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
1182457	2011-03-11 08:21:00	From what I understand about his "theories" he should be able to predict earthquakes worldwide not specifically in New Zealand. Agreed. But then if he was not asked to predict the Japan earthquake then it's a moot point isn't it? I would have liked to hear his theory but Campbell did not let him speak anyway.	Snorkbox (15764)
1182458	2011-03-11 08:23:00	Dam it Ken Ring, why didn't you warn those poor Japanese people, you let them die in cold blood!! Did you really mean dam or damn?	Snorkbox (15764)
1182459	2011-03-11 08:29:00	Agreed. But then if he was not asked to predict the Japan earthquake then it's a moot point isn't it? I would have liked to hear his theory but Campbell did not let him speak anyway. Wow again, was he even asked to predict the NZ earthquake? No. If he knew there was a massive earthquake going to hit Japan I somehow doubt he would've kept it to himself. He likes selling his "theory" and this would've been good for his publicity. OH WAIT. He didn't predict it. He couldn't. Stop defending him.	--Wolf-- (128)
1182460	2011-03-11 08:34:00	Agreed. But then if he was not asked to predict the Japan earthquake then it's a moot point isn't it? I would have liked to hear his theory but Campbell did not let him speak anyway. I didn't express my point clearly. Why does he think his theories enable him to predict earthquakes in NZ? Surely the astronomical conditions apply to tectonic plates, faults etc. worldwide and not just here.	martynz (5445)
1182461	2011-03-11 08:43:00	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. Sorry, but in my book you are missing the salient points. He is not really putting up a theory or theories, he is suggesting that the tidal effect of the moon can trigger earthquakes. It is no more a "theory" at this stage with the evidence presented, than proposing that, for instance, that a medium can communicate with the dead, or that the mind can move objects. Calling what he is saying a theory is giving his suggestion undue meaning or 'respectability'. I have no argument with that suggestion, and I have never said that it is wrong. BUT he then goes on to present various data from which he appears to be saying that predictions of a sort can be made as to when earthquakes can occur. The veracity of these claims is in doubt and have been rubbished so I understand by scientists who have examined his claims in greater detail. If he didn't claim to be able to predict, but just said he was working on collecting and correlating data, then there would be no problem. Quote: "I don’t wear this “cop out” that the onus is on somebody to be able to prove beyond doubt that they are right." This is generally the normal scientific procedure when a scientist puts forward a hypothesis and then tests against experiment or mathematical calculation, not necessarily beyond doubt but within the limits set down for the hypothesis......BUT.....in this case where there are lots of unknowns......... ..........You don't have to "wear this cop out", he doesn't have to prove he is right beyond doubt, he just has to show that he is able to make predictions which are correct say- 80% of the time or what ever degree of uncertainty is agreed upon to be able to claim the theory has been verified. Naturally if he claims to be able to predict then he has to back up those claims to the satisfaction of the scientific method and the scientific community. This he has failed to do as proved by the ongoing controversy. 12v has summed him up very well. Going back to a previous post you said" “Why do you suggest that the forces that act on the Earth in many ways, including the tides, can have no effect on anything that might cause an earthquake”? (without introducing red herrings). " I never did suggest this, this is one of your red herrings. I can show, unlike Glasby claims, that planetary forces, eg by Venus would be negligbly small.	Terry Porritt (14)
1182462	2011-03-11 08:54:00	All I am asking is why Ken Rings theories are wrong, because they seem reasonable enough to me . I dunno why you feel Ken Ring deserves our time, are you on medication? maybe you need to be? Do you think Uranus has caused this?	Battleneter2 (9361)
1182463	2011-03-11 09:46:00	Also interesting to note, Ken Rings website is down at the moment. My guess is he's putting up posts saying he predicted the Jap earthquake and dating them 2 months ago.	--Wolf-- (128)
1182464	2011-03-11 10:12:00	Also interesting to note, Ken Rings website is down at the moment. My guess is he's putting up posts saying he predicted the Jap earthquake and dating them 2 months ago. Another theory you can't prove? Sigh.	Snorkbox (15764)
1182465	2011-03-11 10:15:00	Another theory you can't prove? Sigh. Hes just point out his site is down and watch out for drivel to cover up the fact he didn't predict the Japan event. Seems like a very fair comment.	Battleneter2 (9361)
1182466	2011-03-11 10:18:00	Hes just point out his site is down and watch out for drivel to cover up the fact he didn't predict the Japan event. Seems like a very fair comment. A comment not backed by any facts available at this time however. Even he says it's a guess.	Snorkbox (15764)
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