| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 145787 | 2018-01-28 05:44:00 | Hot as | prefect (6291) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1445598 | 2018-02-13 04:19:00 | Brainwashed you are then, thanks for confirming it. | KarameaDave (15222) | ||
| 1445599 | 2018-02-13 04:48:00 | The "experts" are human , so have the same tendencies, bias's & pig-headedness as everyone else . History tells us this , as scientific bias and blinkered outlook happened over & over again in the past . Case in point . Skeptics have been ridiculing K . Ring for years . On one particular day in CHCH, they tried to prove how wrong he was by sitting in a blding in CHCH on the day he predicted an aftershock . He got it right, skeptics & scientists quietly ignored this & never mentioned his correct prediction it again . So : bias , he simply could never be correct . So scientific bias & prejudice . Its there , its common . Thats why they will fudge,ignore data to suit Thats why they resort to name calling , the most immature of ~arguements~ : "deniers" The I'm right & you are wrong argument : just human nature . Experts do that as well Climate change . Of course its happening . It has allways happened since year 1 & allways will . Ridiculing Ken Ring is more than OK, he is a certified nutbar with bells on and flashing lights . |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 1445600 | 2018-02-13 08:54:00 | Ken Ring predicted so many things on so many days he has had to get some right just by luck, he just conveniently forgets all the times he gets it wrong. If you feel like googling it his success rate is worse than flipping a coin. If you want to use him as an example of scientific bias you are not helping your case. You may as well support the flat earthers. Yes scientists are generally biased towards the consensus, centuries of peer reviewed experiments, theories, and data will do that. Every now and again someone manages to shift that view, but always with good evidence and repeatable experiments. Never with outrageous claims based on opinions and results that can't be replicated. If there is real evidence they are wrong eventually it comes out and the consensus changes. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1445601 | 2018-02-13 13:12:00 | Hmm 4c and sleet, nice, Hanmer was 25c when I left what a contrast | gary67 (56) | ||
| 1445602 | 2018-02-13 18:35:00 | Ken Ring predicted so many things on so many days he has had to get some right just by luck, he just conveniently forgets all the times he gets it wrong. If you feel like googling it his success rate is worse than flipping a coin. If you want to use him as an example of scientific bias you are not helping your case. You may as well support the flat earthers. Yes scientists are generally biased towards the consensus, centuries of peer reviewed experiments, theories, and data will do that. Every now and again someone manages to shift that view, but always with good evidence and repeatable experiments. Never with outrageous claims based on opinions and results that can't be replicated. If there is real evidence they are wrong eventually it comes out and the consensus changes. What Ken Ring said was he believed that the gravitational pull of the Moon has some effect on causing Earthquakes. Those with closed minds dismissed it out of hand as rubbish, but given the fact that the gravitational pull of the Moon has considerable effect on the Oceans Tides, I don’t see why it would have none on the earth’s land surface. Therefore, I won’t dismiss the proposal out of hand and leave it to Mr Moon to prove his theory. Maybe he can fudge some figures like they did with “Climategate”. :D |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1445603 | 2018-02-13 21:16:00 | The moons effect on earthquakes is tiny compared to all the other forces involved, it has an effect but it's almost zero. His predictions have been comprehensively shown to be no better than random guessing and often worse. I will dismiss his proposal out of hand as it's demonstrably false. Choosing one of the weakest of a great many different forces at play and attempting to use it as a prediction tool is just ridiculous. Stand on a scale when the moon is overhead and see how much lighter you are. You might as well calculate the breaking point of a tow rope based on the position of an ant walking across it. Interestingly the moon does cause tides in the surface on land and in fact the ground does raise and lower similar to how the oceans do, it's just not perceptible to us because we move with it and it's a subtle change - much like you wouldn't notice the tide out at sea away from land. This is not a major contributing factor to earthquakes however, if it was to trigger one it would only be because it was about to happen anyway. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1445604 | 2018-02-14 04:03:00 | You might as well calculate the breaking point of a tow rope based on the position of an ant walking across it. Mega lol I was hysterically laughing so much at this comment about the ant I almost died, my wife thought I had gone nuts. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 1445605 | 2018-02-14 04:32:00 | if it was to trigger one it would only be because it was about to happen anyway. Which is precisely the meaning of triggering. And it is not that subtle (whatever that is supposed to mean), Vertical amplitude is 384mm en.wikipedia.org |
KarameaDave (15222) | ||
| 1445606 | 2018-02-14 05:35:00 | Let’s just try a little experiment and keep it simple. We have a house wall 30 feet x 10feet (not uncommon in any house) Free standing we have atmospheric pressure of 14psi. acting on both sides. Now we seal off one side and increase the pressure 1psi to 15psi. What total force is now on the wall? |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1445607 | 2018-02-14 05:40:00 | ... over a horizontal distance of how many hundreds of km's of how thick crust? ... i.e. negligible. Check out the vertical sag in a relatively short span of concrete some time - the real world elasticity of 'solid' structures is actually rather surprising. |
fred_fish (15241) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | |||||