Homepage Forums Noise, ZPE, AGW (capped*) etc. Theory on a phenomenia

This topic contains 5 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Avatar Ivy Matt 5 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1594
    Avatar
    Patientman
    Participant

    I wanted to pass this along and see what some of you might think about this theory.
    She is uncertain of just what is going on, and she uses a little conspiracy tone to her words. There are many pieces of her puzzle missing. Have a look, have a laugh or go look at the sky.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IdtQdxINfo

    Some of it has a little validity.

    #13316
    Avatar
    KeithPickering
    Participant

    Completely nuts, off the rails, astrology-cum-numerology on pot. None of it has any validity.

    #13320
    Avatar
    Impaler
    Member

    This the the kind of rubbish an administrator should be deleting from the forums, not posting. It’s not even relevant to BB theory.

    #13322
    Avatar
    zapkitty
    Member

    Impaler wrote: This the the kind of rubbish an administrator should be deleting from the forums, not posting. It’s not even relevant to BB theory.

    Patientman isn’t a system administrator, but [em]is[/em] a paid member of the FFS. In forum terms this just means that they have access to some publishing tools (which paid members hardly ever use)

    But the default setup of the ExpressionEngine installation gives anyone with those (limited) privileges the confusing title of “Administrator”

    … yet another reason why we’ll be migrating the forums to a better engine…

    As the thread isn’t about plasma cosmology I’ll move it to the “Noise” section.

    #13325
    Avatar
    Patientman
    Participant

    Actually, if it is that repulsive and complete garbage, I could see where the whole thread should be deleted. It is good to find garbage and debunk it with strong scientific factual arguments. There are too many (uninformed) people running around asking questions about stuff like this, and it is rarely given a definitive answer, as to why it is crap. I realize experts have more important things to do than work up a small paragraph to state why mysticism and poor science creates many bad Public Relations nightmares on science. Putting a fire out before it grows is also important.

    Sorry for asking experts.

    #13329
    Avatar
    Ivy Matt
    Participant

    I’m not sure I see what the big deal is. It seems she made an observation, formed a hypothesis, and made a prediction. Her prediction failed to bear out, so she modified her hypothesis based on another observation, and is making tentative predictions based on that. I suppose the (mildly) interesting thing will be to see what she does if this set of predictions fails. Then, again, I’m not exactly sure what she was predicting. Was she predicting that something would happen in the June 11-14 timeframe and/or July 6? If that’s the case, she’s likely to be right. Was she predicting an earthquake in that timeframe? Again, she’s likely to be right. Was she predicting a devastating, headline-grabbing earthquake? In that case, probably not. Anyway, I’m not sure I see the correlation between earthquakes and the orbit of an unobserved planet and/or the magnetic field of a companion star. Even assuming we accept the existence of such things, and the idea that they cause earthquakes, why would they cause earthquakes on certain days and not on others? If she has an actual hypothesis, I think she could do a much better job of stating what it is. Of course, the clearer the hypothesis, the easier it is to falsify.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.