Haig and his Sun caused earthquakes

Haig said:
Oh dear, did you actually read this?

Discussion



Oh dear, did you actually read this? HERE

Oh dear, did you actually read this? HERE


leonAzul taking ALL the above it's hard not to see the "connection" between our variable Sun and the triggering of earthquakes, volcanoes and major weather events here on Earth as the hypothesis is suggesting, imho :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

First of all, if you look at the data, the "connection" between solar flux and lightning incidence is tenuous at best, and only demonstrated in the vicinity of the British Isles. Indeed, the authors acknowledge the limitations of this survey and recommend further studies with the improved system that was implemented after the study was concluded.

I must be too slow and stupid to make the connection between lightning and earthquakes. You'll need to spell that one out for me. :D
 
leonAzul said:
First of all, if you look at the data, the "connection" between solar flux and lightning incidence is tenuous at best, and only demonstrated in the vicinity of the British Isles. Indeed, the authors acknowledge the limitations of this survey and recommend further studies with the improved system that was implemented after the study was concluded.
Click to expand...


Oh dear, did you actually read ALL of this?

I must be too slow and stupid to make the connection between lightning and earthquakes. You'll need to spell that one out for me. :D
Click to expand...

Well leonAzul I can only agree with you but knowing that ... you must realise there are limits :dl:
 
Haig said:
Hey tusenfem, maybe you should think again about this "magnetic reconnection" model :D

The serious problem with "reconnection" theory and the sun.
Click to expand...

Mr. Mozina is, as usual (oh how well we knew him), wrong.
The paper that he claims to debunk magnetic reconnection (as in the link you quoted) is discussing convection velocities in the outer third of the Sun's body. The results have absolutely nothing to do with reconnection.
Mr. Mozina is making things up as he goes, naturally already knowing everything and allegedly having discussed it with Tom Bridgeman.
 
Matthew Cline said:
Making science understandable to a lay audience is a different skill than actually doing science. If you think there's a problem in science being understood, the solution would be to earmark a certain percentage of scientific funding for science communication.
Click to expand...

That would not work. If they do not say what Haig and his ilk want them to say, and they will not, it will be dismissed as propaganda. And the public will be none the wiser.
 
Haig said:
The serious problem with "reconnection" theory and the sun.
Click to expand...
Hey, Haig: Why are you linking to the ignorant and even deluded posts on a forum at the crank Thunderbolts web site?

We have met the actually deluded and ignorant "the Sun has a solid iron surface" Michael Mozina before on this forum.

Of course we know that like Davidson and U-yen
27 August 2015 Haig: Can you understand that an EU conference speaker (Ben Davidson) is deluded?
27 August 2015 Haig: Can you understand that an EU conference speaker (Dr. Kongpop U-yen) is deluded?
you are so in denial of science that you have fallen for the delusions of the Thunderbolts authors. That would explain the unthinking parroting of other Thunderbolts followers such as Davidson.
:dl:
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Update on our variable star and a generous invitation ...
Click to expand...
Haig: 14 delusions about the Sun and earthquakes since 4 May 2015
Another 8 questions about ignorance and/or delusions to be added to that list tomorrow :jaw-dropp!.
They have been hanging around for a week but we all know that Haig is incapable of understanding basic facts (EU conference speakers mark themselves as deluded by speaking at a crank conference!) or acknowledging real world science, e.g. the science that the Sun does not cause earthquakes was cited to him months ago. Even so I will give him another day to reply.
 
Haig said:
It's an electromagnetic coupling that's being proposed as explained here ...

EARTHSPOTS: Storms and Earthquakes [Update]

Earthquake and hurricane coupling is ascertained by ground-based laser interferometer and satellite observing techniques pdf

Signatures of ocean storms on seismic records in South China Sea and East China Sea
Click to expand...

No, it is not. All three note that low frequency vibration of large areas of seismically active land disturbs the air above them. There's nothing at all about lightning causing earthquakes.
 
Last edited:
ferd burfle said:
Ouch, Dinwar, that's mighty harsh don't you think? :D:D.
Click to expand...

I saw an article talking about "legless crabs". I knew the author, and the fossils--the concept was insane, and a gross misrepresentation of the fact. The legs had disarticulated from the carapace--like happens 99.999999999% of the time!!! My statement was very, very mild compared to her comments. :D

Actually, I love a good popularization but there aren't very many IMO.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I love listening to good lectures, or watching scientists talk about their work. Many are astonishingly approachable--and the excitement is infectious. Plus, you learn more in ten minutes that way than in ten hours most other ways!
 
tusenfem said:
Mr. Mozina is, as usual (oh how well we knew him), wrong.
The paper that he claims to debunk magnetic reconnection (as in the link you quoted) is discussing convection velocities in the outer third of the Sun's body. The results have absolutely nothing to do with reconnection.
Mr. Mozina is making things up as he goes, naturally already knowing everything and allegedly having discussed it with Tom Bridgeman.
Click to expand...


