Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Nibiru........True or False??!!
Options
Comments
-
For anyone interested. This is a NASA document based on the correlation between planetary alignments, Sun solar flares hence tectonic shifts on Earth.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
Suggesting that it supports any of the nonsense spouted about Elenin is plain dishonesty.0 -
-
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.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=10 -
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.0 -
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 .
0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
They do not share the same mechanism.I didn't say the paper mentioned earthquakes or comets.
I did say I hadn't read it yet :pac:
Just pointing out the paper has nothing to do with anything we are discussing, contrary to what you claimed.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.
That NASA document states otherwise, doesn't it Mob. :pac:
Please quote a single post that shows anyone said otherwise.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:0 -
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."
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.html0 -
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:0 -
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:
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".
Nasa said no such thing about it causing earthquakes.0 -
Yes, you have all being saying that. And you have all been proven wrong. :pac: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:
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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....0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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..03J0 -
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.html0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.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.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: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:0 -
. . . . . .0
-
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.0 -
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".
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.
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?0 -
No, there the same thing.
It is not the same thing as a solar flare.Yes and causes the ground to shake, reverberations in the crust at seismic zones, between tectonic plates. (earthquake) :pac:0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
The crank article says:Moreover even NASA admitted on their website "spacequake can cause Northern lights and magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake".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.0 -
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.
0 -
Advertisement
-
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__130
Advertisement