, however it takes A LOT of external energy, to reproduce the same results... Sooo the additional energy/information still HAS to come from somewhere! From the earths interior or beyond... Plus localized magnetic anomalies in china, where the EM spectrum in the form of a rainbow was upside down, then a major quake.... People ARE NOT stupid..


[edit on 063131p://f26Thursday by Selahobed]

[edit on 063131p://f27Thursday by Selahobed]

reply to post by Phage

I seriously doubt that Dr. Chalko is basing his research strictly on a quantitative analysis. Surely he's factored in the increase of monitoring stations. That kind of "mistake" would ruin a career.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Well that's what published work is all about, isn't it? Allowing others to review what you have done?

Somehow I don't think his clients would worry to much about it. I don't think his career would suffer either way.
selfhealing.net...




[edit on 12/10/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Selahobed


Plate tectonics generate a lot of energy and they have been going on for a very, very long time. They will most likely continue to go on for a very, very long time.

Originally posted by daz__

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

The Electric Model of the Universe hs been so thoroughly debunked as to be laughable. See for instance www.bautforum.com... and www.physicsforums.com...

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

The Electric Model of the Universe hs been so thoroughly debunked as to be laughable. See for instance www.bautforum.com... and www.physicsforums.com...

In MHO I would have to disagree with you on this matter. The electric plasma model is the only one that makes any sense to me. Although I do not believe that that is all that is going on but certainly space is not empty. It is teaming with electrical currents and plasma currents and chemicals and compounds in all forms. I believe the model you are speaking of and I care not to mention is dead and all left to do is bury it.

peace and good will to you

daz

There is no cosmic void
Bayonic matter tugs
the massless photons sleep

I decided, in the interests of cordiality, to forego my usual sarcasm and, instead, try a haiku.Now two points. First, gravity acts at cosmic distances while, if you ignore some really wierd unproven entanglement phenomena, the electromagnetic force doesn't. Baryonic particles can account for the large scale structure of the universe, while photons, the massless mediators of the EMF, cannot.Also, recent work unifying the electromagnetic and weak forces (the electro-weak force) makes it even clearer that QED (quantum rlectrodynamics)removes the photon from astrophysical relevance. Quantum chromodynamics, dealing with hadronic interactions, is now where the action is.
Hope you liked the haiku.
Doc
Edit to point out that I am not a cosmologist. My Masters in physics is in the high energy particle field. My PhD is in P Chem or Physical Chemistry which is the Physics of Chemistry and Qualitative and quantitative/forensic Chemistry. And not poetry!!!

[edit on 10-12-2009 by 4nsicphd]

[edit on 10-12-2009 by 4nsicphd]

reply to post by Phage


Well done phage in debunking a man who lives in victoria australia, but the fact still remains that there was a large swarm of geo-instability in the ring of fire this year.. All of the diagrams in the world will not disprove that.. Particulary to the people who live there...

So the real question remains; is it an internal "blip" or an external interaction?

There is no such thing as a free lunch in this universe, and as the sun's activity is "abnormally" low; where did the extra energy come from???


[edit on 063131p://f47Thursday by Selahobed]

[edit on 063131p://f48Thursday by Selahobed]

reply to post by Phage


As a geophysics post graduate... I know...

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by liveandletlive
How will this change things?

I don't know.
Do you?

I believe it means that the information is subject to change due to the type of scale being used. One advantage of the moment magnitude scale is that, unlike other magnitude scales like the Richter scale, it does not saturate at the upper end. That is, there is no particular value beyond which all large earthquakes have about the same magnitude. For this reason, moment magnitude is now the most often used estimate of large earthquake magnitudes. Wasn’t the information you provided based on the Richter scale?

reply to post by Selahobed

I didn't debunk anyone and who cares where he lives. I asked to see how he arrived at his conclusion that seismic activity has been increasing since 1990 and the data he used. I also pointed out that his career does not seem to depend on work he has done in seismology.

