PDA

View Full Version : Comet Elenin Confirmed to be causing Earthquakes?



vasotech
2011-May-16, 09:41 PM
Honestly, I hate believing in conspiracies... But this one is tough to just push aside.

I have been doing some research on Comet Elenin, trying to keep a straight head about it & not get into any "Nibiru", "Doomsday" crap, or anything like that...

But studies conducted at Cornell (I realize not performed by an actual Cornell professor or whatever) conclude that Elenin may be causing Earthquakes with every alignment.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1104.2036

Furthermore,

Leonid Elenin himself has written a blog post on his personal blog were he shows that Earthquakes have been happening during Elenin-Earth alignments.

http://spaceobs.org/en/2011/04/21/is-there-a-relationship-between-the-conjunctions-of-comet-elenin-and-earthquakes-on-earth/

Note that these alignments have been while Elenin was very far away.

In Oct-Nov when Elenin reaches perihelion, what sort of Earthquakes do you guys think it will cause?

I have been researching Earth-Jupiter alignment Earthquakes for some time now and have collected much data leaving me to believe that celestial bodies can and do have a seismic effect on our Earth. (Besides the point...)

What's even more interesting is that years ago when I was heavily researching 2012 and the Mayan theory, I came across scientists that claim that December 21, 2012.... Is actually October 28, 2011 when translated to our current calender system.

http://www.calleman.com/content/articles/end_of_creationcycles.htm

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that.

Well, I hope this thread gets approved so I can talk with some real astronomers about this and get real opinions. I hated to even post this in the Conspiracy forum because I think all of the data I have presented is proven for the most part...

FYI - You can view Dr Mensur's official website here: http://sites.google.com/site/omerbashich/

E d u c a t i o n
• PhD theoretical geophysics (under Petr Vaníček) - UNB
• MSc space geodesy (by transfer to PhD) - UNB, Canada
• Advanced CADD - MIT, Cambridge Massachusetts, USA

But anyways, Peace & Love to you all.

Vaso

LaurelHS
2011-May-16, 10:16 PM
Leonid Elenin himself has written a blog post on his personal blog were he shows that Earthquakes have been happening during Elenin-Earth alignments.
I'm not a scientist, but just because those two things happened at the same time does not prove they were related.

Gillianren
2011-May-16, 10:51 PM
If a comet were capable of causing earthquakes from far away, what would the Moon do?

Luckmeister
2011-May-16, 10:54 PM
If a comet were capable of causing earthquakes from far away, what would the Moon do?

Good point Gillian!

6.0 or higher earthquakes occur somewhere on Earth almost every day. An offshore area near the Solomon Islands experienced one with a magnitude of 6.5 yesterday. You usually don't hear about these on the news, if a populous area wasn't affected. I only knew about it because I subscribe to an earthquake notification service. I think a comet would have to be very close to trigger a release of seismic stress.

Amber Robot
2011-May-16, 10:58 PM
In Oct-Nov when Elenin reaches perihelion, what sort of Earthquakes do you guys think it will cause?


None.

Why would comet Elenin cause earthquakes, but no other comet?

This is numerology at best.

moog
2011-May-16, 10:58 PM
Leonid Elenin himself has written a blog post on his personal blog were he shows that Earthquakes have been happening during Elenin-Earth alignments.

I'm sure there have been. Just as there have been when there was not an 'alignment'.
You will be hard pressed to find any day when there has not been many earthquakes somewhere.

Van Rijn
2011-May-16, 11:31 PM
Honestly, I hate believing in conspiracies... But this one is tough to just push aside.

I have been doing some research on Comet Elenin, trying to keep a straight head about it & not get into any "Nibiru", "Doomsday" crap, or anything like that...

But studies conducted at Cornell (I realize not performed by an actual Cornell professor or whatever) conclude that Elenin may be causing Earthquakes with every alignment.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612177


Could you give a reference to what page number this statement is on, and a bit of the text? I've scanned the article, and it appears to be suggesting that the Moon could have some effect on earthquakes. The Moon is, of course, far closer, and far more massive than Comet Elenin. I couldn't find any reference to Comet Elenin.




Furthermore,

Leonid Elenin himself has written a blog post on his personal blog were he shows that Earthquakes have been happening during Elenin-Earth alignments.

http://spaceobs.org/en/2011/04/21/is-there-a-relationship-between-the-conjunctions-of-comet-elenin-and-earthquakes-on-earth/

Note that these alignments have been while Elenin was very far away.


He just lists some earthquakes and says "No comments, your can make own conclusions…" My conclusion is that it is a useless article. After all, he could have listed gun shootings, tornadoes, car accidents, or pretty much anything, but it doesn't matter unless there is some good evidence provided that they occur because of the comet.

Garrison
2011-May-16, 11:39 PM
If comets generated such destructive gravitational forces then how come the likes of Stardust (http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html), Deep Impact (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/main/), and Giotto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giotto_%28spacecraft%29) all survived close encounters?

vasotech
2011-May-17, 12:13 AM
Could you give a reference to what page number this statement is on, and a bit of the text? I've scanned the article, and it appears to be suggesting that the Moon could have some effect on earthquakes. The Moon is, of course, far closer, and far more massive than Comet Elenin. I couldn't find any reference to Comet Elenin. He just lists some earthquakes and says "No comments, your can make own conclusions…" My conclusion is that it is a useless article. After all, he could have listed gun shootings, tornadoes, car accidents, or pretty much anything, but it doesn't matter unless there is some good evidence provided that they occur because of the comet.

I apologize for posting the wrong link in the original post!

Here is the correct link: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1104.2036

I have also updated it in the first post.

This article is Elenin-Specific.

Looking forward to hearing your opinions on this matter.

Vaso

LaurelHS
2011-May-17, 12:27 AM
Dr. Mensur Omerbashich referencing the Bilderberg Group and the Illuminati and Zionist conspiracies and Knights Templar on his personal site doesn't exactly make him look credible. Nor do his allegations that Cornell University and NASA are conspiring against him. What is his doctorate in, just out of curiousity?

vasotech
2011-May-17, 12:30 AM
Dr. Mensur Omerbashich referencing the Bilderberg Group and the Illuminati and Zionist conspiracies and Knights Templar on his personal site doesn't exactly make him look credible. Nor do his allegations that Cornell University and NASA are conspiring against him.

I understand your concern, and that does not sit well with me either... however that is besides the point.

Data Is Data.

I know that posting like this here is similar to smashing my face into a brick wall, but I'm asking you to be scientists and look at the data that has been presented here.

R.A.F.
2011-May-17, 12:39 AM
Looking forward to hearing your opinions on this matter.

Pseudo-science at it's worst.

R.A.F.
2011-May-17, 12:40 AM
What is his doctorate in...

Paranoia?? :)

vasotech
2011-May-17, 12:43 AM
I see, so instead of looking over the data and drawing conclusions... We are going to try & discredit the messenger?

Please put all your bias opinions aside and take a hard look at the data.

In my opinion, that is the only unbias thing we have as human beings.

Solfe
2011-May-17, 01:20 AM
If google is to be believed:

E d u c a t i o n
• PhD theoretical geophysics (under Petr Vaníček) - UNB
• MSc space geodesy (by transfer to PhD) - UNB, Canada
• Advanced CADD - MIT, Cambridge Massachusetts, USA

source (http://sites.google.com/site/omerbashich/)

LaurelHS
2011-May-17, 01:26 AM
Sorry. I must have overlooked that when I checked out his site; maybe the paranoid junk made my eyes glaze over or something.

Cobra1597
2011-May-17, 01:27 AM
This doesn't seem to be a study conducted at or by Cornell. It's posted on arXiv, but that's just a site run/hosted by Cornell. People with no connection to Cornell can publish their research on arXiv. I'm studying for finals, so I can't really look at this in any detail (and might not understand it if I did), but I note that the diagrams for orbits at the end of the article have incredibly low resolution. In some cases, the comet moves as much as a full AU between data points. That's an awfully poort set of data, if the diagram is actually showing what he used.

vasotech
2011-May-17, 01:31 AM
Gentlemen, Let's get real.

The "Paranoid Junk" comment is yet another attempt to discredit the messenger.

A buddy of mine here used to tell me that BAUT was all about the "Burden of proof"...

But our friends Leonid Elenin and Dr Mensur Omerbashich have provided the proof.

That is where we currently stand.

FYI - Dr Mensur's website was posted above, but if you missed it - http://sites.google.com/site/omerbashich/

Does he really have a reason to lie?

LaurelHS
2011-May-17, 02:10 AM
I'm not a gentleman, thank you. I don't see definitive proof in Elenin's blog post, I see what looks like the post hoc fallacy at work. As for Dr. Omerbashich, I am not trying to discredit the messenger, but when someone rants about the Illuminati and Zionist conspiracies and freaks out because someone with a military IP visited their site, it doesn't help their case. Dr. Omerbashich would look more credible if he just stated his case and removed the fringe material.

vasotech
2011-May-17, 02:18 AM
Laurel, Obviously you haven't been down enough rabbit holes yet to keep up with Dr. Omerbashich... hehe - Only kidding. :)

The still the problem at hand is this damn comet, and why it's affecting our Earth so much.

Did you guys catch the story about the Chinese scientist stating it could be from Extra Terrestrial origin?

http://noticias.terra.com.ar/cientificos-chinos-dicen-que-detras-de-cometa-viene-un-ovni,42ed4ad9867bf210VgnVCM4000009bf154d0RCRD.html

"Based on reports issued by China's space agency , Sergio Toscano , director of astronomical research in Misiones , says that behind the comet Elenin could be approaching a UFO"


I really wasn't going to go here in fear of being called a lunatic here on BAUT, but what the hell...

What if Our solar friend Comet Elenin isn't a comet after all?


Vaso

NGCHunter
2011-May-17, 02:47 AM
A quote from Leonid Elenin himself during a Russian TV interview (translated roughly into English courtesy of Google):
Leonid Yelenin: "Yes, of course. A discovery of a comet for me was a dream, a dream since childhood. It was accomplished. Of course, I was happy and so on. But now this is happening around my comet. There are, for example, such a letter: "Leonid, tell us the truth. I sell a house, my family and I are leaving for the mountains. " The same hysteria. In this case, the comet, this is absolutely safe for the Earth. It will be held at 34 million kilometers from Earth. "

As pointed out, this so-called "research" was not from Cornell at all. That's akin to saying that a video that had been on the NASA Buzzroom came from NASA itself, or even had NASA's support.

If you want to mine the data for other instances of comets coincidentally lining up with the earth and sun during major earthquakes you can find them, as kamaz has.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/113532-Comet-Elenin-Cause-Of-Earthquakes?p=1862470#post1862470
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/113532-Comet-Elenin-Cause-Of-Earthquakes?p=1862495#post1862495
29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann, for instance, was aligned to the earth and sun to an even greater degree of precision than C/2010 X1 during the Chile and Japan earthquakes. The "alignment" formed by C/2010 X1 was loose at best (nearly 6 degrees different between those quakes). If that's how loose we're going to allow the criteria to be, lots of comets are going to fit the bill, some even better than Elenin.

Gillianren
2011-May-17, 03:21 AM
I'm not a gentleman, either. And I stand by my original question--what's so special about this particular comet that we should believe the earthquakes are anything more than coincidence?

Come to that, aren't two things always in alignment with one another?

grapes
2011-May-17, 03:25 AM
Leonid Elenin himself has written a blog post on his personal blog were he shows that Earthquakes have been happening during Elenin-Earth alignments.

http://spaceobs.org/en/2011/04/21/is-there-a-relationship-between-the-conjunctions-of-comet-elenin-and-earthquakes-on-earth/I've looked at a handful of the illustrations--I don't see very many conjunctions depicted. Which are which? What is the data we're supposed to be looking at?

LaurelHS
2011-May-17, 03:41 AM
The still the problem at hand is this damn comet, and why it's affecting our Earth so much.
No, you're putting the cart before the horse here. You have to prove the comet is actually affecting Earth before getting into the "why" question.

vasotech
2011-May-17, 04:03 AM
Okay Laurel,

I've shown you scientific studies performed by a person with a PhD that is now apparently tracking Comet Elenin and the seismic activity it's producing. (thanks to the members of the BAUT forum for Google'ing his blog)

The only 'proof' is the Leonid Elenin post where he does NOT clearly state that the "Comet" is causing the Earthquakes, but did take the time to collect the data. And our new friend Dr. Omerbashich.

Using this Data, It seems like at least someone would have their interests intrigued and try to investigate further...

grapes
2011-May-17, 04:26 AM
The only 'proof' is the Leonid Elenin post where he does NOT clearly state that the "Comet" is causing the Earthquakes, but did take the time to collect the data.That's the only proof?

Using this Data, It seems like at least someone would have their interests intrigued and try to investigate further...As I said a few posts earlier, I looked at a handful of the charts, and some of them clearly had no alignment at all. Maybe that's what Elenin is trying to say.

Wait a minute. Did you look at that data?

NGCHunter
2011-May-17, 04:32 AM
You have not shown that comet Elenin is producing seismic activity. Why do you ignore the seismic activity "produced" by other comets that show an even stronger correlation of alignment than Elenin? Correlation does not imply causation, that is the key you're overlooking here.

Celestial Mechanic
2011-May-17, 05:04 AM
{Snip!} Did you guys catch the story about the Chinese scientist stating it could be from Extra Terrestrial origin?

{URL snipped.}

"Based on reports issued by China's space agency , Sergio Toscano , director of astronomical research in Misiones , says that behind the comet Elenin could be approaching a UFO" {Snip!}Oh no, not this nonsense, please!

Please, please, please, save the Nikes, purple shrouds and poison oatmeal for another occasion, OK? :doh:

Question: Are Italians actually running the Chinese space program? That's even wackier than a comet being a UFO!

Tensor
2011-May-17, 05:11 AM
I understand your concern, and that does not sit well with me either... however that is besides the point.

Data Is Data.

While data may be data, not all data is of the same value. And the data in that paper is of basically no use when considering the cause of earthquakes. I think, in this case, that this (http://xkcd.com/552/) is extremely appropriate.


I know that posting like this here is similar to smashing my face into a brick wall, but I'm asking you to be scientists and look at the data that has been presented here.

What data? A collection of different positions? While the position are data, it's has no decreeable relation to earthquakes.

What is the precise mechanism of the alignments that causes the earthquakes?

Is it the strength of the gravitational pull (all planets on one side)

or the combined strength of all the planets (the tidal effect)?

What are the strengths of the gravitational pull for each of the alignments?

Were there stronger alignments in the days previous? if so, why were the earthquakes after the alignments?

In the days after? If so, why were the earthquakes prior to the alignments?

What are the positions of the planets above/below the solar plane?

Is there a relation to where, on Earth the earthquakes occur, based on the positions above or below the solar plane?

What mass is he using for the comet calculations?

I've also noticed that that paper claims his table list all the "strong ~(M6) earthquakes for 2010" Interestingly, he lists earthquakes down to a M4.9. Table 1, in that paper, has 90 earthquakes listed.

If you go to this site (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/epic/epic_global.php) select Screen File Format, USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 - 2011 05 15, and then enter 01,01,2010 for the start date, 01,01,2011 for the end date, and select 4.9 for the minimum (the minimum in his table) and 9 for the maximum magnitudes, you will find that there were ~2850 earthquakes of magnitude 4.9 and above in 2010.

So, he listed 90, there were 2850 (there may be a few more or less, I had trouble transferring them to my spreadsheet, but I'll stick with that number). So, there is a difference of 2760 earthquakes. If he could only find a correlation for 90 out of 2850, I think there really wasn't a correlation for those 90 either. Or, what I find more likely, can you say cherry-picked data, I knew you could.

Once you put the rest of the racist, pro conspiracy silliness together with the fact that he thinks he's the King of Bosnia, and his anti-gravity claims (which are as badly supported as his earthquake claims. I'll pass on his earthquake claims. Unless, of course, you want to explain or answer my questions.

AGN Fuel
2011-May-17, 07:29 AM
Well put, Tensor.

Earthquakes occur regularly. 'Alignments' of solar system objects occur regularly. Occasionally, the two sets will intersect. To start to argue causation, you would need to provide a testable mechanism for an earthquake to occur due to the alignment, which also explains the data where either (i) earthquakes occurred when there was no alignment and (ii) there were alignments where earthquakes did not occur.

Jason Thompson
2011-May-17, 07:58 AM
I've shown you scientific studies performed by a person with a PhD that is now apparently tracking Comet Elenin and the seismic activity it's producing.

No, you're still not grasping the difference between correlation and causation. The former does not immediately imply the latter, and proper scientific research does not stop at showing a correlation. It has to continue to establish whether or not there is a causal link. Earthquakes occur a lot on this planet. The number of objects in the solar system makes alignments of some sort very frequent. I frequently eat chocolate. The odds are that an earthquake happens somewhere or an alignment of some collection of objects in the solar system occurs on days I eat a lot of chocolate. That's a correlation, but there is no causal link.

What you have shown is that there are some loose alignments involving the comet on days when earthquakes occur. That does not immediately mean that the comet is causing those earthquakes.


Using this Data, It seems like at least someone would have their interests intrigued and try to investigate further...

Some of us here have. The problem is the difference between what you think should be investigated (why the comet is causing earthquakes) and what a proper scientific enquiry would first investigate (whether the comet is actually causing earthquakes).

Strange
2011-May-17, 08:11 AM
While data may be data, not all data is of the same value.
...
So, he listed 90, there were 2850 (there may be a few more or less, I had trouble transferring them to my spreadsheet, but I'll stick with that number). So, there is a difference of 2760 earthquakes. If he could only find a correlation for 90 out of 2850, I think there really wasn't a correlation for those 90 either. Or, what I find more likely, can you say cherry-picked data, I knew you could.

Exactly.

Unless the other 2760 are caused by other comets... :)

astromark
2011-May-17, 09:29 AM
I have tried very hard to be fair minded and considered all of the information available regarding the passage of comet 'Elenin' through our solar system...
I shall just for fun make a assumption that it is not a comet but is instead a black hole...:razz:and its not that.
For as much as I looked at how could a comet of not some major mass possibly disturb the tectonic plate structure of planet earth.. It could not.
Any such earthquake prediction or event prediction buy the passage of a distant small object is just foolishness to the absurd... No apology offered or implied. I would not offer a insult to the messenger or his followers... the facts do speak for themselves..
No such alignment did occur or will.. No earthquake can be attributed to have been triggered by such a event.

Van Rijn
2011-May-17, 09:41 AM
I apologize for posting the wrong link in the original post!

Here is the correct link: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1104.2036


No problem. Thanks for the corrected link.



This article is Elenin-Specific.


I don't agree. Yes, it does mention Elenin, but that isn't the only thing mentioned in that article.


Looking forward to hearing your opinions on this matter.


Well, he starts out talking about the Moon and Sun (which could make sense to me because their tidal effects are far beyond any other objects in the solar system), but he moves on to what he calls "significant bodies of mass" between the sun and the orbit of Neptune. However, if he explained why he's including a low-mass object like Elenin, I missed it. I did notice that he mentions "gravitational shadowing" and claims this has been demonstrated. In fact, this is a very ATM idea.

I thought this bit was amusing:

"Thus the verification as presented herein is entirely methodological. No statistical testing was done due to relatively small sample sizes."

So, he has a small sample size, and can't support his argument statistically. But wait, it gets better!

"Then in order to empirically verify the georesonator concept, it suffices to show that all strong earthquakes have occurred during the astronomical alignments, and in a self-evident fashion. I arbitrarily select 2010 because it contained the most robust data, presumably due to the proximity of the approaching Elenin."

So, not only is he admitting that he has a small sample size and can't support his argument statistically, he is also admitting that he is making an arbitrary choice and is ignoring data that doesn't support his claim! He's picking easily adjustable criteria (whatever an alignment is supposed to be), he's choosing the data, and claiming its validity. He's making classic blunders, but the amazing thing is he's admitting to them. (Oh, and by the way, what is "self-evident" about any of his claims?)


In his conclusion he claims:

"The Earth's strong seismicity is unrelated to tectonics, and they both arise due to the same external (astronomical) causes."

Wow. He isn't just saying that ET objects could have an influence on geology. Rather, he seems to be claiming they are the sole cause. Still, he also says:

"Approximate [earth quake] forecast is feasible in time, location and magnitude."

So, he's making a claim that his system can lead to useful predictions. That at least is a testable claim. If he actually does start making useful predictions, then it might be worthwhile revisiting his ideas. Until that happens - if it ever happens - I don't see any reason to take him seriously.

Van Rijn
2011-May-17, 10:13 AM
"Then in order to empirically verify the georesonator concept, it suffices to show that all strong earthquakes have occurred during the astronomical alignments, and in a self-evident fashion.


An additional note: In table 1 of the article, there are a number of alleged alignments: Earth/Mercury/Sun/Venus, Earth/Sun/Venus, Mars/Earth/Venus, Mars/Earth/Sun, Mars/Earth/Mercury, Elenin/Earth/Venus, Elenin/Earth Sun, etc. etc. Clearly there isn't any specific alignment he's talking about. Rather, it appears that for each earthquake, he looks for an alignment he can fit to it. So, it shouldn't be a surprise that the Earthquakes happen during astronomical alignments. Clearly he has a lot of alignments to work wilh. I'd be interested if, with his criteria, it would ever be possible for an event to happen when there are no alignments. By the way, I noticed that the claimed alignments involve planets, planets and sun, or planet/sun/comet Elenin. That is, he didn't include any other comets, asteroids, or satellites. It appears Elenin is just another arbitrary choice, but if he ever needs more alignment possibilities I have some suggestions on what he could use..

Tog
2011-May-17, 10:47 AM
That all sounds oddly familiar.

If this is all based on gravity, then shouldn't we have a major quaked about every 14 days, to coincide with the new and full moons? Surely the gravitational influence of the moon is stronger than any of the planets, or comets, as felt on Earth.

MAPNUT
2011-May-17, 02:41 PM
See, the moon doesn't cause earthquakes because it's been shaking up the earth's crust for billions of years and every possible fault that could be created by the moon has been created and then healed. So the crust has toughened up and achieved immunity to the moon. That's like the windstorms which there have been a lot of in my neighborhood over the last several years. Several big storms brought down a lot of trees and branches. But the last few storms didn't bring any down because there are only strong healthy trees left. Makes perfect sense, right? - science by analogy. So only transient phenomena like comets, whose gravity comes at different angles than the moon, can now cause earthquakes.

When you can't think of tests to prove a hypothesis, try words.

Jim
2011-May-17, 04:27 PM
MAPNUT, makes sense to me.

Vasotech, welcome to BAUT. This subject has been discussed in other threads, most notably http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/113532-Comet-Elenin-Cause-Of-Earthquakes?. I say "most notably" because, starting with post #16, kamaz basically destroys the claim of any comet being the cause of earthquakes.

Would you care to address his points?

shriram
2011-May-17, 04:34 PM
...The only 'proof' is the Leonid Elenin post where he does NOT clearly state that the "Comet" is causing the Earthquakes, but did take the time to collect the data. And our new friend Dr. Omerbashich.

Using this Data, It seems like at least someone would have their interests intrigued and try to investigate further...

The only thing the data conclusively proves that the comet was whereever it was when the earthquakes took place, not that the comet caused the earthquakes... IMHO.

amazeofdeath
2011-May-17, 04:47 PM
See, the moon doesn't cause earthquakes because it's been shaking up the earth's crust for billions of years and every possible fault that could be created by the moon has been created and then healed. So the crust has toughened up and achieved immunity to the moon. That's like the windstorms which there have been a lot of in my neighborhood over the last several years. Several big storms brought down a lot of trees and branches. But the last few storms didn't bring any down because there are only strong healthy trees left. Makes perfect sense, right? - science by analogy. So only transient phenomena like comets, whose gravity comes at different angles than the moon, can now cause earthquakes.

When you can't think of tests to prove a hypothesis, try words.
If this is a serious post, can you show actual correlation with comet mass and distance to earth vs. number of earthquakes within the time window where the comet can affect the earth; show why the planets don't cause the earthquakes (is there's a cut-off limit for regular vs. irregular influence?); or alternatively, if the effect is not gravity-driven, show a plausible explanation for the proposed effect? If the tidal bulge caused by the moon running over ever-changing crustal plate collision zones isn't enough to trigger earthquakes, as seems to be the case, any gravity-related effect is pretty much ruled out--while the moon's movement is regular, the zones still evolve, so you can't claim that the earth is accustomed to the effect without a proper explanation.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post, "science by analogy" does rather point to the direction that you were joking, but I really can't tell for sure.

MAPNUT
2011-May-17, 04:58 PM
No.

Extracelestial
2011-May-17, 05:03 PM
I see, so instead of looking over the data and drawing conclusions... We are going to try & discredit the messenger?

Please put all your bias opinions aside and take a hard look at the data.

In my opinion, that is the only unbias thing we have as human beings.


Hello vasotech,

here are my five pennies worth of comment:

#1 Mr. Omerbashich (Mr. O hereafter) gives only his own work as reference. Such a method is prone to circular reasoning.

#2 "The European Royal Society" which is quoted in the title - what is that? Only a G-Mail account and nothing else? So where does this work of Mr. O come from?

#3 The "alignments" Mr. O emphasises in his graphs appear to be "cherry picked". In Fig. 4 he describes an alignment of Earth-Mercury-Venus (omitting the sun) whereas in Fig. 5 Jupiter-Earth-Sun he's omitting Venus although nearby.

#4 The polynomial fitting function appears to have a very low (i.e. way below 0.6) R**2 thus rendering the slight bump almost non existent. Moreover, since the data is truncated at the extremes of his window (Fig. 2 again) the tangent has a bias on the curvature. Without confidence intervals etc. one can not conclude whether a 2nd order polynomial or other order is valid. This renders the graph useless.

#5 I didn't see any proposal of a mechanism how this can be that celestial bodies farther out and with small mass have any effect at all:

why omit Vesta for instance with a diameter of almost 500 km of solid rock but take into account a dirty snowball with only a fraction of vesta's size

His term "georesonator" suggests some mechanism which he doesn't elaborate. Did I miss here something?

He claims to have proven that earth quakes have an external and not an internal cause. But this is nothing but a claim for lack of methodology and supportive data


This "paper" is worthless and probably a deliberate fraud I'm afraid.

Ex

R.A.F.
2011-May-17, 05:45 PM
The "Paranoid Junk" comment is yet another attempt to discredit the messenger.

Those who irrationally think that the government is "out to get them", are, by definition, displaying paranoia.

It's not an attempt to discredit...it's a simple factual statement.


A buddy of mine here used to tell me that BAUT was all about the "Burden of proof"...

But our friends Leonid Elenin and Dr Mensur Omerbashich have provided the proof.

Sorry, but no...not even close.


Does he really have a reason to lie?

Why must he be lying?...why can't he simply be mistaken??

streather
2011-May-18, 03:11 AM
I believe Kamaz did a pretty good debunking of whether or not Comet Elenin is causing earthquakes in the thread about it shortly after the tokyo earthquake and tsunami.


The post can be found here Clicky (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/113532-Comet-Elenin-Cause-Of-Earthquakes?p=1862470#post1862470)

Tom Servo
2011-May-18, 03:55 AM
Hold on Did I miss something.

the comet is aligned with earth and what? The Sun? The Moon? Other Planets? Other Stars? All of the above?

Is it just aligned with the Earth? Because two objects are always in line with each other.

phunk
2011-May-19, 08:35 PM
I did notice that he mentions "gravitational shadowing" and claims this has been demonstrated. In fact, this is a very ATM idea.


Isn't this disproven every time there's a lunar eclipse and the moon's orbit doesn't change?

kheider
2011-May-21, 01:55 AM
I think Mensur Omerbashich is (incorrectly) suggesting the coma of Elenin is "a cloud of gravitationally locked particles around 30,000 km across". His paper was released on 11 Apr 2011.

