Ward's look at cause of global warming

[Richard]

Any scientific theory needs to be able to make predictions that are testable. Even though I don't understand the mechanics behind what Ward is trying to say, it should still be possible for him to make some predictions that are easily observable. E.g. an earthquake occuring in a specific place and time.

[Gerbil Rebellion]

Originally Posted by Richard

Any scientific theory needs to be able to make predictions that are testable. Even though I don't understand the mechanics behind what Ward is trying to say, it should still be possible for him to make some predictions that are easily observable. E.g. an earthquake occuring in a specific place and time.

True he should and it is strange how he is commenting on events the day, or day after they do, but using his principles you can track the cone force of the moon and planets as I did myself a couple of months ago in October and you can see it in action.

the very simple basics of what he is suggesting (ward please correct if I am wrong) is that when the moon is on one side of the planet you can track its progress across the near side and the opposite side, then you can see when it nears/crosses a place on the surface of the earth it creates a force that will build through the nearest point, then as it passes it is the time an event is likely to occur. As I said this is the same with the planets, which when occuring in sync will create a greater force, thus a greater event.

If I also have what he is saying correct, which I have looked at with what I know about magnetic fluids, these events forcings are increased by the activity of magma at the surface, which flows easier (not the word I was trying to think of) in *parallel* with the direction of the movement of the moon/planet. This causes a push and pull effect on that line with the heat from the magma being transferred through the crust, weakening it and radiating outward.

Now like all things this is in a cyclical pattern and ward believes we are near, or at the peak of one of the longer term cycles, thus creating a greater release of energy from the earths internal store and so causing a part, or all of the global warming we are seeing (from memory of your earlier posts ward).

Now if he is correct, and I seem to remember something about a 80-90 year cycle, approx 230 year and about 2000 years. These almost fit with other cycles, and if correct it is likely they are occuring just after the main event, rather than causing the event and it is the multiples of his cycles that show this with the dates he gives, but the problem with the accuracy of dates in any isotope dating is that it is generally within 10's or 100's of years. yet Be10 and C14 clearly show similair cycles over the longer term.


*edit*

*parallel* what I mean here is that like the oceans being effected with a push and drag motion by the moon the line of the cone also causes this on the magma but the direction of the flow of the magma is also pushed away from the near side to the opposite side of the earth by the force that occurs, not just by the moon, by the planets as well and yet only the moon has a cone that ends within the earth. At the surface it is about 80-120km diameter circle and it is the leading and trailing edges of this area that events are more likely to occur.
Yet I think a discrepency in wards calculations is that planets, such as Jupiter, has the cone ending in the sun and the earth passes through an area along that cone, rather than at the point of it.

It is plainly clear that any space object that is affected by the gravity of another has that object wobble, just like the wobble of the sun and of other stars they have used the same principle of wobble to locate planets.

[draypoker]

It is plainly clear that any space object that is affected by the gravity of another has that object wobble, just like the wobble of the sun and of other stars they have used the same principle of wobble to locate planets.

There is no reason to believe these "wobbles" have any effect on tectonic movements, which are adequately explained by internal movements within the earth.

Nor does it explain climate change, which Mr Ward apparently believes is not affected by humans.

[Gerbil Rebellion]

Originally Posted by draypoker

There is no reason to believe these "wobbles" have any effect on tectonic movements, which are adequately explained by internal movements within the earth.

Nor does it explain climate change, which Mr Ward apparently believes is not affected by humans.

not the wobbles themselves no but the action of two forces acting on the earth do effect tectonic movement, may not be the full action but certainly a large part of it.

For example in a simple way to experiment the effect, get a large magnet, and I mean large and powerful, then say 1/2 dozen smaller ones, joined together. Then get another large magnet, about 1/2-3/4 the size of the largest one and place them a distance apart, then move the joined magnets between them, you will see cracks appearing in the joined magnets as they move through the fields of the other magnets.

Similair things can be seen with magnetic fluids, especially when under pressure stored in a sealed tube, you can actually get the fluid to move nearer the side of the tube with the larger magnet, but the liquid will still be held at the other side with the slightly smaller magnet and you can create a tidal effect that you can compress and release as you move the magnets out of a synchronus alignment.

