It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# 7.7 Okhotsk Earthquake AGAIN at beginning of Earth, Venus,

page: 4
18
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Melyanna

JohnVidale

Check the math, and put up or shut up. Maybe you are mathematically illiterate. Is that it?

Melyanna

Your "math clearly fails. The fact that you resort to personal attack reveals its weakness.

jw

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Melyanna

Hi Starling

Thanks for the encouragement. I am not engaging in debate for the oh so much fun of it. Rather, I am researching how to introduce a new scientific paradigm to the world.

Lots of fun.

Melyanna

"Enjoy" was probably the wrong word for me to use, as in "fun"!
I appreciate your research and am following it.
Thanks.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:04 PM

Hello Jdub

Ahh, a good response. Thank you.

Omerbashich limits it to 6.2, not 6.0, with only an exception to get enough of a sample size. But you do have a point there. But for 7.7 or greater, it is perfect.

Which 1/3 are you saying is missing.?

Melyanna

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:06 PM

Hi Jdub

Again, please show me where the math fails, and as for personal attacks, does fight fire with fire ring a bell? Every hear a comedian ridicule a heckler to get the to shut up so the main audience can enjoy the show? Same thing. It is an experiment, though, and I am not sure it is working.

Melyanna

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Melyanna

Hello Mmmpie

The logic he gives is mistaken as it includes quakes that are not used in the research for the very reason he gives. Read the paper and do the math for yourself. Its worth it.

Melyanna

You are misrepresenting the paper. It clearlt relies upon mag 6.2 and greater.
Did you forget the title; or is it just too inconveient to"

## Astronomical Alignments as cause of M6+ Seismicity

I used the exact same criteria.
You are now making thongs up (as if you didn't from the start).

jw
edit on 14-8-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:12 PM

Hi JDub

Is this your way of cutting out of the discussion without stating which 1/3 of the larger quakes do not happen on an alignment? M6+ could refer to 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, etc. He picked 6.2 if you actually read it.

So again, which 1/3 of the larger quakes do not happen on an alignment. Please don't run away without answering that one.

Melyanna

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 05:03 PM

Originally posted by OneisOne

Originally posted by sealing
Neither side will know entirely for a long long time.
It's just as reckless to say planetary alignments
NEVER cause earthquakes.
They don't know.
NASA just recently decided ripples on the Sun were SunQuakes.
Prior to this, bringing this up (after being ridiculed) it was explained
away by distorted optics of the Solar Observatories.

I agree with that.

But to state that EQs are unrelated to tectonics is equally reckless.
From the first 2 lines the the paper's conclusions:

The Earth’s strong seismicity is unrelated to tectonics, and they both arise due to the same external (astronomical) causes, namely the Earth’s position with respect to the solar system’s constellations. So the long alleged mutual causality of strong earthquakes and tectonics is not real either.

Touche' !
And I agree with that.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 05:21 PM

On the off chance you take yourself seriously, perhaps you can defend the repeated references to the only real journal article in the references, i.e., "geophysics community is clueless as to the source of most of the energy supplied to the Earth and required for tectonogenesis (mantle/plates dynamics), as well as for causing strong earthquakes [1]." that are dead wrong.

There is nothing in Dave's article that even hints that there is inadequate energy in the known Earth to drive earthquakes or plate tectonics. Ample energy is known to have been stored in radioactivity, hear of formation, and chemical stratification to drive both.

This also means the lead-off sentence is flat wrong: "Geophysics cannot explain the mechanism that supplies most of the energy required for tectonogenesis and overall seismicity on Earth [1]." It can, and it does.

But the article is a parody; to discuss it as serious does it a disservice.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 05:24 PM

Hi JohnVidale

The article you mention is not available onlline. If you can send it to me privately, I would love to read it.

Still no comment from you on the math, though.. Why is that?

Melyanna

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by Melyanna

Underduck

Read my post down to the bottom. The data is there. Think before you speak.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar...you might want to spit that newbie vinegar, out of your mouth, before your *maybe* interesting thread flies south.....just sayin'...

Des

ahaha they just said that in NCIS

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 05:41 PM

Math? There is no math in the paper, unless you mean that random collection of letters in the box on page 12, with none of the variables defined.

Brilliant as the Illuminatus! Trilogy. I particularly liked the invocation of Kepler's fourth law, when Kepler only wrote three laws, and the requirement of the presence of the "aether".

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:24 PM

LMAO.

Umm, yeah, a graduate from California Institute of Technology and director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network is mathematically illiterate.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:59 PM

I was having a laugh at that myself. I thought it was completely ironic that the OP actually referenced a journal article that Dr. Vidale co-authored in a posting made back in March. I guess real science is a bit too orthodox for the OP? www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:11 PM

No, I was referring to the math in my post that shows how to calculate the odds of 22 of 22 quakes with magnitude of 7.7 or greater all occuring during a 3 day plus alignment of three bodies including earth as per the chart on page 5, or the even greater odds of the 11 largest quakes in 100 years ALL occuring during times where two such alignments occured simultaneously.

Wow, I am really glad that someone of your qualifications is adhering to a bad analysis of an experiment done in the early 1900's as source. Come on, join us in this Century. It won't hurt at all. In fact, you might like it.

Melyanna

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:12 PM

LMAO Another brilliant piece of factual analysis. Oh, what am I going to do?

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:16 PM

You know, you are right. Orthodox science is to orthodox for me. I truly do not mean that disrespectfully. You actually avoided sarcasm and made a real comment. So here is one back for you.

Have you read T. S. Kuhn's 'Structue of Scientific Revolutions'? Or perhaps Noble's 'The Religion of Technology" They will explain why orthodox science is too orthodox for me.

I do not intend to be disrespectful except when disrespected first. Come on, address the facts and I will do so as well. The long tale of history is completely on my side here.

Melyanna

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:51 PM

Originally posted by NoExpert
Planetary alignments can not and do not cause earthquakes, take this from a geologist. There is no correlation between earthquakes and alignments.

Hey take this from another scientist. We cannot say "can not and do not cause" because we don't yet know all the laws of the universe.

All we can say, is that no causal connection exists by any known scientific mechanism at present.

According to present knowledge, it is impossible. The known forces between the planetary bodies are too weak.

However, there could be an error in our force laws.

So, keep an open mind folks.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 08:25 PM

Wise words, and thank you.

Melyanna

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 10:04 PM
I think I saw in your OP that the third planet that was supposed to cause an effect was Pluto. If so, how about you or one of your followers put numbers into this equation and work out how "large" the effect of Pluto would be. F (gravitational attraction) = Gm1m2/d(squared) (I don't know how to make it look pretty but I hope you get the drift) So I guess I'm saying Pluto effect ......pft!!!!

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 10:07 PM

You have a point, for sure, just like the post above does when he says that perhaps there is a new mechanism at work that we do not yet understand.

What do you make of the fact that every one of the 11 largest quakes in history occured with such alignments. The odds against chance are so small my spreadsheet blows up when I try to calculate them. the number is too large...

top topics

18