Debate OWS forecasts

Southern California and far-away places. Hiking, wildlife, cycling etc.

Debate OWS forecasts

Postby OntarioWeatherService » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:45 pm

This is where people are trying to debate my knowledge in Southern California weather.
Last edited by OntarioWeatherService on Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
www.ontarioweatherservice.com

Admin note: This is a private weather forecasting service and is not associated with National Weather Service or Ontario International Airport.
User avatar
OntarioWeatherService
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:01 am

Postby AlanK » Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:01 pm

Kevin -- In comparing yourself to Michael Mojarro, you pointed out that you had taken a couple of courses on meterology and therefore had a better education in the subject. As you know, meteorology is a science. Advances in the field are and vetted through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. They are thoroughly criticized and tested by experts. That is all part of the practice of the scientific method.

Since you are proud of your scientific education, you will appreciate what you should do in the case of your earthquake work. If you believe that you have made a major advance in geophysics -- and being able to predict earthquakes reliably would be a huge such advance -- you need to submit your work to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Argue it with people who know the subect and can criticize if from positions of strength. In your case, your calculatons are exceedingly simple on the scale of what scientists typically encounter. That is not bad, it is a strength -- if they work. If they work, no one will be able to hide that fact.

Selling your work on this Internet Message Board, or to the Desert Sun or other newspaper is not the right approach. Take this to people who know the subject you're dealing with. Let us hear about it afterwards.

If you end up being right, the rewards will be huge -- for everyone. If you are wrong -- well, most proposed scientific advances are wrong. That's life!
User avatar
AlanK
 
Posts: 855
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Glendale, CA

Postby Perry » Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:11 pm

Most journalists are not qualified to evaluate new theories in science because it's not something they specialize in. Instead, they look at what scientists say about other scientists. Alternatively, they can report results that everybody can understand. For example, if you can predict earthquakes 30 minutes to 2 hours in advance, that would definitely get people's attention. Where are you getting this data?
Perry
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:01 pm
Location: The Desert

Postby Perry » Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:20 pm

If I understand this right, your data is based entirely on astronomy charts. But are there any earthquakes that occur when you don't see significant fluctuations in theta? And how many times do we see significant fluctuations in theta and have no earthquake. I notice on the chart for the Indonesia quake that something similar happened 4.5 hours prior. Does this happen every day?
Perry
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:01 pm
Location: The Desert

Postby OntarioWeatherService » Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:10 am

Hard for my to say, however with weather, thunderstorms can be formed in different ways.

So quakes are the same way. Low pressure can cause them, rain into the ground water can also make faults slip..Geomagnetics as well. Ear tones people here. A bunch of stuff contributes to quakes and can be used as a prediction method just as weather is.

The magnetic field is what I'm getting at. The readings come from a satellite called ACE that measures incoming particles. These charge the magnetic field.
www.ontarioweatherservice.com

Admin note: This is a private weather forecasting service and is not associated with National Weather Service or Ontario International Airport.
User avatar
OntarioWeatherService
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:01 am

Postby physicslord » Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:48 am

Okay Kevin,

How do you explain the fact than an extremely large earthquake, like the magnitude 8 or greater quakes in Indonesia, produce shock waves that travel all the way through the earth, but require extremely sensitive scientific equipment to detect and are not felt by anyone on the other side.

In other words, if a small movement of the core produces a quake of magnitude 8, how come a quake of magnitude 8 does not produce a noticeable quake on the other side of the earth?

If the energy can be transferred so efficiently one way, why does it not work the other way?

The plate tectonic theory is all that is needed to explain any earthquake, since fault movement has been clearly measured after all earthquakes I know of.
physicslord
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:37 pm

Postby physicslord » Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:55 am

Let me just clarify what I'm saying.

Here's what your theory says:

The core moves 1 inch towards Indonesia. It causes a magnitude 8 there.

When the core rebounds, why is there not an additional magnitude 8 on the exact opposite side of the earth a second later???

Or do you mean to imply that this magnetic field abruptly moves the core to cause a shock wave that moves efficiently (in only one preferred direction mind you and not radially as you would expect), affects only one tiny localized area on the crust compared to the size of the shock wave, and then under all circumstances gently replaces the core to it's former position causing no further disruption.

Think about what your theory implies. It does not compute!
physicslord
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:37 pm

Postby HikeUp » Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:18 pm

physicslord:

You weren't silly enough to actually click on the links to his website were you? :roll:
HikeUp
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:17 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Postby OntarioWeatherService » Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:45 pm

I'm saying that the core material is attracted toward the charged magnetic field. It sends out a wave, like an ocean tsunami out in the direction of attraction. The core does not need to rebound it's self. It may swing to one side and kinda rebound slowly.

Sometimes, opposite side of the world quakes do happen if the core snap is strong enough when it could rebound. Not unheard of but it's possible.

I've been studying quakes for a very long time and what may cause them. I have 2 theories I developed. One weather, One Space weather. Each in the category I expert at..."Weather"

If one of these core tsunami's makes it to the crust it could cause a weakening in the faults, therefore a quake trigger.

If they hit a magma chamber, they could make the magma level rise faster, like tsunamis here on Earth.
www.ontarioweatherservice.com

Admin note: This is a private weather forecasting service and is not associated with National Weather Service or Ontario International Airport.
User avatar
OntarioWeatherService
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:01 am

Postby physicslord » Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:31 pm

OntarioWeatherService wrote:The core does not need to rebound it's self. It may swing to one side and kinda rebound slowly.

Sometimes, opposite side of the world quakes do happen if the core snap is strong enough when it could rebound. Not unheard of but it's possible.


And thus the problem. In your theory, magnetic fields are allowed to increase in strength so rapidly, that the core creates a shock wave as it responds. But paradoxically, magnetic fields do not decrease in strength as rapidly. As you say it "may swing to one side and kinda rebound slowly".

If this is to explain earthquakes, then answer why does it react so suddenly and then rebound so slowly?

If you wish to allow them to rapidly rebound with the same speed under some circumstances, then why do we not see earthquakes on opposite sides of the earth with the same magnitude?
physicslord
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:37 pm

Next

Return to Outdoors-Related Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron