Ken Ring's predicted earthquake for 20 March?

**steve_t** · 24th April 2011, 16:51

Originally Posted by scissorhands

The last full moons all had significant quakes. The worst part of his threats is his theories ARE BASICALLY CORRECT

What ever happened to scientific truth

What about the other "significant quakes" that weren't on the full moons?

**Kickaha** · 24th April 2011, 17:02

Originally Posted by steve_t

What about the other "significant quakes" that weren't on the full moons?

Apparently they don't count if Ken Ring doesn't predict them

**mashman** · 24th April 2011, 22:55

Originally Posted by jazfender

Yah, people confuse someone listening to their story with being on their side. The media only wants a fucking story and only if it makes them money.

heh, especially when it's a story that just keeps on giving... Wonder if they realised what they were doing...

**cruza** · 25th April 2011, 05:33

Originally Posted by AllanB

Mine gets wheel chocked and bars strapped to the rafters since September - friends smile but it is still standing and many have fallen in the past 6 months.

Made steel bracket , drilled hole in ceiling gib, now bike is attached via strop at all times. just plain lucky bike didn't fall over first quake......."park to conditions" lol

I'm like alot of people , not nervous, but a bit more prepared . Gezz how many eq ads hav I seen ova the years and watched contractors working away upgrading and quake strengthening pre sep and not given it a second thought.
moonman can say what he likes, just like starsigns in the daily paper really........fills in the coffee break

**Oakie** · 25th April 2011, 08:30

Death threats? Ironic that he felt the need to do a runner from his home after receiving death threats as that is essentially what he delivered to the people in Christchurch and put so many in fear for their lives that they also ran. A woman I work with had her daughter on suicide watch in the 2 weeks running up to 20 March as she (the daughter) was convinced "the world was going to end that day".

Karma?

**scissorhands** · 25th April 2011, 10:54

For fucks sake

**HenryDorsetCase** · 25th April 2011, 19:10

Originally Posted by scissorhands

The last full moons all had significant quakes. The worst part of his threats is his theories ARE BASICALLY CORRECT

What ever happened to scientific truth

his theories are not correct. And his lies are not science. Do you even know what "science" is? Do you understand even a little bit of how the scientific method works? Do you know how far the criminal Ring is from even the fringes of generally accepted scientific theory?

Let me posit something for you: you have cancer. With proper medical treatment, it is curable, and you will live the rest of what passes for your normal life. Untreated by those methods, you will die.

Do do you spin crystals, consult homeopaths, osteopaths, aroma therapists, or do you go to the doctor.

What do you do?

**Oakie** · 25th April 2011, 20:08

This from Courtney Seligman, (Professor of Astronomy) is basically the science:

The Gravitational Force of the Moon on Objects on the Earth

Just as the Earth pulls on the Moon, the Moon pulls on the Earth, and everything else in space. The strength of the Moon's gravitational force is given by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

F = G m MMoon / r2Moon ,

where G the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the object being pulled on by the Moon, MMoon is the mass of the Moon, and rMoon is the distance between the Moon and the object. A similar force acts between the Earth and various objects, except that we use the distance to the Earth, rEarth, and the mass of the Earth, MEarth, in place of the lunar values. Since the Earth's force on something is the object's weight, W, we can write

W = F = G m MEarth / r2Earth .

MMoon / MEarth is about 1/80; and for an object at the surface of the Earth, rEarth is about 4000 miles, and rMoon is about 240,000 miles, or 60 times greater; so at the surface of the Earth, the pull of the Moon is 80 times smaller than the object's weight because of its lesser mass, and another 3600 (= 60 squared) times smaller because of its greater distance. Combining these two effects, the Moon's pull on objects near the Earth is only 1/300,000th of their Earth weight. So if something weighs 150 pounds due to the pull of the Earth, the pull of the Moon on that object would be about 150/300000, or 1/2000th of a pound.

Full article is here: http://cseligman.com/text/moons/earthmoontides.htm

I don't pretend to understand the formula but what this means is that while yes, the moon has an effect on the earth, the scale of that effect is so small as to be insignificant, especially in terms of land movements.

The scale is a bit like saying "I was riding my bike and a large bumblebee hit the headlight and slowed me down". Well yeah. A 5 gram bee hitting a 250kg object going at 100kph will have an effect but it will be so small as to be entirely insignificant.

May we move on now ...

**HenryDorsetCase** · 25th April 2011, 20:30

Originally Posted by Oakie

This from Courtney Seligman, (Professor of Astronomy) is basically the science:

The Gravitational Force of the Moon on Objects on the Earth

Just as the Earth pulls on the Moon, the Moon pulls on the Earth, and everything else in space. The strength of the Moon's gravitational force is given by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

F = G m MMoon / r2Moon ,

where G the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the object being pulled on by the Moon, MMoon is the mass of the Moon, and rMoon is the distance between the Moon and the object. A similar force acts between the Earth and various objects, except that we use the distance to the Earth, rEarth, and the mass of the Earth, MEarth, in place of the lunar values. Since the Earth's force on something is the object's weight, W, we can write

W = F = G m MEarth / r2Earth .

MMoon / MEarth is about 1/80; and for an object at the surface of the Earth, rEarth is about 4000 miles, and rMoon is about 240,000 miles, or 60 times greater; so at the surface of the Earth, the pull of the Moon is 80 times smaller than the object's weight because of its lesser mass, and another 3600 (= 60 squared) times smaller because of its greater distance. Combining these two effects, the Moon's pull on objects near the Earth is only 1/300,000th of their Earth weight. So if something weighs 150 pounds due to the pull of the Earth, the pull of the Moon on that object would be about 150/300000, or 1/2000th of a pound.

Full article is here: http://cseligman.com/text/moons/earthmoontides.htm

I don't pretend to understand the formula but what this means is that while yes, the moon has an effect on the earth, the scale of that effect is so small as to be insignificant, especially in terms of land movements.

The scale is a bit like saying "I was riding my bike and a large bumblebee hit the headlight and slowed me down". Well yeah. A 5 gram bee hitting a 250kg object going at 100kph will have an effect but it will be so small as to be entirely insignificant.

May we move on now ...

Thank you, and yes.

**imdying** · 25th April 2011, 20:40

No less than he deserves.

**puddytat** · 25th April 2011, 20:45

Sooooo......Is the MOON full all over the world when its full here?

**scissorhands** · 25th April 2011, 23:56

Yes, some slight variation with tilt, but twelve hours later the opposite side of the earth experiences the same moon phase

**mashman** · 26th April 2011, 00:57

Originally Posted by Oakie

I don't pretend to understand the formula but what this means is that while yes, the moon has an effect on the earth, the scale of that effect is so small as to be insignificant, especially in terms of land movements.

The scale is a bit like saying "I was riding my bike and a large bumblebee hit the headlight and slowed me down". Well yeah. A 5 gram bee hitting a 250kg object going at 100kph will have an effect but it will be so small as to be entirely insignificant.

Me neither. So i'll stick with observation and ill thought out theories.

That has to be one of the greatest analogy fails of our time

... so here's a contender

The Moon holds on to the Earth's surface using a tractor beam. A tractor beam that is strong enough to pull the Moon crashing into the Earth. Fortunately, the Moon is travelling quickly enough around the Earth, for that to never happen. A consequence is, whatever is under the tractor beam gets dragged, or lifted. Water does it until the tractor beam hits land... then once the tractor beam is on the land, the water starts moving back to where it came from.

Now that may not be much better, but better, I hope

.

The influence of the Moon is enough to pull/lift water levels. Even some inland lakes are tidal

. I have a hard time believing that the Moon doesn't affect the land enough, to not be a part cause of land "disturbances". Especially when the "influence" is variable i.e. different tidal levels for different phases of the moon and probably never the same level twice in a millenium, and the moon doesn't just switch off because it's over land. But i'm no scientist...

**Paul in NZ** · 26th April 2011, 07:24

Originally Posted by imdying

No less than he deserves.

Hold on! Assume just for a moment that Ken Ring thinks he is actually RIGHT. Regardless of what you think but that as far as he is concerned, HE thinks he is correct. Assuming hes still a reasonably decent person, and he thinks that there might be a big one coming he does the right thing and warns people when given access to the media....

Yes of course when the apocalypse didnt happen people bay for blood but is that what he said? After all there was a pretty decent after shock that day... It was unfortuately later than the evening news so it didnt count. Frankly if it came to a honesty show down between some love hungry tv announcer and Ken R I'm fucked if I know who I'd choose.... They are both as bad as each other but at least Ken R is trying to do the right thing where as the other is just a useless leach... In fact the TV dudes more pissed of it didnt happen than anyone else.. Must a made for a slow news day...

Of course people are on edge, of course some people cant cope and go on suicide watch (seems every bit as flakey as ken R btw) but some people cant cope with mice ....

Personally I dont think Ken R is 100% correct (or even 50%) but it wouldnt be the first time that some left field theory has gone from crackpot to science would it. Who knows, you cant completely just dismiss things. I know more than one farmer that does OK using his weather predicitions (having said that, its never been any good for me) and any fisherman or hunter will tell you the moon does affect fish and game so who knows?

End of the day - science didnt predict diddly squat and seldom ever tries. In fact science didnt even do a decent job of explaining why and thus opened the door to this. (this 'we didnt realise shit is an utter crock, I remember building restraint systems for gear 25+ years ago specifically FOR this type of event in chch) Ken R took a risk at fame n fortune and has paid the price - unfortunately he forgot that people dont like prophets very much - they nearly always come to a sticky end - especially false ones... unless they manged to drop the hair shirt and pick up a bloody big flaming sword while coming in from the wilderness... After all, the rule is never prophesy; for if you prophesy wrong, nobody will forget it; and if you prophesy right, nobody will remember it.