Cosmic Catastrophe

[oil pan 4]

Wow you are comically outdated.

[aerohead]

an example:
1) the diameter of the Sun's photosphere, in miles, is known.
2) any magnetic anomaly escaping from the Sun's 'surface' could be assigned a value of one (1).
3) we know that the distance from Sun to Earth is 93,000,000-miles.
4) if you take one (1) and divide it by 93,000,000 times 93,000,000,you get the strength of the Sun's magnetic disturbance as measure at Earth's upper atmosphere, 93,000,000-miles away.
5) Another way of looking at it is:
* construct a scale sphere the diameter of the Sun's exterior.
* put a dot on that sphere and measure it's diameter.
* now construct a scale model of a sphere, with a radius equal to the distance between Sun and Earth.
* Draw a dot on surface of the new sphere, scaled to the diameter of the Sun's dot.
* Compare the areas of the two dots.
* The magnetic energy of the original small dot will now be diffused over the area of the new, much larger dot.
* If you measure the energy per unit area of the larger dot, you will find that it has fallen off as a proportion equal to the inverse-square law.

[aerohead]

That can easily be true, as it's a real luxury to have free time enough to look beyond aerodynamics to see what the mice have been doing while the cat was away.
NASA isn't looking at Geomagnetics, in the sense of 'disasters.' They're always my first stop.
At home I have a list of dozens of other research organizations, worldwide, that look at the heavens and Earth. They publish. They collaborate. They perform peer-review functions with the scientific journals.
Over time I could look up present research programs at each of those I suppose.
Expensive timewise.

[freebeard]

Hypothesis => Theory => Law.

6000 homing pigeons never made it home.

Click Watch on Youtube
In the new tab, watch or pause
Scroll down to below the synopsis and click Show More
in the expanded view find

Papers:
Solar Heinrich-Bond Cycle: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Solar Mega-Flare Cycle: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...

RESPONSE TO ALL DETRACTORS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHBDF_3Dk_k&t=0s

[aerohead]

contextual.
manipulative.
inaccurate.
not only cherry-picked, but a 'paid to publish' paper, simply to imply to the audience, the appearance of consensus and validation within the broader scientific community.
extreme confirmation bias.
audacity to attempt to reduce a required 10,000-hours of study, down to a 10-minute sound bite.
completely lacking in scientific rigor.
failure to defend premise.
easy to understand why broadcasts would repeatedly come under fire.
I don't see any real science demonstrated, only effective marketing attempts towards an audience which is more uninformed than the author.
an un-regulated, non-juried internet is a double-edged sword.
caveat emptor.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

contextual.
manipulative.
inaccurate.
not only cherry-picked, but a 'paid to publish' paper, simply to imply to the audience, the appearance of consensus and validation within the broader scientific community.
extreme confirmation bias.
audacity to attempt to reduce a required 10,000-hours of study, down to a 10-minute sound bite.
completely lacking in scientific rigor.
failure to defend premise.
easy to understand why broadcasts would repeatedly come under fire.
I don't see any real science demonstrated, only effective marketing attempts towards an audience which is more uninformed than the author.
an un-regulated, non-juried internet is a double-edged sword.

Spoken like a true hater.
See haters be like attack, attack, attack.
At least I can agree with the global warming shrills that pollution is bad and electric cars are generally better than gasoline ones.

caveat emptor

You're a comic now too?

[freebeard]

contextual.
manipulative.
inaccurate.

So you watched it then? Maybe it will become clearer with time.

[A]n un-regulated, non-juried internet is a double-edged sword.

Wouldn't have it any other way.

[aerohead]

It's just an objective observation based upon the presentation. A rational response.
Something which has been formally addressed as a specific topic in peer-reviewed, top-tier scientific journals and books over the decades. Something of great concern to scientists.
There's all the makings of pseudo-science, hence the bad press.
I invite all to check out SCIENCE or NATURE. They're extremely expensive, but you get what you paid for.
Anyone who's read real science, will recognize it when they see it.
Successful defense of Suspicious Observer will have to be one with full transparency and convincing scientific argument.
I'm no authority, but I know some of the things which have survived the scrutiny of the specialists. They set a very high bar for what can pass for science.
S-O hasn't passed the smell test.

[redneck]

.

More doom and gloom...




Moon wobble to bring surge in coastal flooding in 2030s, NASA study predicts

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/13/u...rnd/index.html



Original paper.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...ww.cbsnews.com



Note that the timeline in the graph begins in 2020.

🤔


Why not show a graph going back a hundred years?

You know, for context...


😈

>

.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

So you watched it then? Maybe it will become clearer with time.


Wouldn't have it any other way.

I studied every word. And I took my time.
I'm familiar with the schtick, I've seen it before.
Unless one has read from actual scientists who are parts of the multidisciplinary researches implied by Mr. Davidson, they won't have the contextual foundation necessary to recognize and interpret some of the mechanisms used at S-O, in their assertions, claims, and reported successes.
All papers are not of the same value.
The act of publishing doesn't guarantee a value-added product for the reader. On the contrary.
For what I know, it will require more to convince. I'm not easy to seduce.