Nibiru........True or False??!!

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

For anyone interested. This is a NASA document based on the correlation between planetary alignments, Sun solar flares hence tectonic shifts on Earth.

Solar flares work on a much much different mechanism than earthquakes.

Talk E wrote: »

I haven't had a chance to read it yet but, straight off the bat, at a quick scan, it relates to what we have been discussing here.

It's been said that a "tiny comet" couldn't affect Earth in a particular way because larger planetary bodies in our solar system dont etc etc.

But it appears that they do, and it's common knowledge in NASA circles.

Enjoy. Will catch up tomorrow.



EDIT: forgot link

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Apparent%20Relations%20between%20Solar%20Activity%20and%20Solar%20Tides%20Ching-Cheh%20Hung.pdf

This document mentions neither earthquakes or comets.
Suggesting that it supports any of the nonsense spouted about Elenin is plain dishonesty.

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

Solar flares work on a much much different mechanism than earthquakes.

Everything is connected .

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

Solar flares work on a much much different mechanism than earthquakes.

This extended logarithmic classification is necessary because the total energies of flares range over many orders of magnitude, following a uniform distribution with flare frequency roughly proportional to the inverse of the total energy. Stellar flares and earthquakes show similar power-law distributions.

King Mob wrote: »

This document mentions neither earthquakes or comets.
Suggesting that it supports any of the nonsense spouted about Elenin is plain dishonesty.

I didn't say the paper mentioned earthquakes or comets.

I did say I hadn't read it yet :pac:

What you just did was "plain dishonesty", rude, ignorant, arrogant, wrong and assumptive, again. :pac:

You conveniently managed to avoid the part that proved your earlier statement wrong too. :pac:


Here it is again.

It's been said that a "tiny comet" couldn't affect Earth in a particular way because larger planetary bodies in our solar system dont etc etc.

That NASA document states otherwise, doesn't it Mob. :pac:

EDIT:

I recall you mention dishonesty before. So I did a little search. Seems you have quite an obsession with dishonesty (or with making it look like people are dishonest). :pac:
http://www.boards.ie/search/?q=dishonesty&u=68949&sort=best&subforums=1&page=1

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

This extended logarithmic classification is necessary because the total energies of flares range over many orders of magnitude, following a uniform distribution with flare frequency roughly proportional to the inverse of the total energy. Stellar flares and earthquakes show similar power-law distributions.

You should probably understand what a power-law distribution is before blindly quoting Wikipedia. Because solar flares and earthquakes show similar power-law distributions doesn't indicate that they're linked in a causal relationship whatsoever. A power-law distribution is just that, a distribution.

David Matthew

gvn wrote:

Because solar flares and earthquakes show similar power-law distributions doesn't indicate that they're linked in a causal relationship whatsoever.

But gvn, didn't you know:

espinolman wrote: »

Everything is connected .

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

This extended logarithmic classification is necessary because the total energies of flares range over many orders of magnitude, following a uniform distribution with flare frequency roughly proportional to the inverse of the total energy. Stellar flares and earthquakes show similar power-law distributions.

Earthquakes are caused by sudden releases of pressure along fault lines in the Earth's crust. Solar flares are caused by loops and breaks of the Sun's magnetic field above it's surface.
They do not share the same mechanism.

Talk E wrote: »

I didn't say the paper mentioned earthquakes or comets.

I did say I hadn't read it yet :pac:

And I didn't say you did.
Just pointing out the paper has nothing to do with anything we are discussing, contrary to what you claimed.

Talk E wrote: »

What you just did was "plain dishonesty", rude, ignorant, arrogant, wrong and assumptive, again. :pac:

It's ironic you say that yet:

Talk E wrote: »

You conveniently managed to avoid the part that proved your earlier statement wrong too. :pac:

Here it is again.

That NASA document states otherwise, doesn't it Mob. :pac:

No one once said that the planets don't effect each other, we've all been saying that the other planets don't cause earthquakes on Earth.

Please quote a single post that shows anyone said otherwise.

Talk E wrote: »

I recall you mention dishonesty before. So I did a little search. Seems you have quite an obsession with dishonesty (or with making it look like people are dishonest). :pac:

Because a lot of people have to use dishonest tactics when defending nonsense.

