A skeptic is somebody who says, "Show me the evidence." A nut is somebody who rejects the evidence and looks for voodoo explanations instead of scientific ones.
Question on Ice
- Thread starter Gerhard Kemmerer
- Start date
Originally Posted by origin
Hot water does not freeze faster than cold water
Because that is what would occur except for very specific cases. Sorry if the statement was too general for you. By the way does the decrease in the intensity of the typhoon in Japan mean that Mt Fuji is not going to erupt [chorttle]?
Hot water does not freeze faster than cold water
Because that is what would occur except for very specific cases. Sorry if the statement was too general for you. By the way does the decrease in the intensity of the typhoon in Japan mean that Mt Fuji is not going to erupt [chorttle]?
I think you need to have another look at the thread and see the post about a 6.1+M quake that has occurred off the coast near Fukushima and directly on the path of the typoons tack. 1st-10-2012.. Fuji may yet blow it's top... you may remember that it only took a small quake to set off St Helens in 1980.
However this is not what the hypothesis was predicting.. Mt Fuji going balistic is only a side issue.. the prediction is for a quake of 9+M within 30 days of the extreme weather [2 super typhoons in only a few weeks], somewhere on the Philipines plate..with the most likely spot being where Mt Fuji is situated. or even closer to Tokyo and if holding to form a major solar CME event approximately 60 days after the extreme weather.
A 9+ earthquake with in 24 days (I am assuming 24 days because 6 days ago the second super typhoon begain losing strength and went down to a cat 4) in that area is a big prediction that statistically should fail so that is interesting.
A major CME (say a Kp > 6) within 60 days is statistically very likely seeing that we are at a sun spot peak. So that is just a throw away predition. It is like predicting snow in Alaska in the next 60 days.
Super typhoons are related to CMEs now? You seem to be kinds going off the deep end...
A major CME (say a Kp > 6) within 60 days is statistically very likely seeing that we are at a sun spot peak. So that is just a throw away predition. It is like predicting snow in Alaska in the next 60 days.
Super typhoons are related to CMEs now? You seem to be kinds going off the deep end...
Yeah, sorry, QQ but I have to agree with that assessment.
And that's not all - consider that you also said this : "you may remember that it only took a small quake to set off St Helens in 1980."
Seems you are confusing cause with effect - or do you know something that no one else does?
EDIT: I need to clarify that last bit. My point being that quakes don't set off volcanoes - the quakes are naturally generated by the magma chamber filling/expanding and other similar activities that are a result of the volcano preparing to blow it's top. Not the other way around.
yeah different thread ..
try post #49
of this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114727-Tornadoe-s-and-Zero-Point-Theory/page3
take any issues you have up there... this thread is about hot water freezing faster that cold water, if I am not mistaken...
I've posted a response but included a link to the other thread...so we wait
but it included reference to post #49
According to wki an earthquake occurred which stripped the north face of ST Helens.
as to whether it ws caused by the magma chamber or other is unknowable as far as I can tell...from the limited research..
reagardless this thread is about hot water freezing faster than cold water...
if you wish to discuss the predictions, hypothesis etc ... take it up there... Zero point theory and tornados thread. [ pseudo science ]
Sorry, but what you have shown is 4 different phenomena occuring over a 5 month period that appear to be completely unrelated. It is really quite simple proximity does not imply a relationship. It may depending on other aspects, but proximity in and of itself is not an indication that there is a relationship. You are deluding yourself.
I truly hope so....
The issue is about extreme weather such as cyclone Yasi. Quite an extrordinary storm that one.. flooded approx. 75% of a massive land area [ State of QLD, Australia ] yet it fizzled out as it made land fall........any ways take it up in the other thread..
No thank you - I stumbled onto your statements here quite by accident and I've NO interest in such nonsense! I hope someday you will realize that what you're proposing is no more intelligent than a stupid superstition. Somewhere, a nut had bad luck one day and then realized that earlier a black cat had crossed his path. Therefore, in his twisted mind (and yours), the CAT had caused his bad luck - since one event followed the other. Your ideas here are no better than that.
you're probably right... just like Origin when he said that hot water does NOT freeze faster than cold. well it doesn't does it... [churttle]
A question to put it all in perspective:
What evidence do you have for the phenonema of cosmic metric expansion occuring today? [yeah I know it sounds silly but you soon find out why I asked]
More importantly , how did they accommodate light info delays when working out that the universe IS [present tense] undergoing cosmic metric expansion?
What evidence do you have for the phenonema of cosmic metric expansion occuring today? [yeah I know it sounds silly but you soon find out why I asked]
More importantly , how did they accommodate light info delays when working out that the universe IS [present tense] undergoing cosmic metric expansion?
Quite simple, actually. All that's needed is the measured Doppler effect. The spectral shift, you know. (I hope you know.)
over what distances... how old is the light data we are talking about?
and how does that data relate to todays universe?
Last edited:
What no takers? Any one?
What is the universe doing today?
any one?
"Quite simple, actually."
What is the universe doing today?
any one?
"Quite simple, actually."
So the prediction of a 9+ earthquake that was based on you theory did not occur so you theory has been falsified. Back to the drawing board!
yeah I think you are right.
mind you the tracking of the latest typhoon (heading into Vietnam) makes for some interest.
any way, what theory are you referring to exactly?
I was being generous calling it a theory. I am refering to your conjecture about hurricanes and their relationship to the build up of tenson in tectonic plates. I guess it gets sort of difficult for you to remember all of the different wild ass conjectures you have made [chuckle].
well at least you got the idea reasonably correct...most people historically refer to it the other way round. In that eathquakes are caused by weather and not weather being caused by siesmic tension.
and yes it was a hypothesis that if correct allowed for the possibility that weather patterns/siesmic data could be used as evidencial support for that "other" bit of conjecture I have been discussing in other threads. However as it seems that this is unliekly I shall just have to keep looking for something that may be a tad more conclusive....[other than wiping out Tokyo, 30 million peope and the 6 rectors at Fukushima]
I might add the people at Fukushima didnt predict the possibility of a 9+ earthquake and subsequent tsunami, either when they built the power plant on an active fault line. [not possible they probably thought]
Last edited: