Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 245

Thread: A Theory of Cometary Associations with Earthquakes

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    So you do not have credible sources for your (comet = quakes) idea??


    Why not just say so?
    Here is the main site on my subject: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/1811.htm . Another at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/oct2011/gail107-2.htm . Another at http://www.pibburns.com/catastro/impacts.htm

    As far as the theory, I could give many examples, as you know, proof, there is none.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Lost technology? Have you seen another pyramid built similar to our ancients? Is there any other building with as many or as large of stones?
    Off topic, but NO...why use out moded technology when we have better methods of construction??


    Same type people misunderstanding and holding back technology and science.

    What "type" would those people be??


    If your/our level of intelligence was high enough we would already know the answers to all these problems.
    My level of intelligence is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.



    Please, either present evidence for your ideas or retract those claims.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The link should, perhaps, be: http://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/office/hough/mitchill.html
    From that site:

    So this rather bizarre report dates from Feb 1812 when the comet had long faded from sight. So I fail to see how it can have anything to do with the comet.

    Also, the comet's closest approach (1.2 AU) was on October 16 (from: http://cometography.com/lcomets/1811f1.html). This means that a tiny rock was 450 times as far away as the moon 3 months before the first major earthquake in December. It is difficult to see any possible connection.
    Thanks, forgot the ".gov"

    You gotta read it again. Capt. Alexander is referring to November the 20th, a meteor shower prior to the quake and he also discusses what occurred on the night of the quake.

    I have argued the cometary orbital elements on many occasion. Although I am sure a comet could break apart or contact an asteroid from any great distance and send it towards Earth. The astronomers of the day [William Herschel] agreed with me totally, saying the comet was 50% larger than the sun in October 1811, that's on the Wikipedia page.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Here is the main site on my subject: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/1811.htm .
    Aw, yes....Robert Fritzius. He is not what I would call a "credible" source...in fact just the opposite.


    As far as the theory, I could give many examples, as you know, proof, there is none.
    "Theories" are backed by evidence...you have none...what you have is a hypothesis...a related, but totally different idea, altogether.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Well, the giant multi-colored text is almost convincing. They say "Will Comet 21P have a similar crustal stressor effect?" Well, obviously not as nothing happened.

    Not exactly convincing evidence of anything, is it?

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    You gotta read it again. Capt. Alexander is referring to November the 20th
    Nope. February.

    You may not be old enough to be familiar with the use of the word "instant". The letter was written on the 28th of February, 1812. Therefore "instant" means February. When he refers to events in November (or any other month) he explicitly states the month.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Aw, yes....Robert Fritzius. He is not what I would call a "credible" source...in fact just the opposite.




    "Theories" are backed by evidence...you have none...what you have is a hypothesis...a related, but totally different idea, altogether.
    No, a hypothesis is one person's idea, a theory is a collective of many people that agree to the possibility of an idea.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Nope. February.

    You may not be old enough to be familiar with the use of the word "instant". The letter was written on the 28th of February, 1812. Therefore "instant" means February. When he refers to events in November (or any other month) he explicitly states the month.
    Ajh,yes, you are correct, it is in the next paragraph, where he describes an earlier meteor shower prior to the quake on the 22nd of November. So the one in Feb. was after the initial quake but in the same short time period as the aftershocks[a few said to be as strong as the original]. So, helps to prove my point, meteor showers prior to during and after the quakes, and discriptions of massive meteors.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Ajh,yes, you are correct, it is in the next paragraph, where he describes an earlier meteor shower prior to the quake on the 22nd of November. So the one in Feb. was after the initial quake but in the same short time period as the aftershocks[a few said to be as strong as the original]. So, helps to prove my point, meteor showers prior to during and after the quakes, and discriptions of massive meteors.
    As the comet was, by this time, something like 300 million miles away and barely visible I doubt there is any connection.

    Also three "fires" that continue for hours cannot be meteors. (I have no idea what they were describing.)

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    As the comet was, by this time, something like 300 million miles away and barely visible I doubt there is any connection.

    Also three "fires" that continue for hours cannot be meteors. (I have no idea what they were describing.)
    Take a moment and read this http://cometography.com/lcomets/1811f1.html ,go down to Herschel's discription on December 2, of how the tail appears so much shorter, because it's coming towards him. Then notice how the comet cannot be seen after Dec.14 [it was in the southern hemisphere and apparently some cloudy days] again until Jan.2

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    2,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    No, a hypothesis is one person's idea, a theory is a collective of many people that agree to the possibility of an idea.
    Nope and nope.

    Hypothesis: "A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon." One important feature of a hypothesis is that it can be tested.

    Theory: "A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena." Informally, a theory is a hypothesis whose predictions have been tested via experiment, modified to fit the observations, and tested again, repeatedly.

    Your "collective of many people that agree to the possibility of an idea" is akin to a religion, maybe, or a set of social rules.

    Fred
    "For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
    -- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

    Earth's sole legacy will be a very slight increase (0.01%) of the solar metallicity.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    Nope and nope.

    Hypothesis: "A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon." One important feature of a hypothesis is that it can be tested.

    Theory: "A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena." Informally, a theory is a hypothesis whose predictions have been tested via experiment, modified to fit the observations, and tested again, repeatedly.

    Your "collective of many people that agree to the possibility of an idea" is akin to a religion, maybe, or a set of social rules.

    Fred
    Really, are we gonna' do this?
    hypothesis- a tentative explanation for an observation;
    theory-a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct.

    What I said, hypothesis is coming up with an explanation and theory is once the idea is commonly accepted. This is quite simple to look up.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    theory-a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct.
    Even if we agree with that "definition"...what you are proposing is STILL not a theory, since it is not "commonly regarded" as correct.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    893
    Back to the part of the OP that has something testable. Do you have any data showing any evidence of shock from impact to rocks from this area? That needs to be the starting point.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhaedas View Post
    Back to the part of the OP that has something testable. Do you have any data showing any evidence of shock from impact to rocks from this area? That needs to be the starting point.
    Yes, most definitely. I have what appears to be hundreds of spherules, impactites, fusion crust, shocked quartz, nanodiamonds..., everything you would expect from an impact, including body parts encased in iron. I imagine conditions would have had to be just right between hot and cold to produce the various rock forms I have found in the area.
    Last edited by Kalopin; 2012-Mar-30 at 11:55 PM.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Even if we agree with that "definition"...what you are proposing is STILL not a theory, since it is not "commonly regarded" as correct.
    I'm sorry, now I feel like I'M the one from Missouri: "show me" where I made that statement.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    I'm sorry, now I feel like I'M the one from Missouri: "show me" where I made that statement.

    I "guess" you want me to post quotes from you that state that the idea of comets causing Earthquakes was a theory.

    ...or is it something else?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    I "guess" you want me to post quotes from you that state that the idea of comets causing Earthquakes was a theory.

    ...or is it something else?
    Well, I would love to take credit but it was certainly not MY hypothesis, and has been discussed in detail in ancient and modern times. This THEORY has been considered by literally thousands.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Well, I would love to take credit but it was certainly not MY hypothesis...

    Sorry, but if you "promote" it here, then you "own" it.


    ...and has been discussed in detail in ancient and modern times.
    Relevance?....I can think of numerous things, all irrational, that have been "discussed" in both modern and ancient times....so what?


    This THEORY has been considered by literally thousands.
    Please stop doing that...what you have proposed is NOT A THEORY.

    What you have posted isn't evidence for anything.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Sorry, but if you "promote" it here, then you "own" it.




    Relevance?....I can think of numerous things, all irrational, that have been "discussed" in both modern and ancient times....so what?




    Please stop doing that...what you have proposed is NOT A THEORY.

    What you have posted isn't evidence for anything.
    Why, thank you for making this mine, although that may upset all the other people who have put in so much work.

    I guess you should try to seperate the possible and the non-sensical. That is why ideas that have merit stick around, and until a theory is proven or disproven beyond any doubt, then it remains a theory, a chance, a possibility that this may be fact.

    The evidence for this theory, being a theory is on your search engine.


    Is this really the first you've heard of this idea?

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Why, thank you for making this mine...
    No...I had nothing to do with it....it's all on you. You started this thread.


    I guess you should try to seperate the possible and the non-sensical.
    One should also take into consideration the source. If that source has been infamous for the promotion of irrational ideas, then shouldn't any ideas presented by that source be subjected to intense scrutiny?


    That is why ideas that have merit stick around...
    Longevity of belief is irrelevant...evidence isn't. There are many irrational ideas that have lasted centuries. So what??


    ...and until a theory is proven or disproven beyond any doubt, then it remains a theory, a chance, a possibility that this may be fact.
    I'm sorry, but with all respect, due, you have shown that you simply do not understand what a theory "is". It certainly isn't a "chance" or "possibility".


    The evidence for this theory, being a theory is on your search engine.
    Perhaps you should try and re-phrase, as I don't have a clue what this sentence means.
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2012-Mar-31 at 12:28 AM. Reason: because I can't spell

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Is this really the first you've heard of this idea?
    An idea presented without conformational evidence that some see as "real" is not that unusual for the internet, and I don't see why it would "surprise" you that I am not aware of every single irrational idea that is on the internet.


    Heck, if I was familiar with every single irrational idea on the internet, I wouldn't have time for anything else.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,732
    Kalopin, in post #4 of this thread I asked you to provide evidence for your claim that "more of mainstream science has accepted the fact that Near Earth Objects can become external crustal stressors.". Despite several repeats of this question, by me and others, you have not done so, nor have you answered my question of what you think mainstream science is. It's pretty difficult to show a correlation between moon tides and micro earthquakes. The idea that mainstream science would accept the influence of tiny (compared to the Moon) NEO's as "external crustal stressors" is laughable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    No, a hypothesis is one person's idea, a theory is a collective of many people that agree to the possibility of an idea.
    You haven't had any scientific education at all, have you? Not that that would prevent anyone from having a good idea, but it does help ascertain that at least everyone in the discussion is speaking the same language.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    No...I had nothing to do with it....it's all on you. You started this thread




    One should also take into consideration the source. If that source has been infamous for the promotion of irrational ideas, then shouldn't any ideas presented by that source be subjected to intense scrutiny?



    Longevity of belief is irrelevant...evidence isn't. There are many irrational ideas that have lasted centuries. So what??





    I'm sorry, but with all respect, due, you have shown that you simply do not understand what a theory "is". It certainly isn't a "chance" or "possibility".




    Perhaps you should try and re-phrase, as I don't have a clue what this sentence means.
    No, neither of us did it's an old theory.

    Infamous?

    I'm sorry, I can't think of one "irrational idea that has lasted for centuries", could you give an example?

    Those are what you call synonyms [meaning"the same as"] http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/theory

    How many sites do you see promoting the same idea?

    Didn't think I would have to argue the point of whether this is a theory or not. I was under the impression that everyone with any interest in science would consider this to be a well known, maybe not agreed upon theory. I guess you have to understand what a theory is before you can establish whether a speculation is a theory or not?

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    Kalopin, in post #4 of this thread I asked you to provide evidence for your claim that "more of mainstream science has accepted the fact that Near Earth Objects can become external crustal stressors.". Despite several repeats of this question, by me and others, you have not done so, nor have you answered my question of what you think mainstream science is. It's pretty difficult to show a correlation between moon tides and micro earthquakes. The idea that mainstream science would accept the influence of tiny (compared to the Moon) NEO's as "external crustal stressors" is laughable.



    You haven't had any scientific education at all, have you? Not that that would prevent anyone from having a good idea, but it does help ascertain that at least everyone in the discussion is speaking the same language.
    No, laughable would be your understanding of NEOs!

    Thank you for the first real personal attack. So I can tell you how extremely ignorant you sound!

    Maybe such uneducated strong opinions such as yours should be held until the evidence proves your point?

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    No, laughable would be your understanding of NEOs!
    What is laughable about it? If you're going to claim that there is some physical mechanism, aside from the very rare direct impact, for NEOs to cause earthquakes, you should present the evidence as folks have been asking. If that evidence doesn't come from well-supported and peer reviewed scientific material, you have no established support for your assertion.

    Thank you for the first real personal attack. So I can tell you how extremely ignorant you sound!
    What personal attack? And I see nothing ignorant in his statements here.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    I can't think of one "irrational idea that has lasted for centuries", could you give an example?
    Ghosts, assorted demons, and all manner of imaginary creatures are perfect examples...did you think this through before asking??


    How many sites do you see promoting the same idea?
    This is becoming a problem...if you are going to quote, then post the quoted passage, and then answer it...

    The way you are doing it makes it almost impossible to follow what is being said.


    Didn't think I would have to argue the point of whether this is a theory or not.
    Well, you do.


    I was under the impression that everyone with any interest in science would consider this to be a well known, maybe not agreed upon theory.
    Your "impression" is in error.


    I guess you have to understand what a theory is before you can establish whether a speculation is a theory or not?
    ...and as has been stated so many times, you don't understand what a theory "is". Until you do understand, you will continue to make "rookie" mistakes, such as thinking that this idea has any merit whatsoever.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    What is laughable about it? If you're going to claim that there is some physical mechanism, aside from the very rare direct impact, for NEOs to cause earthquakes, you should present the evidence as folks have been asking. If that evidence doesn't come from well-supported and peer reviewed scientific material, you have no established support for your assertion.



    What personal attack? And I see nothing ignorant in his statements here.
    Although plenty evidence has been given to show this theory has a good posibility, there is plenty more!


    WHAT? Well supported and peer reviewed scientific material? Beginning to sound like "The Inquisition" much? Tell that to Copernicus or Galileo. Give me a break, NO real science started out as "accepted"

    Do you now need the definition of "personal attack"?

    In any case, if "you" don't know something, then you are ignorant to the fact.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Didn't think I would have to argue the point of whether this is a theory or not. I was under the impression that everyone with any interest in science would consider this to be a well known, maybe not agreed upon theory. I guess you have to understand what a theory is before you can establish whether a speculation is a theory or not?
    The issue here appears to be the different usage of the term in general conversation versus science. In general conversation, someone might say "I have a theory" when they are talking about no more than a guess with no established supporting evidence. A "scientific theory," however, generally refers to a subject that has moved well beyond a guess or hypothesis, to something that has already been extensively tested and has well established supporting evidence. You seem to be using "theory" to refer to a guess as is common in conversation, but that is not how most here use the term.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    WHAT? Well supported and peer r eviewed scientific material? Beginning to sound like "The Inquisition" much? .
    Yeah....the Inquisition is just like peer review...NOT.


    Sheesh....

Similar Threads

  1. Cometary Panspermia? Maybe, maybe not
    By trinitree88 in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 2010-Sep-14, 05:20 PM
  2. Galaxy-Quasar associations as a test for alternative cosmologies
    By rtomes in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-10, 12:02 AM
  3. Cometary Globule CG4
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2006-Mar-10, 04:48 AM
  4. Cometary meteoroids
    By Jeff Root in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2005-Nov-08, 12:25 AM
  5. Cometary guess work?
    By upriver in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Aug-01, 03:10 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: