http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2036

That's nonsense, there's nothing he said that supports his ideas.

I can beat his alignments, such as Elenin, Earth, Sun. EVERY earthquake ever recorded can be aligned with the Earth, sun, and a visible galaxy. Ergo, all earthquakes are caused by the distant galaxies whenever they align with the Earth and the sun.

Well at any given time there's an alignment. Literally every imaginable second we are literally aligned with something else. This theory is idiotic.

Gauss's law disproves this.

I'll bet his "approximate forecast" is about as good as random guessing. If he was remotely right, the Moon would have much larger influences than anything else, and while I'm sure there's a small factor there given that it's demonstrated through the tides the Moon does affect the planet, the whole thing about the super Moon and earthquakes was already debunked elsewhere.

Solar alignments that fit up to par match perfecly. Every one of them is right given a proper aligned perception.

My link in post #1 gives a full research paper that you can download.

What confuses me is why Elenin is deemed to have such a massive effect on seismicity. I mean, its core is only 4 km wide. But then the coma is 80,000 km in diameter.

Odd stuff from a Cornell professor. Good idea to transfer it into the preudoscience section.

Coincidence?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/8509135/Spain-earthquake-Was-Raffaele-Bendandi-correct.html

Lamont, do you know what Gauss's law is?

Basically it states that within a sphere the gravitational forces can only face outwards, not inwards. For example, an object that is 140 pounds on the surface of the earth is only 70 pounds at X distance under the surface.

Imagine if you were to cut the earth into layers like an onion. The gravitational forces on layer "C" by layer "A" which is above it equals 0.

It is also the principle behind the Faraday cage, by putting an object inside a conducting sphere or box or any shape of any size the electrical field will only face outwards, not inwards so it cannot affect things within the cage.

So if you were to take a rubber ball and put it at the very center of the earth it would weigh practically nothing at all while on the surface it will weigh more.

Essentially the forces of gravity above a shell cancel each other out so they do not affect anything underneath them.

Now, the reason this disproves this hypothesis is simple. There are so many stars, planets, galaxies, and all manner of massive objects in this universe we can essentially assume for these purposes (especially due to distance) that there are an infinite number of them.

You can thus make "shells" of gravity, ie. Shell "1" might be made up of all objects between 1 light year and 4 light years away. Shell "2" might be between 4 light years and 16 light years away, and so on and so forth. There are so many things occupying these shells especially at the distances were talking about that it basically all cancels out by Gauss's law.

Since there are so many galaxies out there that while one may exert a gravitational force on earth there is at least one other galaxy that exerts the same force in the opposite direction so they both cancel out.

That's why this is wrong. Because at these distances the differences between a solid shell of matter (such as the earth's crust) and scattered matter in space (like galaxies) is practically 0.

Thus, because of Gauss's law, even if the galaxies were aligned there would be no abnormal affects on earth.

Also consider this. Earthquakes are caused by tectonic motion. Tectonic plates move horizontally to us. If our sun and earth were aligned with a galaxy, even if that galaxy somehow defied Gauss's law and the inverse square law then it could only pull vertically (up and down relative to the line of alignment). That would not do anything because in order to have an earthquake the plate itself (not the actual fault) must move horizontally not vertically.

Plus, remember that light does not teleport itself from point A to point B. It can only move so fast. So even if the galaxy was aligned, that only means that several million or even billion years ago it was at that point. By now it is completely unaligned with our system.

While looking at something to add "doubt" I stumbled upon:


The spinning of Earth cannot be altered even by large earthquakes. According to scientific estimations, the huge tsunami that in 2004 led to Sumatra earthquake had a minuscule impact on Earth, making the day shorter by a few millionths of a second and moving the North Pole by 1 inch.
[Source: Infonaic.com (http://www.infoniac.com/environment/can-a-nuclear-explosion-impact-earth-spinning.html)]

I couldn't suggest how accurate the information was or is on that particular subject, however the point I was looking at was *if* bombs or earthquakes have shifted the planets spin even a little, it would undoubtedly undermine any long-term predictions proving that even if it had been science, it is most definitely pseudoscience now.

While looking at something to add "doubt" I stumbled upon:


[Source: Infonaic.com (http://www.infoniac.com/environment/can-a-nuclear-explosion-impact-earth-spinning.html)]

I couldn't suggest how accurate the information was or is on that particular subject, however the point I was looking at was *if* bombs or earthquakes have shifted the planets spin even a little, it would undoubtedly undermine any long-term predictions proving that even if it had been science, it is most definitely pseudoscience now.

