Re: seismology and solar flare prediction

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:34:05 GMT, in sci.geo.earthquakes, Wally Anglesea™
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 17:49:28 +0000 (UTC), "Michael Mcneil"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>"Timberwoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> That's pretty interesting. I've never heard of these objections. Could 
>>> you explain the Doppler theory and why you doubt it so much?
>>I'll do my best but first you go through the post on the "Sorry I Was
>>Wrong" thread; follow the links I gave and do a run like the one I did
>>for 1992.
>>
>>Pick any fairly recent year (because of the paucity of reliable
>>information from further back) and match consecutive phases by dividing
>>the time of the phases by three*.
>>
>>Ignore the minutes as far as the division is concerned; however,
>>matching the minutes is also important. The quarter “to” and “past” the
>>hour are similar, as they tend to produce breezy weather here -and
>>although the type of weather is substantially affected by the occurrence
>>or likelihood of so called natural disasters, this influence for wind is
>>constant.
>>
>>The nearer the minutes are to “half past,” the more likelihood of an
>>“event” but I am not very sure about the effect they have on the weather
>>here.
>>
>>*One gets a better picture for the weather for my region of the UK by
>>dividing by six as (in summer especially) the phases that occur at 12
>>and 6 (am and pm) tend to produce cooler, overcast -even misty weather,
>>whilst 3 and 9 produce humid and thundery weather. Obviously there is a
>>similar amount of cloud produced in both cases.
>>
>>Concerning your post on that thread, I spent hours that night putting
>>that together. I didn't know where to find the lists I needed and I
>>have yet to include the volcanic activities and the so called enso/lnso
>>effects.
>>
>>I would like to give only the magnitude 7 and up quakes.
>>
>>I am not counting as proof, the ones I did include that were below the
>>desired threshold. On the other hand, having a system for only
>>forecasting quakes of the magnitude that should be life threatening is
>>not good enough when lower magnitude quakes are still killing people,
>>due to the way things are in this the only planet where life is known.
>
>
>oOthing of which explains why you doubt Doppler shift.
>
>Do you know why the stars are different magnitudes? We shall proceed
>from there to cepheid variables, thence to redshift measurements, and
>onwards.
>
>If you have an alternate mechanism for the intrinsic values of stellar
>magnitudes, and cepheid variables and their periods or magnitude
>variations, then I'm all ears.

I want him to explain RR taurids variables.


-- 
Aktohdi