On 08 Apr 2011, Elenin was 1.89AU from the Earth with a 27.4" coma (27.4"/206265*1.89AU=37,500km).
http://gustavomuler.fotografiaastronomica.com/www/images/cometas/C1010X1/C2010X1-110408-J47.jpg

-- Kevin Heider

kheider
2011-May-21, 02:14 AM
But our friends Leonid Elenin and Dr Mensur Omerbashich have provided the proof.

Leonid makes no claim that the near alignments caused anything!

I would think someone doing professional alignment studies would keep track of the major asteroids. How did Mensur Omerbashich miss the fact that one of the largest asteroids, 3 Juno (258 km), had a better alignment with the Earth and Sun during the 11 March 2011 Japan quake?
Juno 2011-Mar-12 09:18@179.4981° and 1.78AU from Earth
http://home.comcast.net/~kpheider/3Juno-2011Mar12.gif
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=3;orb=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_asteroids#Largest_by_diameter_.28c is-Neptunian.29
Comet Elenin's best alignment was 2011-Mar-14 14:00 @ 178.63° @2.1AU (missing by 3 days)

Personally, I think 3 Juno was jealous of all the attention 4 Vesta and 1 Ceres will be getting soon.

-- Kevin Heider

Sardonicone
2011-May-22, 05:19 PM
Vasotech - Can you please explain to me how an object as uninspiring and small can produce orders of magnitude more seismic activity than the Moon? I fear you have a very simplistic view of how gravity works.

Luckmeister
2011-May-22, 06:49 PM
Since it has already been noted in this thread that Omerbashich's data is flawed by cherry-picking both the earthquake examples and space objects involved in "alignment," the other factor left for discussion is his "resonance." Is he referring to gravity waves resonating with the natural resonant frequency of Earth, perhaps reminiscent of the breaking of a wine glass with a human voice singing a 110 decibel note matching its resonant frquency? If so, where are his tests and studies showing the possibility of this kind of interaction and that the energy produced would be sufficient to influence earthquake activity?

Tensor
2011-May-22, 07:08 PM
Since it has already been noted in this thread that Omerbashich's data is flawed by cherry-picking both the earthquake examples and space objects involved in "alignment," the other factor left for discussion is his "resonance." Is he referring to gravity waves resonating with the natural resonant frequency of Earth, perhaps reminiscent of the breaking of a wine glass with a human voice singing a 110 decibel note matching its resonant frquency? If so, where are his tests and studies showing the possibility of this kind of interaction and that the energy produced would be sufficient to influence earthquake activity?

I really don't think he has even that. If you go back to the data I pulled up from the site I mention in Post #29, you will find that in 2010, there were an average of ~8 earthquakes of M 4.9 and above (the low magnitude cutoff in his data) PER DAY.

I'm sure that most of use here could produce some kind of "alignment" with solar system object(s), if we're allowed to pick and choose from any of the 8 earthquakes per day or a total of ~40 if you count two days on either side.

Luckmeister
2011-May-22, 08:07 PM
I really don't think he has even that. If you go back to the data I pulled up from the site I mention in Post #29, you will find that in 2010, there were an average of ~8 earthquakes of M 4.9 and above (the low magnitude cutoff in his data) PER DAY.

I'm sure that most of use here could produce some kind of "alignment" with solar system object(s), if we're allowed to pick and choose from any of the 8 earthquakes per day or a total of ~40 if you count two days on either side.

Yes, your post #29 was what I was primarily referring to when I said his data had been shown to be flawed. I was bringing up the resonace subject because I was wondering if ayone has seen any explanation on his part for what that means to him.

abc456
2011-May-23, 11:18 AM
Hello all, found this thread and had the itch to post(no, I'm not Dr Mensur himself, just a passerby.) Obviously, the first question one would ask is whether he's "cherry-picking" the data. Now I do agree that his inclusion of mag 5+ and 4+ quakes are very strange, when he stated in the title that it's only valid for 6+. However, this inclusion only weakens his case slightly, not disprove it altogether. To me, to say that there are 2830 quakes in a year, because he listed a few 5+ and 4+ quakes, is very disingenuous, and seems to completely miss his point altogether.

To me, you can eliminate the 5+ and 4+ quakes that he listed altogether, and it still would not contradict his thesis, because he clearly stated that it's only valid for 6+ quakes. So now we ask, did he list ALL of the 6+ quakes? Well, there were about 174 6+ mag quakes last year. And he listed only about 70 of them.
However, the problem is that the USGS data does not differentiate between aftershocks, main quakes, and foreshocks(look up the biggest quakes and see how
many "aftershocks" happened within the same day, and keep in mind that foreshocks and aftershocks aren't limited to the same day) and we don't know what his theory is, regarding aftershocks and foreshocks. And since foreshocks and aftershocks can occur on different days, it's impossible to figure out which is which, especially without the locations.

What to do? Well, to me, we can try to figure out how many "legits mag 6+ quakes" there were. However, supposed that we revised his thesis to say that it's only valid for 7+ quakes(as a matter of fact, if he had done this from the beginning, it would have been perfectly fine, and his data would have been "robust" enough for him to make his point.) Now if we were to look at his 7+ quakes, you will see that he listed all of them, and they matched all of the 7+ quakes listed by USGS in 2010(making whether they're main quakes, foreshocks or aftershocks irrelevant. However, looking at the dates on each, they're most likely main quakes).

Is it possible that all 23 of the 7+ quakes can "coincidentally" each has an alignment? Well, if you look at his table of 2010, you'd see that there are 73 "unique" alignments(i.e 73 on different days). Let's assume that these are ALL of the possible alignments(perhaps this is the reason he included the 5+ and 4+, to include all of the alignments, without realizing that it contradicts his thesis a bit) within a given year, then to me, the odds of all of the 7+ quakes all having an alignment(or one not having an alignment) is very very low. We have to conclude
then, at least with regards to the 7+ quakes, that there is a correlation between planetary alignments(including Elenin) and 7+ quakes.

We can expand this further and include all of the biggest quakes in history. Once again, he listed all of the biggest quakes in history(before 1900). Now what are the chances of all
the quakes in history each having an alignment? Keep in mind that there is only a 1 in 5 chance that a quake will fit with an alignment, or 4 out of 5 chance that it will NOT fit within an alignment, within a given year. There are 11 biggest quakes, each in a unique year, which means that the chances of each falling into an alignment is 1/5 * 11.

Jason Thompson
2011-May-23, 12:46 PM
Well, if you look at his table of 2010, you'd see that there are 73 "unique" alignments(i.e 73 on different days). Let's assume that these are ALL of the possible alignments

Why would we make that assumption?

The number of objects in the solar system is vast. I highly doubt that with all that rock and ice floating around out there that only 73 'alignments' occurred in any given year.


We have to conclude
then, at least with regards to the 7+ quakes, that there is a correlation between planetary alignments(including Elenin) and 7+ quakes

Even if that conlcusion is 100% valid, I repeat that a correlation does not equate to a causal link.

Gillianren
2011-May-23, 03:54 PM
Why would it make a difference if an earthquake is a foreshock or an aftershock?

Amber Robot
2011-May-23, 04:05 PM
Why would it make a difference if an earthquake is a foreshock or an aftershock?

I imagine it would only make a difference if not differentiating them hurts the correlation.

R.A.F.
2011-May-23, 04:10 PM
Is this...


We can expand this further and include all of the biggest quakes in history. Once again, he listed all of the biggest quakes in history(before 1900). Now what are the chances of all the quakes in history each having an alignment?

...the claim you will be defending?...that the "biggest quakes in history" have all occurred during some kind of "alignment"??

Please consider that a direct question. :)

Garrison
2011-May-23, 06:44 PM
We can expand this further and include all of the biggest quakes in history. Once again, he listed all of the biggest quakes in history(before 1900). Now what are the chances of all
the quakes in history each having an alignment? Keep in mind that there is only a 1 in 5 chance that a quake will fit with an alignment, or 4 out of 5 chance that it will NOT fit within an alignment, within a given year. There are 11 biggest quakes, each in a unique year, which means that the chances of each falling into an alignment is 1/5 * 11.

Depends what you choose to call an alignment, if you include planets, comets, and NEOs your odds are much netter than you are claiming I would have thought, and it wouldn't be anymore meaningful than any other arbitrary correlation unless you are planning to outline a mechanism?

Tensor
2011-May-23, 07:06 PM
Hello all, found this thread and had the itch to post(no, I'm not Dr Mensur himself, just a passerby.) Obviously, the first question one would ask is whether he's "cherry-picking" the data. Now I do agree that his inclusion of mag 5+ and 4+ quakes are very strange, when he stated in the title that it's only valid for 6+. However, this inclusion only weakens his case slightly, not disprove it altogether.

I suggest you go back and read the title and his paper. He does not say it is valid for only 6+ events. He says it is valid for ~6+ events. The ~ used before a number means approximately or approximately equal to. He specifies the "~" to mean ± 5%, but yet, the lower bound as determined from his data is 4.9. Very sloppy work.


To me, to say that there are 2830 quakes in a year, because he listed a few 5+ and 4+ quakes, is very disingenuous, and seems to completely miss his point altogether.

Disingenuous? I don't think so. After all, if he includes them, then why shouldn't we ask about the ones that he doesn't include? Why doesn't he include all of them? Cherry picking? Or, that fact that there is an average of 8 Per day through 2010 simply mean that it's useless to try and match up alignments due to the sheer number of earthquakes. If his hypothesis is based on 4.9+ events (which according to his data, it is) then he has to explain the other ~2700 quakes that he does not have a alignment listed for.

I think it's disingenuous to try to move the goalposts. His paper specifies 4.9+. We've shown that he's missed explaining ~2700 other earthquakes using his hypothesis. Now you come along and try to say he shouldn't have put them in. Sorry, he did, and the paper should explain it. It doesn't. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and take the ± 5%. That would mean a M5.7 event. That shows 344 quakes for the year 2010. Still, quite a few explanations short.


To me, you can eliminate the 5+ and 4+ quakes that he listed altogether, and it still would not contradict his thesis, because he clearly stated that it's only valid for 6+ quakes.

Nope, he does not. That "~" makes all the difference.


So now we ask, did he list ALL of the 6+ quakes? Well, there were about 174 6+ mag quakes last year. And he listed only about 70 of them.
However, the problem is that the USGS data does not differentiate between aftershocks, main quakes, and foreshocks(look up the biggest quakes and see how
many "aftershocks" happened within the same day, and keep in mind that foreshocks and aftershocks aren't limited to the same day) and we don't know what his theory is, regarding aftershocks and foreshocks. And since foreshocks and aftershocks can occur on different days, it's impossible to figure out which is which, especially without the locations.

Again, Cherry Picked data. Go look up his other papers. He mentions nothing of foreshocks or aftershocks, only earthquakes. Or, does he just list the quakes that show up within his ± 3 days window as those that count, and the ones that are outside that window as "well, lets not mention that one". It shouldn't matter what his hypothesis is, a well written paper would at least acknowledge the problem.


What to do? Well, to me, we can try to figure out how many "legits mag 6+ quakes" there were. However, supposed that we revised his thesis to say that it's only valid for 7+ quakes(as a matter of fact, if he had done this from the beginning, it would have been perfectly fine, and his data would have been "robust" enough for him to make his point.) Now if we were to look at his 7+ quakes, you will see that he listed all of them, and they matched all of the 7+ quakes listed by USGS in 2010(making whether they're main quakes, foreshocks or aftershocks irrelevant. However, looking at the dates on each, they're most likely main quakes).

Is it possible that all 23 of the 7+ quakes can "coincidentally" each has an alignment?

Define alignment. No where in that paper (linked to in Post #1) does he provide us with all the alignment parameters of each of the alignments. AAMOF, he only provides visuals for four. What were the particulars of the alignments? How far off based on degrees? Based on days? How about this from the paper "The alignments were estimated to be ±1°. Interestingly, the sentence before this states "Units of time are given to within ±1 day, as differential orbital inclinations in the nearly co- planar solar system can be safely ignored." Really? He's giving the alignments ±1°, but blows off the inclinations because they can be safely ignored? He obviously hasn't done his homework. Mercury can be up to 7° off the Earth's inclination (going by the ecliptic, if you go by the Sun's equator, the difference can almost 10.5°. Ten degrees can be safely ignored? When the other parameter is based on 1°? Want to explain that one?


Well, if you look at his table of 2010, you'd see that there are 73 "unique" alignments(i.e 73 on different days). Let's assume that these are ALL of the possible alignments(perhaps this is the reason he included the 5+ and 4+, to include all of the alignments, without realizing that it contradicts his thesis a bit) within a given year, then to me, the odds of all of the 7+ quakes all having an alignment(or one not having an alignment) is very very low. We have to conclude
then, at least with regards to the 7+ quakes, that there is a correlation between planetary alignments(including Elenin) and 7+ quakes.

Where is the data on the alignments? How many degrees off? How many days? In one case he has an alignment from March 30 to April 20th for Earth, Mercury, and Venus. Considering the speed with which the two other planets move, keeping them in alignment with Earth is a bit tricky. You have to have a special starting place. But we don't know, because he doesn't provide the data.

Interestingly, he has seven quakes during those 21 days. What happened during the other 14 days? If the alignment produced an earthquake on 7 days (actually only 5 alone, as there are claims for two other different alignments during the time period, and why are those other alignments only one day). Why not on those other days?


We can expand this further and include all of the biggest quakes in history. Once again, he listed all of the biggest quakes in history(before 1900). Now what are the chances of all the quakes in history each having an alignment?

Care to predict an upcoming large earthquake, based on the "alignments?


Keep in mind that there is only a 1 in 5 chance that a quake will fit with an alignment, or 4 out of 5 chance that it will NOT fit within an alignment,

Again, define alignment.


within a given year. There are 11 biggest quakes, each in a unique year, which means that the chances of each falling into an alignment is 1/5 * 11.

1/5 * 11? You sure? That comes to 11/5. Which is a bit over 200%. Sounds like a sure thing to me.

Besides, what are the error bars? What's the sigma? Those things are important to provide context for the actual meaning on what your presenting.

Van Rijn
2011-May-23, 10:45 PM
Hello all, found this thread and had the itch to post(no, I'm not Dr Mensur himself, just a passerby.) Obviously, the first question one would ask is whether he's "cherry-picking" the data.


I don't think there is any doubt that he is cherry-picking. He admits to some of it himself. I quoted a couple of lines in an earlier post:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/115663-Comet-Elenin-Confirmed-to-be-causing-Earthquakes?p=1889703#post1889703

A quote from his paper:

"Then in order to empirically verify the georesonator concept, it suffices to show that all strong earthquakes have occurred during the astronomical alignments, and in a self-evident fashion. I arbitrarily select 2010 because it contained the most robust data, presumably due to the proximity of the approaching Elenin."

He is flat out saying that he arbitrarily selected 2010, and did not include less "robust" data. How could he be more clear that he is cherry-picking? Also, he says:

"No statistical testing was done due to relatively small sample sizes."

But there was a straightforward solution to that problem: Include more data! It's clear from his statements that this wouldn't have supported his argument, though.


Is it possible that all 23 of the 7+ quakes can "coincidentally" each has an alignment?


Why not? He didn't use any specific alignment of any specific objects. Rather, he had various combinations of the sun, planets, and comet Elenin. Why only these objects? How are the many combinations he selected supposed to be similar? After all, the masses and distances between these objects vary dramatically. All of the planets combined have a mass far less than the sun. The range of mass between the planets is also dramatic: Jupiter is over 300 times as massive as the Earth but Mars has about a tenth of the Earth's mass. And finally, comet Elenin has a mass far less than any of the planets, and is less massive than thousands of other identified minor objects he did not include.

Without a detailed explanation of the methodology behind his "alignment" argument, this too appears arbitrary.

abc456
2011-May-24, 12:47 AM
lol at including all of the 4+ and 5+ quakes. If he did that, it would be impossible to make a conclusion, because there are 4+ and 5+ earthquakes occurring every day.

However, by this logic, we can assume that he included ALL of the alignments already because if there are 4 or 5 magnitude earthquakes everyday day, then that means that he could have cherry-picked all of the 4+ and 5+ earthquakes that he wants. If he didn't include them, then that must mean that there's no alignment on that day.

What is an alignment? Now this is a good question. If his alignments are large approximates, then one could make a case that well, if he's using estimates, then each quake will have an alignment, i.e the muddled conclusion. However, as someone pointed out, his margin of error is about 1 degree. There are 360 degrees in a circle, which approximately equal the number of days in the year.

However, as stated, there are only 73 possible alignments. What this means is that he would have to be 5 degrees off on each alignment, for the conclusion to be "muddled," as in, well,
if it's off by 5 degree, then chances are an earthquake will fall into one of them, as a 5 degree margin covers(exactly) every day of the year.

Now let's visit the 7+ earthquakes again(the 6+ quakes are too numerous, and if we take in the estimates, we would reach the "muddled" conclusion again.) If there are 73 possible alignments, and each of them has a margin of error of 1 degree, then that means there are still only 146 days in which there can be "approximately an alignment," this means that there are 219 days in which there are no alignments, approximates or not. Yet none of the 7+ quakes fall into these days? How?

You can use the same logic to the biggest quakes, and make my case even stronger. Okay, so the ratio is now a little bigger, but it is still just 2/5^11(power sign, not multiply).

As far as why he doesn't include asteroids. That's because Elenin is not a comet, no one knows what it is yet, except for NASA.

R.A.F.
2011-May-24, 01:36 AM
A "yes or no" answer would have been sufficient. Also easier to understand.

NGCHunter
2011-May-24, 01:39 AM
That's because Elenin is not a comet, no one knows what it is yet, except for NASA.
If Elenin is not a comet, why does it look exactly like a minor comet?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3573/5741328887_746db6566f_b.jpg
It's the faint little comet on in the middle left part of the image, with a small tail pointing left.
Second question, what evidence do you have that NASA knows what Elenin "actually" is if it's not a comet, and what is it if not a comet?

Usher
2011-May-24, 02:43 AM
... As far as why he doesn't include asteroids. That's because Elenin is not a comet, no one knows what it is yet, except for NASA.

Wonderful how vague, provocative statements seem to be the hallmark of HBs.
So... how do you know Elenin is not a comet if no one but NASA knows?
What is your evidence that Elenin is not a comet?
Does your knowledge that Elenin is not a comet correlate with your belief that it is somehow associated (causally) with large earthquakes?

Don J
2011-May-24, 05:11 AM
Since it has already been noted in this thread that Omerbashich's data is flawed by cherry-picking both the earthquake examples and space objects involved in "alignment," the other factor left for discussion is his "resonance."
I think this is what you are looking for

"Magnification of mantle resonance as a cause of tectonics"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612177

the other paper (which is the bulk of the actual discussion) is an extension where he include other celestial bodies and comet Elenin.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1104.2036

-Note that I am not supporting or defending was is presented in those papers....so don't ask me questions about it.-

Van Rijn
2011-May-24, 05:39 AM
Dr. Mensur Omerbashich referencing the Bilderberg Group and the Illuminati and Zionist conspiracies and Knights Templar on his personal site doesn't exactly make him look credible. Nor do his allegations that Cornell University and NASA are conspiring against him. What is his doctorate in, just out of curiousity?


I just tried looking at Omerbashich's site, and got a cross-site scripting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting) warning from Noscript. Cross site scripting is often used in attacks, so I'd recommend avoiding his site.

The site is bizarre. He seems to think there is a "Anglo-Zionist" attack on him and is very interested in who is looking at his site. There are things like this:


Some visitors to this page over the past three weeks (27 Apr-17 May). Besides showing that Masonry is embedded in all facets of society and that they are running the show, it also raises an important question: why are they assessing this page from so many different angles, over mere three weeks -- if it's all just a "coincidence" as NASA claims it to be? Shouldn't NASA's word be sufficient for them Masonry/Illuminati?!

Ooohkay.

Jason Thompson
2011-May-24, 09:49 AM
If he didn't include them, then that must mean that there's no alignment on that day.

That's an interesting bit of logic.


However, as someone pointed out, his margin of error is about 1 degree.

That's his tated margin of error, but it only applies in one plane. Space is a 3D environment, so how does he justify completely ignoring orbital inclinations?


As far as why he doesn't include asteroids. That's because Elenin is not a comet, no one knows what it is yet, except for NASA.

Care to back that claim up? I remind you that you are required to do that on this forum. What is your evidence that Elenin is not a comet?

Strange
2011-May-24, 09:58 AM
However, as stated, there are only 73 possible alignments.

Previously, you said "Let's assume that these are ALL of the possible alignments". So that is just an assumption - so far unsupported by any evidence.


That's because Elenin is not a comet

:lol:

tnjrp
2011-May-24, 10:05 AM
I'm guessing the so-far-undisclosed assertion is that the "comet Elenin" is in fact the rogue planet/brown dwarf Nibiru AKA Planet X. I've been informed that the next "Nibiru day" predicted by ZetaTalk is June 26.

But possibly abc456 is just "agnostic" about the comet claim...

Jim
2011-May-24, 11:52 AM
... That's because Elenin is not a comet, no one knows what it is yet, except for NASA.

abc456, this is a very serious claim. You have been asked several times to support it. Per the Rules of this Board, you are required either to offer evidence in support of this claim or to withdraw it. Your choice, but you must choose.

kamaz
2011-May-24, 06:11 PM
I wrote a program for searching alignments (yes, another one) and it appears that the claim that earthquakes occur during planetary alignments is indeed valid.

I took all planets of the Solar System (plus comet Elenin), and for each possible pair calculated their separation on each day over the year 2010. To keep with the spirit of the paper, we say that an alignment occurs if two planets are either 0 or 180 degrees apart.

Now, I must admit the claim that earthquakes occur during planetary alignments is indeed valid. To see why, let us see for how many days in each year an alignment occurs, depending on the allowed angular error (1,2,3,4 or 5 degrees):



xxxxx@athlon:~/ephem$ for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do python eq.py $i | grep Total; done
* Total days with alignments: 53
* Total days with alignments: 222
* Total days with alignments: 312
* Total days with alignments: 336
* Total days with alignments: 352


So, at least two planets were aligned with 1 degree for 53 days during last year. But if you allow 5 deg. error, then 352 out of 365 days have alignments! So, if you set your criteria lax enough, then there is a problem with finding an earthquake which does not happen during some alignment.

To see that there's nothing magical about Elenin, let's simply throw it out:



xxxxx@athlon:~/ephem$ for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do python eq.py $i | grep Total; done
* Total days with alignments: 51
* Total days with alignments: 195
* Total days with alignments: 279
* Total days with alignments: 331
* Total days with alignments: 350


The result is practically the same.

Let's now see alignments involving Elenin -- within 1 degree:



xxxxx@athlon:~/ephem$ python eq.py 1 | grep Elenin
2010/8/2 00:00:00 0.3 Mercury Elenin
2010/8/3 00:00:00 0.8 Mercury Elenin


Well, there is only one event, on 2010/8/2. Unfortunately, our hero's paper doesn't list any event on that date. Let's relax our criteria now -- 2 degree error, Elenin involved:



xxxxx@athlon:~/ephem$ python eq.py 2 | grep Elenin
2010/2/19 00:00:00 178.2 Jupiter Elenin
2010/2/20 00:00:00 178.4 Jupiter Elenin
2010/2/21 00:00:00 178.5 Jupiter Elenin
2010/2/22 00:00:00 178.6 Jupiter Elenin
2010/2/23 00:00:00 178.5 Jupiter Elenin
2010/2/24 00:00:00 178.3 Jupiter Elenin
2010/2/25 00:00:00 178.1 Jupiter Elenin
2010/5/6 00:00:00 178.0 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/7 00:00:00 178.0 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/8 00:00:00 178.1 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/9 00:00:00 178.1 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/10 00:00:00 178.1 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/11 00:00:00 178.2 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/12 00:00:00 178.2 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/13 00:00:00 178.2 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/14 00:00:00 178.2 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/15 00:00:00 178.2 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/16 00:00:00 178.3 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/17 00:00:00 178.3 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/18 00:00:00 178.3 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/19 00:00:00 178.3 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/20 00:00:00 178.3 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/21 00:00:00 178.3 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/22 00:00:00 178.3 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/23 00:00:00 178.3 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/24 00:00:00 178.3 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/25 00:00:00 178.3 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/26 00:00:00 178.2 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/27 00:00:00 178.2 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/28 00:00:00 178.2 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/29 00:00:00 178.2 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/30 00:00:00 178.2 Neptune Elenin
2010/5/31 00:00:00 178.1 Neptune Elenin
2010/6/1 00:00:00 178.1 Neptune Elenin
2010/6/2 00:00:00 178.1 Neptune Elenin
2010/6/3 00:00:00 178.0 Neptune Elenin
2010/6/7 00:00:00 1.9 Mars Elenin
2010/6/8 00:00:00 1.8 Mars Elenin
2010/6/9 00:00:00 1.8 Mars Elenin
2010/6/10 00:00:00 1.9 Mars Elenin
2010/7/14 00:00:00 1.8 Venus Elenin
2010/7/15 00:00:00 2.0 Venus Elenin
2010/8/1 00:00:00 1.2 Mercury Elenin
2010/8/2 00:00:00 0.3 Mercury Elenin
2010/8/3 00:00:00 0.8 Mercury Elenin
2010/8/4 00:00:00 1.8 Mercury Elenin
2010/11/12 00:00:00 178.0 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/13 00:00:00 178.1 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/14 00:00:00 178.3 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/15 00:00:00 178.4 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/16 00:00:00 178.5 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/17 00:00:00 178.5 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/18 00:00:00 178.6 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/19 00:00:00 178.6 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/20 00:00:00 178.6 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/21 00:00:00 178.6 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/22 00:00:00 178.5 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/23 00:00:00 178.5 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/24 00:00:00 178.4 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/25 00:00:00 178.3 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/26 00:00:00 178.2 Uranus Elenin
2010/11/27 00:00:00 178.1 Uranus Elenin


Look at that! The comet lingers 178 degrees away from Neptune for a month in May, and does the same thing near Uranus for three weeks in October. So any Earthquake which happened in May or October 2010 can be blamed on Elenin.

Do you see what is going on here, now?

Now, it looks like 2011 has less alignments:



xxxx@athlon:~/ephem$ for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do python eq.py $i | grep Total; done
* Total days with alignments: 31
* Total days with alignments: 114
* Total days with alignments: 205
* Total days with alignments: 260
* Total days with alignments: 286


Also, Elenin has now moved away from Uranus and Neptune, so it will only have Venus and Mercury encounter:



xxxxx@athlon:~/ephem$ python eq.py 2 | grep Elenin
2011/2/21 00:00:00 178.0 Uranus Elenin
2011/2/22 00:00:00 178.1 Uranus Elenin
2011/2/23 00:00:00 178.1 Uranus Elenin
2011/2/24 00:00:00 178.0 Uranus Elenin
2011/8/22 00:00:00 178.2 Uranus Elenin
2011/8/23 00:00:00 178.2 Uranus Elenin
2011/9/22 00:00:00 0.8 Venus Elenin
2011/9/23 00:00:00 1.5 Venus Elenin
2011/9/27 00:00:00 1.2 Mercury Elenin
2011/9/27 00:00:00 178.7 Uranus Elenin
2011/9/28 00:00:00 178.3 Uranus Elenin


So, um, yeah, anything that happens on 2011/9/22(23) or 2011/9/27 will be blamed on this comet...

If you want to play with it yourself, the eq.py program is attached below. As you can see, there is no rocket science involved. Ephemeris calculation, again, thanks to the excellent pyephem (http://rhodesmill.org/pyephem/) library.



import ephem
import math
import numpy
import sys

startDate = ephem.Date('2010/1/1 00:00')
endDate = ephem.Date('2010/12/31 00:00')

days = numpy.zeros(endDate-startDate+1)
date = startDate
dateStep = 1
maxSep = float(sys.argv[1])

elenin = ephem.readdb("Elenin,h,09/10.7274/2011,1.8401,323.2438,343.7912,1.000031,0.482432,20 00,8.0,4.0")

#targets = [ ephem.Mercury(), ephem.Venus(), ephem.Mars(), ephem.Jupiter(),
# ephem.Saturn(), ephem.Uranus(), ephem.Neptune() ]

#targets = [ ephem.Mercury(), ephem.Venus(), ephem.Mars(), ephem.Jupiter(),
# ephem.Saturn(), ephem.Uranus() ]

targets = [ ephem.Sun(), ephem.Mercury(), ephem.Venus(), ephem.Mars(), ephem.Jupiter(),
ephem.Saturn(), ephem.Uranus(), ephem.Neptune(), elenin ]


while date <= endDate:
for t in targets:
t.compute(date)

for t1 in range(len(targets)):
for t2 in range(len(targets)):
if t1 != t2:
sep = ephem.separation(targets[t1], targets[t2])*180/math.pi
if (abs(sep-180)<maxSep) or (abs(sep)<maxSep):
if t1 < t2:
#print ephem.Date(date), sep, targets[t1].name, targets[t2].name
print "%s %5.1f %s %s" % (ephem.Date(date), sep, targets[t1].name, targets[t2].name)
days[date-startDate] = 1

date = date + dateStep

print "* Total days with alignments: ", numpy.size(numpy.nonzero(days>0))

kamaz
2011-May-24, 06:18 PM
Addendum:

I just saw that the paper also includes Sun in alignment search (the program above has been updated to reflect this). As expected, this finds more alignments:



xxxxx@athlon:~/ephem$ for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do python eq.py $i | grep Total; done
* Total days with alignments: 67
* Total days with alignments: 251
* Total days with alignments: 338
* Total days with alignments: 353
* Total days with alignments: 362


Sun included, error limit at 5 degrees: 2010 had THREE days without some sort of alignment!

kamaz
2011-May-24, 06:26 PM
Also, there is another problem with this paper. It says at the beginning that it considers alignments within 1 degree. Then, the table lists 2010/1/3 earthquake, which happened during the Earth-Mercury-Sun-Venus alignment, except that my program says:



xxxxx@athlon:~/ephem$ python eq.py 5 | grep 2010/1/
2010/1/1 00:00:00 2.6 Sun Venus
2010/1/1 00:00:00 1.8 Jupiter Neptune
2010/1/2 00:00:00 2.4 Sun Venus
2010/1/2 00:00:00 2.0 Jupiter Neptune
2010/1/3 00:00:00 4.8 Sun Mercury
2010/1/3 00:00:00 2.2 Sun Venus
2010/1/3 00:00:00 2.2 Jupiter Neptune
2010/1/4 00:00:00 3.1 Sun Mercury
2010/1/4 00:00:00 2.0 Sun Venus
2010/1/4 00:00:00 4.9 Mercury Venus
2010/1/4 00:00:00 2.4 Jupiter Neptune
2010/1/5 00:00:00 2.8 Sun Mercury
2010/1/5 00:00:00 1.7 Sun Venus
2010/1/5 00:00:00 3.5 Mercury Venus
2010/1/5 00:00:00 2.5 Jupiter Neptune
2010/1/6 00:00:00 4.1 Sun Mercury
2010/1/6 00:00:00 1.5 Sun Venus
2010/1/6 00:00:00 3.8 Mercury Venus
2010/1/6 00:00:00 2.7 Jupiter Neptune
2010/1/7 00:00:00 1.3 Sun Venus
2010/1/7 00:00:00 2.9 Jupiter Neptune
2010/1/8 00:00:00 1.2 Sun Venus
2010/1/8 00:00:00 3.1 Jupiter Neptune
2010/1/9 00:00:00 1.0 Sun Venus
2010/1/9 00:00:00 3.2 Jupiter Neptune


Quite spectacular configuration(*), granted, but no planets within 1 degree of each other, and it persisted for several days...

(*) if you could only see that close to the Sun, that is.

Tensor
2011-May-24, 06:45 PM
lol at including all of the 4+ and 5+ quakes. If he did that, it would be impossible to make a conclusion, because there are 4+ and 5+ earthquakes occurring every day.

Precisely what we've said, cherry picking data. And I find it strange that you would throw out magnitude 4 and 5 earthquakes. If these alignments can produce 6,7,8 and 9 magnitude quakes, why wouldn't it produce magnitude 4 and 5 quakes?



What is an alignment? Now this is a good question. If his alignments are large approximates, then one could make a case that well, if he's using estimates, then each quake will have an alignment, i.e the muddled conclusion. However, as someone pointed out, his margin of error is about 1 degree. There are 360 degrees in a circle, which approximately equal the number of days in the year.

Actually, this is wrong. His margin of error is ± 1°, that means his margin of error is two degrees, not 1. Check the last sentence of the Introduction of his paper.


However, as stated, there are only 73 possible alignments. What this means is that he would have to be 5 degrees off on each alignment, for the conclusion to be

Snip....

You can use the same logic to the biggest quakes, and make my case even stronger. Okay, so the ratio is now a little bigger, but it is still just 2/5^11(power sign, not multiply).

Well, I guess you get to go back and refigure this, using a two degree margin of error.

kamaz
2011-May-24, 07:01 PM
Actually, this is wrong. His margin of error is ± 1°, that means his margin of error is two degrees, not 1. Check the last sentence of the Introduction of his paper.


I am doubtful he even has that. The first entry in his table lists the alignment on 2010/1/3, which, according to my computer, involves an angular separation of 2.2 degrees.

Actually, I gave up on verifying the rest after noticing that.

Garrison
2011-May-24, 07:54 PM
I am doubtful he even has that. The first entry in his table lists the alignment on 2010/1/3, which, according to my computer, involves an angular separation of 2.2 degrees.

Actually, I gave up on verifying the rest after noticing that.

So even his errors have errors? :)

Tensor
2011-May-24, 08:51 PM
So even his errors have errors? :)

As has been said before, very sloppy work.

vasotech
2011-May-25, 01:17 AM
lol at including all of the 4+ and 5+ quakes. If he did that, it would be impossible to make a conclusion, because there are 4+ and 5+ earthquakes occurring every day.

However, by this logic, we can assume that he included ALL of the alignments already because if there are 4 or 5 magnitude earthquakes everyday day, then that means that he could have cherry-picked all of the 4+ and 5+ earthquakes that he wants. If he didn't include them, then that must mean that there's no alignment on that day.

What is an alignment? Now this is a good question. If his alignments are large approximates, then one could make a case that well, if he's using estimates, then each quake will have an alignment, i.e the muddled conclusion. However, as someone pointed out, his margin of error is about 1 degree. There are 360 degrees in a circle, which approximately equal the number of days in the year.

However, as stated, there are only 73 possible alignments. What this means is that he would have to be 5 degrees off on each alignment, for the conclusion to be "muddled," as in, well,
if it's off by 5 degree, then chances are an earthquake will fall into one of them, as a 5 degree margin covers(exactly) every day of the year.

Now let's visit the 7+ earthquakes again(the 6+ quakes are too numerous, and if we take in the estimates, we would reach the "muddled" conclusion again.) If there are 73 possible alignments, and each of them has a margin of error of 1 degree, then that means there are still only 146 days in which there can be "approximately an alignment," this means that there are 219 days in which there are no alignments, approximates or not. Yet none of the 7+ quakes fall into these days? How?

You can use the same logic to the biggest quakes, and make my case even stronger. Okay, so the ratio is now a little bigger, but it is still just 2/5^11(power sign, not multiply).


Thank you for posting here abc456 :).

I am very glad to see that people more knowledgeable than me on this subject are doing additional research.

Also, Kamaz thank you for the data.

Garrison
2011-May-25, 06:53 PM
Thank you for posting here abc456 :).

I am very glad to see that people more knowledgeable than me on this subject are doing additional research.

Also, Kamaz thank you for the data.

Vasotech there have been a lot of posts explaining why the proposal that Comet Elenin is deeply flawed, are you going to address them?

vasotech
2011-May-25, 07:03 PM
People that claim Comet Elenin is causing all these problems generally refer to it as a Brown Dwarf Star...

If it's a Brown Dwarf or one was following it's tail, shouldn't we be able to see it through an infrared telescope?

I predict that Comet Elenin is only a psyop to trick us from understanding what's really going on....

& if there is anything to worry about it's probably located behind Elenin, which would explain the alignments and Earthquakes not being perfectly accurate.

So is it possible for someone with no training to go to an observatory and view Comet Elenin under a infrared telescope or not??

Strange
2011-May-25, 07:29 PM
I predict that Comet Elenin is only a psyop to trick us from understanding what's really going on....

By who?
Why?
How? (They have created a fake comet?!?!?)
What does "psyop" mean?
And how would "they" hide this from all the thousands of professional and amateur astronomers around the world?

AutoBoof
2011-May-25, 08:13 PM
I think he means that the government (or whoever) is spreading Disinformation to cover up some unknown truth. I know the Gov does not tell us everything, but I highly doubt it in this case.

Not calling you crazy, but a lot of people think a lot of crazy things. One of them I read recently was that the gov is secretly working on flying saucer technology in private so that in a few years (2012?) they can unleash an "alien attack" to scare the world into friendship, like what Reagan was saying in his speech about the threat from another world causing planet earth to forget all our problems and team up.

But I would be interested in an infrared photo of the comet too...has anyone done that before?

What about Radio A and B (which monitors the sun)? Has anyone found elenin in that?

astromark
2011-May-25, 08:17 PM
We have a page for conspiracy rubbish... and what you are telling us is rubbish...

I have looked for some science here, and can not find ANY.

A small mass object near to a large mass gas giant in the outer solar system

could in NO way actually effect the motion of the tectonic plat movements of Earth...

This thread and its baseless notion is foolish nonsense...

and that as soon as you mentioned that NASA is less than truthful... you lost the plot., and me.

vasotech
2011-May-25, 08:21 PM
So you're telling me that it's 100% a coincidence that Elenin - Earth alignments are causing Earthquakes every time? I guess only time will tell...

Garrison
2011-May-25, 08:36 PM
So you're telling me that it's 100% a coincidence that Elenin - Earth alignments are causing Earthquakes every time? I guess only time will tell...

But as people have pointed it's not 100%, it's not every time, and some vague correlation doesn't demonstrate causation, it's your burden to argue the case that there is a connection.

Kinetic
2011-May-25, 08:38 PM
So you're telling me that it's 100% a coincidence that Elenin - Earth alignments are causing Earthquakes every time? I guess only time will tell...

Is it a coincidence that every time I walk out my front door someone in the world dies?

vasotech
2011-May-25, 08:44 PM
Trust me gentlemen, I don't want this to be the real deal. I have too much to live for in this life!

However, if not Elenin, what could be causing these mega-quakes within the past few months?

Van Rijn
2011-May-25, 08:53 PM
So you're telling me that it's 100% a coincidence that Elenin - Earth alignments are causing Earthquakes every time?


What is the evidence that Elenin is causing earthquakes?

Tensor
2011-May-25, 08:55 PM
So you're telling me that it's 100% a coincidence that Elenin - Earth alignments are causing Earthquakes every time? I guess only time will tell...

Instead of spouting the same line, how about answering the questions posed to you? I mean, it's only been a week since I asked about the first few.

What is the precise mechanism of the alignments that causes the earthquakes?

Is it the strength of the gravitational pull (all planets on one side)

or the combined strength of all the planets (the tidal effect)?

What are the strengths of the gravitational pull for each of the alignments?

Were there stronger alignments in the days previous? if so, why were the earthquakes after the alignments?

In the days after? If so, why were the earthquakes prior to the alignments?

What are the positions of the planets above/below the solar plane?

Is there a relation to where, on Earth the earthquakes occur, based on the positions above or below the solar plane?

What mass is he using for the comet calculations?

Also, What about the other 2700 4.9+ earthquakes he ignores?

What are the particulars (position, inclination, time) of each of the "alignments?

Why does he claim his alignments are ±1°, yet kamaz has found that his very first "alignment" can't even make it into the margin of error he claims he uses?

NGCHunter
2011-May-25, 09:01 PM
If it's a Brown Dwarf or one was following it's tail, shouldn't we be able to see it through an infrared telescope?
Yes, and having an infrared sensitive camera and telescope myself I can tell you already that there's no brown dwarf there to be seen. I can also tell you that an infrared sensitive camera is not even required to rule out the presence of a brown dwarf anywhere in the vicinity of Elenin, or anywhere in the inner solar system for that matter. A brown dwarf at the distance of Elenin or close to it would be naked eye magnitude just based on the amount of sunlight it would reflect, even if it had an albedo as low as asphalt (which would make no sense anyway). You would be able to just look up in the sky and see it.


So is it possible for someone with no training to go to an observatory and view Comet Elenin under a infrared telescope or not??

I doubt someone with no training would know how to operate any kind of serious telescope in the first place. Here's what Elenin looks like in my telescope's video camera, which is sensitive to infrared as well as visible light. It's a modified security camera capable of long exposures (the idea being to rapidly produce a somewhat noisy image for live viewing rather than slowly collect even longer exposures for noise-free imaging as in most astrophotography):
http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm477/ngchunter/elenin3_filteredcloseupcrop.jpg
Elenin's just a very faint smudge of light, if it were a brown dwarf at that distance it would have saturated the detector with light and all you would see is a completely white picture.

vasotech
2011-May-25, 09:03 PM
I would imagine that 4.9+ Earthquakes are not significant to this discussion...

Those happen all the time, Comet Elenin alignments were mainly connected to the 8.8 Chile, 9.0 Japan, etc, etc.

Strange
2011-May-25, 09:04 PM
Also, Kamaz thank you for the data.

You do realise that that data does NOT support your case?

Swift
2011-May-25, 09:04 PM
We have a page for conspiracy rubbish... and what you are telling us is rubbish...
astromark has been infracted for this post. This isn't questioning a CT advocate, or even pointing out the error of their ways, this is just name calling.

Swift
2011-May-25, 09:07 PM
Instead of spouting the same line, how about answering the questions posed to you? I mean, it's only been a week since I asked about the first few.

vasotech,

As is stated in our rules and in the Advice for CT advocates, it is your obligation to answer questions from Tensor and other members (even if the answer is "I don't know" or "I'm looking for the answer". You need to start directly addressing these questions. Consider that an official warning.

Noclevername
2011-May-25, 09:24 PM
However, if not Elenin, what could be causing these mega-quakes within the past few months?

How about the same mechanisms that normally cause earthquakes-- tectonic shifts, fault slips and plate deformation?

Strange
2011-May-25, 09:29 PM
However, if not Elenin, what could be causing these mega-quakes within the past few months?

Do you believe there has been an increase in the number of large earthquakes?

Tensor
2011-May-25, 09:31 PM
People that claim Comet Elenin is causing all these problems generally refer to it as a Brown Dwarf Star...

If it's a Brown Dwarf or one was following it's tail, shouldn't we be able to see it through an infrared telescope?

If it was a brown dwarf, it's mass would be, minimum, of 7 Jupiter masses(although many argue that the minimum mass is 13 Jupiter masses). If there was a 7 Jupiter mass object running around in the solar system, it would have been notice, due to the disturbed motion of the planets, well before now.


I predict that Comet Elenin is only a psyop to trick us from understanding what's really going on....

And your support for this statement? What is your experience in such operations? What is your experience in psychology?


& if there is anything to worry about it's probably located behind Elenin, which would explain the alignments and Earthquakes not being perfectly accurate.

Which, as above, would have been noticed by the motions of the planets.


So is it possible for someone with no training to go to an observatory and view Comet Elenin under a infrared telescope or not??

Yeah, right. Telescope time is projected years in advance, why would you think you would get time by just walking up to the observatory. Not to mention, the people that use them are trained in their use. Beside that, why would anyone allow an unknown person to use a multi million dollar object? How far would you get walking up to 747 sitting on the tarmac and asking if you could take it for the spin. BTW, the answer to your question, it no.

Garrison
2011-May-25, 09:39 PM
I would imagine that 4.9+ Earthquakes are not significant to this discussion...

Those happen all the time, Comet Elenin alignments were mainly connected to the 8.8 Chile, 9.0 Japan, etc, etc.

So do the big quakes, Japan has them frequently. This page illustrates it in an interactive format:

Japan's deadly seismic history (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/03/interactive-graphic-japans-dea.html)

Tensor
2011-May-25, 09:39 PM
I would imagine that 4.9+ Earthquakes are not significant to this discussion...

Those happen all the time, Comet Elenin alignments were mainly connected to the 8.8 Chile, 9.0 Japan, etc, etc.

Those 4.9+ earthquakes were included in Mensur Omerbashich paper to help provide evidence for his conjecture that earthquakes happen when there are alignments. If, as you say, 4.9+ earthquakes are not that important, why did Mensur Omerbashich include the 4.9+ earthquakes in his paper?

Van Rijn
2011-May-25, 09:57 PM
I predict that Comet Elenin is only a psyop to trick us from understanding what's really going on....



Elenin looks like many other comets and has been seen regularly by amateur (not jost professional) astronomers using conventional telescopes.

So it rather clearly is not a trick. It isn't anything special, either.




& if there is anything to worry about it's probably located behind Elenin, which would explain the alignments and Earthquakes not being perfectly accurate.


Are you claiming there could be something hidden by Elenin? How could that possibly work? Both Elenin and Earth are in motion. They are not fixed objects in space. There is a only a small time window when anything could be directly behind Elenin from the Earth's perspective. I've included a small, extremely simplified, image to portray this point. Elenin is a modest object in any case, so even with perfect alignment, very little could be hidden behind it.

Noclevername
2011-May-25, 10:06 PM
I predict that Comet Elenin is only a psyop to trick us from understanding what's really going on....


A trick by who?

kheider
2011-May-26, 12:23 AM
Mensur claims an alignment of Earth-Mercury-Sun-Venus that matches the Solomon Isles 7.1 Earthquake on 2010-Jan-03 22:36UT.
Mercury best alignment @ 2010-Jan-04 16:00 Sun-Mercury-Earth = 2.69° (on Jan-03 22:00 angle was 3.2°)
Venus best alignment @ 2010-Jan-11 10:00 Earth-Sun-Venus = 0.8164° (Venus on other side of Sun 1.7AU from Earth) (on Jan-03 22:00 angle was 1.9°)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2010_Solomon_Islands_earthquake

vasotech
2011-May-26, 12:50 AM
Starviewer has begun researching this topic.

Of course, I'm sure you all would not even give their claims the time of day, even though they have a huge team of researchers working on this stuff non stop.

View their post about Elenin...

http://starviewer.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/elenin-tercer-analisis-visualizando-el-cluster-%C2%BFperturbacion-de-sagitario/

Now look at the bottom picture... coincidence?

Also, here's their latest post on Elenin

http://starviewer.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/elenin-parte-iv-%C2%BFsistema-solar-perturbacion-de-oort-alteraciones-geomagneticas-y-tgtrpt/

Check this out...

http://i.imgur.com/uSeY9.jpg



As for Tensor's questions Moderation, I do not have answers... That is above my level of knowledge, I just do research and cite what I discovered during my studies.

Noclevername
2011-May-26, 01:33 AM
Now look at the bottom picture... coincidence?


You say that as if you don't think coincidences ever happen.
With Earthquakes happening very frequently, and alignments happening frequently, there are bound to be a great many coincidences.

Van Rijn
2011-May-26, 01:54 AM
http://starviewer.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/elenin-tercer-analisis-visualizando-el-cluster-%C2%BFperturbacion-de-sagitario/

Now look at the bottom picture... coincidence?


What is the claim?





Check this out...

http://i.imgur.com/uSeY9.jpg



What is this supposed to show? I see two images, one of which claims to include Elenin, the other with no useful information (it says, "Image from 2007-2008????? From JPL or NASA.?")

Do you have some claim about these images?

Noclevername
2011-May-26, 02:09 AM
And please answer who you think is trying to "trick us" with "psyops" using a comet?

vasotech
2011-May-26, 03:12 AM
What is the claim?

What is this supposed to show? I see two images, one of which claims to include Elenin, the other with no useful information (it says, "Image from 2007-2008????? From JPL or NASA.?")

Do you have some claim about these images?

The 2007-2008 image is supposed to show what was claimed to be a leaked photo of the Brown Dwarf with bodies orbiting it.

The claim is that G1.9 supernova remnant, is actually a brown dwarf star that is moving closer to Earth. Starviewer proposed over a year ago that Supernova Remnant G1.9 was actually a brown dwarf (You can find their research by searching their website).

And honestly, Noclevername, I stated an opinion and don't need your reticule about it. But I mean seriously, if the [language] was about to hit the fan... I highly doubt there would be any reason to alarm the public and cause mass panic.

After all, look at Japan admitting to keeping the radiation measurements a secret.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=127874

The messed up thing about the image that I posted above is that I've seen OTHER images with the SAME cluster beside Elenin, but didn't think much of it until I saw that posted on Starviewer's website.

The cluster almost looks a bit fuzzy and more faint than any of the surround stars. We would have a view more pictures of Elenin to see if it's consistent.

Look, I hope this stuff doesn't happen as bad as all of you. Not like I go to bed every day feeling exciting that we're all [language].

Tensor
2011-May-26, 03:15 AM
As for Tensor's questions Moderation, I do not have answers... That is above my level of knowledge, I just do research and cite what I discovered during my studies.

Interesting....


I have been researching Earth-Jupiter alignment Earthquakes for some time now and have collected much data leaving me to believe that celestial bodies can and do have a seismic effect on our Earth. (Besides the point...)

And yet, when I ask specific questions about the data one needs to know if there are any connections between the alignments (and the definition of those alignments), you say you don't know.


I hated to even post this in the Conspiracy forum because I think all of the data I have presented is proven for the most part...

Since Mensur doesn't even present the particulars about the alignments and note that when others provide data on those alignments, they prove to be outside his error claims. His claim of ±1° for alignments. Yet, in Post #75 kamaz points out a 2.2° total separation for 1-3-10 and in post #102 kheider points out that the alignment is 3.2° for Mercury (it was actually closer on 1-4-10 at 2.69°) Venus is 1.9° on the 1-3-10 alignment. Both planets and total separation are outside not only Mensur's 1° per side error, but outside his total 2° separation error. Mensur also doesn't say what his mechanism is. Or why he states that inclinations can be safely ignored, even thought they can be at least as much as 10.5° off, yet he want's to claim a ±1° limit. Or why he includes only certain special 4.9+ earthquakes, etc.

So exactly what data did you find that lead you to think that there is an alignment-earthquake connection and what exactly do you think within that data constitutes proof?

NGCHunter
2011-May-26, 03:27 AM
Starviewer has begun researching this topic.

What, they can't make up their minds if the "approaching brown dwarf" is G1.9+0.3 or C/2010 X1? At least Elenin moves with respect to the background stars...


Of course, I'm sure you all would not even give their claims the time of day, even though they have a huge team of researchers working on this stuff non stop.

Youtube also has a "huge team of researchers working on this stuff non stop." They're also dead wrong. If they know the first thing about what they claim to be doing, and if you think their research is sound, then please answer these questions. How many dark frames did Gustavo Muler take to subtract from his images? Were they temperature matched to the images he took of C/2010 X1? Did he do any dark subtraction at all? Looking at his images it's clear that they're full of hot pixels, either from cosmic ray hits or simply permanent hot pixels that have not been subtracted.
http://astrosurf.com/nazaret/images/cometas/C1010X1/C2010X1-110205-J47a.avi.gif
http://gustavomuler.fotografiaastronomica.com/www/images/cometas/C1010X1/C2010X1-220209-J47A.avi.gif
Based on this animation it appears that at least some of those hot pixels are of the permanent variety:
http://gustavomuler.fotografiaastronomica.com/www/images/cometas/C1010X1/X1-110226-J47c.avi.gif
They appear to "track with the comet" because his telescope itself is tracking with the comet rather than the stars (at least at certain times), though when he moves the telescope or camera relative to the comet you can see the "pattern" of hot pixels moving with the comet suddenly change in the middle of the animation (note that although this gif contains about 3 frames, he states he used 20 exposures to make it, so each frame is itself made of multiple images stacked together allowing for "hybrid" frames consisting of an old pattern of hot pixels melded with a new pattern of hot pixels). When you stack multiple images together to form a single still image when tracking with the comet like this it makes the hot pixels appear to be tiny points of light that traveled with the comet. The "Starviewer team" seems to think that these are actual celestial objects. They're not.

shriram
2011-May-26, 03:28 AM
I would imagine that 4.9+ Earthquakes are not significant to this discussion...

Those happen all the time, Comet Elenin alignments were mainly connected to the 8.8 Chile, 9.0 Japan, etc, etc.

My school text books taught me that the reason for the earthquakes of any magnitude was essentially the same- plate tectonics; only the magnitude varies.
Moreover, if you look at the history of the earthquakes, high magnitude earthquakes are not recent phenomena. They happened even when comet Elenin was nowhere in picture. How do you explain that?

vasotech
2011-May-26, 03:32 AM
I will say that one thing I was happy to read is Astronut of GLP running a test to see if Elenin perturbed a small asteroid.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1500742/pg1

Which it did not... That is why I believe that it's not Comet Elenin that is going to be a problem, but maybe something else is there that will cause a problem.

The Alignment dates of Elenin causing Earthquakes date way back before just the recent ones.

GLP is just now finishing their observatory where we will be able to remotely control the telescope.

14" Celestron, 20" Meade

http://video.godlikeproductions.com/video/The_GLP_Observatory_Project?id=229b85e60d66c4a70e2

Guess either way we're going to find out soon.

Tensor
2011-May-26, 03:34 AM
The 2007-2008 image is supposed to show what was claimed to be a leaked photo of the Brown Dwarf with bodies orbiting it.

Supposed? You mean that if I put up a picture of a unicorn on a site and claim it was leaked you would believe in unicorns? Think of any kind of photo as needing a unicorn test.


The claim is that G1.9 supernova remnant, is actually a brown dwarf star that is moving closer to Earth. Starviewer proposed over a year ago that Supernova Remnant G1.9 was actually a brown dwarf (You can find their research by searching their website).

Did you actually research what a supernova remnant can be or is and compare it with a brown dwarf? Supernova remnants are White dwarfs, black dwarfs (not to be confused with a black hole), or neutron stars, possibly quark stars or black holes. All of which would have disrupted the planetary orbits a long time ago. Which amateur astronomers (me included) would have noticed and there has been no information passed along at my local club meetings, nationally, or internationally.


And honestly, Noclevername, I stated an opinion and don't need your reticule about it. But I mean seriously, if the Language was about to hit the fan... I highly doubt there would be any reason to alarm the public and cause mass panic.

Statements here in ATM, opinion or not, are usually challenged for support or evidence.


After all, look at Japan admitting to keeping the radiation measurements a secret.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=127874

Yeah, and look how well that worked and how long it was kept secret.


The messed up thing about the image that I posted above is that I've seen OTHER images with the SAME cluster beside Elenin, but didn't think much of it until I saw that posted on Starviewer's website.

Have you been able to verify that the leaked photo was of Elenin? Or could it have been the same photo of a brown dwarf (and there has been planets found orbiting a brown dwarf) that you saw somewhere else, presented as a leaked photo of Elenin? Or could it have been a photo of something else entirely, that you've seen somewhere else, that was presented as a leaked photo of Elenin?


The cluster almost looks a bit fuzzy and more faint than any of the surround stars. We would have a view more pictures of Elenin to see if it was there in all of them.

This is how you should look at it. Which makes me wonder why you would try to present it as evidence, if you thought we would have to view more pictures.

Don J
2011-May-26, 03:38 AM
How about the same mechanisms that normally cause earthquakes-- tectonic shifts, fault slips and plate deformation?

Is it what Mensur Omerbashis is addressing in his main paper named
Magnification of mantle resonance as a cause of tectonics ?

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612177

edited to provide working link

Noclevername
2011-May-26, 03:42 AM
And honestly, Noclevername, I stated an opinion and don't need your reticule about it.

I am simply asking a question. Who do you think is trying to trick us? There is no need to be rude in your response, simply answer the question, please.

vasotech
2011-May-26, 03:48 AM
The Powers That Be

Tensor
2011-May-26, 03:49 AM
I will say that one thing I was happy to read is Astronut of GLP running a test to see if Elenin perturbed a small asteroid.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1500742/pg1

Which it did not... That is why I believe that it's not Comet Elenin that is going to be a problem, but maybe something else is there that will cause a problem.

And, you don't think that if something else was there, with the mass you keep talking about (supernova remnant, brown dwarf) wouldn't have already perturbed the asteroid?


The Alignment dates of Elenin causing Earthquakes date way back before just the recent ones.

What dates, what earthquakes, what are the alignment parameters?


GLP is just now finishing their observatory where we will be able to remotely control the telescope.

14" Celestron, 20" Meade

http://video.godlikeproductions.com/video/The_GLP_Observatory_Project?id=229b85e60d66c4a70e2

Guess either way we're going to find out soon.

GLP? GLP has a rather bad reputation here. There were people from GLP that have tried to argue their ideas here before. When they do, they tend to have trouble answering, or don't want to answer questions about their ideas. And several people here (me included), who went to GLP, were informed they weren't wanted there, because they were asking embarrassing questions. The kind of questions that required answers with facts and evidence. As a result, most anything coming from GLP is looked at with large grains of salt.

Noclevername
2011-May-26, 03:57 AM
The Powers That Be

I assume this is supposed to be in answer to my question.

Could you please name them?

Don J
2011-May-26, 04:02 AM
Mensur also doesn't say what his mechanism is.

He explain the mechanism ... in detail in the PDF.

Here:

Magnification of mantle resonance as a cause of tectonics

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612177

-Is it probant ? or not ? I don't know ....-

Edited to give working link.

Gillianren
2011-May-26, 04:02 AM
And honestly, Noclevername, I stated an opinion and don't need your reticule about it.

I assume you mean "ridicule." I'm not sure Noclevername carries a purse.

But more to the point, why do you trust the people you cite? What about what they say convinces you that they're right?

Tensor
2011-May-26, 04:09 AM
Is it what Omerbashis is addressing in is main paper named
Magnification of mantle resonance as a cause of tectonics ?
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/061217

First of Don, the link isn't working. I think that you mean this address: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612177 . You left off a 7. (ok, link fixed in the second post with the link).

Second, I've read the paper and that problem I have with it is that he doesn't specify anything about planets affecting the Earth in it. It talks about the moon, and has the following to say about the sun:

Importantly, Eqs. (8)–(11) produce non- sensical results for the Earth–Sun system. That is expected since, unlike the Moon, the Sun “orbits” about the Earth’s respective barycenter only apparently. (equations 8-11 are his demonstration of the Moon's effect).

So, if the Sun's effect produces non-sensical results, then why does he include it in his calculations for his alignments? And, although, as I've said, he doesn't mention the planets, his effects are the same, whether the planet is on the near side, far side, or in between in the alignment. Which explains why he didn't mention the planets. He doesn't have a mechanism.

Don J
2011-May-26, 04:51 AM
First of Don, the link isn't working. I think that you mean this address: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612177 . You left off a 7. (ok, link fixed in the second post with the link).

Second, I've read the paper and that problem I have with it is that he doesn't specify anything about planets affecting the Earth in it. It talks about the moon, and has the following to say about the sun:

Importantly, Eqs. (8)–(11) produce non- sensical results for the Earth–Sun system. That is expected since, unlike the Moon, the Sun “orbits” about the Earth’s respective barycenter only apparently. (equations 8-11 are his demonstration of the Moon's effect).

So, if the Sun's effect produces non-sensical results, then why does he include it in his calculations for his alignments? And, although, as I've said, he doesn't mention the planets, his effects are the same, whether the planet is on the near side, far side, or in between in the alignment. Which explains why he didn't mention the planets. He doesn't have a mechanism.

I don't know if i am getting it right but in (7) he include a mean interval betwen conjunctions of the Moon and the Sun ... thus the Sun is taken into account .

Jason Thompson
2011-May-26, 07:28 AM
Questions I would like answered:

Why do the 'alignments' cited in these things disregard the third dimension entirely?

How can anything be hidden behind a comet? Physics dictates that the only way they can remiain aligned for that to be the case they must be travelling in the same direction at the same apparent speed, and the only way that can occur is if they are in the same place.

How can a brown dwarf or anything like that be affecting us purely by shaking our plates up a bit, rather than, say, yanking Earth and all the other planets around in their orbits and making obviously noticeable perturbations in their locations that would be spotted by anyone and everyone who makes a hobby (never mind a profession) of looking at the sky?

What has anyone done to prove that the correlation, even if it does exist, is a causal link? Does anyone proposing this business about Elenin doing all these things even understand that correlation and casual links are not one and the same?

Strange
2011-May-26, 07:41 AM
I would imagine that 4.9+ Earthquakes are not significant to this discussion...

Those happen all the time, Comet Elenin alignments were mainly connected to the 8.8 Chile, 9.0 Japan, etc, etc.

Do you believe there has been an increase in the number of large earthquakes that needs explaining by something like this comet?
If so, do you have any evidence for that?

Strange
2011-May-26, 07:44 AM
The Powers That Be

How do you claim that the "Powers That Be" have created a fake comet?
Who are they?
How do you know about them?

Are you saying they are powerful enough to hide something that would be visible to any and every astronomer (if not the naked eye) and create a fake comet, but despite that "someone on the Internet" is able to uncover their secrets? Even though non one in the mainstream media is able to? Really?

Van Rijn
2011-May-26, 07:44 AM
The 2007-2008 image is supposed to show what was claimed to be a leaked photo of the Brown Dwarf with bodies orbiting it.


And what is this claim based on? Do you have any background information on this image? Anything at all?



The claim is that G1.9 supernova remnant, is actually a brown dwarf star that is moving closer to Earth. Starviewer proposed over a year ago that Supernova Remnant G1.9 was actually a brown dwarf (You can find their research by searching their website).


They apparently are claiming this is a brown dwarf all of 60 AU from Earth! As opposed to a supernova remnant about 25,000 light years, or ~1.6 billion AU, from Earth. Claiming it is a close brown dwarf is ridiculous. There would be far too many observational differences, and such a nearby brown dwarf couldn't be kept hidden.

Jason Thompson
2011-May-26, 08:13 AM
There does seem to be a common misconception that brown dwarves are somehow invisible. The ones hitherto discovered were invisible because they did not emit visible light and could only be seen with infrared telescopes. But they were also very distant. They do not absorb all visible light, they just don't emit their own. Stick one close enough to a star and it would be no more invisible than any of the planets and asteroids in our solar system. Jupiter is smaller than a brown dwarf, does not emit its own light, and yet is one of the brightest naked eye objects in the night sky. A brown dwarf anywhere within our solar system close enough to be having any kind of gravitational effect on us would be one of the most obvious things in the sy.

tnjrp
2011-May-26, 08:57 AM
That would be why it's hidden behind the comet, no?

Noclevername
2011-May-26, 09:47 AM
And honestly, Noclevername, I stated an opinion and don't need your reticule about it. But I mean seriously, if the [language] was about to hit the fan... I highly doubt there would be any reason to alarm the public and cause mass panic.

I read back over my posts and I can find no examples of ridiculing you in any way. What specifically do you believe was intended as ridicule?

cjameshuff
2011-May-26, 12:47 PM
They apparently are claiming this is a brown dwarf all of 60 AU from Earth! As opposed to a supernova remnant about 25,000 light years, or ~1.6 billion AU, from Earth. Claiming it is a close brown dwarf is ridiculous. There would be far too many observational differences, and such a nearby brown dwarf couldn't be kept hidden.

Among other things, it'd have extreme parallax, nearly a full degree, meaning it would swing back and forth against the background across an angle of two degrees over the course of a year...four times the angular size of the moon or sun.

Amber Robot
2011-May-26, 02:52 PM
Among other things, it'd have extreme parallax, nearly a full degree, meaning it would swing back and forth against the background across an angle of two degrees over the course of a year...four times the angular size of the moon or sun.

Not to mention that the spectrum of a brown dwarf and a supernova remnant look nothing at all alike.

kheider
2011-May-26, 03:05 PM
GLP is just now finishing their observatory where we will be able to remotely control the telescope.
14" Celestron, 20" Meade

There are already two excellent explanations as to why you only need a cheap $30 telescope to confirm that Elenin (or anything near it) is not the size of a planet.

NGCHunter: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/115663-Comet-Elenin-Confirmed-to-be-causing-Earthquakes?p=1893631#post1893631
Jason Thompson: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/115663-Comet-Elenin-Confirmed-to-be-causing-Earthquakes?p=1893857#post1893857

But let me give you the "Kevin Heider" version of the answer:

What would a brown dwarf look like if it was at the same distance as Saturn? Here is a photo of Saturn and the moons Iapetus, Titan, Dione, Hyperion, and Rhea with a 12.5-inch telescope. As you can see, Saturn is very obvious! (This photo was even taken when the moon was 81% full and only 34 degrees away.)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iapetus-2010Mar04.jpg

If Jupiter was 5,000AU from the Sun (1,000 times farther than it is), it would be magnitude 28 and you would need one of the most powerful telescopes in the world to see it. Any planet/brown dwarf near the inner solar system would be very bright. Brown dwarfs are ~13x the mass of Jupiter and about the physical size of Jupiter (but with a higher density). An object with 2x the mass of Jupiter would be a massive planet. Elenin is now 2AU from the Earth and Jupiter never comes closer than 3.9AU from the Earth. If Elenin was a brown dwarf (or a planet 2x the mass of Jupiter) it would appear a lot like Jupiter even in the smallest of telescope using a magnification of only 50x. A brown dwarf reflects light just like a planet. A brown dwarf at the same distance as Saturn would be one of the brightest objects in the sky.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/multimedia/pia12462.html

Strange
2011-May-26, 03:25 PM
I just do research and cite what I discovered during my studies.

What is your definition of research and study? Is it:
a) surfing the web, watching some YouTube videos and hanging out on forums where mad conspiracy theories are discussed
b) studying astronomy, physics and mathematics so you can make informed decisions based on evidence (to be on the safe side, you could do this using books published before anyone had heard of Elenin or Nibiru so you can be sure that The Powers That Be haven't tampered with them)

Gillianren
2011-May-26, 04:50 PM
You know, the funny thing is that I have never heard of these things until someone predicts they're somehow destroying the world. It's not because they're being covered up per se, either. It's because I don't really pay much attention to astronomy news. I'd never heard of Comet Elenin until this thread.

Jim
2011-May-26, 04:52 PM
I read back over my posts and I can find no examples of ridiculing you in any way. What specifically do you believe was intended as ridicule?

Let's not go there. Vasotech, if you have a problem with anyone's posts, Report them. If you really, really want to start a dialogue about those posts, use PM.

cjameshuff
2011-May-26, 05:05 PM
Not to mention that the spectrum of a brown dwarf and a supernova remnant look nothing at all alike.

They'd just come up with an excuse for a different spectrum, say it's a actual remnant or some such nonsense. Pointing out that it couldn't possibly be anywhere near as close to us as they claim seems a better argument against it having an effect on Earth.

vasotech
2011-May-26, 07:05 PM
Okay, more updates...

If a DENSE object that was just above absolute zero was near us we probably wouldn't see it because of Gravitational Lensing effect. Not sure why no one has pointed that out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

This is the most interesting video I've seen on the subject... Could the Brown Dwarf try to make us a part of it's mini solar system?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzaZO1lzioU

Also, here's a guy that filmed Elenin under a IR camera and you can clearly see a dark circle in the background. Call it an artifact, Call it what you want, but I'm going to try and get a friend to recreate this experiment and see if the object is still there.

Video of dark object - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9RE-4oBy0U
Enhanced video of dark object - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc0X5yY1-LI

Strange
2011-May-26, 07:13 PM
Okay, more updates...

How abut answering some questions instead of doing more "research".


If a DENSE object that was just above absolute zero was near us we probably wouldn't see it because of Gravitational Lensing effect. Not sure why no one has pointed that out...

Because it isn't true. One way you can see the presence of dark dense objects is through gravitational lensing. And what has the temperature got to do with it?


This is the most interesting video I've seen on the subject...

YouTube = zero credibility. Got any proper sources?


Could the Brown Dwarf try to make us a part of it's mini solar system?

a) What brown dwarf?
b) No.
c) And are you trying to suggest volition on the part of this (nonexistent) brown dwarf?


Enhanced video of dark object

Someone shows you something in Photoshop and your first thought isn't "I wonder if that is a fake or an artefact"?

Amber Robot
2011-May-26, 07:14 PM
Okay, more updates...

If a DENSE object that was just above absolute zero was near us we probably wouldn't see it because of Gravitational Lensing effect. Not sure why no one has pointed that out...


Not sure what you're getting at with the lensing bit, but you couldn't have a dense object near us that was just above absolute zero. If it's near us, it's getting heated by the sun. And what do you mean by "just above" because even without the sun, you're not going to get an object cooler than the temperature of the CMB.

redshifter
2011-May-26, 07:14 PM
Okay, more updates...

If a DENSE object that was just above absolute zero was near us we probably wouldn't see it because of Gravitational Lensing effect. Not sure why no one has pointed that out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

This is the most interesting video I've seen on the subject... Could the Brown Dwarf try to make us a part of it's mini solar system?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzaZO1lzioU

Also, here's a guy that filmed Elenin under a IR camera and you can clearly see a dark circle in the background. Call it an artifact, Call it what you want, but I'm going to try and get a friend to recreate this experiment and see if the object is still there.

Video of dark object - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9RE-4oBy0U
Enhanced video of dark object - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc0X5yY1-LI

Do you know how gravitational lensing works?

If a brown dwarf was 'trying to make us part of its mini solar system' there would be severe orbital perturbations of ALL planets in the solar system. Are there any observations to support this?

NickW
2011-May-26, 07:16 PM
Gravitational lensing from what? GL magnifies objects behind it due to the massive gravity of the object (an entire universe).

NickW
2011-May-26, 07:18 PM
Also, here's a guy that filmed Elenin under a IR camera and you can clearly see a dark circle in the background. Call it an artifact, Call it what you want, but I'm going to try and get a friend to recreate this experiment and see if the object is still there.

Video of dark object - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9RE-4oBy0U
Enhanced video of dark object - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc0X5yY1-LI


I'll call it an artifact because it is one....

NEOWatcher
2011-May-26, 07:29 PM
As for Tensor's questions Moderation, I do not have answers... That is above my level of knowledge, I just do research and cite what I discovered during my studies.
If this is above your level of knowledge, then how do you determine what research is valid?



Could the Brown Dwarf try to make us a part of it's mini solar system?
It can try all it wants, but I'm not going to join.

NGCHunter
2011-May-26, 07:30 PM
Okay, more updates...

If a DENSE object that was just above absolute zero was near us we probably wouldn't see it because of Gravitational Lensing effect. Not sure why no one has pointed that out...

That's not how gravitational lensing works.


This is the most interesting video I've seen on the subject... Could the Brown Dwarf try to make us a part of it's mini solar system?

As pointed out, what brown dwarf and where are the perturbations on the planets that would result?


Also, here's a guy that filmed Elenin under a IR camera and you can clearly see a dark circle in the background. Call it an artifact, Call it what you want, but I'm going to try and get a friend to recreate this experiment and see if the object is still there.
I'll call it what it is, a hoax from a known liar and hoaxer, jcattera.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread558884/pg1
I can't view his latest hoax video at the moment, but knowing his equipment, I seriously doubt his video even contains Elenin. His IR camera's limiting magnitude is far lower than Elenin's very dim magnitude. As you can see even on ATS, he repeatedly lies about where his camera is pointing in the sky. He just does whatever he has to produce an image that looks "interesting" enough to sucker people in and deletes any comments that debunk him.

I'm still waiting on answers to the questions I put to you here:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/115663-Comet-Elenin-Confirmed-to-be-causing-Earthquakes?p=1893797#post1893797
Do you still claim that the dots pointed out by the "starviewer team" are celestial objects or not?

vasotech
2011-May-26, 07:50 PM
I only made that claim that they were hinting at that. I don't believe I ever stated that they were in fact celestial objects, it's just an odd coincidence that the same pattern is in both the photos.

NGCHunter
2011-May-26, 07:53 PM
I only made that claim that they were hinting at that. I don't believe I ever stated that they were in fact celestial objects, it's just an odd coincidence that the same pattern is in both the photos.
Did you see how many different patterns were present in various photos from Muler? It's no surprise that if you dig hard enough you can find one that looks similar to a hoaxed photo that claims to be "moons of Nibiru." That photo, by the way, originally came from Nibirushock2012 who first claimed it was an infrared photo from the South Pole Telescope (which is a microwave/submillimeter telescope, not an infrared telescope) and later admitted to hoaxing it.

Strange
2011-May-26, 08:18 PM
I only made that claim that they were hinting at that. I don't believe I ever stated that they were in fact celestial objects, it's just an odd coincidence that the same pattern is in both the photos.

Well, if they are faked then it isn't a coincidence.

If it is pareidolia based on noise and/or artefacts then, well, it isn't much of a coincidence either.

Now about those questions...

Swift
2011-May-26, 09:17 PM
I only made that claim that they were hinting at that. I don't believe I ever stated that they were in fact celestial objects, it's just an odd coincidence that the same pattern is in both the photos.
No, you can't play those kinds of games. You can't make a claim about something (Elenin is a brown dwarf, for example), then when questioned about it say "I didn't say it, someone else said it". You are presenting it on BAUT, you are presenting this work as an idea to be taken seriously, then you have to answer the questions about it. Defend it, answer the questions about it, or withdraw the claim; your choice.

Gillianren
2011-May-26, 09:26 PM
At bare minimum, can you tell us what would convince you that your sources are wrong?

vasotech
2011-May-26, 09:36 PM
To set my mind at ease, I would want to see Infrared photos of Elenin and all around it. Including photos from where the guy in the Youtube video claims it saw the 'Dark Orb' in his pictures.

I did not mean to 'make a claim' I just happen to be an avid reader of Starviewer and find interest in their research.

Anyone have a way to do this?

Tenshu
2011-May-26, 09:38 PM
speaking of comet elenin someone on a forum board said this when it was being discussed.

"there will be a press release about this dwarf star next week it has been found in LEO JUST LEFT OF 44LEO.Elenin is bogus so you look in the wrong direction go to terral03 for the facts, it will be with us in the next 2 months be prepard"

What is this person talking about?

Van Rijn
2011-May-26, 09:43 PM
A couple of my outstanding questions:

In an earlier post, you seemed to suggest that Elenin could somehow hide another object. Are you claiming there could be something hidden by Elenin?

And regarding an image you linked to, I'll repeat the text of my question:



The 2007-2008 image is supposed to show what was claimed to be a leaked photo of the Brown Dwarf with bodies orbiting it.

And what is this claim based on? Do you have any background information on this image? Anything at all?

Strange
2011-May-26, 09:48 PM
I did not mean to 'make a claim'

So it was an accident?

But you have made lots of claims; like the mysterious "Powers That Be" creating a fake comet. So how about explaining who, why and how?

Or formally withdraw this claim.


Anyone have a way to do this?

Surely this has already been answered multiple times?

Tensor
2011-May-26, 09:49 PM
I don't know if i am getting it right but in (7) he include a mean interval betwen conjunctions of the Moon and the Sun ... thus the Sun is taken into account .

Nope. He is talking about the periodicity of the phases of the moon. Which doesn't necessarily have to do with conjunctions of the Sun-Moon. First-Third quarters have the same periodicity as the Sun-Moon conjunction/opposition. And if you read a bit further, you'll see where he suppresses the Sun's period, why if the Sun is being taken into account?.

Now, if you want to claim he's including the Sun on the Sun-Moon conjunctions, why doesn't he mention the Sun's tidal effects? Why does he keep harping on the periodicity and not tidal effects? As a matter of fact, he mentions spring-tide three times. All in connection with periods or periodicity

Note, also, this in the paper: "Note that tidal analysis theory allows for the solar declinational tide Ssa (as a major spectral peak) to be a mixture of gravitational and meteorological effects, and as such far from any natural resonance."

His paper is titled "Magnification of mantle resonance as a cause of tectonics" . Why would he emphasize that fact that the Sun doesn't have any natural resonance, if he's looking for a resonance?

Or how about this: Also, some claim that GPS measurements collected continuously within a 24-hour observation window reveal that diurnal peak aliasing could cause the semi-annual period to appear in the signal, but, curiously, not the lunar synodic semi- monthly period"

Why mention that the period for the Sun that he found, may be a false signal? If he is so concerned about the Sun? It looks to me as if he is trying to get rid of the Sun, in his periodicities.

One more thing, if he is taking the Sun into account, when the Sun-Moon are in conjunction or opposition, why does he list Sun alignments alone with Earth and other planets separately from Sun-Moon alignments?

vasotech
2011-May-26, 10:29 PM
So it was an accident?

But you have made lots of claims; like the mysterious "Powers That Be" creating a fake comet. So how about explaining who, why and how?

Or formally withdraw this claim.



Surely this has already been answered multiple times?

Ok let me see here

First off I never said anyone 'created a fake comet', because I don't see a way anyone could do that...

Secondly, If Earthquakes happen at these alignments, we know that a comet cannot cause this.

So it has to be something else? Interesting to see what Earth changes are going to happen in the upcoming months.

Who - The Powers That Be, I don't know specifically, that's why I used that term.
Why - To avoid mass chaos, looting, and panic.
How - By distracting us with a stupid comet that just so happens to being coming around the same time.

vasotech
2011-May-26, 10:32 PM
A couple of my outstanding questions:

In an earlier post, you seemed to suggest that Elenin could somehow hide another object. Are you claiming there could be something hidden by Elenin?

And regarding an image you linked to, I'll repeat the text of my question:

Perhaps the object is not 'hidden' by Elenin, but Elenin has the spotlight as a distraction.

As to the picture, I don't know much about it. A few years ago when I was heavily researching 2012/Nibiru/etc I remember coming across it on some conspiracy website but didn't think much of it.

I figured it was probably faked, I just was pointing out the fact that Starviewer made that connection between the 2 images.

LaurelHS
2011-May-26, 10:43 PM
Ok let me see here

Secondly, If Earthquakes happen at these alignments, we know that a comet cannot cause this.

So it has to be something else?
Like plate tectonics?

vasotech
2011-May-26, 10:45 PM
speaking of comet elenin someone on a forum board said this when it was being discussed.

"there will be a press release about this dwarf star next week it has been found in LEO JUST LEFT OF 44LEO.Elenin is bogus so you look in the wrong direction go to terral03 for the facts, it will be with us in the next 2 months be prepard"

What is this person talking about?

So... Someone from BAUT want to get IR footage from where he's talking about?

Lets see this puppy.

Garrison
2011-May-26, 10:48 PM
Secondly, If Earthquakes happen at these alignments, we know that a comet cannot cause this.

But as has been pointed out the data on these 'alignments' is vague and inaccurate, and based on 'cherry picked data' why should anyone take them seriously?


So it has to be something else? Interesting to see what Earth changes are going to happen in the upcoming months.

The something else is plate tectonics, earthquakes happen all the time, and place like Japan have a long history of large quakes, can you offer any proof that there has been a change in the long term frequency and strength of earthquakes?


Who - The Powers That Be, I don't know specifically, that's why I used that term.

Then it's basically meaningless isn't it?


Why - To avoid mass chaos, looting, and panic.

This makes some sense but it presumes an ability to keep a secret to a degree that no western government has ever managed, and how would they get everyone to play along?


How - By distracting us with a stupid comet that just so happens to being coming around the same time.

But according to your previous posts Elenin is the same part of the sky as this 'brown dwarf' or whatever it is. How does attracting the attention of anyone with a telescope to that part of the sky constitute a distraction?

vasotech
2011-May-26, 10:55 PM
I will revise my statement to say that I do not know if the object is behind Elenin, however think it would have to be close by...

That's the only way that the data from the Elenin alignments could make sense, if there was another object close by Elenin.

What's even more interesting is since the Elenin alignments didn't quite match up according to Kamaz's data...

What if the alignments were really happening because of this 'theoretical brown dwarf', that's slightly in a different location

vasotech
2011-May-26, 11:04 PM
Wow... I hate to even do this, but another connection of the name.

LEOnid ELEnin

Please, this is getting outrageous. I can't believe how many different meaning you can make out of this guys name.

I'm nearly laughing because in the movie Deep Impact, one of the scientists names was I believe "LEO" and and the comet "ELE"... And there was a black president.

Garrison
2011-May-26, 11:05 PM
I will revise my statement to say that I do not know if the object is behind Elenin, however think it would have to be close by...

That's the only way that the data from the Elenin alignments could make sense, if there was another object close by Elenin.

What's even more interesting is since the Elenin alignments didn't quite match up according to Kamaz's data...

What if the alignments were really happening because of this 'theoretical brown dwarf', that's slightly in a different location

Given that your previous suggestion about the invisibility of such an object is incorrect can you explain why this brown dwarf is both invisible and has no gravitational effect on the orbits of any other body in our solar system?

Garrison
2011-May-26, 11:07 PM
Wow... I hate to even do this, but another connection of the name.

LEOnid ELEnin

Please, this is getting outrageous. I can't believe how many different meaning you can make out of this guys name.

I'm nearly laughing because in the movie Deep Impact, one of the scientists names was I believe "LEO" and and the comet "ELE"... And there was a black president.

So now in addition to bad data we have anagram games?

vasotech
2011-May-26, 11:09 PM
Given that your previous suggestion about the invisibility of such an object is incorrect can you explain why this brown dwarf is both invisible and has no gravitational effect on the orbits of any other body in our solar system?

You have yet to prove to me that this object is invisible. We both know that a brown dwarf star would be nearly invisible unless viewed under Infrared, hence why WISE was launched...

The proof is in the IR footage, and preferably an actual IR telescope.

As far as gravitational effects... I guess we'll find out soon enough.

vasotech
2011-May-26, 11:15 PM
So now in addition to bad data we have anagram games?

I was merely pointing out that it's mind blowing all the crazy stuff that is happening with this situation...

I mean, comon guys...

LEOnid ELEnin
NINe ELEven
Extinction Level Event (N)ibiru (I)n (N)ovember

And it goes on, and on, AND on...... Sorry but that seems a little nuts to me.

Honestly, the Deep Impact thing cracks me up how much like our exact situation it is, except without the comet actually hitting us.

"LEO" discovers an "ELE" comet... With a black president.

And also the fact that Calleman's prediction was that 12/21/2012 was actually Oct. 28, 2011.

I swear, Everything is just 'ironic' and 'happen by chance' it seems like to most of you.

Guess that's just how the world works :)

Strange
2011-May-26, 11:21 PM
Who - The Powers That Be, I don't know specifically, that's why I used that term.

So how do you know that these mysterious people are doing ... whatever it is?

And what exactly do you think are they doing?

There is a real comet, OK. So they somehow make people talk about that and ignore the huge, highly visible thing in the sky that has disrupted the movements of the planets? How do they do that again?


So it has to be something else?

Yep. same things that has always caused earthquakes. Why should these be any different?

antoniseb
2011-May-26, 11:22 PM
Hi vasotech,

I would prefer that we not use this forum for attempts at humor, parodying the Nibiru people. Yes their ideas are amusingly unsupported by evidence, but mocking them by pretending to be one gives them more publicity. I am closing this thread to maintain civility.

PetersCreek
2011-May-26, 11:25 PM
vasotech,

You apparently have not read the infraction given to you a couple of days ago for your previous violation of our rules on language. While we do have a language filter, you must not use bad language on this board. Similarly, you may not mask such words (with symbols, mispellings, etc.) in order to circumvent the filter. If you keep this up, you will be suspended.

As for this thread, it's a real mess. vasotech, if you advocate any claim, whether it's yours or someone else's, you must defend it here. No one is obligated to prove you wrong, although they may choose to. The burden of proof is on you. If you just want to discuss this subject without advocating it, by all means, do so. But do not attempt to escape your burden for any claim you make.

Edit to add: beaten by Antoniseb with thread closure.