The tectonics of the planet clearly act as a liquid over longer periods of time, the creation of the tibetan plateau and the way it has spread show this, as well as other areas of the planet and to believe that the sun and planets have no effect on the earth and the way it is formed is a little foolish when all you have to do is search sites such as NASA, space.com, harvard absabs, US Navy, UCL and many other universitys and then you even have other areas such as the forces on biological processes and forms as described by the zund insitiute.


As I have said before, I do not agree that Mr wards points make for the whole reason either, but as they have an effect on the climate of the planet in one way or another then they should be included in the models, for example (and I dont know if ward has included this in his calculations) the moon is a stabilising factor in our environment due to the way in which it controls the tidal movements and with it moving away from the eaarth at about 4cm/yr it is going to loose its ability to keep the balance we are used to over a period of time, how long that is would be a wild guess but it would have a small effect when thinking of the size of the oceans, the amount of magma under our feet and the close proximity of the moon to the earth.

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by Gerbil Rebellion

not the wobbles themselves no but the action of two forces acting on the earth do effect tectonic movement, may not be the full action but certainly a large part of it.

For example in a simple way to experiment the effect, get a large magnet, and I mean large and powerful, then say 1/2 dozen smaller ones, joined together. Then get another large magnet, about 1/2-3/4 the size of the largest one and place them a distance apart, then move the joined magnets between them, you will see cracks appearing in the joined magnets as they move through the fields of the other magnets.

Similair things can be seen with magnetic fluids, especially when under pressure stored in a sealed tube, you can actually get the fluid to move nearer the side of the tube with the larger magnet, but the liquid will still be held at the other side with the slightly smaller magnet and you can create a tidal effect that you can compress and release as you move the magnets out of a synchronus alignment.

The tectonics of the planet clearly act as a liquid over longer periods of time, the creation of the tibetan plateau and the way it has spread show this, as well as other areas of the planet and to believe that the sun and planets have no effect on the earth and the way it is formed is a little foolish when all you have to do is search sites such as NASA, space.com, harvard absabs, US Navy, UCL and many other universitys and then you even have other areas such as the forces on biological processes and forms as described by the zund insitiute.


As I have said before, I do not agree that Mr wards points make for the whole reason either, but as they have an effect on the climate of the planet in one way or another then they should be included in the models, for example (and I dont know if ward has included this in his calculations) the moon is a stabilising factor in our environment due to the way in which it controls the tidal movements and with it moving away from the eaarth at about 4cm/yr it is going to loose its ability to keep the balance we are used to over a period of time, how long that is would be a wild guess but it would have a small effect when thinking of the size of the oceans, the amount of magma under our feet and the close proximity of the moon to the earth.

What you are trying to prove and what you are saying, is two different things. By your example you are essentially trying to prove a tiny bit of radiation is bad for you by letting off a nuclear bomb. It doesn't work that way at all.

You have to put all the forces in ratio of each other, and the other planets forces are virtually zero compared to the sun and the moon. Ward maybe right that the planets forces are affecting us, but then you would have to say a crane driving past with it's magnets would create an earthquake everywhere it went.

The moon is slowly slowing down over the millions of years and is moving further away from the earth. Someone predicted when we would lose the moon eventually, but I can't bring that to mind.

As I said before to you GR, you can see if 2012 is D-Day as it is the planet alignment year just by seeing the force changes from the earth, mars, venus, and jupiter lining up. The other planets would represent a miniscule fraction compared to those three planets upon the force of the earth. Every few years the main three would line up any way. So you can easily see the relationship.

If you saw the solar system in actual tems of size where the sun is a basket ball and the first lot of small planets cover a football field, jupiter is in the car park somewhere the size of a tennis ball, and pluto is 20km away the size of a pinhead. Then if those forces are true, then my monitor should be smacking me in the head right now, just because of gravity. The electromagnetic force, is a far stronger force, but is far weaker by the amount coming from each planet. Otherwise we would be circling the sun due to electromagnetism, and the gravity equations we have created since Newton was in town are all wrong.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Gerbil Rebellion

Sorry Richard, draypoker and others who don't understand but I would suggest you spend a small amount of time looking at the way the moon influences the oceans as well as the way all things act like a liquid in some way eventually and then with some of the basics you would understand what ward is trying to talk about.

Oh really?

So what force are these cones of force, and why are they cones?

[Gerbil Rebellion]

Originally Posted by Bored Wombat

Oh really?

So what force are these cones of force, and why are they cones?

Yes really, you do know how the tibetan plateau has been created by the squashing and spreading of the rock over millions of years just like a thick liquid.

I don't know what they are called specifically, I recall that ward has mentioned it once or twice.


Look all I am trying to do is explain his theory in my words as I understand it and have folllowed it. In august (not October, was actually the second) was the first time I followed the moon around the earth during the time of the eclipse at full moon, it was quite obvious that as the moon was moving around the earth the opposite releasing side was prone to earthquakes 3.0 - 4.0 and more on the richter scale, and on the nearest side was 3.0 and less on the releasing side. This was just the moon, I haven't tried this with the other planets, but the forces the other planets have may be small electromagnetically and partially held in by the IMF and mainly by gravity of each other but they do have an effect on each other, it is foolish to think they don't when there is plenty of evidence to show that they do, and large planets that have been found in other solar systems because of the way they make the sun (in that system) wobble as they orbit, the same as our sun does.Yet you are right Windguy, you have to look at the ratio of each planet to see the effect and Jupiter and Saturn have the greatest effects in our solar system barring the sun. When you say the major planets align every few years then you should mean every few decades and not make it sound like such a common event in our lifetimes, the same as the alignment we are going to see in 2012 is a once in 26,000 (25,800 to be a bit more precise) event which is extremely rare in human time but not so rare in the 5 billion or so years the solar system was formed, yet to be aligned less than 0.2 degrees from what I recall has been worked out by running reverse simulations is about every few tens of millions of years.

[spot1234]

It sounds to me like astrology mixed in with some untestable nonsense to fool very gullible people. Astrology was effectively debunked in the era of Issac Newton, It seems wardengneering is unfamiliar with his work. Whether or not climate change is real or not this 'theory' has no bearing on it.

[draypoker]

Originally Posted by spot1234

It sounds to me like astrology mixed in with some untestable nonsense to fool very gullible people. Astrology was effectively debunked in the era of Issac Newton, It seems wardengneering is unfamiliar with his work. Whether or not climate change is real or not this 'theory' has no bearing on it.

It reminds me of Emmanuel Velikvosky who knew nothing even about the science of his own day. Apparently he still has followers for his daft theories. But they have no connection with what is known from observation and theory.

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by Gerbil Rebellion

Yes really, you do know how the tibetan plateau has been created by the squashing and spreading of the rock over millions of years just like a thick liquid.

I don't know what they are called specifically, I recall that ward has mentioned it once or twice.


Look all I am trying to do is explain his theory in my words as I understand it and have folllowed it. In august (not October, was actually the second) was the first time I followed the moon around the earth during the time of the eclipse at full moon, it was quite obvious that as the moon was moving around the earth the opposite releasing side was prone to earthquakes 3.0 - 4.0 and more on the richter scale, and on the nearest side was 3.0 and less on the releasing side. This was just the moon, I haven't tried this with the other planets, but the forces the other planets have may be small electromagnetically and partially held in by the IMF and mainly by gravity of each other but they do have an effect on each other, it is foolish to think they don't when there is plenty of evidence to show that they do, and large planets that have been found in other solar systems because of the way they make the sun (in that system) wobble as they orbit, the same as our sun does.Yet you are right Windguy, you have to look at the ratio of each planet to see the effect and Jupiter and Saturn have the greatest effects in our solar system barring the sun. When you say the major planets align every few years then you should mean every few decades and not make it sound like such a common event in our lifetimes, the same as the alignment we are going to see in 2012 is a once in 26,000 (25,800 to be a bit more precise) event which is extremely rare in human time but not so rare in the 5 billion or so years the solar system was formed, yet to be aligned less than 0.2 degrees from what I recall has been worked out by running reverse simulations is about every few tens of millions of years.

So what force are these cones of force, and why are they cones?