Re: Dew Point Theory Paper (nonsense - not entirely)
gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry)
Sat, 25 Jan 1997 20:05:15 -0300
In article
,
timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>In article ,
>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>
>> With each new hypothesis, some pieces of a hypothesis may not be
>> possible based on currently known laws, etc. Because of this, a large
>> flurry of objections would be voiced. Then, depending on the
>> backbone of the originator and depending on how much time that person
>> wanted to spend on seeing it thru, it may get dropped all together.
>> And if that hypothesis was true, then we all lose out.
>
>But if a hypothesis is true, then it would not have those kinds of holes
>in it to begin with. And if the objections were answered in a
>convincing way, then the hypothesis would eventually be accepted.
>Can you name any hypothesis that went through the kind of
>process you described?
How about Edison and Wegener.
>> Another viewpoint would be that some pieces of a rejected hypothesis
>> put together with other pieces of other hypothesis could be the key
>> to new doors. Hopefully, some people do keep some of the points of
>> various rejected hypothesis for further research.
>
>Systems of ideas tend to work together in nicely interlinked ways.
>I don't believe the idea that you can mix and match bits and pieces
>of hypotheses to come up with meaningful new ideas. Can you name
>any instances where this has occurred? (If there are any, I'd surely
>like to know about them!)
First you say one thing and then reverse yourself. Which is it.
Dennis
Re: Tidal Influence Time - West Coast
gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry)
Sat, 25 Jan 1997 20:05:33 -0300
In article , jewett@netcom.com (Bob Jewett) wrote:
>Dennis Gentry (gentryd@pipeline.com) wrote:
>
>: In my opinion, I believe that what Tim experienced that started
>: his research was due to an increased magnetic field being generated by
>: a quake that's close to its breaking point. As water is a diamagnetic
>: substance which is repelled by a magnetic field, it follows that the
>: areas with a high enough increased magnetic field would be dry.
>
>You're kidding, right? If not, please get help with this sort of thing.
No, I'm not kidding.
Please tell me that water isn't a diamagnetic substance and that
the University of Tokyo did not part water with a magnetic field.
In addition I've also posted in the past of two occurrences where
storms were delayed once by a pair of 3.8 quakes and by a 4.5
quake.
Actually I'm also getting ready to perform a few experiments
to find out how large the magnetic field needs to be in order
to affect varying levels of moisture in the air. I'm just waiting
on some parts.
>: Sure the earths normal magnetic field is only about .00005 Tesla,
>: but who knows how high it can get. But then again, it isn't known
>: if it preceeds all quakes or only a subset of quakes in certain
>: areas.
>
>You seem to have been making this sort of mistake ever since you
>misquoted the field anomalies associated with Loma Prieta.
What misquote? When I said 600 percent instead of 600 times? Big deal.
>I'm willing to bet that the ambient magnetic field averaged over a
>square kilometer has never been observed to vary by more than 10%.
>.000055 Tesla is a long way from 5.0.
And where the heck are you getting the 5.0 figure and whats that got
do with the .00005 Tesla.
And BTW, its .00005 Tesla, not .000055. At least according to
my encyclopedia where its talking about the Meissner Effect and
Type II Superconductors.
But your probably right as far as your location where the strength of
the magnetic field is weaker near the magnetic equator and increases
in strength the closer you get to the magnetic poles.
>Do you have any references to more significant changes?
I've posted it several times, but I guess you've ignored those
postings which was from a report in the 1/4/96 LA Times. That
is where the "600 times" figure came from. If the LA Times is
wrong, then I am wrong.
Actually, I'm not in the habit of making things up. Only if its a
reputable source, will I post the information. Maybe the LA Times
isn't the Journal Science, but they usually are pretty accurate in
what they report.
Dennis
Re: Dew Point Theory Paper (nonsense - not entirely)
gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry)
Sat, 25 Jan 1997 20:04:55 -0300
In article ,
LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) wrote:
>In article ,
>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>
>>With each new hypothesis, some pieces of a hypothesis may not be
>>possible based on currently known laws, etc. Because of this, a large
>>flurry of objections would be voiced. Then, depending on the
>>backbone of the originator and depending on how much time that person
>>wanted to spend on seeing it thru, it may get dropped all together.
>>And if that hypothesis was true, then we all lose out.
>
>No, the key question is, does this new hypothesis reliably and accurately
>predict observable phenomena? If a new hypothesis contradicts current
>theory, its proponent will need to demonstrate not only that it predicts
>the observed phenomena, but also that it does so *better* than existing
>theory. However, the objections to the "heresy" will be silenced by the
>simple act of presenting data which supports the hypothesis.
Which I also support. Problem with that train of thought is that
Tim can post all the supporting information that he wants. But then
somebody has got to sit down and verify it.
Will you do that or will you still be a pain in the neck among
other areas.
>The point I have repeatedly made, and which both you and Tim have
>consistently ignored,
Seems that you've ignored some of the points that I've made in
the past.
>is that Tim's hypothesis, as it is currently
>formulated -- not as you might speculate that he could conceivably
>modify it -- fails miserably to predict observed phenomena. If 3 days
>without dew is sufficient to produce a 3.5 quake, what would you get
>from 3 weeks without dew? You should at least rattle a few windows,
>but those quakes just don't happen in places where Tim predicts that
>they should.
Now please re-read what I posted before.
>>Another viewpoint would be that some pieces of a rejected hypothesis
>>put together with other pieces of other hypothesis could be the key
>>to new doors. Hopefully, some people do keep some of the points of
>>various rejected hypothesis for further research.
>
>Tim has not presented any evidence that any PART of his hypothesis has
You've seemed to ignored the list of references that he's posted at
the end of theory. Isn't that evidence?
>any merit. Dewless nights simply don't correlate with earthquakes, and
Maybe, maybe not. Don't get me wrong. I'm not supporting Tims theory
until I myself see the supporting data. But I also can't say that the
theory is wrong just because I don't see the supporting data.
Recently, Lucy posted a hypothesis that somebody else had formulated
saying that quakes may not be predictable because the length of the
break would vary. I know I'm not saying it in exactly the words
that she used, but thats not the point here.
At this point that theory is all speculation, yet I've only seen
posts asking for more information. Nothing about it being all
BS.
Dennis
