Notices

View Poll Results: How soon will Yellowstone Caldera erupt and/or become an envirnomental disaster?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • It is already errupting slowly

    1 14.29%
  • 10 to 20 years

    1 14.29%
  • 20 to 50 years

    0 0%
  • 50 to 100 years

    1 14.29%
  • 100 to 500 years

    3 42.86%
  • more than 500 years

    4 57.14%
  • It is becoming extinct and will never errupt again.

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 130
Like Tree31Likes

Thread: Journey to the Center of the Yellowstone Caldera

  1. #1 Journey to the Center of the Yellowstone Caldera 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    This is to gain some input from those in related scientific disciplines about the mysteries of Yellowstone Park Caldera. From what I can piece together, it would seem the end of the Maunder Minimum wakened not only the sun's activity but possibly the supervolcano as well.
    Since it's discovery some 200 years after the Maunder Minimum or "little ice age," the caldera had been seen to have geysers. I'm of the opinion that it is not impossible for those leaks to be the earliest stages of fracture, thus eruption and caused by a thaw after such a long deep freeze. It would seem logical that if the area is already hotter than it used to be, yet likely weakened around 1650, if it were subjected to some short season of local deep feeze, it may follow classic physics and contract again, thus fracturing further.

    Any thoughts to fail that? If that is possible, could this become a runaway effect? If so, could the aquifers from surrounding states be drained, thrust or even siphoned there resulting in a supersaturation or other event process? My last look at the aquifers from Wyoming and surrounding states, suggests the caldera would act as one large, bubbling, ejecting, hot spring. This could create new tributaries meandering the water eventually to the eastern states and even perhaps raise the level of the Great Lakes. I'm hoping some of you will bring in water tables and aquifers online. They all appear to be interleaved quite a bit. We know a new water body has been discovered on the Western fringe of the Caldera. I want to see if there is any interleave with the underground river in Mexico in the link below:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070305-cave-river.html"
    http://news.national...cave-river.html

    http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...oc=http%3A%2F%
    http://www.independe...red-941456.html

    http://www.environme...akes-river/2190


    http://news.national...ocean-asia.html


    These are all relevant to the subject of the caldera and underground water sources that could affect it.


    The sun's visiable activity may have a link to the Caldera as it "shakes" the Earth's magnetic field.

    I've been working to find a way to predict solar flares. The following list is of a number of predictions made for solar flares based around the symmetry of the solar wind and some other experiments I've run. The first 4 I've been accurate to within 24 hours and today we are looking at what appears to be two flares in excess of 1.5% of the disk. I missed the one we just had Tuesday, but it doesn't rule out the next one coming around St. Patrick's Day.
    Oct 15, 2011 - made the news
    Jan 20 2012 - made the news
    feb 2 2012 - smaller but significant
    feb 15 2012 - smaller but significant
    march 19 2012
    april 5 2012
    may 5 2012
    may 25 2012
    july 12 2012
    july 27 2012
    sep 3 2012
    sep 17 2012
    oct 27 2012
    nov 18 2012
    dec 3 2012
    dec 17 2012

    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/rea ... t_304/512/

    Is there a link between the solar wind and volcanism? It appears the supervolcano may be a type that errupts in phases as its own system disrupts from expansion and contraction. It may be a particular effect or phase could begin and continue for hundreds of years. Such a revelation would be good news because we could know a bit what to expect.

    IMO 2012 will be nothing like the movie sensationalizes and Yellowstone will not errupt suddenly as was depicted there. The one thing I'm speculating is that a deep freeze in Colorado and Wyoming could be a "next phase" indicator and it could runaway over a period of 10 or 20 years... I hope it would be that progressive.

    http://dsc.discovery...nder/under.html


    http://en.wikipedia....owstone_volcano

    http://news.discover...ume-110414.html

    (excerpt about the new aquifer and the caldera's mantle plume):
    The plume's high conductivity suggests it contains high levels of silicate rocks and perhaps briny water, he said. The observation that the high conductivity plume is larger and angled differently than the one found with seismic imaging suggests that the plume of molten and partially molten rock may be surrounded by additional liquid including briny water...


    http://news.national...-magma-science/


    http://ngm.nationalg.../achenbach-text

    (excerpt about the Park's discovery date):
    On August 29, 1870...

    http://www.agiweb.or...pervolcano.html

    (excerpt about 2002-2003 activity):
    Around the same time, the U.S. Geological Survey ...create a stronger framework for monitoring and research. A few years later, in late 2002, a number of geological factors contributed to ramping up public interest in Yellowstone and its volcanic potential.

    First, surface waves from the magnitude-7.9 Denali, Alaska, earthquake triggered about 400 small temblors within the park, 3,100 kilometers (about 1,900 miles) distant from the epicenter. Next, Steamboat Geyser, Yellowstone’s tallest and most unpredictable geyser, erupted in March 2003 and again in April and October. A new and vigorously steaming 75-meter (245-foot) line of steam vents erupted within sight of the Norris-Mammoth Road. A trail in the Norris Geyser Basin was closed because of increased steaming and resulting elevated ground temperatures.

    The above are excerpts from the articles directly above them. The last is where I'm basing some of my questions concerning deep freeze and its effects on this huge "lid." It may offer more than just a link between the the Su's and Earth's magnetosphere's where volcanoes are concerned, it could reflect on seismology as well, which we already know a link exists to a degree. Recently the subject of magnetic reconnection has come into the pieces of the puzzle. These magnetic portals occur every 8 minutes here on Earth. The CLUSTER Mission has only verified these since 2008.


    The Wiki article on "The Little Ice Age," are important because they link, somewhat, sunspot activity, or inactivity, to the planet's climate. How do we come up with some sort of predictability over potential hazards such as the Yellowstone Caldera? Are we all still that primative in our ability to compare evidence that all we can say is "I don't know?"


    maunder minimum

    http://en.wikipedia....Maunder_Minimum

     

    http://en.wikipedia..../Little_Ice_Age

     
    (excerpt):
    It is conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries, though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming 

    http://www.iceagenow...in_a_decade.htm

    http://thedragonstal...mum-caused.html

    My take on all this is just one person's perspective. I'd be very interested in hearing what others have to say about this.

    Hector Decimal


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Nearly all your links are broken.


    HectorDecimal likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Nearly all your links are broken.
    That sucks...

    Try C&p'ing to your URL window...
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    SOHO EIT 304 Latest Image

    There's the one to SOHO...
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    This is to gain some input from those in related scientific disciplines about the mysteries of Yellowstone Park Caldera.
    It would be helpful if you would itemise what you think constitute the mysteries of the caldera.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    From what I can piece together, it would seem the end of the Maunder Minimum wakened not only the sun's activity but possibly the supervolcano as well.
    I just want to be sure that this is clumsy writing, rather than you trying to say something else. The end of the Maunder Minimum did not wake the sun's activity. The wakening of the sun's activity ended the Maunder Minimum. Do you agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Since it's discovery some 200 years after the Maunder Minimum or "little ice age," the caldera had been seen to have geysers. I'm of the opinion that it is not impossible for those leaks to be the earliest stages of fracture, thus eruption and caused by a thaw after such a long deep freeze.
    I believe this idea is easily falsified. The impact of the little ice age on temperatures five hundred feet below the surface would not be detectable. The source of the geysers is at more than order of magnitude greater depth. Any superficial freezing of surface rocks simply would not impact upon such a significant geothermal unit.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    It would seem logical that if the area is already hotter than it used to be, yet likely weakened around 1650, if it were subjected to some short season of local deep feeze, it may follow classic physics and contract again, thus fracturing further.
    Again we are talking order of magnitude differences between the stresses created by geothermal activity and those due to small fluctuations in surface conditions. I am afraid the concept is not viable.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    If so, could the aquifers from surrounding states be drained, thrust or even siphoned there resulting in a supersaturation or other event process? My last look at the aquifers from Wyoming and surrounding states, suggests the caldera would act as one large, bubbling, ejecting, hot spring. This could create new tributaries meandering the water eventually to the eastern states and even perhaps raise the level of the Great Lakes
    This sounds like pure nonsense, but I am quite willing to entertain its reality: please provide the details about the Wyoming aquifers that leads you to this supposition.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    We know a new water body has been discovered on the Western fringe of the Caldera. I want to see if there is any interleave with the underground river in Mexico in the link below:
    In order to establish that you would have to explain how the water could migrate across multiple significant fault lines, impermable beds and demonstrate how a pressure regime could be established that would favour such migration.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    The sun's visiable activity may have a link to the Caldera as it "shakes" the Earth's magnetic field.
    What is your evidence for supsecting this? I know of know research that has hinted at this relationship. On the contrary the characterof the magnetic field and the mechanics of earthquakes would exclude this as a possibility. You will need some powerful evidence and a plausible mechanism if this is to be taken seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I've been working to find a way to predict solar flares. The following list is of a number of predictions made for solar flares based around the symmetry of the solar wind and some other experiments I've run. The first 4 I've been accurate to within 24 hours and today we are looking at what appears to be two flares in excess of 1.5% of the disk. I missed the one we just had Tuesday, but it doesn't rule out the next one coming around St. Patrick's Day.
    Oct 15, 2011 - made the news
    Jan 20 2012 - made the news
    feb 2 2012 - smaller but significant
    feb 15 2012 - smaller but significant
    Please tabulate this against all reported solar flares so that we can make a slightly improved estimate of the accuracy of your method.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Is there a link between the solar wind and volcanism? It appears the supervolcano may be a type that errupts in phases as its own system disrupts from expansion and contraction. It may be a particular effect or phase could begin and continue for hundreds of years. Such a revelation would be good news because we could know a bit what to expect.
    As noted above there is no known link between the solar wind and volcanism. What do you mean by 'disruption from expansion and contraction'? Are you talking about the short term phases in hydrothermal activity? You don't appear to be, but the long term activity of Yellowstone is not related to 'disruption from expansion and contraction'. So what are you talking about here?


    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    IMO 2012 will be nothing like the movie sensationalizes and Yellowstone will not errupt suddenly as was depicted there. The one thing I'm speculating is that a deep freeze in Colorado and Wyoming could be a "next phase" indicator and it could runaway over a period of 10 or 20 years... I hope it would be that progressive.
    I have no idea why you would even mention the 2012 movie: this is a science forum, not a kindergarten.

    You appear to offering wholly unfounded speculation that lacks either a modicum of an evidential foundation, or a hint of a plausible mechanism. I stand ready to be corrected, but you will have to do that with facts, not expostulation, arm waving and word salad.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    (excerpt about the new aquifer and the caldera's mantle plume):
    The plume's high conductivity suggests it contains high levels of silicate rocks and perhaps briny water, he said. The observation that the high conductivity plume is larger and angled differently than the one found with seismic imaging suggests that the plume of molten and partially molten rock may be surrounded by additional liquid including briny water...
    So what?

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    The above are excerpts from the articles directly above them. The last is where I'm basing some of my questions concerning deep freeze and its effects on this huge "lid." It may offer more than just a link between the the Su's and Earth's magnetosphere's where volcanoes are concerned, it could reflect on seismology as well, which we already know a link exists to a degree. Recently the subject of magnetic reconnection has come into the pieces of the puzzle. These magnetic portals occur every 8 minutes here on Earth. The CLUSTER Mission has only verified these since 2008.
    You are making no sense. The last item you refer to explains increased geyser action as being consequent upon a seismic event that triggered serveral temblors in Yellowstone and apparently opened new steam conduits. There is nothing that connects that with the magnetosphere, either of the Earth or of the sun. If you wish to claim there is then you have to offer evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    The Wiki article on "The Little Ice Age," are important because they link, somewhat, sunspot activity, or inactivity, to the planet's climate. How do we come up with some sort of predictability over potential hazards such as the Yellowstone Caldera? Are we all still that primative in our ability to compare evidence that all we can say is "I don't know?"
    The link between the sunspot activity and climate is, as far as I understand it, pretty much consensus thinking. The extent of this influence and its precise mechanism may still be debated, but the essential link is not and has not been for some time.

    Since you have failed to demonstrate that climate could have any significant effect on Yellowstone eruptions there is no link to look for between sunspot modified climate and caldera activity.

    We can only compare evidence when it is available. So far all you have offered are vague speculations.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    My take on all this is just one person's perspective. I'd be very interested in hearing what others have to say about this.
    Your hypothesis has no evidential basis, no plausible mechanism and in this member's opinion you would be better investing your creative thinking in something more worthy.
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Nearly all your links are broken.
    That sucks...

    Try C&p'ing to your URL window...
    No, your links are broken.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  8. #7  
    New Member NorthernIowaPanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Cedar Falls, IA
    Posts
    4
    It's my understanding that the magma chamber isn't full enough for an eruption to begin in the near future. I recall watching a documentary on Netflix under the "How the Earth Was Made" series that pointed to this piece of information.
    HectorDecimal likes this.
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    JG,
    Most of your responses are destructive criticism.

    As for the "clumsy writing" it is more like clumsy editing to wipe out 3000 characters to comply with the editor's demands.

    Obviously, I'm not exhaustively replying to anything specific because your post is overwhelming. As a general response, I believe you are very mistaken regarding the nature of moisture being frozen in the Earth's crust, though not so errant about expansion of rocks in warmer cycles.. In the depictions of the little ice age from illustrations from the 1700's it can be seen as rivers being frozen over with people skating merrily away. A freeze deep enough to freeze a river deep enough for a sleigh to pass over it, would freeze non-moving water much deeper. Granted not hundreds of feet, still if an area is fragile to begin with, the effect would be a surface level, natural analog to fracking.

    For example, if I build a sign post of a medium steel tube, concreted into the ground, but fail to cap the top, the pipe will fill with water and the first good freeze will see the pipe split down one side or the other depending which is the weakest. The energy is transmitted downward lioke a wedge into a chunk of wood. Another example are freeze plugs in an engine. The plugs are there to relieve stress on the water jacket BEFORE the engine casting itself would fracture. The basin doesn't have freeze plugs, it has geysers.



    About the links...
    Prior to posting here, the links worked. I'll see what I can do to remedy that as a particular query comes up, but I'd nearly have to compose a new thread to avoid repeatedly posting them over. I'll see what happens if I C&p a link into Bing. It might give an unimpeded link.

    I want to remind all respondants here that the more questions fired at once, the fewer will receive an answer. I'm not a machine, nor am I a panel of science experts getting paid to dispose of overwhelming responses.

    The editor complained about too many characters when I attempted even to include JG's barage as a quote, so I cut the whole thing. :shrug:
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I want to remind all respondants here that the more questions fired at once, the fewer will receive an answer. I'm not a machine, nor am I a panel of science experts getting paid to dispose of overwhelming responses.

    The editor complained about too many characters when I attempted even to include JG's barage as a quote, so I cut the whole thing. :shrug:
    It's odd to complain about our possibly overwhelming you when you yourself post so much verbiage! If you really want to hear what we think about your ideas, perhaps it is better to post bits at a time, so that we can focus on one issue at a time.

    Here's my contribution: To make sure that you're not cherry-picking data, please post an original source of flare occurrences, along with your criteria of "symmetry" and anything else you are using to claim causality. It's too easy to see what you want to see. Better to have third parties look at the raw data and have us determine what actually fits, given your criteria up front.
    HectorDecimal likes this.
     

  11. #10  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    HD:

    No, they are constructive criticism, since as JG has pointed out, rather patiently and eloquently, it has no basis in evidence or science. It's gibberish without even a decent dressing for the word salad.
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I want to remind all respondants here that the more questions fired at once, the fewer will receive an answer. I'm not a machine, nor am I a panel of science experts getting paid to dispose of overwhelming responses.
    Then why post so much stuff in one go if you don't want to discuss it?

    Can we focus on one thing, then:

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Is there a link between the solar wind and volcanism?
    Do any of the things you link to provide support for that? It seems extraordinarily unlikely: the energy involved in volcanoes is so huge; the energy in solar winds/flares is so small; and the earth is so well protected.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I want to remind all respondants here that the more questions fired at once, the fewer will receive an answer. I'm not a machine, nor am I a panel of science experts getting paid to dispose of overwhelming responses.
    Then why post so much stuff in one go if you don't want to discuss it?

    Can we focus on one thing, then:

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Is there a link between the solar wind and volcanism?
    Do any of the things you link to provide support for that? It seems extraordinarily unlikely: the energy involved in volcanoes is so huge; the energy in solar winds/flares is so small; and the earth is so well protected.
    Yes. Also, you are correct, the energy involved in the magnetic field of even the sun is like a group of 500 refridgerator magnets clustered together. The Earth is like 10 of those and Jupiter is like 50. Not so, though, about the Earth being protected and what effectively happens is a domino effect occurring back and forth between the sun and the planets like a sea of those magnets. CBS News had a NASA scientist last night describing the effect of Tuesday's solar storm as "shaking the Earth's magnetic field." It's like taking a couple of Radio Shack magnets and pushing one around with the other, or seeing how far the fields can be without affecting the other, or stacking them together and seeing how they work together like a series of batteries.

    The links are of underground waterways, the SOHO page and Yellowstone's history from discovery to recent activity. I will say this. The weeks we have solar flares that reach the news, I have more quake notices of 6M and above hitting my email inbox from the USGS. If you did your own searches I imagine you'll find more to support all that than to fail it.


    As for the bulk, better too much than not enough, still at "discussion time" it's always best to take one or two ideas at a time. Not unlike a lecture. At the end of a lecture, you may get to ask a couple questions and someone else may ask a couple more. You wouldn't be able to fire a half dozen or more questions simultaneously at the lecturer without someone demanding the microphone back from you.
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernIowaPanther View Post
    It's my understanding that the magma chamber isn't full enough for an eruption to begin in the near future. I recall watching a documentary on Netflix under the "How the Earth Was Made" series that pointed to this piece of information.
    It may not be a magmatic erruption. We have to examine the pressures as viewed from fluid dynamices. If we applied it to Bernoulli's equations, we would find the internal pressures of the planet reasonably uniform, but not the openings (craters) through which either magma or steam and water would be forced by the centrifugal forces of the planet's angular momentum. A fire hose and a garden hose both have the same pressure, but the fire hose is connected to the mainstream, thus directly to the pressure head. It shoots more further. Increase the fire hoses diameter and orifice to 100 times its design and the water will barely gain any altitude because the pressure cross-section is increased inversely to the actual pressure.

    Magma would not be the danger. Steam, water and ash, as some of the maps out there show us, would pose a wider spread hazard.
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,359
    Re: Frozen water

    The depth from which the water that fuels the Geysers/hot springs etc is between 1.5 and 3 miles. Even the deepest freezes on the surface will not penetrate more then about 4,500 ft
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Re: Frozen water

    The depth from which the water that fuels the Geysers/hot springs etc is between 1.5 and 3 miles. Even the deepest freezes on the surface will not penetrate more then about 4,500 ft
    Now there is some info I've been hoping would turn up. When I do a study I look more from a more strenuous test. I based my depth of freeze at less than 100 feet. If it freezes only 50 feet, the pressures of the expanding ice would be able to split carbonic rock, coal or shale to about 15 inches at the 5 foot depth, so a fissure twice that wide at the surface but shattering its way to most of a mile depth. If this were not so, the flow of underground waters would be far more restrictied if at all. The next freeze I haven't estimated yet. Can you offer a source to validate those numbers?
     

  17. #16  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070305-cave-river.html"

    Hmmm.... At least this one works. Weird, the other two don't.
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Re: Frozen water

    The depth from which the water that fuels the Geysers/hot springs etc is between 1.5 and 3 miles. Even the deepest freezes on the surface will not penetrate more then about 4,500 ft
    Now there is some info I've been hoping would turn up. When I do a study I look more from a more strenuous test. I based my depth of freeze at less than 100 feet. If it freezes only 50 feet, the pressures of the expanding ice would be able to split carbonic rock, coal or shale to about 15 inches at the 5 foot depth, so a fissure twice that wide at the surface but shattering its way to most of a mile depth. If this were not so, the flow of underground waters would be far more restrictied if at all. The next freeze I haven't estimated yet. Can you offer a source to validate those numbers?
    The brine depth is from the book Windows into the Earth: The Geologic Story of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks while the freeze depth is for areas of the Lena River basin in Siberia. The fracturing seen at Yellowstone is due to the geologic stress related to a fluctuating maga chamber and not from surface freeze events.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Re: Frozen water

    The depth from which the water that fuels the Geysers/hot springs etc is between 1.5 and 3 miles. Even the deepest freezes on the surface will not penetrate more then about 4,500 ft
    Now there is some info I've been hoping would turn up. When I do a study I look more from a more strenuous test. I based my depth of freeze at less than 100 feet. If it freezes only 50 feet, the pressures of the expanding ice would be able to split carbonic rock, coal or shale to about 15 inches at the 5 foot depth, so a fissure twice that wide at the surface but shattering its way to most of a mile depth. If this were not so, the flow of underground waters would be far more restrictied if at all. The next freeze I haven't estimated yet. Can you offer a source to validate those numbers?
    The brine depth is from the book Windows into the Earth: The Geologic Story of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks while the freeze depth is for areas of the Lena River basin in Siberia. The fracturing seen at Yellowstone is due to the geologic stress related to a fluctuating maga chamber and not from surface freeze events.
    I want to believe that 100%, regarding the cause by geologic stress. If we can frack gas and water out of deep shale, then fluid dynamic expansion could cause fracturing or just as easily, perhaps even more likely, freezing of water. One exhibit of this underground thawing effect are the recent rash of methane geysers forming in the tundral areas.

    I realize this take on everything tends to speak of a more fragile planet.
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,359
    The problem with both the fracking correlation and the freezing correlation is the ambient temperature from the magma chamber keeping the ground heated above freezing and the ample water from the brine already having lubricated the fractures present for over 2 million years.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    The problem with both the fracking correlation and the freezing correlation is the ambient temperature from the magma chamber keeping the ground heated above freezing and the ample water from the brine already having lubricated the fractures present for over 2 million years.
    Doesn't that tend to contradict the potential of a deep freeze at 4500 ft? I'm aware the calddera is around 10,000 ft above mean sea level (MSL.) That fact alone with what you are saying about the feed waters being as much as 3 miles deep, tends to support the issue of centrifugal force doing the lifting work of the water.

    I'll be going to the library later today or tomorrow, so I'll order some of those ground water maps. I can only get 4 or 5 at a time. It takes a couple weeks to get them in sometimes, just so all are aware of that. I had my hopes someone knew of a link to the grooundwater maps, but that has drawn a blank.
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    The problem with both the fracking correlation and the freezing correlation is the ambient temperature from the magma chamber keeping the ground heated above freezing and the ample water from the brine already having lubricated the fractures present for over 2 million years.
    There! Some links actually work. I went back to another document I had and found originals. The methane plumes are examp[les of what I'm driving at. It is the thawing out that produces the violence. From the perspective of Siberia and the Arctic/Canadian tundra, this would be like fracking Mother Nature style. Areas frozen and thus progressively tunneling, begin to thaw and Bennett's Island in Siberia errupts with methane geysers. 20 years later a group show up in the North American tundra, while not so far away the park is venting and experiencing more quakes. It doesn't seem unreasonable to be asking some questions based upon physics and geology. The one thing I've been hoping to find online is the nature of the rocks in the Yellowstone Caldera. Are we looking at shale? Dolamite? Sand stone? Granite? Volcanic? Metamorphic? Compounding? I'm wanting to ask "Decades not centuries" perspective questions to how they may stack up (pardon the pun) geologically and how that compares to issues such events as these plumes and also against the records of solar activity, quakes, tornadoes, et al.
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Wow... that really does suck about those links. I'll find the original URL's and get them in here. I'm not certain what happened with them.
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I want to remind all respondants here that the more questions fired at once, the fewer will receive an answer. I'm not a machine, nor am I a panel of science experts getting paid to dispose of overwhelming responses.

    The editor complained about too many characters when I attempted even to include JG's barage as a quote, so I cut the whole thing. :shrug:
    It's odd to complain about our possibly overwhelming you when you yourself post so much verbiage! If you really want to hear what we think about your ideas, perhaps it is better to post bits at a time, so that we can focus on one issue at a time.

    Here's my contribution: To make sure that you're not cherry-picking data, please post an original source of flare occurrences, along with your criteria of "symmetry" and anything else you are using to claim causality. It's too easy to see what you want to see. Better to have third parties look at the raw data and have us determine what actually fits, given your criteria up front.
    Y'know I asked myself about cherry picking back in the 80's and even, to a lesser degree, in the 90's. Since then a number of events have changed some of my own opinion. As for the symmetry, didn't I do exactly as you were suggesting by posting about field (ditoroid) geometry in I think math or physics because I compared it to a plasma jet seeming to surround an accretion disk. I think taking some subjects to other specialty threads would be a good idea and keep this general. This approach intneded to give a wide scope of reference to a moderately wide scope of possibly correlated effects. We have a salad bar, but I think that in this thread we have an obligation of ethics to keep to the general topic. Starting specialty threads is a good idea.
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    JG,
    Most of your responses are destructive criticism.
    You have put forward a hypothesis on a science forum. The normal process in science is for new hypotheses to be subject to intense scrutiny. If the hypothesis has merit it will readily stand up to such attacks. If my criticism is, in fact, destructive, then that would be because your hypothesis is easily destroyed. If you wish your proposal to receive serious consideration I recommend you r return to each of my points, at your leisure, and deal with them. If you choose to ignore them it will rather look as if you are afraid to tackle criticism of your hypothesis head on.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Obviously, I'm not exhaustively replying to anything specific because your post is overwhelming.
    That is not at all obvious. I took considerable time to read and understand your hypothesis. I devoted more time to considering the implications of it. And yet more time to formulate questions or make observations that seemed to demonstrate its invalidity. You came here asking for input on your hypothesis. I have given up a considerable amount of my time to provide you with feedback. I am disappointed that you are not willing to address at least the majority of the points I have raised.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    As a general response, I believe you are very mistaken regarding the nature of moisture being frozen in the Earth's crust, though not so errant about expansion of rocks in warmer cycles.. In the depictions of the little ice age from illustrations from the 1700's it can be seen as rivers being frozen over with people skating merrily away. A freeze deep enough to freeze a river deep enough for a sleigh to pass over it, would freeze non-moving water much deeper. Granted not hundreds of feet, still if an area is fragile to begin with, the effect would be a surface level, natural analog to fracking.
    I am pleased that you concede that surface freezing will not penetrate hundreds of feet into the bedrock. Yet you continue to ignore the fact that the source of the heat and the of geyser water is many hundreds of feet below the surface. In short surface freezing cannot have the effect you describe.

    The analogy with fracking of oil and gas wells is badly flawed. Lithologies are different and the application of pressure is quite different. If you wish to make this connection you will have to establish something with evidence, not vague analogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    The basin doesn't have freeze plugs, it has geysers.
    And these geysers are supplied with heat from many hundreds of feet belwo the surface, far beyond the ability of minor surface fluctuations to have an effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I want to remind all respondants here that the more questions fired at once, the fewer will receive an answer. I'm not a machine, nor am I a panel of science experts getting paid to dispose of overwhelming responses.
    That really is quite rude you know. I was not paid to devote over an hour of my life to exploring your idea and offering you my thoughts on it! Seriously, were we meant to fall over backwards in awe at the majesty of your speculation? I am still willing to hold a dialogue with you and aid you in developing, or discarding your hypothesis, but before that happens I suggest you might want to change the tenor of your posts.
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    I am pleased that you concede that surface freezing will not penetrate hundreds of feet into the bedrock. Yet you continue to ignore the fact that the source of the heat and the of geyser water is many hundreds of feet below the surface. In short surface freezing cannot have the effect you describe.

    The analogy with fracking of oil and gas wells is badly flawed. Lithologies are different and the application of pressure is quite different. If you wish to make this connection you will have to establish something with evidence, not vague analogy.
    Actually it's been brought up that a hard freeze could extend as far as 4500 feet below the basin's surface. I stated that I made some calculations based upon a depth of less than 100 feet.

    Are you seeking a link to a site that explains how fracking works?

    I am really trying to ignore the sarcasm. It's very typical that so many simply don't know the difference between constructive and destructive criticism. The further we depart from the prolatarian mindset, the more experienced we become at mentoring. The rule of thumb is for every fault we find we find 5 positive points.

    If your mission in life is to find the bad, you'll certainly miss a lot of the good.

    At least with me, you'll get further if you don't tear everything up like an animal going after the upholstery. You don't need to spend more than 10 or 15 minutes composing a query. A question or two at a time has us wasting less time. A suiggestion would be to do a little surfing, bring in a reference, such as about fracking, to show a contrast then we can discuss it.
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    And these geysers are supplied with heat from many hundreds of feet belwo the surface, far beyond the ability of minor surface fluctuations to have an effect.
    I haven't made any suggestion that freesing on top will affect the sources. What can happen is the creation of new fractures, not unlike we produce with fracking. Older fractures can be enlarged. It is when the upper levels are sufficiently weakened to create an imbalance from those sources that the structures below can react.
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt;313135[/QUOTE
    Seriously, were we meant to fall over backwards in awe at the majesty of your speculation?
    I don't want to be unfair, but that is the impression I get from reading some of HD's posts!
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    As for the bulk, better too much than not enough, still at "discussion time" it's always best to take one or two ideas at a time. Not unlike a lecture. At the end of a lecture, you may get to ask a couple questions and someone else may ask a couple more. You wouldn't be able to fire a half dozen or more questions simultaneously at the lecturer without someone demanding the microphone back from you.
    This reminds me of your "I just wanted to see if you could follow instructions" post.

    Do you really think we are here to be lectured to and tested by you?

    Will there be an end of term test?
    tk421 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I am really trying to ignore the sarcasm. It's very typical that so many simply don't know the difference between constructive and destructive criticism. The further we depart from the prolatarian mindset, the more experienced we become at mentoring. The rule of thumb is for every fault we find we find 5 positive points.

    If your mission in life is to find the bad, you'll certainly miss a lot of the good.
    Please spare us the whining. The scientific method involves a painful form of intellectual honesty that few can stomach -- critical thinking, skepticism, self-questioning ("where could I have gone wrong?") can be ego-crushing. If you post your idea on a science forum, invite commentary, and then get what you asked for, you don't have a complaint coming. If all you really want is affirmation that you have a good idea, without all that uncomfortable doubt, then perhaps the rigors of the scientific method -- and the culture that surrounds it -- aren't for you.
    MeteorWayne and Strange like this.
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    As for the bulk, better too much than not enough, still at "discussion time" it's always best to take one or two ideas at a time. Not unlike a lecture. At the end of a lecture, you may get to ask a couple questions and someone else may ask a couple more. You wouldn't be able to fire a half dozen or more questions simultaneously at the lecturer without someone demanding the microphone back from you.
    This reminds me of your "I just wanted to see if you could follow instructions" post.

    Do you really think we are here to be lectured to and tested by you?

    Will there be an end of term test?
    Aren't you trying to do just that? All I can see thus far is someone trying to push buttons when they have no idea what the effect will be.
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I am really trying to ignore the sarcasm. It's very typical that so many simply don't know the difference between constructive and destructive criticism. The further we depart from the prolatarian mindset, the more experienced we become at mentoring. The rule of thumb is for every fault we find we find 5 positive points.

    If your mission in life is to find the bad, you'll certainly miss a lot of the good.
    Please spare us the whining. The scientific method involves a painful form of intellectual honesty that few can stomach -- critical thinking, skepticism, self-questioning ("where could I have gone wrong?") can be ego-crushing. If you post your idea on a science forum, invite commentary, and then get what you asked for, you don't have a complaint coming. If all you really want is affirmation that you have a good idea, without all that uncomfortable doubt, then perhaps the rigors of the scientific method -- and the culture that surrounds it -- aren't for you.
    It seems you are interested in finding the bad rather than the good.

    What do you think happens when a barage of energetic, charged particles perturbates another field reasonably quiescent prior to the impact of those particles? Try comparing this to what goes on in your TV set or I-pod.

    Are you familiar with the process of beat frequencies? Harmonics can occur by excitation from either end of the spectrum, especially if two waves want to destroy each other.
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Aren't you trying to do just that?
    No, I was asking a question to try and understand if the way you project yourself is deliberate or an accident. If the latter, then you might want to think a bit more carefully about how you come across. Comparing yourself to a lecturer or someone setting tests does not come over as "community spirited".

    All I can see thus far is someone trying to push buttons when they have no idea what the effect will be.
    Probably just an automatic reaction to your attitude. But if this was seen as unduly negative, I will take that on board and adjust my style appropriately. Even after more than 20 years of posting online, I still forget how poorly the hastily written word conveys intention.
    tk421 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  36. #35  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Actually it's been brought up that a hard freeze could extend as far as 4500 feet below the basin's surface.
    This would be important information. The correct response in a discussion on a science forum would be for you to provide a citation to this effect. Could you please do so. As I have pointed out - and several members have confirmed - this is the accepted practice in discussions of this type. I find the cliam difficult to believe, but I am openminded and am quite prepared to be persuaded by evidence.

    Are you seeking a link to a site that explains how fracking works?
    Not necessary thank you. A few decades in the drilling industry gave me some insights to this process.

    It's very typical that so many simply don't know the difference between constructive and destructive criticism. The further we depart from the prolatarian mindset, the more experienced we become at mentoring. The rule of thumb is for every fault we find we find 5 positive points.
    I am not going to patronise you by mentoring you.

    You have come to a science forum with a hypothesis. If you are familiar with the scientific method you would be aware that scientists relish ripping new ideas to pieces. Part of the joy of science is finding weaknesses in colleagues proposals and systematically destroying them, if they can. Another joy is having such a solid hypothesis that it resists such attempts at destruction. Mentoring occurs between research principle and research student, not between peers.

    I have assumed you to be a peer. I have granted you that respect by questioning your idea. I must say the rather easy going questions I put to you would appear like the utmost diplomacy compared with what occurs in the real world of science. I am sorry you see them as some sort of personal attack and further regret that you lack that understanding of how the scientific process works. I see you have posted this idea on a few other forums where you have, without exception, had your ass handed to you on a plate. I think some of the attacks there have been inappropriate. I'm trying to hold a dialogue with you, but if you insist on writing your own rules you will find you tread a lone path.

    If your mission in life is to find the bad, you'll certainly miss a lot of the good.
    My mission in this forum is to question everything according to the established processes of the scientific method. If what you have is good it will certainly survive my mateurish efforts. If I can trip it up then you should welcome that since it will save you wasting more time on a false concept.
    You don't need to spend more than 10 or 15 minutes composing a query.
    If I wish to be superficial and simply attack your idea this would be true. If I wish to consider the pro and cons of your proposal, check some references and look for the more obvious weaknesses then this will take more than fifteen minutes. Frankly I'm puzzled as to why you are criticising me devoting time your proposal. I would have thought you would welcome that.

    As far as fraking references are concerned you will first have to show that the industry fraking process has any relevance to what you are proposing would happen to egyser vents at Yellowstone. I just see no connection at present. You need to offer data to support such a connection. I should prefer you first dispose of the first two points in my original post:

    1. Would you offer us a list of the what you consider to be the 'mysteries of the caldera'.
    2. The end of the Maunder Minimum did not wake the sun's activity. The wakening of the sun's activity ended the Maunder Minimum. Do you agree?
    MeteorWayne likes this.
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    It seems you are interested in finding the bad rather than the good.
    You see, the way science works is this: Somebody has an idea, and they then invite other scientists to throw rocks at it. Really. And if the idea withstands that level of scrutiny, the idea is judged stronger. You want to cast this process -- the most successful process for advancing knowledge in the history of the world, mind you -- as somehow a moral battle of good vs. bad. It's rather a battle of good vs bad ideas. I'm not so interested in finding the bad rather than the good, as much as I'm interested in finding out what part of your (or anyone else's) idea is bad or good. See the difference?

    What do you think happens when a barage of energetic, charged particles perturbates another field reasonably quiescent prior to the impact of those particles? Try comparing this to what goes on in your TV set or I-pod.
    The effect can vary quite a bit, from "nothing at all" to "kills said iPod." It depends on the energies, fluence, and the nature of the target. So what?

    Are you familiar with the process of beat frequencies? Harmonics can occur by excitation from either end of the spectrum, especially if two waves want to destroy each other.
    Apparently you yourself are not particularly familiar with beat frequencies. If you have two sinusoidal waves of different frequencies, no linear, time-invariant interaction will produce any beat frequencies; the result will be the simple superposition of the original waves and thus will have only the original frequencies. You need either nonlinearity or a failure of time invariance to produce beat frequencies. This has nothing to do with waves "wanting to destroy each other," whatever on earth that's supposed to mean.
    John Galt likes this.
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    It seems you are interested in finding the bad rather than the good.
    You see, the way science works is this: Somebody has an idea, and they then invite other scientists to throw rocks at it. Really. And if the idea withstands that level of scrutiny, the idea is judged stronger. You want to cast this process -- the most successful process for advancing knowledge in the history of the world, mind you -- as somehow a moral battle of good vs. bad. It's rather a battle of good vs bad ideas. I'm not so interested in finding the bad rather than the good, as much as I'm interested in finding out what part of your (or anyone else's) idea is bad or good. See the difference?

    What do you think happens when a barage of energetic, charged particles perturbates another field reasonably quiescent prior to the impact of those particles? Try comparing this to what goes on in your TV set or I-pod.
    The effect can vary quite a bit, from "nothing at all" to "kills said iPod." It depends on the energies, fluence, and the nature of the target. So what?

    Are you familiar with the process of beat frequencies? Harmonics can occur by excitation from either end of the spectrum, especially if two waves want to destroy each other.
    Apparently you yourself are not particularly familiar with beat frequencies. If you have two sinusoidal waves of different frequencies, no linear, time-invariant interaction will produce any beat frequencies; the result will be the simple superposition of the original waves and thus will have only the original frequencies. You need either nonlinearity or a failure of time invariance to produce beat frequencies. This has nothing to do with waves "wanting to destroy each other," whatever on earth that's supposed to mean.
    It would appear you have no indepth experience with constructive or destructive resonance. When I was studying physics in my first year course, we learned very early on about periodic motion. The pendulum is one of the first examples. In 2nd year high school electronics we were taught about beat frequencies. A musical instrument teaches us the real meaning of this. An example is, (lead guitar is my specialty but I also play the piano) restricting all dampers on the piano. If we play 12 bars at the high end of complimentary notes the bass strings reverberate. If we play 12 bars of uncomplimentary notes on the high end, the bass strings reverberate more intensely.

    Need I remind you that on an object in orbit, linear does not exist save for a local representation on a representative 2D plane? The pencil only scribes what we interpret as a straightr line because both the paper and the pencil are moving along the same circular trajectory. Do the molecules of compressed graphite vibrate at the same clustered frequency as the cellulose molecules compressed into paper?
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    It would appear you have no indepth experience with constructive or destructive resonance.
    I agree that one of us is insufficiently schooled on the subject. Let's continue a bit so that we may assess where the problem lies:

    When I was studying physics in my first year course, we learned very early on about periodic motion. The pendulum is one of the first examples. In 2nd year high school electronics we were taught about beat frequencies. A musical instrument teaches us the real meaning of this.
    No, actually it doesn't, so your high school electronics class was uninformative. Sines (actually, their more generalized complex exponential form) are eigenfunctions of linear systems. This means that if you excite a linear, time-invariant system with any collection of sinusoids, the output frequencies can only be the very same as those of the input (I ignore here the possible effects of initial energy that may excite the system's eigenmodes). Beat frequencies do not mysteriously emerge from a linear time-invariant system's actions; they can't. That's what I said earlier, and nothing you've said does or can refute that statement.

    So, you ask, why can one sometimes hear a beat frequency in, say, the famous example of two people whistling? An important clue is that you will hear a beat tone only if the two original tones are quite close together. If they're far apart, you will not perceive one. That's an important clue. It's a sign, in fact, that your ears are the source of the beat tone! Your auditory system does not behave as a linear system. When the two tones are close in frequency, the envelope of their superposition has a low frequency, and the automatic level-control mechanism of your auditory system tries to track it out. That time-varying gain violates linear time-invariance, and you generate the beat tone inside your head.

    An example is, (lead guitar is my specialty but I also play the piano) restricting all dampers on the piano. If we play 12 bars at the high end of complimentary notes the bass strings reverberate. If we play 12 bars of uncomplimentary notes on the high end, the bass strings reverberate more intensely.
    You are confusing "beat tones" with ordinary resonance.

    Need I remind you that on an object in orbit, linear does not exist save for a local representation on a representative 2D plane? The pencil only scribes what we interpret as a straightr line because both the paper and the pencil are moving along the same circular trajectory. Do the molecules of compressed graphite vibrate at the same clustered frequency as the cellulose molecules compressed into paper?
    You seem to misunderstand what "linear system" means. But yes, compressed graphite will exhibit a collective motion that has the same general spectral characteristics as the motion of the paper's cellulose, for small enough excitations that allow satisfaction of LTI as a good approximation. That having been said, it seems entirely irrelevant to your hypothesis/theory, but you seem to think that it's critically important. Please explain.
    Strange likes this.
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    It would appear you have no indepth experience with constructive or destructive resonance.
    I agree that one of us is insufficiently schooled on the subject. Let's continue a bit so that we may assess where the problem lies:

    When I was studying physics in my first year course, we learned very early on about periodic motion. The pendulum is one of the first examples. In 2nd year high school electronics we were taught about beat frequencies. A musical instrument teaches us the real meaning of this.
    No, actually it doesn't, so your high school electronics class was uninformative. Sines (actually, their more generalized complex exponential form) are eigenfunctions of linear systems. This means that if you excite a linear, time-invariant system with any collection of sinusoids, the output frequencies can only be the very same as those of the input (I ignore here the possible effects of initial energy that may excite the system's eigenmodes). Beat frequencies do not mysteriously emerge from a linear time-invariant system's actions; they can't. That's what I said earlier, and nothing you've said does or can refute that statement.

    So, you ask, why can one sometimes hear a beat frequency in, say, the famous example of two people whistling? An important clue is that you will hear a beat tone only if the two original tones are quite close together. If they're far apart, you will not perceive one. That's an important clue. It's a sign, in fact, that your ears are the source of the beat tone! Your auditory system does not behave as a linear system. When the two tones are close in frequency, the envelope of their superposition has a low frequency, and the automatic level-control mechanism of your auditory system tries to track it out. That time-varying gain violates linear time-invariance, and you generate the beat tone inside your head.

    An example is, (lead guitar is my specialty but I also play the piano) restricting all dampers on the piano. If we play 12 bars at the high end of complimentary notes the bass strings reverberate. If we play 12 bars of uncomplimentary notes on the high end, the bass strings reverberate more intensely.
    You are confusing "beat tones" with ordinary resonance.

    Need I remind you that on an object in orbit, linear does not exist save for a local representation on a representative 2D plane? The pencil only scribes what we interpret as a straightr line because both the paper and the pencil are moving along the same circular trajectory. Do the molecules of compressed graphite vibrate at the same clustered frequency as the cellulose molecules compressed into paper?
    You seem to misunderstand what "linear system" means. But yes, compressed graphite will exhibit a collective motion that has the same general spectral characteristics as the motion of the paper's cellulose, for small enough excitations that allow satisfaction of LTI as a good approximation. That having been said, it seems entirely irrelevant to your hypothesis/theory, but you seem to think that it's critically important. Please explain.
    Now that would be convenient for your strawman wouldn't it?
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Now that would be convenient for your strawman wouldn't it?
    Is that your best rebuttal to the scientific points I've made? If so, then you've confirmed that I have not constructed a strawman. As you've made several statements that reveal an ignorance of what properties are exhibited -- and not exhibited -- by a linear system, my statement that you "seem to misunderstand what 'linear system' means" would seem to have a strong foundation in evidence. I can see why you'd take it personally, but no one compelled you to make those demonstrably erroneous statements (and in an arrogant tone, no less; look up "Dunning-Kruger" for possible enlightenment). I corrected you. Move on, please.
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    It would appear you have no indepth experience with constructive or destructive resonance.
    I agree that one of us is insufficiently schooled on the subject. Let's continue a bit so that we may assess where the problem lies:

    When I was studying physics in my first year course, we learned very early on about periodic motion. The pendulum is one of the first examples. In 2nd year high school electronics we were taught about beat frequencies. A musical instrument teaches us the real meaning of this.
    No, actually it doesn't, so your high school electronics class was uninformative. Sines (actually, their more generalized complex exponential form) are eigenfunctions of linear systems. This means that if you excite a linear, time-invariant system with any collection of sinusoids, the output frequencies can only be the very same as those of the input (I ignore here the possible effects of initial energy that may excite the system's eigenmodes). Beat frequencies do not mysteriously emerge from a linear time-invariant system's actions; they can't. That's what I said earlier, and nothing you've said does or can refute that statement.

    So, you ask, why can one sometimes hear a beat frequency in, say, the famous example of two people whistling? An important clue is that you will hear a beat tone only if the two original tones are quite close together. If they're far apart, you will not perceive one. That's an important clue. It's a sign, in fact, that your ears are the source of the beat tone! Your auditory system does not behave as a linear system. When the two tones are close in frequency, the envelope of their superposition has a low frequency, and the automatic level-control mechanism of your auditory system tries to track it out. That time-varying gain violates linear time-invariance, and you generate the beat tone inside your head.

    An example is, (lead guitar is my specialty but I also play the piano) restricting all dampers on the piano. If we play 12 bars at the high end of complimentary notes the bass strings reverberate. If we play 12 bars of uncomplimentary notes on the high end, the bass strings reverberate more intensely.
    You are confusing "beat tones" with ordinary resonance.

    Need I remind you that on an object in orbit, linear does not exist save for a local representation on a representative 2D plane? The pencil only scribes what we interpret as a straightr line because both the paper and the pencil are moving along the same circular trajectory. Do the molecules of compressed graphite vibrate at the same clustered frequency as the cellulose molecules compressed into paper?
    You seem to misunderstand what "linear system" means. But yes, compressed graphite will exhibit a collective motion that has the same general spectral characteristics as the motion of the paper's cellulose, for small enough excitations that allow satisfaction of LTI as a good approximation. That having been said, it seems entirely irrelevant to your hypothesis/theory, but you seem to think that it's critically important. Please explain.
    http://www.electroherbalism.com/Bioelectronics/FrequenciesandAnecdotes/HarmonicsandHeterodyning.htm
    Fundamental Frequency and Harmonics
    Yahoo! Canada Answers - How to find the harmonics of each tone and the beat frequency ?

    As you have said: One of us does not understand beat frequencies and, as I've mentioned, periodic motion.

    You may note in the cited articles, that various waves work together to form other waves, as the guitar example depicts. The first one could be depicted as a linear system, from the mathematical perspective, but a physical linear system of waves will often involve inverse operations to predict an outcome. Even in the guitar example, the sounding board is omitted for simplification, but, like the earth, it is the transmission medium, thus it reacts and resonates with more complex harmonics, so a very high note can generate a lower sympathetic note. A classic example can be heard in "Yes: And You and I." To do this the guitarist barely adds any energy with the pick, that being plucked near the 10th harmonic close to the bridge. The various harmonic positions are simultaneously touched to extract the entire spectrum of harmonics. Eddy Van Halen is a total pro at this, but he may not care about the science behind it all...

    The earth, as in rock, becomes the transmission medium for the "plucking" of the sun's magnetic "pick."
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Now that would be convenient for your strawman wouldn't it?
    Is that your best rebuttal to the scientific points I've made? If so, then you've confirmed that I have not constructed a strawman. As you've made several statements that reveal an ignorance of what properties are exhibited -- and not exhibited -- by a linear system, my statement that you "seem to misunderstand what 'linear system' means" would seem to have a strong foundation in evidence. I can see why you'd take it personally, but no one compelled you to make those demonstrably erroneous statements (and in an arrogant tone, no less; look up "Dunning-Kruger" for possible enlightenment). I corrected you. Move on, please.
    So quick to judge the painting before the gesso is dry. :eyeroll:
     

  44. #43  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Now that would be convenient for your strawman wouldn't it?
    So you had to quote that whole freakin' post for a meaningless 1 line response?
    tk421 likes this.
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    As you have said: One of us does not understand beat frequencies and, as I've mentioned, periodic motion.

    You may note in the cited articles, that various waves work together to form other waves, as the guitar example depicts. The first one could be depicted as a linear system, from the mathematical perspective, but a physical linear system of waves will often involve inverse operations to predict an outcome. Even in the guitar example, the sounding board is omitted for simplification, but, like the earth, it is the transmission medium, thus it reacts and resonates with more complex harmonics, so a very high note can generate a lower sympathetic note. A classic example can be heard in "Yes: And You and I." To do this the guitarist barely adds any energy with the pick, that being plucked near the 10th harmonic close to the bridge. The various harmonic positions are simultaneously touched to extract the entire spectrum of harmonics. Eddy Van Halen is a total pro at this, but he may not care about the science behind it all...
    Your word salad just serves sadly to show that you have no understanding whatsoever of these phenomena. To repeat, an LTI (linear, time-invariant) system cannot produce frequencies not present at the inputs. Period. End of story. If you disagree, show your math, and I will point out where you are in error.

    Now, a nonlinear, non-time-invariant system can certainly generate other tones. But that is precisely why I have said all along that beat frequencies cannot result from the action of an LTI system. You seem to misunderstand the subject at so deep a level that you missed even that key part, despite my multiple repetitions of "...an LTI system cannot..." Go back and reread what I wrote. I chose my words precisely. I meant what I wrote, and what I wrote is correct.

    You do not even understand how much you do not understand.
    Strange likes this.
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    So quick to judge the painting before the gesso is dry. :eyeroll:
    Your childishness does not serve you well. Eyerolls do not a convincing scientific argument make.
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Now that would be convenient for your strawman wouldn't it?
    So you had to quote that whole freakin' post for a meaningless 1 line response?
    I wouldn't want to disappoint you :shrugs:
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    This being a science forum, let's have a critical look at the statements you have made.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    ... various waves work together to form other waves, as the guitar example depicts. The first one could be depicted as a linear system, from the mathematical perspective, but a physical linear system of waves will often involve inverse operations to predict an outcome.


    Linear systems -- physical or otherwise -- do not predict outcomes, whether or not they "involve inverse operations." I don't know what you mean by the phrase in quotes.

    Even in the guitar example, the sounding board is omitted for simplification, but, like the earth, it is the transmission medium, thus it reacts and resonates with more complex harmonics, so a very high note can generate a lower sympathetic note.
    A high note can only generate a lower "sympathetic" note if a nonlinear/non-TI process is involved. The complexity of the harmonic content is largely irrelevant.
    (The qualifier "largely" is there only because you need to meet a sufficiency condition. I can say much more on this if you wish to discuss it.)

    As I've said several times now, beat tones are only possible if the system violates LTI. Resonance is irrelevant. Eddie (not Eddy) Van Halen is irrelevant (and I'm not just talking musically).
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    As you have said: One of us does not understand beat frequencies and, as I've mentioned, periodic motion.

    You may note in the cited articles, that various waves work together to form other waves, as the guitar example depicts. The first one could be depicted as a linear system, from the mathematical perspective, but a physical linear system of waves will often involve inverse operations to predict an outcome. Even in the guitar example, the sounding board is omitted for simplification, but, like the earth, it is the transmission medium, thus it reacts and resonates with more complex harmonics, so a very high note can generate a lower sympathetic note. A classic example can be heard in "Yes: And You and I." To do this the guitarist barely adds any energy with the pick, that being plucked near the 10th harmonic close to the bridge. The various harmonic positions are simultaneously touched to extract the entire spectrum of harmonics. Eddy Van Halen is a total pro at this, but he may not care about the science behind it all...
    Your word salad just serves sadly to show that you have no understanding whatsoever of these phenomena. To repeat, an LTI (linear, time-invariant) system cannot produce frequencies not present at the inputs. Period. End of story. If you disagree, show your math, and I will point out where you are in error.

    Now, a nonlinear, non-time-invariant system can certainly generate other tones. But that is precisely why I have said all along that beat frequencies cannot result from the action of an LTI system. You seem to misunderstand the subject at so deep a level that you missed even that key part, despite my multiple repetitions of "...an LTI system cannot..." Go back and reread what I wrote. I chose my words precisely. I meant what I wrote, and what I wrote is correct.

    You do not even understand how much you do not understand.
    So... you claim to be great at math but not so great at physics? Whether you want to recognize it or not, math tends to exact a particular proposition in the physical world, unless we are talking pure math, which we aren't. We can, in fact, reduce a circular reference to a function useful in a linear equation and, in the case of frequencies, solve any number of instances, or divisions, we like.

    If we were calculating a resonant circuit intended to generate a particular time invariant signal, say from the FM radio transmitter to the FM receiver, then we only need to develop a system using just such a basic function, like 1000/(n +1) = a {n = 1, n =2, .... n= something else}
    When we are talking about spherical magnetic fields being slammed into the same proximity, the results are spherical at the least, but proliferous of asymmetrical phase relationships. On the celestial frame of reference, the uncertainty principle will rule, so our results, having insufficient knowledge of the geometry, so time and position unknown, our final product will be an estimate at best.

    LTI does not apply here. Perhaps that describes your strawman a bit better...
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    This being a science forum, let's have a critical look at the statements you have made.

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    ... various waves work together to form other waves, as the guitar example depicts. The first one could be depicted as a linear system, from the mathematical perspective, but a physical linear system of waves will often involve inverse operations to predict an outcome.


    Linear systems -- physical or otherwise -- do not predict outcomes, whether or not they "involve inverse operations." I don't know what you mean by the phrase in quotes.

    Even in the guitar example, the sounding board is omitted for simplification, but, like the earth, it is the transmission medium, thus it reacts and resonates with more complex harmonics, so a very high note can generate a lower sympathetic note.
    A high note can only generate a lower "sympathetic" note if a nonlinear/non-TI process is involved. The complexity of the harmonic content is largely irrelevant.
    (The qualifier "largely" is there only because you need to meet a sufficiency condition. I can say much more on this if you wish to discuss it.)

    As I've said several times now, beat tones are only possible if the system violates LTI. Resonance is irrelevant. Eddie (not Eddy) Van Halen is irrelevant (and I'm not just talking musically).
    You are so very wrong. Tell the Icelanders that the harmonic tremors they hear prior to volcanic activity have no comparison to music.

    I'm sure you could hijack this thread into an irrelevant display of math that some of us will fathom, while others won't. That's the intent of your strawman.

    If you want to discuss math, let's proliferate it into a specialty discussion. I'm not the best math guy, but I'm not the worst either. What I don't have is a math editor that makes me happy. We can use this one to place a horizontal line or do sub-post scripts, but even it lacks since depicting a summation would take some gyrations I'd like to avoid.
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    So... you claim to be great at math but not so great at physics?
    I made neither claim; and besides, the correctness of what I've written stands by itself. I make no appeal to authority.

    Whether you want to recognize it or not, math tends to exact a particular proposition in the physical world, unless we are talking pure math, which we aren't. We can, in fact, reduce a circular reference to a function useful in a linear equation and, in the case of frequencies, solve any number of instances, or divisions, we like.
    I have no idea what you are trying to say here. None at all.

    If we were calculating a resonant circuit intended to generate a particular time invariant signal, say from the FM radio transmitter to the FM receiver, then we only need to develop a system using just such a basic function, like 1000/(n +1) = a {n = 1, n =2, .... n= something else}
    No. To generate an FM signal requires a non-LTI system. In FM (a generalized form of phase modulation), one varies the instantaneous phase of a carrier in conformance with a modulating signal. That operation is mathematically described by varying the argument within a sine function (for example). That is self-evidently not a linear time-invariant operation.

    When we are talking about spherical magnetic fields being slammed into the same proximity, the results are spherical at the least, but proliferous of asymmetrical phase relationships. On the celestial frame of reference, the uncertainty principle will rule, so our results, having insufficient knowledge of the geometry, so time and position unknown, our final product will be an estimate at best.
    Both of us are having problems following the thread from your FM statement to "spherical, but proliferous asymmetrical phase relationships." What are you trying to say here?

    LTI does not apply here. Perhaps that describes your strawman a bit better...
    You'd have a point if I had claimed that LTI applied to your example. However, I point out that my statement preceded your example, and that I explained clearly the domain of my statements. You are the one constructing a strawman.

    I recommend that you quit digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole. You're sounding less credible with each successive post.
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    You are so very wrong. Tell the Icelanders that the harmonic tremors they hear prior to volcanic activity have no comparison to music.
    Now you are simply descending into weak crackpot-like behavior. You appear to be engaging in "proof by proxy" in citing some imagined authority in reaction to some statement that you imagined that I made. Instead, please cite the specific statement you claim is in error and describe where my error lies. I can see no relevance between your claim about what Icelanders would say and anything that I wrote.

    I'm sure you could hijack this thread into an irrelevant display of math that some of us will fathom, while others won't. That's the intent of your strawman.
    It's clear that you are simply raising that false claim in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, scientifically speaking. I've been careful to address only statements that you've actually made. It's been too easy to find fundamental flaws in those statements. That's no strawman that's folding -- that's you, HectorDecimal.

    If you want to discuss math, let's proliferate it into a specialty discussion. I'm not the best math guy, but I'm not the worst either. What I don't have is a math editor that makes me happy. We can use this one to place a horizontal line or do sub-post scripts, but even it lacks since depicting a summation would take some gyrations I'd like to avoid.
    I am happy to discuss math with you if you wish. In order for that discussion to be fruitful, I need to target the appropriate level. My assessment from your discussion so far is that you are at best at a high-school level equivalent. Is this correct?
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    You are so very wrong. Tell the Icelanders that the harmonic tremors they hear prior to volcanic activity have no comparison to music.
    Now you are simply descending into weak crackpot-like behavior. You appear to be engaging in "proof by proxy" in citing some imagined authority in reaction to some statement that you imagined that I made. Instead, please cite the specific statement you claim is in error and describe where my error lies. I can see no relevance between your claim about what Icelanders would say and anything that I wrote.

    I'm sure you could hijack this thread into an irrelevant display of math that some of us will fathom, while others won't. That's the intent of your strawman.
    It's clear that you are simply raising that false claim in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, scientifically speaking. I've been careful to address only statements that you've actually made. It's been too easy to find fundamental flaws in those statements. That's no strawman that's folding -- that's you, HectorDecimal.

    If you want to discuss math, let's proliferate it into a specialty discussion. I'm not the best math guy, but I'm not the worst either. What I don't have is a math editor that makes me happy. We can use this one to place a horizontal line or do sub-post scripts, but even it lacks since depicting a summation would take some gyrations I'd like to avoid.
    I am happy to discuss math with you if you wish. In order for that discussion to be fruitful, I need to target the appropriate level. My assessment from your discussion so far is that you are at best at a high-school level equivalent. Is this correct?
    You were wrong before. You are twice as wrong now.

    Why on earth would I want to discuss any mathematical proposition with someone so abusively condescendent as you've been demonstrating? I've seen this type of game playing before and I'm not a player.

    If you can apply your argument to the wave interference issue of some approximated CME's energy colliding with the Earth's field and even approximate the interleave and subsequent divergence/convergence model, then by all means do so. You've already demonstrated that if you can't understand what's going on in all this, well then I certainly can't either, so I may as well continue in my feeble attempts to communicate what it is I want to tell the audience, then struggle in my ineptitude to do that telling in more exacting terms, then relate afterward what I just told them. However, if all you can do is carry on a discussion neither of us can understand, then I don't see a point in responding to such.
     

  54. #53  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I am pleased that you concede that surface freezing will not penetrate hundreds of feet into the bedrock. Yet you continue to ignore the fact that the source of the heat and the of geyser water is many hundreds of feet below the surface. In short surface freezing cannot have the effect you describe.

    The analogy with fracking of oil and gas wells is badly flawed. Lithologies are different and the application of pressure is quite different. If you wish to make this connection you will have to establish something with evidence, not vague analogy.
    Actually it's been brought up that a hard freeze could extend as far as 4500 feet below the basin's surface. I stated that I made some calculations based upon a depth of less than 100 feet.
    If you are going to quote my comments, please include the full information that I provided, that being Yellowstone is not a situation in which the 4500' deep permafrost levels (as seen in the Lena river area of Russia) can be achieved. As i noted the geothermal heat from the geologically near surface magma chamber would prevent it. Also the host rock has already been noted to be gneiss and schist, which are not the same rocks as are needed for fracking to be effective.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    You were wrong before. You are twice as wrong now.
    As you have since your first post, you are making assertions wholly without foundation. In short, you're behaving as an infant ("I am not wrong; you're twice as wrong").

    Why on earth would I want to discuss any mathematical proposition with someone so abusively condescendent as you've been demonstrating? I've seen this type of game playing before and I'm not a player.
    Sorry that you feel that I am "abusively condescendent" but ignorant arrogance needs to be challenged in a science forum. And you are both ignorant and arrogant. Your ignorance is evident from your provably incorrect assertions (made repeatedly), and you are arrogant in your behavior. Again, I suggest reading about the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    If you can apply your argument to the wave interference issue of some approximated CME's energy colliding with the Earth's field and even approximate the interleave and subsequent divergence/convergence model, then by all means do so.
    I didn't start this thread -- you did. We are not here to entertain you. I should have the right to point out your errors. You don't have to like it. You don't even have to acknowledge it. But I remind you that you came here.

    You've already demonstrated that if you can't understand what's going on in all this, well then I certainly can't either,...
    Again, you're making statements without foundation. I understand very well what's going on. You have a flaky proposition. We raised questions and objections. You offered broken physics in response, and we pointed out the errors. That's the scientific method, HectorDecimal. You seem to think that ego-stroking is the purpose of this exercise. Sorry to disappoint. Again, the scientific method can be harsh if you get too attached to your idea and others point out that your idea is flawed. If your ego is too fragile to handle the rigors of science, then you should acknowledge that weakness and withdraw, rather than whine that we won't play along with your Nobel fantasies.

    ...so I may as well continue in my feeble attempts to communicate what it is I want to tell the audience, then struggle in my ineptitude to do that telling in more exacting terms, then relate afterward what I just told them. However, if all you can do is carry on a discussion neither of us can understand, then I don't see a point in responding to such.
    You have only yourself to blame for the communication lapse. I've been quite clear in my comments, as have others here. You simply lash out like a wounded elementary school child in response, rather than make a sincere effort to process what we're telling you. It is clear that you didn't come here with a genuine desire to learn; you seem to have come here in expectation of exaltation. Sorry to disappoint. This is a science forum (indeed, it is The Science Forum). What did you expect?
    John Galt likes this.
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    You were wrong before. You are twice as wrong now.
    As you have since your first post, you are making assertions wholly without foundation. In short, you're behaving as an infant ("I am not wrong; you're twice as wrong").

    Why on earth would I want to discuss any mathematical proposition with someone so abusively condescendent as you've been demonstrating? I've seen this type of game playing before and I'm not a player.
    Sorry that you feel that I am "abusively condescendent" but ignorant arrogance needs to be challenged in a science forum. And you are both ignorant and arrogant. Your ignorance is evident from your provably incorrect assertions (made repeatedly), and you are arrogant in your behavior. Again, I suggest reading about the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    If you can apply your argument to the wave interference issue of some approximated CME's energy colliding with the Earth's field and even approximate the interleave and subsequent divergence/convergence model, then by all means do so.
    I didn't start this thread -- you did. We are not here to entertain you. I should have the right to point out your errors. You don't have to like it. You don't even have to acknowledge it. But I remind you that you came here.

    You've already demonstrated that if you can't understand what's going on in all this, well then I certainly can't either,...
    Again, you're making statements without foundation. I understand very well what's going on. You have a flaky proposition. We raised questions and objections. You offered broken physics in response, and we pointed out the errors. That's the scientific method, HectorDecimal. You seem to think that ego-stroking is the purpose of this exercise. Sorry to disappoint. Again, the scientific method can be harsh if you get too attached to your idea and others point out that your idea is flawed. If your ego is too fragile to handle the rigors of science, then you should acknowledge that weakness and withdraw, rather than whine that we won't play along with your Nobel fantasies.

