B
buffalo
Guest
Planck Medium.
- Status
D
DavidPalm
Guest
You were asked specifically about the alleged effect of earthquakes on the revolution of the entire universe around the earth. Please answer the question as to why it is “more likely” that earthquakes cause the revolution of the entire universe to slow down, rather than the rotation of the earth on its axis to slow down. You asserted that the former is “most likely”. Please substantiate your assertion.
Newton’s laws of motion are sufficient to explain the moon’s movements around the earth. That its tidal forces would be expected to and in fact do cause variations in the earth’s rotation on its axis is now a matter of observation. Unobserved and unpredicted causes can always be brought into play to explain (away) anything. But then that’s not really science, is it? As I said above, neo-geocentrism is an elaborate exercise in special pleading. Could you tell us why your explanation should be taken as plausible, let alone more likely than the mainstream one?
It would seem that recourse to magic pixie dust would be equally rational. Please explain why this is not an exercise in special pleading.
More specifically, please explain how the bald invocation of Planck Medium answers mellstad’s specific question–namely, “What mechanism allows a variation in the movement of the universe to trigger such a localized effect?”–better than the mainstream model, namely, that earthquakes are caused by rapidly released tensions in the earth’s crust and that their (predicted and observed) effect is a slowing of earth’s rotation? For a scientific theory to be credible, it has to explain the observable phenomena better than any other explanation. Please provide the backing for your assertions, specifically as to why they better explain the phenomena.
B
buffalo
Guest
The universe and its decay affect the rotation of the earth. These forces act upon the moon and the moon subsequently act upon the earth in addition to the direct influence on the earth.
One asks where these tensions come from? Well we now the moon can cause them so why not the universe?
Now this is very interesting: Could the aether be making a comeback? or how about Pixie Dust? (good call)
Planck Looks at the Interstellar Medium
“We are now becoming rather confident that the emission is due to nano-scale spinning grains of dust, which rotate up to ten thousand million times per second. These are the smallest dust grains known, comprising only 10 to 50 atoms; spun up by collisions with atoms or photons, they emit radiation at frequencies between 10 and 60 GHz.”
Read it again - nano scale, spinning, rotating ten thousand million times per second spun up by collisions with atoms and photons? filamentary structures?
D
DavidPalm
Guest
buffalo, it’s easy to say that maybe the price of tea in China causes sunspots. Maybe it does. Why not? Can you prove that it doesn’t?
What we are asking for is some observable and/or logical connection between the cause you’re proposing and the effect you’re attributing to it. We’re also asking for some explanation of why your proposed cause is even plausible, let alone a better explanation for the phenomenon we’re discussing.
So once again, please explain why it is “most likely” that extra-terrestrial disruptions–specifically in the “Planck Medium”–cause earthquakes, which in turn then cause the entire universe to slow in its revolution around the earth? How exactly is this “most likely” compared to the predicted and predictable mainstream explanation, that earthquakes are caused by released tensions in the earth’s crust which then cause a fluctuation in the earth’s rotation on its axis?
What we are asking for is some observable and/or logical connection between the cause you’re proposing and the effect you’re attributing to it. We’re also asking for some explanation of why your proposed cause is even plausible, let alone a better explanation for the phenomenon we’re discussing.
So once again, please explain why it is “most likely” that extra-terrestrial disruptions–specifically in the “Planck Medium”–cause earthquakes, which in turn then cause the entire universe to slow in its revolution around the earth? How exactly is this “most likely” compared to the predicted and predictable mainstream explanation, that earthquakes are caused by released tensions in the earth’s crust which then cause a fluctuation in the earth’s rotation on its axis?
B
buffalo
Guest
In fact the price of tea is very disruptive.
If the Chinese decide to stockpile all the tea in one super big pile will it cause the earth to slow?The Planck Medium transmits the disturbance. Again, are the tensions in the earth just earth processes? We know the moon has effects. So effects can be caused from influences outside the earth.
I am not claiming universal perturbations are the cause of the universe to slow. I am saying that an answer can be that the universe rotation is slowing due to decay.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
But you did claim that universal perturbations are “most likely” the cause of earthquakes. Can you tell us why this is “most likely” the case, compared to the mainstream explanations that earthquakes are caused by sudden releases of tensions in the earth’s crust?
After massive earthquakes we measure this slowing. Taking these two models, it has to be either the earth slowing its rotation on its axis or the entire universe slowing in its revolution around the earth. Can you tell us why it is “most likely” that the entire universe slows just after an earthquake, rather than that the earthquake causes a slowing of the earth’s rotation on its axis. Why is your view “most likely”?
B
buffalo
Guest
The moon’s influences and stresses the earth.
Tensions - if stresses cause these tensions and then they release. If I punch the earth (with my super huge fist) I created stresses and tensions that will relax back. Do we agree here?
Now I did ask for the actual data the day before, the day of and the day after. Until I see them I assume this is a model.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
If you put increasing strain on any joint or seam, it will eventually give way. There is no need to hypothesize an extra-terrestrial cause for this. Terrestrial motion is quite sufficient to explain this cause. Now, for the effect…
What I continue to ask for is, after this release, why is it “most likely” that the entire universe now revolves more slowly about the earth, rather than that the earth now rotates more slowly on its axis? Still asking…
BEDEMIR: And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.
ARTHUR: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedemir. Explain again how sheeps’ bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
BEDEMIR: Oh, certainly, sir.
LAUNCELOT: Look, my liege!
ARTHUR: Camelot!
GALAHAD: Camelot!
LAUNCELOT: Camelot!
PATSY: It’s only a model.
ARTHUR: Shhh!
youtube.com/watch?v=sGAYk5VWkTw
Perhaps you can look back at the days corresponding to the Chilean earthquake before you assume anything. We’re moving rapidly into conspiracy theory territory.
B
buffalo
Guest
Just show me the actual measurement data or I can assume it doesn’t exist.If you put increasing strain on any joint or seam, it will eventually give way. There is no need to hypothesize an extra-terrestrial cause for this. Terrestrial motion is quite sufficient to explain this cause. Now, for the effect…
What I continue to ask for is, after this release, why is it “most likely” that the entire universe now revolves more slowly about the earth, rather than that the earth now rotates more slowly on its axis? Still asking…
BEDEMIR: And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.
ARTHUR: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedemir. Explain again how sheeps’ bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
BEDEMIR: Oh, certainly, sir.
LAUNCELOT: Look, my liege!
ARTHUR: Camelot!
GALAHAD: Camelot!
LAUNCELOT: Camelot!
PATSY: It’s only a model.
ARTHUR: Shhh!
youtube.com/watch?v=sGAYk5VWkTw
Perhaps you can look back at the days corresponding to the Chilean earthquake before you assume anything. We’re moving rapidly into conspiracy theory territory.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
You’ve been directed to the site where it’s posted. Assume away.
B
buffalo
Guest
Did you miss my post where I had a few questions about the data?
T
Third_Day
Guest
If you presented all your evidence for heliocentrism in a courtroom couldn’t I present the exact same evidence for geocentrism?
Isn’t this what Einstein is saying?
“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “The sun is at rest and the earth moves, “or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems” The Evolution of Physics Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld.
“When two theories are available and both are compatible with the given arsenal of facts, then there are no other criteria to prefer on over the other except the intuition of the researcher. Therefore one can understand why intelligent scientists, cognizant both of theories and facts, can still be passionate adherents of opposing theories.” Induction and Deduction in Physics.
R
rossum
Guest
Not exactly. In terms of kinematics Einstein is correct. In terms of dynamics you need to take further account of accelerations. Accelerations involve forces, momentum, angular momentum and other things that do not transfer as easily between different coordinate systems as the simple positions and velocities used in kinematics.
Using a geocentric system introduces a lot of extra forces into the equations. There is no evidence in the real world of the existence of these additional forces.
rossum
D
DavidPalm
Guest
On this site (lupus.gsfc.nasa.gov/dataresults_main.htm) it states that “EOP is generated regularly, based on two session types. Intensives are small experiments generally run daily to produce rapid estimation of UT1. The 24 hour sessions are run twice a week and require a few weeks for full processing, but they provide a more thorough estimation of UT1”
So I think your concerns about “sub-daily” variations are addressed there. There are data points from the “intensives” for the day before, the day of, and the day after the Chilean earthquake. There are 24 hour sessions bracketing that time period as well–one done on 2/23, then on 2/26 (the day before), then the next 24 hour session on 3/02. Obviously detectable changes in earth’s rotational period would be based on analysis of trends, examining many samples over time, spanning the timeframe in question.
So, you asked for the data, you have them. These are measurements, not models.
Now, could you explain why you believe that it is “most likely” that cosmic perturbations cause earthquakes and why it is “most likely” that those earthquakes cause the whole universe’s revolution around the earth to slow, as compared to the mainstream view that earthquakes cause the rotation of the earth on its axis to slow? Why, in your view, is the neo-geo explanation of this “most likely”?
K
kenofken
Guest
This is where I get off the bus. Creationism is my limit of silly ideologies worth engaging in serious debate. So all you fans of geocentrism and the miasma theory of infectious disease: talk amongst yourselves and turn the lights out when you’re done!
D
DavidPalm
Guest
I don’t blame you. It’s a real shame, especially since, as rossum has very charitably pointed out elsewhere, the great luminaries of Catholic thought Sts. Augustine and Thomas, laid out principles on the relationship of science and theology which make this all completely unnecessary. Those principles were enshrined in the great papal encyclicals Providentissimus Deus (Leo XIII) and Divino Afflante Spiritu (Pius XII).This is where I get off the bus. Creationism is my limit of silly ideologies worth engaging in serious debate. So all you fans of geocentrism and the miasma theory of infectious disease: talk amongst yourselves and turn the lights out when you’re done!
B
buffalo
Guest
In a way I am glad you put up this challenge. I have spent some time and found various points of view on earth rotation time.
Here is one:
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/images/dot-red.gif**March 2010 **: The Chile Earthquake of February 27th, 2010 of magnitude 8.8 has caused no DETECTABLE effect on the rotation pole and rotation rate. Independently of Earthquake, rotation pole moves of some mm up to several cm per day because of continuous atmospheric, oceanic and hydrologic mass transport. Till now the effect of Earthquake remains a theoretical matter. According to the seismic models, the recent Chile event will have the effect of disturbing the rotation pole by 8 cm in some months, small amount in comparison with the path a few meters it will achieve during this period. By handling atmospheric, oceanic and hydrologic data, this path will be modelled with a mean error of 50 cm, so that the tiny seismic effect will probably remain undiscernible. The Chile earthquake, would also have decrease the length of day, as high as 2 microseconds, that is to say below the current error on this quantity (10 microseconds), and much lower than the daily variation sometimes coming to 50 microseconds, and mainly caused by winds. Alone a mega-seism, such that of Chile in 1960, could cause a visible effect with the modern geodetic techniques.
and…
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/images/dot-red.gif**http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/images/new1.gifMarch 11, 2011 **(updated on March 16): Our first estimates of the megaquake of Honshu, Nothern Japan Coast , at 5:46 UT on polar motion. According to the preliminary US Geological Survey and Harvard University seismic parameters used with Dahlen’s dislocation model (1973), the principal axis of inertia with highest moment of inertia (also called figure axis, closed to symetry axis) was displaced by about 15 cm at the earth surface in the direction 135° East (value confirmed by R. Gross, JPL, with another model). The effect is larger than for Chili (February 2010) and Sumatra (Dec. 2004) earthquakes (see below corresponding news). This could be observed as a step in the so-called excitation function, deduced from the determination of pole coordinates by space geodesy. But such a step could be hardly discernible from common hydro-meteorological processes. The oceanic angular momentum still lacking, only next months will tell us wether something is detectable.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
I will look into this more next week. But even the site to which you directed us has this to say:
The official ILRS combined EOP solution (avaible on our WEB/FTP site) derived by ASI from 5 individual solutions (ASI, DGFI, GFZ, JCET and NSGF) is replacing the individual SLR solutions in the EOP-PC analyses. According to this series, there is a noticable jump in y-component of the polar motion for the day of the Sumatra Earthquake.
The bottom line, buffalo, is that the measurements detect all sorts of variability in the speed of the earth’s rotation, the wobble at its poles, etc. And some of these are linked to terrestrial events (see also, e.g. xs4all.nl/~carlkop/longday.html) Now once again, this is either resulting from actual movements of the earth itself, or it is the entire universe bobbing and weaving.
Here is a bit of commentary from another forum, just for some additional thought food:
Well, that would be VLBI, for Very Long Baseline Interferometry. And the basics are that several large radio antennae are linked together electronically to form one very large radio telescope with ultra high angular resolution. This is then used to monitor the apparent position of several quasars in the sky. The extreme distance of these quasars means there can be no observable apparent motions intrinsic to them, which allows them to be used as extremely precise and stable markers against which to measure rotational variations in the Earth. These variations happen to match very closely the variations which should be seen due to tidal friction. . . .
Now there is a good deal of research to try to nail down all the factors that influence the variations in the Earths rotations velocity, and small wobbles in its poles position, nevertheless the upshot for you is that variations in the quasar motions must be - assuming the Earth is stationary - changes in the velocity of the quasars themselves. As such you have several issues:
- Why should variations in the observed velocity of quasars match precisely the tidal effects on the Earth. The time delay is ENORMOUS (billions of years) The entire effect of the tides would need to be directly linked to the observed motions of the heavens, whose size does not allow for any direct connection between quasar motions and the Earth. (nothing communicates faster than light, including gravity, and these objects are billions of light years hence).
- As you know, the tides are linked to the position of tthe MOON, not the external ‘star shell’ or the quasars whose postion is being measured. Does the puny moon drag the rest of the universe around with it in your physics John?
- Why do these variations in the universe’s motion about the Earth happen -once again - to match those that should be induced simply by the oceans sloshing on the EArths surface? Again, as above, an occurrence that would be a one in infinity probability unless the designer of the universe where trying to trick us.
- There is no known physics that would allow those objects - the quasars - to retain their integrity if subjected to the accelerations required.,” (theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?129749-Geocentrism-Discussion-II&p=2850927#post2850927)
**
B
buffalo
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
It doesn’t; it affects the path of light travelling between the quasar and Earth.
Please show your calculation as to why the geocentric explanation is “most likely”. What forces are in operation causing earthquakes in Japan due to the whole universe changing its period of rotation by a few microseconds.
rossum
- Status