| 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 | ||
| 1182447 | 2011-03-11 07:12:00 | Biggest Full Moon Possible Will Be Visible March 19: abcnews.go.com |
zqwerty (97) | ||
| 1182448 | 2011-03-11 07:14:00 | Do we need to even wait till the 20th now to disprove him considering that Ken couldn't predict the Japan one? | --Wolf-- (128) | ||
| 1182449 | 2011-03-11 07:27:00 | BA: You keep completely missing the point and raising side issues. It is not at all unreasonable to to suggest that moon tide could influence the incidence of earthquakes, but the onus is on people like Ken Ring and Glasby to back this up with credible science, whether theoretical physics, or credible correlation of various data. From what I've read they have failed to do this, as they are obsessed with pretending to be able to predict, and gullible people go along with it. Then they challenge other people to disprove what they are proposing as a way of ducking out actually proving what they are proposing. You are doing the same. I have had to deal with several charlatans in my career. If you can't do the simple maths to illustrate the forces Venus can exert on earth and how they are essentially negligible compared to the forces in an earthquake, then I'm happy to demonstrate and thus show that planetary influences would have insignificant effects. After all you have mentioned planetry influences numerous times, even them being responsible for Earths seasons ;) People who keep using analogies are just demonstrating their own limitations and lack of clear logical reasoning powers. Analogies introduce their own fallacious reasonings and are to be generally avoided I’m not missing the point at all Terry. All I am asking is why Ken Rings theories are wrong, because they seem reasonable enough to me. When somebody actually “fingers” the error in his propositions I’ll be happy enough to accept that. In the meantime, the only defence to his proposition has been, “He’s nuts” and so is anybody prepared to hear him out. That in itself seems to me to be an ignorant way to approach not just this matter, but also science in general. I don’t wear this “cop out” that the onus is on somebody to be able to prove beyond doubt that they are right. Many theories and inventions have died of natural causes on the drawing board because somebody has pointed out the error in their calculations. As I’ve already said, Archimedes never proved he could shift the earth with a long lever and a strong fulcrum but his theory is still found to be acceptable in most circles. He also managed to associate considerable importance to his bath water overflowing as he got in, which nobody else had until then. So to summarise, I can’t dispel what I believe Ken Ring is alluding to and I’m still waiting for someone else to. Just calling him a Nutter and anyone else that’s prepared to hear him out Nutters also, is a pretty pathetic response by any standards. |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1182450 | 2011-03-11 07:34:00 | All I am asking is why Ken Rings theories are wrong, because they seem reasonable enough to me . When somebody actually “fingers” the error in his propositions I’ll be happy enough to accept that . Because they clearly don't work if he couldn't predict the Japan quake . /thread . |
--Wolf-- (128) | ||
| 1182451 | 2011-03-11 07:37:00 | Do we need to even wait till the 20th now to disprove him considering that Ken couldn't predict the Japan one? Did anyone ask him to predict conditions in Japan? And to get back to the thread title Campbell did not let Ring speak on the show anyway. |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1182452 | 2011-03-11 07:40:00 | Lmao wow some people will do anything to defend him. Did anyone ask him to predict conditions in NZ? Surely if the moon tells him when earthquakes are going to happen he can look outside of NZ. Or has he not published his BS worldwide yet? |
--Wolf-- (128) | ||
| 1182453 | 2011-03-11 08:05:00 | I’m not missing the point at all Terry. All I am asking is why Ken Rings theories are wrong, because they seem reasonable enough to me. When somebody actually “fingers” the error in his propositions I’ll be happy enough to accept that. In the meantime, the only defence to his proposition has been, “He’s nuts” and so is anybody prepared to hear him out. That in itself seems to me to be an ignorant way to approach not just this matter, but also science in general. I don’t wear this “cop out” that the onus is on somebody to be able to prove beyond doubt that they are right. Many theories and inventions have died of natural causes on the drawing board because somebody has pointed out the error in their calculations. As I’ve already said, Archimedes never proved he could shift the earth with a long lever and a strong fulcrum but his theory is still found to be acceptable in most circles. He also managed to associate considerable importance to his bath water overflowing as he got in, which nobody else had until then. So to summarise, I can’t dispel what I believe Ken Ring is alluding to and I’m still waiting for someone else to. Just calling him a Nutter and anyone else that’s prepared to hear him out Nutters also, is a pretty pathetic response by any standards. You don't seem to be able to identify what evidence would convince you the theory was wrong, hence it certainly appears you believe irrespective of the evidence. No one needs to have "a defence" to a theory that has no supporting evidence in the first place. So again you go off on a tangent about nutters but again you won't answer a simple question because you have a closed mind. |
Twelvevolts (5457) | ||
| 1182454 | 2011-03-11 08:13:00 | Lmao wow some people will do anything to defend him. Did anyone ask him to predict conditions in NZ? Surely if the moon tells him when earthquakes are going to happen he can look outside of NZ. Or has he not published his BS worldwide yet? Where did I say I support Ken Ring's predictions far less defend him? You are jumping to conclusions based on less factual data than Ken Ring has.:rolleyes: |
Snorkbox (15764) | ||
| 1182455 | 2011-03-11 08:17:00 | Did anyone ask him to predict conditions in Japan? And to get back to the thread title Campbell did not let Ring speak on the show anyway. From what I understand about his "theories" he should be able to predict earthquakes worldwide not specifically in New Zealand. |
martynz (5445) | ||
| 1182456 | 2011-03-11 08:18:00 | Dam it Ken Ring, why didn't you warn those poor Japanese people, you let them die in cold blood!! | Battleneter2 (9361) | ||
| 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 | |||||