Cosmic Catastrophe

[freebeard]

Erg is a unit of energy or work. It doesn't provide us with any actionable information.

'Twas a joke, Okay?

Erg is a unit of energy or work. It doesn't provide us with any actionable information.
A context of why we would want to be concerned about it would be useful.

The fire and brimstone is attested to in the Book of Genesis.


https://www.penguinrandomhouse.co.za...4078092_15.jpg

[Piotrsko]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The Bay of Fundy is awash with 100-billion tons of water twice a day, and fifty-foot tides. It does nothing to the residents.

It does nothing generally harmful to the residents not in the bay itself but they do have to accept it's reality and plan for the tides.

[oil pan 4]

Bringing tides into this is nothing but a strawman.

What indeed. Now we are asking the right questions.
Ever stopped to think about what that 0.2% that never changes is made up of?
Other than lies.

[Piotrsko]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Ever stopped to think about what that 0.2% that never changes is made up of?
Other than lies.

Never heard of that, citations please, that don't include media supported data.

[aerohead]

Within the seismology community there is the idea that, tidal forces can un-clamp reverse faults by reducing friction at locking asperities, thereby triggering seismic activity, especially in regions of destructive seismic activity, as Asia and Pakistan.
A look at macro-earthquakes data maps, from 1905- 2021, which indicate ocean shorelines, designate the regions of susceptibility.
In addition, the entire planet experiences a 30-centimeter, lithospheric 'Earth-wave' each day. Any fault, on the verge of rupture, could conceivably experience rupture as the earth-wave traverses.
' Surfs up!'

[aerohead]

Logic dictates that, if nothing changes, there exists zero-variability, hence, no 2%, of anything. Yes?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

Never heard of that, citations please, that don't include media supported data.

That's Aerohead's ridiculous assertion from a 1996 paper that says the suns output only changes by 0.2%. That paper has since been retracted in Nature on account of the observations being non-scientific, casual at best and author seemed to have a predetermined conclusion for his paper.

I think the claim that the suns output doesn't change is incredibly stupid.
Protecting obsolete science is why scientific advancement has slowed to a crawl, advancing 1 funeral at a time.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

....citations please, that don't include media supported data.

When you're looking at a datum, how does one assess it's media supported status?

Logic dictates that, if nothing changes, there exists zero-variability, hence, no 2%, of anything. Yes?

I think you dropped a decimal place.

That's not logic, that's tautological.

[Piotrsko]

Originally Posted by freebeard

When you're looking at a datum, how does one assess it's media supported .

I suggest not using data derived from citations accessed primarily by cut and paste or the concept "click here" and then modified by other attention attracting statements in the title.

For example, I use data from the Mayo clinic for my medical requirements but not Web MD. Guess which one has embedded clickbait

[oil pan 4]

I used the way back machine to find Aerohead's 0.2% solar paper link. Guess what 404 error, lol. The junk science is finally being put in the trash.

- misleading because Aerohead has been proved utterly wrong and is fighting a stupid rear-guard action where black is white (or vice versa) - about 20 percent, but rising quickly

Yep 0.2% has become 2% and is now a debate of what the meaning of "is" is.