Well you would say that, wouldn't you :p

Meanwhile Mr. Mozina is still showing up the flaws in mainstream solar theory and Tom Bridgeman :D

Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters.
I turns out that Bridgman is also a complete hypocrite. He desperately wants to write off an entire EU/PC solar model based on some “single mathematical flaw’ that he thinks he might find in some math formula while blatantly ignoring the massive internal problems with his own mathematical model!

He not only misrepresented Birkeland’s statements about "three suns" after effectively ruling two of them out, he’s also a first class hypocrite with respect to his falsified solar convection speed problems. If one mathematical difference between observation and “mathematical prediction’ is all it takes to falsify an entire solar model, then the mainstream solar model is utterly and totally falsified Mr. Bridgman.

Based on the “math flaw” concept, your own mainstream solar model is obviously toasted by that revelation that convection is only 1 percent of the mainstream model.
Click to expand...


So, that's you lot and Mr. Bridgman shown the error of your ways. Will you ever learn? ;)


The Sun and Earthquakes
ABSTRACT
The solar polar fields (SPF) data, as measured by the Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO), has been studied and compared with the large magnitude earthquake record from the United States Geological Survey. The time period covers the 38 years (+13,600 days) that the WSO has collected the SPF data. This study reveals a dependence of M8.0+ seismicity on the oscillations of the SPF; the results and analysis is reported.
Click to expand...
 
Haig said:
Hey tusenfem, maybe you should think again about this "magnetic reconnection" model :D

The serious problem with "reconnection" theory and the sun.
Click to expand...

tusenfem said:
Mr. Mozina is, as usual (oh how well we knew him), wrong.
The paper that he claims to debunk magnetic reconnection (as in the link you quoted) is discussing convection velocities in the outer third of the Sun's body. The results have absolutely nothing to do with reconnection.
Mr. Mozina is making things up as he goes, naturally already knowing everything and allegedly having discussed it with Tom Bridgeman.
Click to expand...


Yes, Michael Mozina has a long and undistinguished history of basing his arguments upon his own misreadings of scientific abstracts and popularizations. In this instance, his argument appears to be based upon nothing more than lexical resemblance between the words convection and reconnection.

Reality Check said:
We have met the actually deluded and ignorant "the Sun has a solid iron surface" Michael Mozina before on this forum.
Click to expand...


Michael Mozina's arguments against magnetic reconnection were so bad and so repetitive that I collected this one-month sample of his errors.

Although it took some work to create that page, it would have been considerably more work to continue to respond to him. Since Mozina's usual mode of argument relied upon repetition combined with increasingly vehement denunciation of everyone who calls attention to his errors, many of his subsequent posts could be countered by citing and linking to that web page.

Haig's mode of argument resembles Mozina's. Here, for example, Haig simply repeats his appeal to Mozina's authority, even after several people had pointed out that basing a scientific argument on Mozina's authority is indistinguishable from relying upon abject ignorance:

Haig said:
Well you would say that, wouldn't you :p

Meanwhile Mr. Mozina is still showing up the flaws in mainstream solar theory and Tom Bridgeman :D

Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters.
Click to expand...
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Yes, Michael Mozina has a long and undistinguished history of basing his arguments upon his own misreadings of scientific abstracts and popularizations. In this instance, his argument appears to be based upon nothing more than lexical resemblance between the words convection and reconnection.


Michael Mozina's arguments against magnetic reconnection were so bad and so repetitive that I collected this one-month sample of his errors.

Although it took some work to create that page, it would have been considerably more work to continue to respond to him. Since Mozina's usual mode of argument relied upon repetition combined with increasingly vehement denunciation of everyone who calls attention to his errors, many of his subsequent posts could be countered by citing and linking to that web page.

Haig's mode of argument resembles Mozina's. Here, for example, Haig simply repeats his appeal to Mozina's authority, even after several people had pointed out that basing a scientific argument on Mozina's authority is indistinguishable from relying upon abject ignorance:
Click to expand...


Thanks for your opinion :) Others see things differently ;)

Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters.
thunderbolts said:
The mainstream community is so ignorant of its own history, that the idea of them collectively believing in a pseudoscience derived from theory rather than empirical science is "absolutely impossible"...despite the fact that it has already happened, and in fact, involves the exact same people: Birkeland, Aflven, and Chapman.

You constantly hear "scientists follow the FACTS, they work on evidence alone and if that evidence tells them something they don't want to hear, they have to change their own beliefs," and yet when you point out the well-known history of AP where this explicitly *did not happen* you're called a conspiracy theorist.

