Space weather...

[marty]

... Jupiter lost one of its prominent stripes last year (WTF that's the biggest planet in the solar system),

this was in the beginning of 2010 - hardly new news...


"The last time it happened was 1973," said Eric Vandernoot, the Astronomy and Physics Lab coordinator at Florida Atlantic University. "This is why Jupiter is my favorite planet. It's a constantly changing system, and it's wonderful to watch. You can see the changes occur on any given night."

Wesley's photos were also released by The Planetary Society in California, which added that Jupiter's Southern Equatorial Belt tends to fade from view about every three to 15 years.

[Winston001]

... and the sun rose 2 days early over the Greenland horizon (sped up planet? or just off its axis?).

Well actually, only Ilulissat, northern Greenland. Fairbanks, Alaska didn't notice any change. So the effect is localised and the most likely explanation is layers of cool air in the region bending the sun's rays more than normal, thus pulling the sun's light just over the horizon a little early.

Betelgeuse is supposed to be imploding/exploding/supernovafying itself (not sure how long it will take for us to see/feel it's effects

Betelgeus is a dying red giant so of course it will go supernova some day. Could be 10 million years, could have already happened. Not to worry though, its 640 light years away so we are safe enough.

animals are dropping from the skies and washing up on to the beaches, fireballs have been crashing to earth but not making the news (4 or 5 this year from what i've read)... and my fave, we're supposed to be having a visit from a planet potentially 40 times the size of Earth in the very near future (could prove very interesting, if it isn't being felt already, see above)... Wish I had a better telescope and coordinates to point at

Now Mash, you are simply trolling. If you sincerely believe these events occurred without rational explanations, you should do your own research.

FYI fish, frogs, and animals have dropped out of the sky on extremely rare occasions for centuries. The best theory is tornadoes sucking them up into the sky.

There might be a planet or dustball in the Kuiper Belt with a long return period around the sun, just like the comets, but it hasn't been identified or located. The sheer volume of space outside Pluto's orbit tied to the sun's gravity is immense. We do not know about everything out there.

[mashman]

this was in the beginning of 2010 - hardly new news...

well it was news to me thanks for the info

[mashman]

Well actually, only Ilulissat, northern Greenland. Fairbanks, Alaska didn't notice any change. So the effect is localised and the most likely explanation is layers of cool air in the region bending the sun's rays more than normal, thus pulling the sun's light just over the horizon a little early.

natural precession?

Betelgeus is a dying red giant so of course it will go supernova some day. Could be 10 million years, could have already happened. Not to worry though, its 640 light years away so we are safe enough.

I'm gonna need a bigger telescope .

Now Mash, you are simply trolling. If you sincerely believe these events occurred without rational explanations, you should do your own research.

FYI fish, frogs, and animals have dropped out of the sky on extremely rare occasions for centuries. The best theory is tornadoes sucking them up into the sky.

I'm sure they have rational explanations, but it would seem that most of these occurences are "unexplainable", or at least have such bullshit excuses attached to them that I don't "believe" they were natural events... and as i'll never truley know, i'll add it to the mega conspiracy theory of dubious human intervention.

true, but it was the frequency that had me intrigued. Edbear posted a link of about 20 events in a month (coulda been more). Hence added to mega conspiracy. COuld all be due to wandering pole.

There might be a planet or dustball in the Kuiper Belt with a long return period around the sun, just like the comets, but it hasn't been identified or located. The sheer volume of space outside Pluto's orbit tied to the sun's gravity is immense. We do not know about everything out there.

I understand that, and indeed it goes back to your warning about trusting the internet etc... but this is one I'm gonna file under belief/hope... I hope to see the Nibiru visit, even though it may be the last thing I do see ... I think we kinda need something like that to wake us the fuck up before the mega conspiracy kicks in. It's not a 2012 thing per se, i'm sure Summerian/Mayan etc... symbology can be interpretted a few ways, but knowing the colours of Uranus and Neptune 3000+ years ago does have me wondering ... but it's not the linchpin for my mega conspiracy.

[imdying]

You know when you get a block of wood stuck in a hole, and you wiggle it, you can sometimes wiggle it out? Maybe the earth tides are jiggling the plates as they're moving about, and occasionally it wiggles it free enough to let loose. Sure that won't let you predict earthquakes, but it might give you a line on what influence the moon can have?

[Winston001]

You know when you get a block of wood stuck in a hole, and you wiggle it, you can sometimes wiggle it out? Maybe the earth tides are jiggling the plates as they're moving about, and occasionally it wiggles it free enough to let loose. Sure that won't let you predict earthquakes, but it might give you a line on what influence the moon can have?

I don't think anyone completely dismisses the tidal effects of lunar and solar gravity. Their influence may very well be the straw which breaks the camels back...as it were. If a fault line is under high stress, as happened with Christchurch, the moon's gravity may just be enough to tip the balance.

But that isn't saying anything very clever. Every part of the globe faces the Moon every 24 hours. Despite that, large earthquakes are rare. Why isn't the Moon causing daily tectonic disruptions? Indeed, why isn't the Earth (which has a far stronger gravity field) pulling the Moon to pieces?

[mashman]

I don't think anyone completely dismisses the tidal effects of lunar and solar gravity. Their influence may very well be the straw which breaks the camels back...as it were. If a fault line is under high stress, as happened with Christchurch, the moon's gravity may just be enough to tip the balance.

But that isn't saying anything very clever. Every part of the globe faces the Moon every 24 hours. Despite that, large earthquakes are rare. Why isn't the Moon causing daily tectonic disruptions? Indeed, why isn't the Earth (which has a far stronger gravity field) pulling the Moon to pieces?

With the state of Science these days, they should know if it's a worm fart or moon influence causing earthquakes, imho. I can only assume it's not a priority, probably having been dismissed to the too hard basket. That or they do know and don't want to say anything about it because it would disrupt profit flow. That's not a troll, it's a valid concern and a constant hinderance to human endeavour

With that in mind. The Moon is moving away from Earth at approx 1.5 inches per year. Yet out of nowhere the moon is closer to earth than it has been in X amount of years. Earth has a finite gravitational pull, after all the moon is moving away. So what causes the Moon to suddenly be close to Earth again. A Miracle? An NWO tractor beam? Or influences from the star and other planets of the solar system? I know, it's the tractor beam . If the Moon moving closer to the earth can cause Earthquakes, or at least be the straw, then what pushes the moon closer to Earth? and does that force have anything to do with earthquakes? I can't find any answers to those questions... and science being what it is, I would have thought those simple, in the neighbourhood questions would have readily available answers. Or perhaps they don;t know, because they never gave the theory any credence... either way, it's a Science Fail.

[rickstv]

do you have a link for that?

Sorry Marty, seems I was a bit off with that theory. The bit about Io was correct.

I was sure I saw it on telly or read it somewhere. Just shows, don't believe everything you read till you Google it.
Rick.

[imdying]

With that in mind

Did you even read either of the links? And understand them? It's not a science fail, it's a mashman fail.

[mashman]

Did you even read either of the links? And understand them? It's not a science fail, it's a mashman fail.

Right. So what rattled your cage in particular?

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Science... it is only correct until prooven wrong... it is always being updated and evolving as they come up with new techniques to test stuff and and from that comes new theories, out with old and in witht he new theory... and even when it is prooven right they still only class it as a theory as it could be updated or even ultimately prooven wrong the very next day

[shrub]

With the state of Science these days, they should know if it's a worm fart or moon influence causing earthquakes, imho.

Given the number of scientists working in that field, every likely and damn near every unlikely cause of earthquakes is either being studied to death or has been analysed to insanity, quite possibly including worm farts. Lunar, solar or stellar influences will have been the first thing studied and every time new information, new technology or a new event (our lovely quake) surfaces you can bet your left testicle that a hundred scientists leap up and try and find something. That there have been NO valid connections between the sun, stars and moon and predicting quakes doesn't suggest a weakness in science, but is a clear argument that the theory is flawed.