It's called the Ring of Fire for a reason. The Pacific Rim is active in the extreme and it always (as far as we are concerned) has been. It could well be that strong earthquakes trigger other earthquakes but there is no evidence that there has been an overall increase in activity. You may not like the charts but they show this. Samoa for example; since 1900 there have been 14 earthquakes of 7.5 and greater.
1903 8.0
1913 7.7
1917 8.5
1919 7.7
1919 8.2
1937 7.5
1948 8.0
1950 7.5
1957 7.5
1962 7.5
1975 7.7
2006 8.0
2009 8.0

Indonesia. Indonesia is unbelievably active. Do you want me to find those for you?

BTW, what do you think is causing the increase that you believe has been occurring?

[edit on 12/10/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


I dont know, that is the reason why i am here. Hoping to get answers without the peer review process that goes against the grain... And the inevitable slagging off lol..

This year HAS been wierd, and its not a venn diagram, or a pie chart, just a feeling, a gut instinct for geophysical processes that are somehow "not right".... Not scientific i know, but people who i spoke to in samoa revealed their uneasiness, however i put that down to after shocks... Yet the frequency and magnitude of the recent unstability is abnormal, considering the external reduction of solar activity in the swarm period... Is that the cause? Or is adidtional energy/information comming from elsewhere???

reply to post by liveandletlive

Like Wiki says;

his scale was based on the responses of seismographs and their distance from the epicentre. Because of this, there is an upper limit on the highest measurable magnitude; all large earthquakes will have a local magnitude of around 7.

Since there are obviously earthquakes recorded at greater than 7, it's not quite so simple. The Richter scale is overly reliant on distance to the epicenter. The MMS scale is not. Depending on the circumstances, the MMS scale can give magnitudes greater or less than the Richter scale. I don't think that you can say in general that one scale gives larger values than the other.

As to which scale is used in the data, I can't be sure but the USGS says this:

Moment magnitude is the preferred magnitude for all earthquakes listed in USGS catalogs. All other magnitudes should be preserved in the database, but routine searches of the catalogs should list only the preferred magnitude.

earthquake.usgs.gov...


[edit on 12/10/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by queenannie38
here is a direct link to the article:

pluto story

[edit on 12/8/2009 by queenannie38]

Is that "original" article the original, or another Spanish-to-English translation of some alleged original posted on another site? I ask because the English still seems really bad.

If this is coming from some Australian-based group, there should be a legit, clean original English form of it - posted somewhere authoritative and Australia-based. I don't believe any authoritative group (in Australia) would be posting something like this first in Spanish? .. not that I'm 'dissing Spanish. If this was claiming to be coming from a Spain-based or Latin American-based group, I would expect that.



[edit on 2009-12-10 by EnhancedInterrogator]

I can back up somethings that is claimed here with my own observations 1-2 weeks ago, i noticed the moon was not at it's correct alignment, it was lobbed sideways as if i were a lot closer to the equator (a pretty big wobble!). I've had a lot of crappy weather for 2 months, so I haven't got any photos

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

Your really funny you know.. you say EU has been debunked.. I read through your links and it seems to me no one debunked anything. Some scientist disagreed with it, and others disagreed with them.

The EU model explains a lot of things other theories cannot explain. This is a trend in science. No science is written in stone therefore no science can neither be 100% proven as fact and no science can be proven 100% as non fact.

Science itself is NOT a science. It is a philosophy. Everything in science is subjective greatly depending on the model you use and types of experiments you do with them. A Good thread on this is here: String Theory - Science or Philosophy ? www.scienceforums.net...

If you look into enough theories you find that always the newest theories cause observations to be made that older theories cannot account for. This is the case with relativity seeing things that Newtons gravitational laws don't account for and also Quantum Physics seeing things that relativity cannot account for.

A great example of this is found in Nova's documentary The Elegant Universe.:www.youtube.com.../u/40/ULlR_pkHjUQ (It' in 10 minute parts)

were never able to develop
Yet EU is able to account for these things with it's model. So you see, just as Newtonian science didn't have all the answers nor did Relativity or Quantum Physics, so too EU is a valid part of the puzzle of the whole that we are still trying to grasp.




[edit on 10-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]

One of the major problems with the EU model, which is really just a reworded version of the Plasma Universe Model espoused by Hannes Alfven in the 60s,is that it is totally at odds with the observed CMB isotropy and the x=ray background (Peebles 1993). And Alfven and his followers were never able to develop a non=trivial mathematical description of any EU angular momentum transfer necessary for the virializing process in clusters, probably because he tried to scale plasma by a factor of 10^27 necessary to extrapolate to Hubble distances. The COBE satellite pretty well demolished th EU model and noone has published a scientific paper promoting it after 1992. It has now pretty much been relegated to contrarian "Mainstream science is out to get me because I know too much" websites.
Of course scientists disagree. And when they do, somebody's wrong. I'll take big bang cosmology and give you 10 points.

Originally posted by daz__

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Good man comrade.
Another fellow EU believer.

Do elaborate, plz. ;-)


[seriously]

reply to post by Phage


Phage have you heard anything about the black ops project E.T.W.?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DrMattMaddix

 

I'd like to see Dr. Chalko's published work on the subject but can't seem to find any. Can you help with that? See, I have a problem understanding that MSM article. I'd like to know more about how he comes to his conclusions.

Here is a chart of the annual number of earthquakes of 7.0 and greater since 1900. If anything, it appears that there has been less activity (not more) since 1990.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7f4d694099d1.png[/atsimg]
neic.usgs.gov...

[edit on 12/10/2009 by Phage]

Nice chart! Thanks for creating that visual.

My observation over the past 20 years was first hand in California from 1970'ish until 1990'ish when I left. Now, granted I'm not a researcher and I haven't always followed news reports... It's just a casual observation that the reports of loss of life and damage experienced from the earthquakes 'seems to me' to have increased and I include underwater quakes that have absolutely devastated APAC regions via tsunami's. Again, it's not dollar amount because dollar value of damage is irrelevant and utterly skews damage reports. When you have tens of thousands die in building collapses and flooding because of substandard building code or living right on the water line like some of those areas in APAC the events are much more devastating than say a 6.8 in the Bay Area.

Over time, the trend, obviously not shown in the data, is the volume of damage and the locations. If an area is built up with consideration for earthquakes, then they are built to withstand the jolts/shocks. And they can be sharp.

I'd like to see a graph/map that includes the areas hit and a sort of collective 'structural analysis' of the quantity and quality of structures damaged and to what extent they were damaged including loss of life caused by poor structures.

I don't know that anyone could accurately quantify those elements into a cohesive report but I'm sure that if someone did, the trending would indicate that even though data indicates a lower number of earthquakes overall; the damage caused would show a great casualty and property damage because of the locations hit.

If an earthquake hit in the middle of a forest and no one was there shake or fall (or record the event) would it make a sound? Or a hundred for that matter?

I won't be scanning for additional data ... likely scanning articles on the web would yield a lot of death and damage tolls but as I mentioned, I'm not a researcher in the geological sense. I go by the media reports over the years.

Sometimes we have to go with opinions as long as they are grounded in mostly (at least plausible) facts.

As far as a Niburu/PlanetX which I love to find more info about... I really believe that they (TPTB) are hiding something.

People that take on the Nibiru theory and pile on the extra bull about annunaki and other irrelevancies and add absolutely nothing to the argument.

It's all about whether or not a planet/brown dwarf star could exist as an active member of our solar system. If so where is it and why won't it show itself. We should be discussing and discovering information to prove or disprove.

Someone asked if I had seen 2012 yet... I found a AVI of the entire DVD in the newsgroups and now I've seen it. Plot is REALLY thin and the movies' intro; done ala Star Trek; shows what immediately struck me as extra planets(s)... So the professed plot isn't at all what the intro implies. It's worth buying the DVD in the bargain bin. The CGI is well done and the tension level and events during the first third of the movie are over the top. Too many pure night scenes in the middle and towards the end.



[edit on 12·10·09 by DrMattMaddix]

reply to post by Eye of Horus

No.
Does it have something to do with brown dwarfs?

reply to post by randyvs


Interesting sound track. Still hard to believe but maybe?

As a matter of technical interest if one happens to be sitting in the unlucky third of the fishbowl where fire falls from the sky, how deep would one need to be? And self-contained with o2 as well?

Wormwood?



[edit on 10-12-2009 by Brown Bear]