Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 116360	2011-02-28 18:57:00	Ken Ring on Campbell Live last night	Colpol (444)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1182427	2011-03-10 04:59:00	Good one, I stand abashed :o And admonished.	Cicero (40)
1182428	2011-03-10 07:09:00	There are something like 200 Heritage buildings in Central Wellington that will collapse in a moderate quake (according to the Council). Get the Historic Places Trust to pick ten they want to keep, give the owners of the others six months to fix them if they want to, and then bulldoze anything that isn't strengthened before Christmas.	Twelvevolts (5457)
1182429	2011-03-10 07:29:00	The effect of near by Celestial Objects on each other is scientific fact and not in dispute, also nothing to do with Earthquakes. Hmmm, well if you bother to read Terry’s link you will find some quite compelling evidence that you are quite likely to be wrong, yet again. :) Anyway, on what grounds do you argue that Celestial Objects and their influence on Earth have categorically no influence on earthquakes?	B.M. (505)
1182430	2011-03-10 08:03:00	Hmmm, well if you bother to read Terry’s link you will find some quite compelling evidence that you are quite likely to be wrong, yet again. :) Anyway, on what grounds do you argue that Celestial Objects and their influence on Earth have categorically no influence on earthquakes? LMAO, don't tell me you actually believe (that is, as in religious faith) what that crackpot wrote in that link I gave :) :eek::banana	Terry Porritt (14)
1182431	2011-03-10 09:59:00	Hmmm, well if you bother to read Terry’s link you will find some quite compelling evidence that you are quite likely to be wrong, yet again. :) Anyway, on what grounds do you argue that Celestial Objects and their influence on Earth have categorically no influence on earthquakes? What do you consider the compelling evidence was and what would make it falsifiable? The onus is on the believer to provide the evidence, not on others to provide evidence against it. You try to shift the argument every time on to what someone else believes, but never seem to clarify why you believe Ken Ring is on to something and what evidence would be required to demonstrate to you that the theory is incorrect.	Twelvevolts (5457)
1182432	2011-03-10 18:20:00	LMAO, don't tell me you actually believe (that is, as in religious faith) what that crackpot wrote in that link I gave :) :eek::banana I can assure you I am of little faith, but given the known effects that the position of the Sun and Moon have on the Earth I am unable to dismiss out of hand the possibility of them having a bearing on earthquakes once other criteria is met. However, I still have an open mind and would be interested in your views as to why the stresses put on the Earth by the Sun, Moon and other Planets could have no association with Earthquakes. I look forward to your explanation. :)	B.M. (505)
1182433	2011-03-10 20:52:00	Hmmm, well if you bother to read Terry’s link you will find some quite compelling evidence that you are quite likely to be wrong, yet again. :) Anyway, on what grounds do you argue that Celestial Objects and their influence on Earth have categorically no influence on earthquakes? Lol Yea these theories are well known, nothing new in that link. Certainly some well known scientific principles thrown in with incorrect speculation I can see how you are easily mislead. Still its throwing pebbles at a freight train when you consider the massive energy that "actually" drives the movement of the tectonic plates. Decades of data from ACTUAL events dont support Ken Ring and others that have brain farted in the past.	Battleneter2 (9361)
1182434	2011-03-10 21:13:00	There are something like 200 Heritage buildings in Central Wellington that will collapse in a moderate quake (according to the Council). Get the Historic Places Trust to pick ten they want to keep, give the owners of the others six months to fix them if they want to, and then bulldoze anything that isn't strengthened before Christmas. They didnt mess around in Napier and they have a brillant looking city today. Time to get Mr Caterpillar and Mr Komatsu	prefect (6291)
1182435	2011-03-10 21:16:00	I can assure you I am of little faith, but given the known effects that the position of the Sun and Moon have on the Earth I am unable to dismiss out of hand the possibility of them having a bearing on earthquakes once other criteria is met. However, I still have an open mind and would be interested in your views as to why the stresses put on the Earth by the Sun, Moon and other Planets could have no association with Earthquakes. I look forward to your explanation. :) 12v has already said several times that the onus is on the believer of fanciful ideas to demonstrate scientifically with appropriate sums, or to show empirical correlation from observations, that the ideas have substance. This you persistently fail to do. You prefer to believe crackpots, alternatively, you can just take my word as a physicist that they are crackpots. For instance if you "believe" the planets can trigger earthquakes, demonstrate the correlation between earthquakes and planetary positions, alignments, gravitational forces etc. from the historical data. After all astronomy has been studied for thousands of years, and the discovery of elliptical orbits goes back to Kepler. Let us take Venus, the nearest planet, it is a trivial matter, just school science, to calculate the gravitational force between Earth and Venus, say at its closest distance. It is even more enlightening to then calculate the gravitation force per tonne mass of Earth. and then decide whether such a force even if applied suddenly would be in any way comparable to the forces in an earthquake or whether such a force could trigger one. When you have done the sums report back and I will mark your work out of 10.......:lol::clap	Terry Porritt (14)
1182436	2011-03-10 21:36:00	Damn, I missed the edit window. As an extra excercise calculate the total gravitational force exerted by Venus on a section of basalt tectonic plate, 20km long, 20km wide, 20km deep. In your opinion would this force be significant ? Bonus points may be earned :)	Terry Porritt (14)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25