I can only assume it's not a priority, probably having been dismissed to the too hard basket. That or they do know and don't want to say anything about it because it would disrupt profit flow. That's not a troll, it's a valid concern and a constant hinderance to human endeavour

.

Finding shit out is what scientists love to do more than anything, and finding an answer to a question that nobody else has been able to answer is the Holy Grail for scientists. Claiming they have dismissed it to the "too hard basket" or that it would "disrupt the profit flow" suggests you don't understand how these people work. Let me give you an analogy: If I gave you a choice of getting somewhere on your bike via a 50 km journey over windy roads or a 30 km straight road; I know which one you'd choose. However a car driver who has no understanding of bikes would expect you to take the straight road because it's quicker, easier and uses less fuel.

believe me, if there was ANYTHING in Ken Ring's theories there would be a thousand scientists out there researching every inch of it. He's a guy who makes good money selling his predictions to the gullible, the vulnerable and the needy. Just like the tarot card reader who's premises were destroyed on 22nd of April.

[shrub]

Science... it is only correct until prooven wrong.

Not quite, before a theory sees the light of day it gets challenged from every possible angle. It's part of the peer review process where you have a heap of people who work in your area look for weaknesses in your argument and test you. And often they are pissed off that you have found something they wanted to find, don't like you, don't like who you work for or even simply feel like being obstreporous so will look for every possible flaw and exaggerate anything they don't like to the point where having a sample of 999 is seen as negating your findings because the sample should have been 1000.

[mashman]

Given the number of scientists working in that field, every likely and damn near every unlikely cause of earthquakes is either being studied to death or has been analysed to insanity, quite possibly including worm farts. Lunar, solar or stellar influences will have been the first thing studied and every time new information, new technology or a new event (our lovely quake) surfaces you can bet your left testicle that a hundred scientists leap up and try and find something. That there have been NO valid connections between the sun, stars and moon and predicting quakes doesn't suggest a weakness in science, but is a clear argument that the theory is flawed.

But there have been valid enough connections imho, yeah who am I to have an opinion. There is a prediction website out there that seems to be doing a pretty good job of it. They list their predictions for free... and yet these scientists you speak of are the same scientists that can't even agree on wether it was a new fault or not, or wether the fault existed before or after the earthquake . Surely they've been looking for faults? And faults aren't in the sky. If that's the best they can come up with after decades of "scientific" research, and there's an Entomolologist somewhere predicting, as the website claims, about 85% of earthquakes ("about 15% of earthquakes cannot be forecast")... then yes, I class it as a Science fail.

Finding shit out is what scientists love to do more than anything, and finding an answer to a question that nobody else has been able to answer is the Holy Grail for scientists. Claiming they have dismissed it to the "too hard basket" or that it would "disrupt the profit flow" suggests you don't understand how these people work. Let me give you an analogy: If I gave you a choice of getting somewhere on your bike via a 50 km journey over windy roads or a 30 km straight road; I know which one you'd choose. However a car driver who has no understanding of bikes would expect you to take the straight road because it's quicker, easier and uses less fuel.

believe me, if there was ANYTHING in Ken Ring's theories there would be a thousand scientists out there researching every inch of it. He's a guy who makes good money selling his predictions to the gullible, the vulnerable and the needy. Just like the tarot card reader who's premises were destroyed on 22nd of April.

Screw Ken Ring, he's the tip of an ever growing iceberg, the tip being all anyone cares to look at as per usual . There's a Science out there that's not perfect. 85% prediction ratio is good enough for me. Why haven't the funded greatest minds of the generation come up with an 85% prediction ratio? Is it not worthwhile?

We'll have to agree to disagree. The way I see it, Scientists don't pay for their own science, and therefore do not have control over the marketing of their Science, and therefore do not ALWAYS get to chose the avenue that their Science gets to travel. Now if Scientists paid for their own Science and could take it in their own direction, then I reckon the world would be a massively different place. They are the realities. I bet there's no money in it.

The car driver doesn't want to drive around corners because it's quicker and easier to go in a straight line ... why not? are they not the same person?

[shrub]

But there have been valid enough connections imho, yeah who am I to have an opinion. There is a prediction website out there that seems to be doing a pretty good job of it. They list their predictions for free... and yet these scientists you speak of are the same scientists that can't even agree on wether it was a new fault or not, or wether the fault existed before or after the earthquake . Surely they've been looking for faults? And faults aren't in the sky. If that's the best they can come up with after decades of "scientific" research, and there's an Entomolologist somewhere predicting, as the website claims, about 85% of earthquakes ("about 15% of earthquakes cannot be forecast")... then yes, I class it as a Science fail.

Connections and correlations are easy to find, but correlation doesn't mean cause. All but 2 of my crashes on bikes have been on Yamahas and none on British or European bikes - does that mean Yamahas are dangerous and Euros are safe? No, 3 of the first 4 bikes I owned were Yamahas, and that's when I didn't know about things like not slamming on the brakes in the middle of a corner, riding pissed or how dangerous bald tyres are. Because earthquakes are so devastating and expensive you can guarantee a shitload of work and money has gone into trying to predict them. And anyone who finds the answer will get something that academics have wet dreams over - their work will be called "seminal".

Screw Ken Ring, he's the tip of an ever growing iceberg, the tip being all anyone cares to look at as per usual . There's a Science out there that's not perfect. 85% prediction ratio is good enough for me. Why haven't the funded greatest minds of the generation come up with an 85% prediction ratio? Is it not worthwhile?

I'm interested in the group who claim an 85% success rate - can you give me a link please? As for ken Ring being the tip, yes he is. The link between lunar/solar/stellar activity and earthquakes is the logical and easy one, like the link between speed and crash rates. There may well be a link and some degree of causality, but there are a shitload of other factors in place, and I doubt dear old Ken has the ability to identify, measure or monitor those factors. I doubt anyone has.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The way I see it, Scientists don't pay for their own science, and therefore do not have control over the marketing of their Science, and therefore do not ALWAYS get to chose the avenue that their Science gets to travel. Now if Scientists paid for their own Science and could take it in their own direction, then I reckon the world would be a massively different place. They are the realities. I bet there's no money in it.

Actually they do. They pay in time and energy for their science, and ultimately in money. The area I'm researching at the moment has taken the majority of my time over the last 12 months and will do for the next 12 or so. Because of that I am confined to paid work for a few hours a week which means my income is 1/4 of what it could be if I worked full time for cash. I am terrified to calculate how much my studies will cost me, but to quote dear old Victor Hugo: "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come."

Once a tested idea (which is ultimately what science is) has been released into the world, it is taken and explored, developed, expanded, improved and implemented. If you are familiar with the ideas of Adam Smith you will understand that the market then takes control of that idea and drives it. Scientists invented plastic, the internal combustion engine and better ways to brew beer.

The car driver doesn't want to drive around corners because it's quicker and easier to go in a straight line ... why not? are they not the same person?

My analogy was a little clumsy. To understand the motivation of a scientist imagine that mashman is sitting on his bike at an intersection. To the left is a road consisting of 50 km of corners and to the right is 20 km of motorway, and both roads lead to the boozer. I am talking to a car driver and she says "I believe Mashman will want to take the motorway because it's quick and easy and there aren't all those tight corners to negotiate". She thinks mashman will do that because she doesn't understand that 50 km of windy road is what Mashman loves best. She bases her expectations on what she would do.

It's the same with scientists. They love to spend hours and hours researching information, testing ideas, finding flaws in their hypotheses, fine tuning them and finally producing A Theory. Most of them really don't care about money beyond being able to pay their bills and have a comfortable lifestyle, so they don't follow the money.