I've been encouraged:
(1) Not to do independent research on Alfven's criticisms of the astrophysical community, or to even read his overall body of work. Same with Birkeland.
(2) Not to analyze this research in the content of decades of primary astrophysical literature, or plasma physics literature, to see *if* Alfven's criticisms are even valid - I don't even assert that they are. I assert that it is of critical importance for an independent party to determine whether it is or not.
(3) Not to take all of the new observational evidence from even the last year, and compare it to Alfven's ideas on galaxy formation or solar system activity.

And yet, these people call themselves scientists. It's really, really intellectually dishonest. There should be no issue, whatsoever, with me doing this research and I should be *encouraged* to do it, so that I can learn on my own. So much for free thinking...
BecomingTesla
Click to expand...


I am surprised to see that Tom Bridgman has taken the time to research Birkeland to the extent he has. Last time I read him, a few years ago, he was so dismissive of EU/PC theory that one would not expect him to continue. He must be feeling the pressure that the truth brings. And I expect much of that pressure comes from you Mr. Mozina.
Keep it up, and thank you for all the extensive and informative posts you provide here on this forum.

Jack
Click to expand...


Looking forward to M Mozina on round 2 :D
 
Haig said:
Looking forward to M Mozina on round 2 :D
Click to expand...


Everyone here already knows how round 2 will play out. Tom Bridgeman will base his arguments on well established science and mathematics; and Michael Mozina will claim that Bridgeman is a “hater”.

Tom Bridgeman will easily win every round.
 
Haig said:
Meanwhile Mr. Mozina is still showing up the flaws in mainstream solar theory and Tom Bridgeman
Click to expand...
Wow- Haig, you cannot understand that a person with the delusion that the Sun gas a solid iron surface is just ranting about the real world in a forum frequented by followers of the Thunderbolts cult :eek:
They are followers of Velikovsky's delusion that planets zoomed around the Solar System to explain various myths in recent times and the extra layer of delusion added by the Thunderbolts authors that results in the EC delusion.

So that statement is obviously a lie.
 
Haig said:
Others see things differently
Click to expand...
What we read, Haig, is a rant by a Thunderbolts cult follower (BecomingTesla) and another cult follower ignorant enough to trust Mozina (Jack).

After almost 10 years Michael Mozina has still not learned basic science.

His web site still has the delusion that images of solar flares from thousands of kilometers above the photosphere and at temperatures above 160,000 K magically became images of iron mountain ranges on the surface (or even below the photosphere!) when made into a running different movie.

Michael Mozina's answer to any mention of valid science is continuously repeating the same mistakes rather than showing the science is wrong. For example his reply to Somov's textbook example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum is the insane assertion over and over again that the example contains plasma because he has the religious belief that MR can only happen in plasma.
 
Haig said:
Well you would say that, wouldn't you :p

Meanwhile Mr. Mozina is still showing up the flaws in mainstream solar theory and Tom Bridgeman :D
Click to expand...
Willful ignorance again, Haig?

MM's rant is devoid of anything scientific; it has nothing which is quantitative and independently verifiable. Tom's blog posts, on the other hand, are both.

That you think otherwise reflects very poorly on your rationality and your learning; after all these years you still cannot see how nonsensical MM's piece is (much less scientific)?

<linkspam omitted>

So, that's you lot and Mr. Bridgman shown the error of your ways. Will you ever learn? ;)
<nonsense boobtube link omitted>
Click to expand...
That's a good question you should be asking yourself, Haig! :D Continue on the path of blindly linkspamming this forum, or educate yourself on the Sun, earthquakes, and the relevant physics?

In a link in MM's rant, there's a particularly telling exchange between Leif Svalgaard and Steven, not unlike many here, with you Haig.

At one point, Steven writes "Here read all the numbers you want:" (I omitted the link), and Leif replies: "None of these number are calculated from EU theory. They are either observed or calculated from standard theories, or at times wrong. If you disagree, show me which numbers are calculated from EU theory, and how." Needless to say, after what seems like hundreds more posts/exchanges, Steven produced exactly what MM has in his thousands of posts ... nothing.
 
Haig said:
Professional misconduct with respect to public EU/PC haters.

Looking forward to M Mozina on round 2
Click to expand...

I don't know who BecomiingTesla talked to but

BT said:
I've been encouraged:
(1) Not to do independent research on Alfven's criticisms of the astrophysical community, or to even read his overall body of work. Same with Birkeland.
(2) Not to analyze this research in the content of decades of primary astrophysical literature, or plasma physics literature, to see *if* Alfven's criticisms are even valid - I don't even assert that they are. I assert that it is of critical importance for an independent party to determine whether it is or not.
(3) Not to take all of the new observational evidence from even the last year, and compare it to Alfven's ideas on galaxy formation or solar system activity.
Click to expand...

But this goes against anything plasma astrophysics stands for, heck, mainstream physics stands for. Although he may have been discouraged because this person knew that BT does not know even the basics of plasma physics?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom