Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 241 to 245 of 245

Thread: A Theory of Cometary Associations with Earthquakes

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    NO, you are discussing a tiny comet, far away. I am proposing a large comet up close.
    But according to the sources you provided it was small and far away. You believe them when they talk about "lights in the sky" but you don't belive them when it comes to measurements of the comets size and orbit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Yes, although it was considered quite a large comet. I agree this comet would have had little effect as a NEO.
    Then why do you keep talking about the effects of NEOs. And why do keep brining in non existent or insignificant factors like electric charge and sound in space?

    But I am not claiming it was just a NEO, but that a large enough piece broke away and impacted Northern Mississippi to cause this earthquake. So totally different set of circumstances.
    So, nothing to do with it being an electrically charged object creating massive pressure waves? It was a big meteorite?

    I wish you would just stick to one story instead of jumping around whenever it is shown that the current one is implausible.

    How do I know it happened. I have strong enough evidence or wouldn't claim it.
    You have produced no evidence at all, just a series of random claims supported by a poor understanding of physics and, as far as I can tell, geology.

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    I am not able to continuously be at the computer, as I do have quite a bit to do.
    Irrelevant...no one here is forcing you to post...if you don't have the time to participate on this board, then don't.


    I believe that I have given a very good arguement. Although I have a wealth of evidence more to share.
    So far you have provided NO evidnece so any evidence would be "more".


    I had hoped that I would spark the interest of a good investigative scientist.
    You are making the assumption that you must be "right", yet you have provided no evidence to "back up" your claims. Why would any self respecting scientist be "intereseted" in outrageous, unproven claims?


    I would prefer you leave this thread open for furure comments, if possible. But, I guess, if you still feel that way then the defense rests.
    Are you withdrawing your claim(s)??

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    But according to the sources you provided it was small and far away. You believe them when they talk about "lights in the sky" but you don't belive them when it comes to measurements of the comets size and orbit?



    Then why do you keep talking about the effects of NEOs. And why do keep brining in non existent or insignificant factors like electric charge and sound in space?



    So, nothing to do with it being an electrically charged object creating massive pressure waves? It was a big meteorite?

    I wish you would just stick to one story instead of jumping around whenever it is shown that the current one is implausible.



    You have produced no evidence at all, just a series of random claims supported by a poor understanding of physics and, as far as I can tell, geology.
    It seems you have devolped those opinions through mis-interpretations. The science is already in. If the Earth, Moon, Sun, planets, asteroid belt, Kuiper Belt, Oort cloud... are effected by these forces of repel and attraction, then it stands to reason that a large enough body with enough speed and force will disrupt any body near enough to come into contact with said forces. Look up the theory on how The Moon began to orbit Earth. We may have gone over all of this before. You gettin' Deja vu yet?

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalopin View Post
    Oh and YES a comet IS a fast moving asteroid. And when they come into contact wit objects that will slow them down, they once again become asteroids!
    This is so "off the mark" that I don't know how to respond....you simply do not understand what a comet "is".

    An object's velocity DOES NOT determine what type of object it is.

  5. #245
    As the OP seems to be just making things up as he goes alon, not providing any support and changing his story to suit the objections of other members I am closing the thread

    As ever if anyone thinks the thread should stay open then report this post and give a very good reason. Kalopin You have had your kick at the can with this and provided nothing to support it. Before you start any other ATM Threads make sure you have actual evidence to support them. This Forum is not a talk shop where you can play 'just suppose' Read the Rules!
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

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: