Study claiming planetary alignments do relate to earthquakes on earth (based on official NASA/USGS data:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.2036.pdf

Which is also referring to an earlier study he did:
http://sites.google.com/site/omerbashich/GeoActa.pdf?attredirects=0

The author also claims to provide: "Full disproof of General Relativity Theory by A. Einstein and Quantum Theory by M. Planck"

And even on his main webpage:

"PUBLIC NOTICE: The US Government stole this multibillion idea from me, and protected it under its name in a record-breaking time, within a year since I published the idea in my PhD thesis. They played dirty afterwords too: USPTO dragged my patent application for nearly five years, "lost" my filings/amendments a dozen times, provided wrong instructions at least four times, etc. Even prior to the theft, my PhD thesis final draft "got lost" in the US mail, thus extending my defense for more than half a year. Two PhD committees had resigned, and many other "nuisances" occurred along the way as well. Those included harassment by Canadian & US police, SWAT team with dogs and automatic weapons breaking in my apartment at 4 am, cops pulling me over and searching the vehicle and me (often at gunpoint with hands up, sometimes twice in a same day) over a hundred times during the last two years of my PhD, and other forms of pressure to leave my studies. In late Fall of 2010, USPTO has admitted that my PhD thesis idea is identical to what the Government had patented soon after my oral exam."

Wow.

@MikeB

Wow indeed. You've dug up another Sitchin! Well Done! Have A Cookie!

For your information, that crank's 'credentials' are false. For a start, there is no such thing as the 'European Royal Society', because there is no Royal House of Europe to create such a thing. Nor is this fellow mentioned anywhere on the University of Sarajevo's (that he claims to work at) website. So, he's a liar to start off.

Secondly, his data is based on 'official NASA data', yes. But is his article peer-reviewed? No! Does he even reference any peer-reviewed literature? No! For crying out loud, he even routinely refers to Nibiru alignments as if they actually matter! Notice how we're back to the Nibiru fiction, though. That's what this is all really about, isn't it? All science can go hang, if only your apocalypse can be proved right.



Thirdly - a full 'disproof' of Einstein and Planck? Then he's found the Unified Field Theory?

Then why does he not publish it?

What, is he afraid someone'll steal it?

If he's actually done it, he'll be dining out at all the best restaurants on the after-dinner speech money alone! Patents won't matter a damn. But he hasn't done it. Which is why he won't submit his equations. And why he won't submit to peer review. Typical crank.


And finally, he's also exhibiting the classic signs of paranoid projection (the USPO is out to get me!), along with the usual denial and distortion symptoms common to such cranks. Quite sad, really.



Now, I would refer you to the vast body of geological work that indicates *no* link between planetary or cometary alignments and earthquakes. Its plate tectonics. We've read your Nibiru rubbish on goodness knows how many .pdf files littered around the dark corners of the internet. Time for you to do some reading.

Try to keep an open mind.

@T-J

Quote:

We gravitationists have no problem admitting that our current theory isn't complete

Quote:

In short, pardon me, but I think I'm just going to put your magnetic theory in the bin

I already stated that's fine with me as long as you can accept I will stick to my believes.

And remember what other gravitationists say, from the most popular science magazine of Australia:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/4248/the-magnetic-universe

"We live in a magnetic universe, but much about magnetism at cosmic scales remains unknown."

"This prediction was confirmed in 1949, when two American astronomers, John Hall and William Hiltner, published back-to-back research papers showing that magnetism in space lines up interstellar dust grains like tiny compass needles. "

"The Milky Way's magnetism seems to have a rough overall spiral shape, broadly related to its glowing spiral pattern of stars and gas."

"More broadly, we now appreciate that understanding the cosmos is impossible without understanding magnetism."

"On the largest scales, much of the universe's mass consists of charged particles, whose movements are completely enslaved by whatever magnetism surrounds them. "

"And on the very largest scales, there have been tentative reports that the entire universe is magnetised. "

"Underpinning all this is a serious problem: we simply don't know what created this cosmic magnetism, or how it has maintained its strength over billions of years."

Comments?

@MikeB

1949, eh. I see you're right up on the bleeding edge of current research there. Quit quote-mining pop-science magazines, read some recent papers, link me to them and then we can have a discussion about modern physics.

Which, by the way, does incorporate all the ideas your pop-science article puts forward. We know about magnetism! As BrianK has explained repeatedly, we've even got its equation. That's how we know gravity dominates over it.

Now, why don't you answer some points?

If the inverse-square law is false, how do you describe the loss of force due to magnetism and/or gravity over distance?

If the solar system is dominated by magnetism, why do we have planets tilted on their axes, 'upside-down' with respect to the sun's magnetic field, and even non-magnetic planets like Mars and Venus?

Again, if its magnetic, why has the system not responded in any way to the 50% weakening in the sun's field over the past 22 years?

If magnetism dominates, why does a weight-loaded dice show skewed results, where a magnet-loaded dice remains fair?

...and so on.

You can't, and neither can your new best mate Memsur.

Last edited by T-J on 28-Apr-2011 at 01:03 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 28-Apr-2011 at 01:02 AM.

@T-J

That Cosmic feature article is from 20 april 2011! Read and why not read the above study as well and try to destroy it based on its contents?

BTW, the coming months I will be helping (just a little) my wife with a study regarding medicin she is doing at the Academic Hospital Groningen (now UMCG). I know it's totally unrelated but still something I would like to point out because you sometimes want to portray me as a stupid person.

Last edited by MikeB on 28-Apr-2011 at 01:05 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

That Cosmic feature article is from 20 april 2011! Read and why not read the above study as well and try to destroy it based on its contents?

I did read the article. That's how I know that its contents are already accounted for in modern physics.

And as for the above study? Its another Nibiru one! We've already demolished that bunk, about six times now! As I said, it reveals that this entire 'magnetism' rag is nothing more than a smokescreen to let you sneak Nibiru back into astronomy through the back door.


Shall I demolish it again?

Nibiru can't be detected by its gravity, can't be detected by its magnetism, can't be detected by its light and can't be detected by its blocking out the sun.

It also has no effect on tides, but magically causes earthquakes.

It is completely impossible under modern physics, and if you want to prove it does exist, you need to give us a new physics that allows it.

The 'its all magnets' theory fails to replace the current physics, as it cannot account for the motion of the planets, nor does it cover mechanics on a sub-planetary scale. It also falls foul of the quantum issue.


And finally, the tidal earthquake thing. Your mate Memsur cloaks his bunk in the veil of respectable science by inconsistently referencing (in some articles, but not others) mainstream geology. In particular, a 2004 study by Cochran, Vidale and Tanaka that found a link between tides and earthquakes at selected subduction zones around the world.

Here's what they actually found:

Quote:

In California, and in fact in most places in the world, the correlation between earthquakes and tides is considerably smaller, Vidale said. In California, tides may vary the rate of earthquakes at most one or two percent; the overall effect of the tides is smaller, he said, because the faults studied are many miles inland from the coast and the tides are not particularly large.

One or two percent. At an outside maximum. This is not the 'disproof of plate tectonics' you wish it was, but unfortunately its just enough fuel to keep the crazies and the purveyors of apocalyptic rubbish like Nibiru frothing for years.

Last edited by T-J on 28-Apr-2011 at 01:24 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 28-Apr-2011 at 01:23 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 28-Apr-2011 at 01:11 AM.

@T-J

Well at least Cosmic acknowledges in conclusion (20 April 2011):

"Overall, we as yet have only the barest understanding of what these celestial magnets look like, let alone what role they have played in the evolution of the cosmos."

That's very close to the opposite stance you take, as someone who thinks everything is well understood by science today regarding universal magnetism (at least you do acknowledge the universal gravity theory is not exact and complete, I give you that).

@MikeB

You're bringing in a completely different area of study now, one where there's just enough uncertainty to hide the bunk behind a smokescreen of doubt.

'Universal magnetism' doesn't work. It doesn't give any answers. We can't predict the orbits of the planets with it. It can't explain their axial tilts. It doesn't explain the orbital distances or speeds. It falls over when you realise that there are non-magnetic planets. It can't be used to reliably launch satellites...