Wouldn't the 3rd law disprove that idea?

If an earthquake increases our rotation then that means that the thing it is impacting has to send an opposite yet equal force back onto the plate thus cancelling it out. Net force = 0.

It seems strange that we now have an eruption of Etna less than one day after the Romans were expecting problems. And it was said yesterday that Spanish and Italian seismicity are not linked. Yet more coincidences?

It seems strange that we now have an eruption of Etna less than one day after the Romans were expecting problems. And it was said yesterday that Spanish and Italian seismicity are not linked. Yet more coincidences?

Etna's eruption is "Mantle" based, it's not triggered by the force of an earthquake but possibly triggered by the conveyor belt principle of how the magma is shifted when a fault has moved. (Incidentally it would be interesting to look at any GOCE output over recent events)

When they say "Seismicity is not linked" they are implying that the earthquakes are caused by separate Faults in two distinct geographically different locations.

You can see this on the image supplied on the Wikipedia under Tectonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonics):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Plate_tectonics_map.gif/800px-Plate_tectonics_map.gif

Coincidence?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/8509135/Spain-earthquake-Was-Raffaele-Bendandi-correct.html

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2011/eq_110511_c0003c5s/neic_c0003c5s_s.jpg

Well, there is a history of earthquakes there. It also wasn't the only earthquake that day, there were 8 separate locations with around 5 mag quakes recorded.

How'd he predict a relatively small quake (that missed his predicted location) but totally missed the two huge quakes in the last ten years?

Yeah, coincidence. The big story is why there was so much damage from the Spanish quake, given it wasn't that big. Likely build up of stress damage unseen, as well as maybe some lax in coding perhaps.

It seems strange that we now have an eruption of Etna less than one day after the Romans were expecting problems. And it was said yesterday that Spanish and Italian seismicity are not linked. Yet more coincidences?

I also picked my nose this morning.

Even more coincidences? :rolleyes:

I also picked my nose this morning.

Even more coincidences? :rolleyes:

Did u find the booger man?

I can beat his alignments, such as Elenin, Earth, Sun. EVERY earthquake ever recorded can be aligned with the Earth, sun, and a visible galaxy. Ergo, all earthquakes are caused by the distant galaxies whenever they align with the Earth and the sun.

Very intresting, would that place japans recent earthquake in line with the redshift defining solar motion through the galaxy at some 38 degrees north.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

What do you mean "in line"? A quick look at Stellarium shows the galactic center being opposite the Japan side of Earth at the time of the 9.0 quake, so why would it be affected then, and not when it was nearest, or exactly perpendicular, or whatever?

This just a new variation of the whole "gravity + alignment = disaster" silliness. Nice headline material, no substance.

What do you mean "in line"? A quick look at Stellarium shows the galactic center being opposite the Japan side of Earth at the time of the 9.0 quake, so why would it be affected then, and not when it was nearest, or exactly perpendicular, or whatever?
Because you wrote the equation down incorrectly:


This just a new variation of the whole "gravity + alignment = disaster" silliness.
The correct equation is ((103/gravity) + (Any possible interpretation that could be construed as alignment))silliness = predictions of disaster.

As you can see, gravity and alignment play a relatively small part.

AH, I had forgotten that silliness was an exponent. :)

Thanks to all who have added to my education on this subject. It seems true that earthquakes, volcanoes etc are only made known to the public through the media when disaster hits a heavily populated area.

So its easy to think that quakes only target cities...

What do you mean "in line"? A quick look at Stellarium shows the galactic center being opposite the Japan side of Earth at the time of the 9.0 quake, so why would it be affected then, and not when it was nearest, or exactly perpendicular, or whatever?

This just a new variation of the whole "gravity + alignment = disaster" silliness. Nice headline material, no substance.

Well, Rhaedas
the solar system travels in a approximate direction of the star Vega at some 38 degrees north, the galaxtic center is located in the southern hemisphere.
So i was jesting at what kind of effect it was thought to have, meaning for example a change in solar motion caused the earthquake or a near by star such as Vega perhaps or a change in interstellar space. So what would be some of the suggested details.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

Coincidence?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/8509135/Spain-earthquake-Was-Raffaele-Bendandi-correct.htmlHi Lamont and thanks for the link to the research paper. I've emailed Dr Mensur Omerbashich with these:

(i) Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die? by Alan Lowey (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/868)

(ii) Inclination Hypothesis, Muller & MacDonald (http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8329.full)

Did u find the booger man?

No, but I found Elvis.

No, but I found Elvis.

Ha! Well whatever u do do not eat him! That must be one fine looking booger!

Ha! Well whatever u do do not eat him! That must be one fine looking booger!

Tastes terrible though. :p

jk

AH, I had forgotten that silliness was an exponent. :)

How could you when we have so many exponents of silliness right here?

Hi Lamont and thanks for the link to the research paper. I've emailed Dr Mensur Omerbashich with these:

(i) Reality Was Born Analog But Will Digital Die? by Alan Lowey (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/868)

(ii) Inclination Hypothesis, Muller & MacDonald (http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8329.full)It makes more sense just to assume that it's Venus's influence which is a tipping factor..

Dr Omerbashich has a problem in that he doen't have a mechanism for his theory. Big problem in fact.

It makes more sense just to assume that it's Venus's influence which is a tipping factor..

Dr Omerbashich has a problem in that he doen't have a mechanism for his theory. Big problem in fact.

How come Omerbashich is at Cornell? How come his ideas are being published on Cornell's website?

How come Omerbashich is at Cornell? How come his ideas are being published on Cornell's website?

You don't get it lamont.

Intelligence and publicity are not related.

Sarah Palin, a moron who thinks that Africa is a country and graduated from community college got nominated as Mccain's vice president.

Morons scream louder then intelligent people. Just because someone has a website or is published doesn't mean they are an idiot. It just means that there was someone out there dumb enough to believe them. That they conned someone into believing them.

Lamont, for every qualified person you find that accept this idiotic theory I could probably find 1,000 that say they are a raving idiot.

You don't get it lamont.

Intelligence and publicity are not related.

Sarah Palin, a moron who thinks that Africa is a country and graduated from community college got nominated as Mccain's vice president.

Morons scream louder then intelligent people. Just because someone has a website or is published doesn't mean they are an idiot. It just means that there was someone out there dumb enough to believe them. That they conned someone into believing them.

Lamont, for every qualified person you find that accept this idiotic theory I could probably find 1,000 that say they are a raving idiot.

I think I do get it. You haven't answered my question on why this material has been permitted on Cornell's website and covered with their logo if they don't believe it, or at least don't support the contentions made in the paper.

I never said I agreed with the "georesonator" theory, and it does seem far-fetched. In fact, I'm not really interested much in the theory at all.

I don't like anything that doesn't make logical sense, and this is one of them, like the "newscasters talking gibberish" discussed on another thread.

Here's another of Omerbashich's paper's, published yet again as a preprint in the Cornell library archives. These archives never seems to be properly published, but then they are not removed either

http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0876

This one seems staggeringly complex to me, but maybe it's a simple case of "bullshit baffles brains". I dont know.

I think I do get it. You haven't answered my question on why this material has been permitted on Cornell's website and covered with their logo if they don't believe it, or at least don't support the contentions made in the paper.

I never said I agreed with the "georesonator" theory, and it does seem far-fetched. In fact, I'm not really interested much in the theory at all.

I don't like anything that doesn't make logical sense, and this is one of them, like the "newscasters talking gibberish" discussed on another thread.

Here's another of Omerbashich's paper's, published yet again as a preprint in the Cornell library archives. These archives never seems to be properly published, but then they are not removed either

http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0876

This one seems staggeringly complex to me, but maybe it's a simple case of "bullshit baffles brains". I dont know.

Doesn't it make more sense that since this guy is a professor there is no sort of editor that actually reads through this stuff to check rather then for Cornell to say it does?

And even lets say that Cornell does believe it's true. Their official position would be defined by an expert group of maybe a dozen or even two dozen experts teaching there.

Its one university, and there are still dozens out there that will call this guy a quack.

Georesonator is... you know what I'm not in the debunking mood at the moment, maybe later.

These Cornell Library Archives are a great way of getting unreviewed work into the scientific community. Virtually all Omerbashich's papers are there and they are all accessible on Google Scholar, no peer review required, it seems.

Home page: http://arxiv.org/

I should start publishing some new stuff there...saves the constant arguments with snotty-nosed prima donnas..haha

Even if all the planets were on the same line from Earth's POV their gravitational force on Earth would be less than the slightly changing force of the sun (Earth's orbit is not exactly circular). The moon alone makes much more force on the Earth than all the aligned planets can.

But it is the gradient of gravity that can pull with different forces on different parts of the Earth and have some slight effect on when Earth quake may happen. The moon does put a stronger gradient on the Earth than the sun does so, wrt to earth quakes, it is the most important body in the heavens - I.e. may effect the timing of a pending quake.

But the moon does not cause earth quakes, only perhaps slightly change when they occur. The cause of earth quakes is not in the heavens, but deep in the Earth. The plates of the earth's surface move wrt to each other, due to drag force on the solid bottoms from liquid flows below them. They however, resist this motion by mutual contact friction. That does not permanently stop their movement one wrt to another. It makes stain and stress which is stored energy accumulation, but eventually the materials in contact along their fault lines can not support the stresses and they rupture with sudden motion we call earth quakes.

Man can also cause tiny near surface earth quakes by increasing the surface mass locally - for example with water filling in behind a large new dam.

The only effect of aligned planets is upon the behavior of some quite ignorant humans and a few others who profit from their ignorance by publishing facts about alignment of the planets.

Tastes terrible though. :p

jk
*************
M*W: Not really. It tastes like chicken.

How come Omerbashich is at Cornell? How come his ideas are being published on Cornell's website?He might have done good research in the past but that doesn't automatically validate his new ideas. Furthermore putting stuff on a website, even a university one, isn't 'published'. The university doesn't check what goes on their servers, they aren't endorsing the validity of the work.


These Cornell Library Archives are a great way of getting unreviewed work into the scientific community. Virtually all Omerbashich's papers are there and they are all accessible on Google Scholar, no peer review required, it seems.

Home page: http://arxiv.org/ArXiv doesn't really count as a journal though, it's still important people send their work for review.


I should start publishing some new stuff there...saves the constant arguments with snotty-nosed prima donnas..hahaYou won't be allowed to put your work there. You need a university email to get automatic endorsement or you need someone with endorsement rights to vouch for you. This is so it isn't flooded with hacks wasting people's time. ArXiv doesn't peer review but it assumes the people with university emails or who have been endorsed are generally not going to abuse the abilities to put work there. Some people slip through the net though, hence why sending your work to journals is essential.

Some people who have university emails (even a Nobel Prize winner!!) are banned from ArXiv for abusing it. The point of ArXiv is to get your work to people immediately while its being reviewed, not to just skip the review process entirely.


You haven't answered my question on why this material has been permitted on Cornell's website and covered with their logo if they don't believe it, or at least don't support the contentions made in the paper.
Universities provide their staff and postgrads with web hosting services. Typically they'll have some kind of template, so their logo appears there. The pages aren't reviewed before going up, other than a quick check to make sure its not illegal or offensive. No one checks the validity of the work and a staff member putting pdfs up doesn't mean the university endorses the work.


This one seems staggeringly complex to me, but maybe it's a simple case of "bullshit baffles brains". I dont know.
If you've only just heard of ArXiv then I question whether you have the science background to evaluate any papers there. Of course papers there seem staggeringly complex, they are literally the forefront of research in science. Doesn't mean they are all bullshit though, more likely you simply lack the knowledge to understand them. I don't understand much there but I understand a fair amount of the theoretical physics section, because that's my area.

Given your naivety on what place review plays in all of this I think you just don't have the necessary understanding of science.

These Cornell Library Archives are a great way of getting unreviewed work into the scientific community. Virtually all Omerbashich's papers are there and they are all accessible on Google Scholar, no peer review required, it seems.

Home page: http://arxiv.org/

I should start publishing some new stuff there...saves the constant arguments with snotty-nosed prima donnas..haha

Doesn't the words "unreviewed" or "no peer review required" set off any alarms?

Its basically the nice way of saying "your work may be silly and nobody else is dumb enough to believe it, but if you pay us we will publish you anyways".

Well I confess to being a lousy theoretical physicist. My apologies for that. But having been through the scientific peer review process (successfully) on over thirty occasions, I would say I have a bit of experience of that.

Are you saying you're a theoretical physicist and have been through the peer review process in that area on more than 30 occasions? I find that hard to believe if you've only just found out about ArXiv. ArXiv was started in the 90s and known to everyone in the theoretical physics community.

Are you in academia? I also find that notion a little hard to believe given your comments about personal pages on university websites.

What precisely is your area of research and what sort of journals have you got work in?

I was a reviewer for Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology for a few years; (a Royal Society of Chemistry journal).