catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 37,282
He hasn't even provided evidence that there is a correlation. For example 1976 was geomagnetically quiescent but tectonically active, while 1882 saw the most intense solar activity ever seen (since 1755 when modern solar cycles and sunspot numbers began to be recorded) but tectonically very quiet.Now, I'm not Einstein here chaps; however, can we sum this thread up as; some eejit has said there is a correlation between solar activity and earthquakes?
He has not provided a mechanism for this correlation?Ergo, all future discussion is pointless, due to said eejit who proposed the idea having no mechanism to explain it. At that point it becomes a circular argument.
At this point it is not only not a "theory", it is not even an hypothesis. It is worse than voodoo.
So until said eejit provides a mechanism, this is a dead thread; it has ceased to be, it's gone to meet its maker.
Haig hasn't shown there is a correlation, let alone any putative causative mechanism.
I feel it is therefore right and proper to reject his hypothesis.

.