For every flaw in the Theory of Gravity, this magnetism rubbish has a fundamental failure. It can't even explain the movement of a simple loaded dice.

Ah, stuff it. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

Believe whatever you like. Your magnets (may their blessed poles never part) seem to be as much a religion to you as Sitchin was, so here's hoping you find salvation in Their grace.

But Nibiru still doesn't exist.

Last edited by T-J on 28-Apr-2011 at 01:35 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 28-Apr-2011 at 01:32 AM.

@T-J

Quote:

It falls over when you realise that there are non-magnetic planets.

Which one and can you prove this?

Quote:

It can't be used to reliably launch satellites...

Satellites orbit so close to earth gravitational force is most likely still dominant.

@MikeB

Quote:

Which one and can you prove this?

Venus & Mars. You know, those two either side of us. One's what, 300 times weaker than Earth's and the other's 500 times weaker. As measured by satellites placed in their orbit using the Theory of Gravity, I don't mind adding.

In a magnetic solar system, they would not be able to orbit at their current distances without moving much faster than they currently do.

Don't believe me? Then get your equations on here and do the maths!

Quote:

Satellites orbit so close to earth gravitational force is most likely still dominant.

Oh really? Even the satellites we've put around Saturn, Jupiter and the Sun itself? Even the probes that are even now pressing out beyond the heliopause?

And you've still failed to present an alternative to the inverse-square law to describe the loss of force due to electromagnetism and/or gravity over distance, you know.

@Lou

Quote:

Ah but anti-gravity has been theorized.

Ah but conjecture is not confirmation. We've talked about gravity as a force which is a Newtonian concept. More formally under Relatively gravity is a geometrical construct of spacetime itself. Anti-gravity is, in short, impossible. Of course it's hard to prove a nonexistent item. So we are relying on those that claim anti-gravity exists to prove such a thing. To date there is no observational evidence.

Quote:

Again you are introducing complexity when the actual problem is simple. If all objects have gravity then they should attract each other in a plane perpendicular to the force of gravity of the earth.

You want it simple? The two objects orbit or crash into the barycenter point formed by the 2 objects and the earth based upon acceleration, mass, and proximity.

Quote:

That's what I hear when you/anyone mentions gravity. It's a summarized observation.

When measured at a distance utilizing the gravitational force as an average is a matter of convience of calculation. We treat the gravity of earth as a gravity of a point when viewed at a distance. Though the same thing is true concerning electromagnetic so it's not like you're gaining anything by switching one for another.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @BrianK Quote: I can see your confusion as both gravity and electro/magnetic force work on the same proximity. Each decreases it's effects via the inverse square law. I don't think reality works exactly like that for our solar system. For example it makes a difference if you have a permanent magnet and a piece of iron in between or some other material such as the air we breathe:

You are right Newtonian Force calcuation of product of the charges divided by the distance squared is a best case scenario in a 'frictionless' system. Certainly a Jupiter sized sheet of lead between us and the sun would block the sun's magnetic field from the earth.

@MikeB

Quote:

What happens if a massive object slams into for example our moon and changes this momentum? In my model the orbiting will continue, what happens in your model?

Thanks for more evidence that your theory is wrong. A consistent orbit being retained under all circumstances is clearly not correct.

The effect of the impact depends upon the difference in mass, the acceleration of the two objects, and the angle of impact. Depending on how you vary the factors there's a near infinite number of possibilities. F=ma. If a fast enough massive enough object hits the moon it would result in lots of moon dust and no moon. The Newtonia-Einsteinian model clearly makes a more accurate prediction than the Magnets SWAG model.

@T-J

Quote:

you have proposed that not only is the nature of the universe unknown, it is also unknowable

Which is a huge problem as Mike has eliminated the use of science to falsify his hypothesis. One of the requirements of scientific testing is the hypothesis must be falsifiable. Falsifiability is an inherit requirement for the testing of a hypothesis.

Quote:

Since these theories give practical, useful results that even now allow us to put satellites around Saturn and Jupiter, and probes out beyond the heliopause,

And of course find a planet in a solar system from the predictive nature of a gravitional lensing of a star that's about 21,500 Light years away.

@MikeB

Quote:

I already stated that's fine with me as long as you can accept I will stick to my believes.

It's fine you wish to keep to a belief. A belief is acceptance without evidence.

I'll take the blame for not realizing you're a hypocrite . You've asked others to be open and honest. Soon after admit you wish to live in acceptance from ignorance.

Last edited by BrianK on 28-Apr-2011 at 03:45 AM.

@T-J

Quote:

Venus & Mars. You know, those two either side of us. One's what, 300 times weaker than Earth's and the other's 500 times weaker.

So what you are saying is that they do have a magnetic field! Do you understand that that's what you're saying?

How do you know if 1000 times weaker wouldn't already be enough to keep a planet in orbit by a freaking huge and powerful magnet as the sun?

Quote:

In a magnetic solar system, they would not be able to orbit at their current distances without moving much faster than they currently do.

Why?

Actually in my model speed can vary greatly. In the model of universal gravity, the theory would only allow a certain exact speed (based on mass) in combination with a certain exact direction.

Quote:

Oh really? Even the satellites we've put around Saturn, Jupiter and the Sun itself?

For example Stereo A and Stereo B are within earth's orbit and move equally as fast as the earth within the orbit as the earth does. I don't see a lot of thrusters and fuell which would point towards constantly having to compensate for great gravitional problems.



The difference in mass is enormous between the tiny spacecrafts and the earth! In my model very little will be needed to keep things on track.

Last edited by MikeB on 28-Apr-2011 at 09:22 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 28-Apr-2011 at 08:58 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Thanks for more evidence that your theory is wrong. A consistent orbit being retained under all circumstances is clearly not correct.

In my model there is because the sun/earth keeps rotating and the magnetic field remains.

In your model, a slight change in momentum and *boom* the two objects would finally actually slam together like they wanting to since like what seems an enternity starting from since the orbit around each other started.

Last edited by MikeB on 28-Apr-2011 at 09:24 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

And of course find a planet in a solar system from the predictive nature of a gravitional lensing of a star that's about 21,500 Light years away.

It's a purely optical observation, no gravity has actually been measured. Please understand this. With just 100% pure observation it's possible to predict behaviour. If you know the speed and orbit predicting future behaviour is mere kid's play without any knowledge about any of Einstein's theories. In fact it has been done since thousands of years before Isaac Newton was even born.

@BrianK

Quote:

It's fine you wish to keep to a belief. A belief is acceptance without evidence. I'll take the blame for not realizing you're a hypocrite . You've asked others to be open and honest. Soon after admit you wish to live in acceptance from ignorance.

Everything is based on believe. Do we live in a Matrix (as in like in the movie I mean)? No, I believe not. Can I prove this. No.

Do I believe the soul can be seperated from the body? Yes, I believe this is possible. Can I prove this through physical measurements. No, I cannot.

Quote:

I'll take the blame for not realizing you're a hypocrite . You've asked others to be open and honest. Soon after admit you wish to live in acceptance from ignorance.

If you run out of arguments (even with likes of Einstein on your side!) I don't think you should resort to this kind of behaviour.

Last edited by MikeB on 28-Apr-2011 at 09:16 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Everything is based on believe.

Sorry belief requires no evidence. Scienctific acceptance does require evidence. Science requires inductive reasoning. People do use it for belief but it's clearly not a requirement.

Quote:

Quote: I'll take the blame for not realizing you're a hypocrite . You've asked others to be open and honest. Soon after admit you wish to live in acceptance from ignorance. If you run out of arguments (even with likes of Einstein on your side!) I don't think you should resort to this kind of behaviour.

I've not run out of arguments.

What I have done is face the honesty of the situation. (you wanted honesty right) You've asked others to be 'open'. We've considered and provided you observational information relating to your claim. Your result was not openess it was rejection of observation resulting in you keeping an unsupported and unsupportable position, aka belief. Because MikeB feels this way is not an argument and it's all you have.