Talk E

gvn wrote: »

You should probably understand what a power-law distribution is before blindly quoting Wikipedia. Because solar flares and earthquakes show similar power-law distributions doesn't indicate that they're linked in a causal relationship whatsoever. A power-law distribution is just that, a distribution.

Yeah thanks gvn, I understand exactly what power-law distribution is. :pac:

David Matthew wrote: »

But gvn, didn't you know:

Great sniggering lads, well done.

Yes it does seem everything is connected. Who'd have though such a simple statement would ring so true. :pac:

Cringe time..

NASA webiste
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/27jul_spacequakes/

July 27, 2010: Researchers using NASA's fleet of five THEMIS spacecraft have discovered a form of space weather that packs the punch of an earthquake and plays a key role in sparking bright Northern Lights. They call it "the spacequake." (not to be confused with spacecake, lads.) :pac:
Spacequakes (animation, 200px)
A spacequake in action. Click to launch a computer-simulated movie created by Walt Feimer of Goddard's Scientific Visualization Lab.

A spacequake is a temblor in Earth's magnetic field. It is felt most strongly in Earth orbit, but is not exclusive to space. The effects can reach all the way down to the surface of Earth itself.

"Magnetic reverberations have been detected at ground stations all around the globe, much like seismic detectors measure a large earthquake," says THEMIS principal investigator Vassilis Angelopoulos of UCLA.

It's an apt analogy because "the total energy in a spacequake can rival that of a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake," according to Evgeny Panov of the Space Research Institute in Austria. Panov is first author of a paper reporting the results in the April 2010 issue of Geophysical Research Letters (GRL).

In 2007, THEMIS discovered the precursors of spacequakes. The action begins in Earth's magnetic tail, which is stretched out like a windsock by the million mph solar wind. Sometimes the tail can become so stretched and tension-filled, it snaps back like an over-torqued rubber band. Solar wind plasma trapped in the tail hurtles toward Earth. On more than one occasion, the five THEMIS spacecraft were in the line of fire when these "plasma jets" swept by. Clearly, the jets were going to hit Earth. But what would happen then? The fleet moved closer to the planet to find out.

"Now we know," says THEMIS project scientist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Plasma jets trigger spacequakes."

Yeah lads, it's a completely different mechanism :pac:





Japanese media reported at least 1,000 people are presumed dead from Friday's massive 8.9 earthquake, most drowned by Tsunami that swept across the northeast coast of the island nation.

And its not only a coincidence that it happened exactly after 24 hours Solar flare hit Earth.

According to NASA website March 9th ended with a powerful solar flare. Earth-orbiting satellites detected an X1.5-class explosion from behemoth sunspot 1166 around 2323 UT. A movie from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (above) shows a bright flash of UV radiation plus some material being hurled away from the blast site.

In addition, on March 10, 2011 around 0630 UT, a CME did strike a glaceing blow to Earth's magnetic field. This was a result of an M3 flare that occurred late on March 7, 2011.

At 2,200 km/sec, this was the fasted CME since September 2005

Solar Flare & Christchurch, New Zealand 6.3 earthquake February 22, 2011 :

Last month we informed our readers, solar flare storm will hit earth on February 18, 2011, which could possible cause earthquake as well.

And later on a strong 6.3-magnitude earthquake rocked the southern New Zealand city of Christchurch on February 22, 2011 and killed 400 + people and damaging buildings throughout the city.

CME/Solar flares cause Spacequake & Spacequake cases Earthquake :

Our February earthquake prediction was actually based on the fact that same chain of action had took place on August 3, 2010 when 6.4 Earthquake hit Papua New Guinea after an enormous magnetic filament breaking away from the sun on august 1, 2010.

Moreover even NASA admitted on their website "spacequake can cause Northern lights and magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake".

http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2011/03/japan-earthquake-tsunami-caused-by.html

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

No one once said that the planets don't effect each other, we've all been saying that the other planets don't cause earthquakes on Earth.

Please quote a single post that shows anyone said otherwise.


Because a lot of people have to use dishonest tactics when defending nonsense.

Yes, you have all being saying that. And you have all been proven wrong. :pac:
Quote from the NASA PDF I posted.....

Apparent Relations Between Planet Positions and Solar Flares
Before the space age, numerous solar flares were observed. However, the accuracy of solar flare
magnitude and event positions during that time is questionable except for those flares that were
intensively studied—that is, those associated with solar super storms. The solar flare events investigated
in this research include 20 flares that caused nine time periods of historically large solar storms. These
include seven time periods described in the review report by Shea and Smart in reference 11
(February 28, 1942; July 25, 1946; November 19, 1949, February 10, 17, and 23, 1956; July 10, 14 and
16, 1959; November 10, 12, and 15, 1960; and August 2, 4, and 7, 1972); the historical large flares of
September 1, 1859 (ref. 12); and the recent October 28 and 29, November 2 and 4, 2003, event (ref. 13).
In addition, the 30 largest solar flares (ref. 14) in the last three solar cycles and recorded by GOES
(Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite) (ref. 13) were also studied and summarized briefly.
The planets’ heliocentric ecliptic positions1 (ref. 15) at the moment of the largest solar flares (where
event positions and event time were known) were collected. The source flare’s heliocentric ecliptic positions
were calculated from the heliocentric ecliptic position of the Earth and the heliographic positions of the
events as viewed from the Earth (refs. 13 and 16 to 18) according to the methods of coordinate
transformation described by Hapgood (ref. 19) and Thompson (ref. 20) and summarized in appendix C.

So we joyfully discover that planetary positions/alignments cause solar flares.
And we discover that solar flares cause earthquakes.

How'd you like them apples ? :pac:

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

Yes it does seem everything is connected. Who'd have though such a simple statement would ring so true. :pac:

Cringe time..

NASA webiste

Yeah lads, it's a completely different mechanism :pac:

Now note how the quote from Nasa doesn't actually say "spacequakes" cause earthquakes.

The rest is some crank rambling and pretending that they do.
He lists off dates and solar flares as if both things aren't common occurrences.

Moreover even NASA admitted on their website "spacequake can cause Northern lights and magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake".

This is the exact dishonesty I am talking about.
Nasa said no such thing about it causing earthquakes.

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

Yes, you have all being saying that. And you have all been proven wrong. :pac:

Please post the quotes.

Talk E wrote: »

Quote from the NASA PDF I posted.....

So we joyfully discover that planetary positions/alignments cause solar flares.
And we discover that solar flares cause earthquakes.

How'd you like them apples ? :pac:

Well for one, you started out trying to support a comet causing earthquakes, so at face value, you've moved the goalposts.
But then if you actually read the links you've been posting you'd see that planetary positions don't cause solar flares, only effect their behaviour and frequency.
And that nowhere has anyone said solar flares cause earthquakes.

robtri

Talk E wrote: »

Yeah thanks gvn, I understand exactly what power-law distribution is. :pac:



Great sniggering lads, well done.

Yes it does seem everything is connected. Who'd have though such a simple statement would ring so true. :pac:

Cringe time..

NASA webiste
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/27jul_spacequakes/
Yeah lads, it's a completely different mechanism :pac:

nothing in there that suggests a direct connection from what i can read unless i am missing something...

also just skimming this thread has nibiru gone from a brown dawrf< bigger than jupiter to being possibley a small comet?? talk about covering your bases....

I think you're starting to lose track of what you're arguing about.

That article says nothing about a link between a spacequake and an earthquake. There's no causal relationship between the two. That the two share a similar power-law distribution doesn't mean they're causually linked. It says that a spacequake can have:

a) similar power to a M5-6 earthquake, and
b) similar power-law distributions

Where's the causal link that you're arguing for? They both affect Earth in completely different ways: a spacequake affects Earth's magnetic field, whereas an earthquake affects Earth's crust.

Turtwig

gvn wrote: »

You should probably understand what a power-law distribution is before blindly quoting Wikipedia. Because solar flares and earthquakes show similar power-law distributions doesn't indicate that they're linked in a causal relationship whatsoever. A power-law distribution is just that, a distribution.

There's been sometime since I encountered power laws and scaling but I thought that almost every physical phenomenon or trend could be described by power laws?

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

Please post the quotes.


Well for one, you started out trying to support a comet causing earthquakes, so at face value, you've moved the goalposts.
But then if you actually read the links you've been posting you'd see that planetary positions don't cause solar flares, only effect their behaviour and frequency.
And that nowhere has anyone said solar flares cause earthquakes.

Boo hoo Mob, BOO HOO

NASA again.

Here it is clear that solar flares are related to earthquakes. :pac:

We present the study of 682 earthquakes of ¡Ý4.0 magnitude observed during January 1991 to January 2007 in the light of solar flares observed by GOES and SOXS missions in order to explore the possibility of any association between solar flares and earthquakes.

Our investigation preliminarily shows that each earthquake under study was preceded by a solar flare of GOES importance B to X class by 10-100 hrs. However, each flare was not found followed by earthquake of magnitude ¡Ý4.0. We classified the earthquake events with respect to their magnitude and further attempted to look for their correlation with GOES importance class and delay time.

We found that with the increasing importance of flares the delay in the onset of earthquake reduces. The critical X-ray intensity of the flare to be associated with earthquake is found to be ~10-6 Watts/m2. On the other hand no clear evidence could be established that higher importance flares precede high magnitude earthquakes. Our detailed study of 50 earthquakes associated with solar flares observed by SOXS mission and other wavebands revealed many interesting results such as the location of the flare on the Sun and the delay time in the earthquake and its magnitude.

We propose a model explaining the charged particles accelerated during the solar flare and released in the space that undergone further acceleration by interplanetary shocks and produce the ring current in the earth's magnetosphere, which may enhance the process of tectonics plates motion abruptly at fault zones. It is further proposed that such sudden enhancement in the process of tectonic motion of plates in fault zones may increase abruptly the heat gradients on spatial (dT/dx) and temporal (dT/dt) scales responsible for earthquakes.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUSMIN33A..03J

smokingman

Malty_T wrote: »

I thought that almost every physical phenomenon or trend could be described by power laws?

You're thinking of "Power Chords" Malty...rock on! :pac:

Malty_T

Malty_T wrote: »

There's been sometime since I encountered power laws and scaling but I thought that almost every physical phenomenon or trend could be described by power laws?

Yep, they can. I was just pointing out that because two things have similar power-law distributions doesn't mean they're in any way connected.

Talk E

gvn wrote: »

I think you're starting to lose track of what you're arguing about.

That article says nothing about a link between a spacequake and an earthquake. There's no causal relationship between the two. That the two share a similar power-law distribution doesn't mean they're causually linked. It says that a spacequake can have:

a) similar power to a M5-6 earthquake, and
b) similar power-law distributions

Where's the causal link that you're arguing for? They both affect Earth in completely different ways: a spacequake affects Earth's magnetic field, whereas an earthquake affects Earth's crust.

It affects the ground also.

Acting together, vortices and spacequakes could have a noticeable effect on Earth. The tails of vortices may funnel particles into Earth's atmosphere, sparking auroras and making waves of ionization that disturb radio communications and GPS. By tugging on surface magnetic fields, spacequakes generate currents in the very ground we walk on. Ground current surges can have profound consequences, in extreme cases bringing down power grids over a wide area.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/27jul_spacequakes/

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

It affects the ground also.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/27jul_spacequakes/

Yeah, by causing electrical currents in the ground. I still fail to see what this has to do with earthquakes?

Talk E

gvn wrote: »

Yeah, by causing electrical currents in the ground. I still fail to see what this has to do with earthquakes?

If you dont read my posts you wont learn and I cant help you.
Do yourself a favor and read back over my last few posts.

Particularly this one.

Japanese media reported at least 1,000 people are presumed dead from Friday's massive 8.9 earthquake, most drowned by Tsunami that swept across the northeast coast of the island nation.

And its not only a coincidence that it happened exactly after 24 hours Solar flare hit Earth.

According to NASA website March 9th ended with a powerful solar flare. Earth-orbiting satellites detected an X1.5-class explosion from behemoth sunspot 1166 around 2323 UT. A movie from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (above) shows a bright flash of UV radiation plus some material being hurled away from the blast site.

In addition, on March 10, 2011 around 0630 UT, a CME did strike a glaceing blow to Earth's magnetic field. This was a result of an M3 flare that occurred late on March 7, 2011.

At 2,200 km/sec, this was the fasted CME since September 2005

Solar Flare & Christchurch, New Zealand 6.3 earthquake February 22, 2011 :

Last month we informed our readers, solar flare storm will hit earth on February 18, 2011, which could possible cause earthquake as well.

And later on a strong 6.3-magnitude earthquake rocked the southern New Zealand city of Christchurch on February 22, 2011 and killed 400 + people and damaging buildings throughout the city.

CME/Solar flares cause Spacequake & Spacequake cases Earthquake :

Our February earthquake prediction was actually based on the fact that same chain of action had took place on August 3, 2010 when 6.4 Earthquake hit Papua New Guinea after an enormous magnetic filament breaking away from the sun on august 1, 2010.

Moreover even NASA admitted on their website "spacequake can cause Northern lights and magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake".

http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2011/03/j...caused-by.html

A few things:

1) One minute you're talking about spacequakes, the next you're talking about solar flares. The two are different phenomenon.

2) In the second line of the article you've linked to, he says "its not only a coincidence". So, before he even tries to rationalise his position he's assuming his conclusion as a premise.

3) In the last line he says that, on NASA's website, NASA said "spacequake can cause Northern lights and magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake." No, NASA didn't say that. They said a spacequake can have the same power as a M5 or M6 earthquake.

If you're going to continue to argue please try to use logical arguments and sound sources, not a terrible article full of inconsistencies and errors.

Talk E

gvn wrote: »

A few things:

1) One minute you're talking about spacequakes, the next you're talking about solar flares. The two are different phenomenon.

No, there the same thing.

gvn wrote: »

2) In the second line of the article you've linked to, he says "its not only a coincidence". So, before he even tries to rationalise his position he's assuming his conclusion as a premise.

Well it's not a coincidence. I have linked to a NASA document which blatantly links earthquakes to solar flares. And solar flares to the alignment of planetary bodies.

gvn wrote: »

3) In the last line he says that, on NASA's website, NASA said "spacequake can cause Northern lights and magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake." No, NASA didn't say that. They said a spacequake can have the same power as a M5 or M6 earthquake.

Yes and causes the ground to shake, reverberations in the crust at seismic zones, between tectonic plates. (earthquake) :pac:

gvn wrote: »

If you're going to continue to argue please try to use logical arguments and sound sources, not a terrible article full of inconsistencies and errors.

The article is good. It's pretty much a NASA quote. Almost every paragraph is linked to NASA.

If you are going to continue to argue, learn to admit when you have been proven wrong.

You said that planetary bodies have little effect on Earth. Alignments have no effect.

You are wrong, stop clutching at straws and run along, like Mob :pac:

Turtwig

. . . . . .

Talk E

Here read this again, it's good.

Harvard no less :pac:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUSMIN33A..03J

We present the study of 682 earthquakes of ¡Ý4.0 magnitude observed during January 1991 to January 2007 in the light of solar flares observed by GOES and SOXS missions in order to explore the possibility of any association between solar flares and earthquakes. Our investigation preliminarily shows that each earthquake under study was preceded by a solar flare of GOES importance B to X class by 10-100 hrs. However, each flare was not found followed by earthquake of magnitude ¡Ý4.0. We classified the earthquake events with respect to their magnitude and further attempted to look for their correlation with GOES importance class and delay time. We found that with the increasing importance of flares the delay in the onset of earthquake reduces. The critical X-ray intensity of the flare to be associated with earthquake is found to be ~10-6 Watts/m2. On the other hand no clear evidence could be established that higher importance flares precede high magnitude earthquakes. Our detailed study of 50 earthquakes associated with solar flares observed by SOXS mission and other wavebands revealed many interesting results such as the location of the flare on the Sun and the delay time in the earthquake and its magnitude. We propose a model explaining the charged particles accelerated during the solar flare and released in the space that undergone further acceleration by interplanetary shocks and produce the ring current in the earth's magnetosphere, which may enhance the process of tectonics plates motion abruptly at fault zones. It is further proposed that such sudden enhancement in the process of tectonic motion of plates in fault zones may increase abruptly the heat gradients on spatial (dT/dx) and temporal (dT/dt) scales responsible for earthquakes.

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

If you dont read my posts you wont learn and I cant help you.
Do yourself a favor and read back over my last few posts.

Particularly this one.

Moreover even NASA admitted on their website "spacequake can cause Northern lights and magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake".

Talk E can you please show us where specifically Nasa say this?

Cause they certainly don't say this in the article that piece is quoting.

As for the other study you quoted which has nothing to do with the original article:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUSMIN33A..03J
Allow me to high some key phrases.

We present the study of 682 earthquakes of ¡Ý4.0 magnitude observed during January 1991 to January 2007 in the light of solar flares observed by GOES and SOXS missions in order to explore the possibility of any association between solar flares and earthquakes. Our investigation preliminarily shows that each earthquake under study was preceded by a solar flare of GOES importance B to X class by 10-100 hrs. However, each flare was not found followed by earthquake of magnitude ¡Ý4.0. We classified the earthquake events with respect to their magnitude and further attempted to look for their correlation with GOES importance class and delay time. We found that with the increasing importance of flares the delay in the onset of earthquake reduces. The critical X-ray intensity of the flare to be associated with earthquake is found to be ~10-6 Watts/m2. On the other hand no clear evidence could be established that higher importance flares precede high magnitude earthquakes. Our detailed study of 50 earthquakes associated with solar flares observed by SOXS mission and other wavebands revealed many interesting results such as the location of the flare on the Sun and the delay time in the earthquake and its magnitude. We propose a model explaining the charged particles accelerated during the solar flare and released in the space that undergone further acceleration by interplanetary shocks and produce the ring current in the earth's magnetosphere, which may enhance the process of tectonics plates motion abruptly at fault zones. It is further proposed that such sudden enhancement in the process of tectonic motion of plates in fault zones may increase abruptly the heat gradients on spatial (dT/dx) and temporal (dT/dt) scales responsible for earthquakes.

At best this paper looks like a preliminary study that hadn't found a lot of evidence.
Oh and it's referring to solar flares, not spacequakes.

And shall I assume that since you've ignored the point that you can't find any posts to back up your claims that we're all saying that the planets don't effect each other?

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

No, there the same thing.

Spacequakes, according to the article you posted are reverberations in the Earth's magnetic field when the solar wind is particularly strong.
It is not the same thing as a solar flare.

Talk E wrote: »

Yes and causes the ground to shake, reverberations in the crust at seismic zones, between tectonic plates. (earthquake) :pac:

And where in the article does it say this?

Talk E

It's clear you could sit there listening to me all day, but I get bored repeating myself.
Read back over my posts, it's all there.

I'll be back later.

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

No, there the same thing.

Explain to me how they're the same thing.

Well it's not a coincidence. I have linked to a NASA document which blatantly links earthquakes to solar flares. And solar flares to the alignment of planetary bodies.

Are you talking about this document?

That document is about the tidal affect of planets on the Sun. That has nothing to do with earthquakes on Earth. The word earthquake is not even mentioned.

Or, are you talking about this paper?

The above is a hypothesis. In its abstract it says "no clear evidence could be established that higher importance flares precede high magnitude earthquakes."

So, it links smaller earthquakes (their base is M4.0) to smaller flares. Given that there are 40 M4.0 or greater earthquakes a day, it'd be rather easy to correlate a few to the dozen or so significant solar flares which occur each year. Again, look at the line I quoted.

Yes and causes the ground to shake, reverberations in the crust at seismic zones, between tectonic plates. (earthquake) :pac:

The article said that spacequakes can cause electrical currents to flow on the ground. It didn't say that spacequakes can cause the ground to shake.

The article is good. It's pretty much a NASA quote. Almost every paragraph is linked to NASA.

It's a dishonest excuse for an article. It's utter tripe.

If you are going to continue to argue, learn to admit when you have been proven wrong.

I haven't been shown to be wrong.

You said that planetary bodies have little effect on Earth. Alignments have no effect.

Where have you shown that they have an affect on Earth?

You keep finding random articles and papers which talk about numerous unrelated things, then pathetically attempt to stitch them all together with a thread of misunderstanding. Either stop arguing so dishonestly or there's no point continuing.

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

It's clear you could sit there listening to me all day, but I get bored repeating myself.
Read back over my posts, it's all there.

It really isn't.

The crank article says:

Moreover even NASA admitted on their website "spacequake can cause Northern lights and magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake".

The only time it says anything about earthquakes is:

It's an apt analogy because "the total energy in a spacequake can rival that of a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake," ...

Absolutely nowhere in that article does it say anything about spacequakes causing earthquakes.

So therefore the author of the crank article is clearly misrepresenting what the Nasa article says.

David Matthew

Talk E wrote:

It's clear you could sit there listening to me all day, but I get bored repeating myself... If you dont read my posts you wont learn and I cant help you.

Coriolanus

I saw this, and thought of you guys. Fun toy, I expect to see some sims of Nbiru crashing into earth by the end of the weekend.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/72200/?snr=1_4_4__13