Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by HectorDecimal, Feb 16, 2012.
Yeah well this aggression makes my replies pointless anyway.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Think of how the happy fellow who started the thread feels
This is a discussion forum. It is a science discussion forum.
On a science discussion forum when you make a claim outwith the standard current consensus you are expected to provide supporting evidence. I have not checked the rules on this forum, but on most fora this is stipulated in the rules and failure to do so is therefore against those rules.
More to the frigging point, you came here and asked for input. Several posters have demonstrated where you seem to be in error, but have asked for evidence that could persuade them you have a point.
Give us the frigging evidence and you will stna d a good chance of getting a serious hearing. Act like a petulant, spoilt brat and you'll be treated as such.
Now where is the frigging evidence?
First off Hector, even posting in Alterantive Theories, you must expect that there will be critical scientific comment. At which time you have options, among which are; You can provide some credible reference to support your position or, You can fall back and establish your comment as opinion. If you are trying to gain support from others for your ideas, credible reference works best.
So far, from outside the discussion, it does not seem to me that you have drawn the disparate aspects of your conclusions together. You may yourself see the connections, but they do not seem to be presented in a way that, is convincing many others.
Pincho, I am not sure if this was a compliment or a slur. It depends on whether you would rather Hector consider you a "genius" and discount what you think and say or that he agree with you and consider himself, a genius.
What's a swirly?
As I mentioned in another thread Pincho, this thread is in the Alternative Therories basket, your ideas on the subject should be as valid as anyone's.
If I am not mistaken, you have had trouble only or mostly with posting in Physics and Math, where the rules of "combat" are far more stringent that they are here....
I posted in Physics, and Maths about one of Newton's Laws, and got banned. So that wasn't fair. I suppose not many people know about the kissing problem.
HectorDecimal, so not only do you think that geysers increase with solar flares but you think that earthquakes also increase with flares. Well there is a very easy way to check for correlation. See if the earthquake frequency or intensity or whatever follows this cycle:
If you are right earthquakes should follow this 11 year cycle, or if it is the magnetic field polarity of the sun then it will follow the 22 year cycle. Good luck.
By the way:
I don't think anyone has called you a liar or even thinks that. I am sure that you believe what you are saying, it is just spectacularly wrong.
Probably in the same place as your manners.
Don't ask or demand anything of me. All you are doing is looking like a bully aka a megalomaniac. I generally associate that with schizophrenia, or other delusional behavior, and recommend people displaying such psychotic behavior, as you are doing, go see a shrink. You're not the boss of me. Get over it.
The topic is about the relationship between the Maunder Minimum, a lot of recorded history about Yellowstone Caldera's activity, more recent observations and what that all may lead to. It is not about hijacking it to zoom in on a possible flaw in the semantics of presenting it.
It was originally in Earth Sciences. I also expect that those who critique arew mature enough to know better than to use destructive criticism which is all I've seen from you. Obviously some are too much of a "genius" for me to consider being worthy of speaking to so I'll do my best to refrain.
Then I suppose you are well on the way to answering your own question. I find it very interesting that as of 2010 there were, to my memory, 3 different models of exactly when solar max was to occur. Now, in light of the recent rash of intense solar storms, it seems NASA is backpeddaling to solar max beginning in 2011.
You'll find, Origin, that when people start demanding of my time, I give less of it.
I'm a human, not a TV set you can smack to breech a loose connection if the picture doesn't do as the viewer wants. I'm a bit like Jesus in that I flip off the pharassees...
As for the frequency of quakes, one must view it, like any waveform, according to phase relationship. From what I've seen in past studies, the lag is about 6 months to a year after a major series of flares. The USGS has just about everything for the last 100 years. From Origin's posted diagram (note it doesn't include post 2000 when the peak steps up again) we see a patterned increase. If we go to the USGS and compare their lists of significant quakes, we can find the frequencies have increased by about 8 additional quakes per each of those peaks of solar storms.
Are there any geyser charts anywhere?
Maybe here... just a quick search...
Cool a phase shift would make sense. Supply that data and shut up your detractors.
Most of the science folders require, at least some support found in the mainstream of the science community. The moderator who moved the thread to Alternative Theories, where thread rules do not require mainstream support, of an idea, did not believe that the thread met the test required by the Earth Sciences folder. They did not send it to the Cesspool or just lock it, so their decission, was not that your views were in violation of the forum as a whole.
As I said Alternative Theories is not as restrictive as, the main science folders. It is however, in the On The Fringe subgroup. Which generally means the idea does not appear to be supported by the gerneral scientific community, or even generally accepted references.
This is only my third post to the thread.
In my first, I responded to your question about posting links to other forums, letting you know that as far as I was aware it was O.K.
My second really just said that though the requirements of this folder are not very restrictive, other posters often will require some reference for claims and assertions.
As far as name calling goes, though I do not know who started it and have no desire to back and discover the origin, you seem to be playing that game as well as others.
When you post in a Science based discussion group, expect feedback. You can accept it or reject it but you can seldom escape it.
I have not found what I have understood of your ideas to be credible. That's just the way it comes across from where I sit.
If you post bizarre claims and say they are based on evidence, it is more than reasonable to expect requests from people to post the evidence you claim you have. This is a science forum, after all.
There is no sign that anybody questioning you here has any kind of mental illness. Your attempt to diminish them in this way amounts to personal insults and trolling. Please stop this behaviour or you might be banned again.
It would be good if you could post the evidence of your claims now.
It also seems quite clear to me that you don't understand the SOHO image of the sun that you introduced into this thread. Please re-read the posts above where it was explained clearly for your benefit.
Requesting of me is one thing. Barking out a demand is quite another.
I was told "Nobody is saying [I'm] a liar." What's the problem with simply accepting that when I first found and referred to that SOHO cutaway it was accompanied by different text describing it than what is there today? Maybe you get a paycheck for moderating this site. I certainly don't get a paycheck for contributing, so nobody has the right to demand I produce on anything more than my leasure.
As for the mental issues. If people act like they are sane, they won't get such commentary. The biggest difference between a megalomaniac and a paranoid megalomaniac is the latter has at least one gunrack and probably a Glock in their night stand. The former just thinks he or she is the boss of others. Either case involves delusional behavior.
If I may, I would like to suggest an additional wheel that might belong in your gear train. First, I salute your uphill battle to share such ambitious study.
I have good reason to suspect whirlpools in the active solar plasma to be the most immediate cause for sunspots and that the magnetic phenomena conventionally associated as a cause is nothing but an after-effect.
I am not trying to sell the concept, but offer a factor that might help if you kept it within your peripheral vision.
To quote the sole element of encouragement that has ever made it to me on a forum, "Don't let the xxxxxxxs get you down."
That's interesting because it was recently revealed that magnetic "tornadoes" have been detected at the surface of the sun. Is this what you are referring to?
BTW... Nun quam Illegitimus carborundum. (Basically what you said regarding that sole element of encouragement... )
When I saw that you posted I was hoping for some supporting evidence of your conjecture that there is a relationship between sunspots and earthquakes - alas none proffered.:bawl:
The support from Dale is high praise indeed.[/sarcasm]
Some of those connections between solar flares and volcanoes...
Separate names with a comma.