    ...so I may as well continue in my feeble attempts to communicate what it is I want to tell the audience, then struggle in my ineptitude to do that telling in more exacting terms, then relate afterward what I just told them. However, if all you can do is carry on a discussion neither of us can understand, then I don't see a point in responding to such.
    You have only yourself to blame for the communication lapse. I've been quite clear in my comments, as have others here. You simply lash out like a wounded elementary school child in response, rather than make a sincere effort to process what we're telling you. It is clear that you didn't come here with a genuine desire to learn; you seem to have come here in expectation of exaltation. Sorry to disappoint. This is a science forum (indeed, it is The Science Forum). What did you expect?

    I really could care less about the name calling, dissent, etcetera you need so badly to use as an ineffective tool of some imagined attrition. You come at me, initiating with an insult, wanting to discuss a TIV in a discussion of a complexity that is so time dependent as to exemplify a variation of the butterfly effect. At this point the discussion is little more than a story problem that you have yet to demonstrate an understanding of the first sentence. It's not my problem that you spent all your time composing insults that you should be reading to yourself in front of a mirror. I'd hate to imagine what it would be like to describe a job to you of calculating the cycles, geometries and accessories for a progressive die dependent on a series of push rods, cams and cam followers; a Rube Goldberg. Understanding the sequential system alone of a CME and how it eventually affects the flow of magma, atmospheric flow and the Earth's systems is a Rube Goldberg.

    Linear systems of equations are nice. They are like ascending a set of stairs. They are convenient for bean counting, but only a start for applications involving complex mechanics. I suggest you try first to understand how six strings of varying gauge strapped to a board incorporate the board and it's fibers to generate sympathetic harmonics. After that move on to a full set of 72 strings strapped to a metal plate mounted on a bigger board. If you can't understand those or their importance here then you'll have difficulty understanding how the solar system and its magnetosphere works, thus further difficulty with this discussion.

    So far I've seen a lot of waving and sputtering "Me too!!" Honey, how are you ever going to make it to 30 if you envision everyone as a child compared to your great sagacity? Me? Arrogant? Glad you noticed. I work hard at being arrogant and at finding the right answer to pressing questions. If that little talk helps you make it to 31, tell me where to send the bill for my time.
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Linear systems of equations are nice. They are like ascending a set of stairs. They are convenient for bean counting, but only a start for applications involving complex mechanics. I suggest you try first to understand how six strings of varying gauge strapped to a board incorporate the board and it's fibers to generate sympathetic harmonics. After that move on to a full set of 72 strings strapped to a metal plate mounted on a bigger board. If you can't understand those or their importance here then you'll have difficulty understanding how the solar system and its magnetosphere works, thus further difficulty with this discussion.
    The issue is a narrow one, but you keep moving the goalposts. One need not think too hard to imagine why. But the question is a very simple one: What causes beat tones? I explained it mathematically (in words, but clear ones). You offered handwaving, but no refutation, so you have tacitly conceded the points I made.

    Since you were the one who brought up the whole subject of beat notes, it is natural for us to assume that the mechanism is of some importance to your theory. It is therefore additionally natural -- and important for evaluating your theory -- to consider the validity of your proposed explanations for same. I have shown that your understanding is flawed. You are taking this way too personally.

    Calm down.

    So far I've seen a lot of waving and sputtering "Me too!!"
    I will avoid the childish tit-for-tat game that you seem so fond of. A simple perusal of your posts reveals the source of waving and sputtering.

    Now if you could get back to a real discussion of your ideas, it would be most welcome. Just endeavor to take criticisms less personally, and address the questions raised. If you are shown to be wrong, be mature about it and learn from your mistakes.
     

  58. #57  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Now if you could get back to a real discussion of your ideas, it would be most welcome. Just endeavor to take criticisms less personally, and address the questions raised. If you are shown to be wrong, be mature about it and learn from your mistakes.
    I second that wholeheartedly and ask you Hector that you now address these points raised in two earlier posts.


    1. Would you offer us a list of the what you consider to be the 'mysteries of the caldera'.
    2. The end of the Maunder Minimum did not wake the sun's activity. The wakening of the sun's activity ended the Maunder Minimum. Do you agree?

    I am not at this point sure whther or not these are particularily important. That can only be determined by the content of your replies. I suspect they aren't - which will be excellent, for we can then turn to more substantive aspects of your hypothesis. However, until we have cleared these it will be difficult to proceed productively on a shaky foundation.
    tk421 likes this.
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Linear systems of equations are nice. They are like ascending a set of stairs. They are convenient for bean counting, but only a start for applications involving complex mechanics. I suggest you try first to understand how six strings of varying gauge strapped to a board incorporate the board and it's fibers to generate sympathetic harmonics. After that move on to a full set of 72 strings strapped to a metal plate mounted on a bigger board. If you can't understand those or their importance here then you'll have difficulty understanding how the solar system and its magnetosphere works, thus further difficulty with this discussion.
    The issue is a narrow one, but you keep moving the goalposts. One need not think too hard to imagine why. But the question is a very simple one: What causes beat tones? I explained it mathematically (in words, but clear ones). You offered handwaving, but no refutation, so you have tacitly conceded the points I made.

    Since you were the one who brought up the whole subject of beat notes, it is natural for us to assume that the mechanism is of some importance to your theory. It is therefore additionally natural -- and important for evaluating your theory -- to consider the validity of your proposed explanations for same. I have shown that your understanding is flawed. You are taking this way too personally.

    Calm down.

    So far I've seen a lot of waving and sputtering "Me too!!"
    I will avoid the childish tit-for-tat game that you seem so fond of. A simple perusal of your posts reveals the source of waving and sputtering.

    Now if you could get back to a real discussion of your ideas, it would be most welcome. Just endeavor to take criticisms less personally, and address the questions raised. If you are shown to be wrong, be mature about it and learn from your mistakes.
    I've been taking it personal because you've been making personal remarks that are very insulting. Your first sentence was a command for me to stop whining. If you're the boss of me I want my paycheck for the week and I'm not cheap.

    I'm not agitated, TK. I'm being blatantly sarcastic with you. I'm poking fun at your poor people skills.

    The one thing I won't argue for a moment is the need to express at least some of this in mathematical terms (no pun intended in that.) As I stated I don't have an equation editor I'm happy with. (Open Office and it sucks...) I've been writing just that and have a lot of busy work stuff to get done, meaning creating a font composed of EMF's that include a lot of geometry and trig symbols we'd all like to see. The output for a graphic equation will be a JPG. I also am incorporating a new algorhythm for parsing that should require less recursion. Once I'm done, and that will take a good bit of time doing it all on my own, then you may be surpised at how well I command what was called Calc III when I received my BScME in 1974. Best of my knowledge it's compressed into 2 years nowadays. The program is more of a math engine, thus the need for 3D graphics. It should be able to plot attractors, Bezier curves, NURBS and the likes and proliferate as many planes of reference as the machine's memory will allow.

    In that, I'll be in here less often. The temperatures are to be in the low to mid 70's for nearly the rest of the month. Normal here is the 40's and 50's in March after a long cold winter that we didn't get this year. We really haven't had a normal winter for over 20 years now.

    Till I get the editor working stabilly, we can discuss the park and, yes, the complex system existing between the core of our sun and the core of our planet, but pretty much in a "pseudo-code" format. As for the criticism issue, I handle constructive criticism rather well. That has already been shown here when discussing evidence brought into the discussion as have Paleoichneum and the Northern Iowa person...
    I recommend to you, that before you post criticism in haste, you read it to yourself in the mirror first. If it sounds harsh or offensive or otherwise destructive to you, then why would anyone else take all that in areactonum?

    I apologize for my own delivered sarcasms and return insults.
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Equation editor? I would recommend LaTeX: Online LaTeX Equation Editor - create, integrate and download

    Then you can just paste the code here in [tex] tags.

    If you want math symbols, there are some standard fonts out there already; e.g. TM Math Fonts
    tk421 likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Now if you could get back to a real discussion of your ideas, it would be most welcome. Just endeavor to take criticisms less personally, and address the questions raised. If you are shown to be wrong, be mature about it and learn from your mistakes.
    I second that wholeheartedly and ask you Hector that you now address these points raised in two earlier posts.


    1. Would you offer us a list of the what you consider to be the 'mysteries of the caldera'.
    2. The end of the Maunder Minimum did not wake the sun's activity. The wakening of the sun's activity ended the Maunder Minimum. Do you agree?

    I am not at this point sure whther or not these are particularily important. That can only be determined by the content of your replies. I suspect they aren't - which will be excellent, for we can then turn to more substantive aspects of your hypothesis. However, until we have cleared these it will be difficult to proceed productively on a shaky foundation.
    1. Truthfully I'd have to review this whole thread to see how I made use of "mysteries." I don't think it is as simple as the caldera, bu, as mentioned in the posts concerning complexity, a mystery of the chain of events that originate in the core of the sun and how they may climax not only in YC, but in other volcanoes as well.

    2. I don't believe I said the end of the Maunder Minumum woke up the sun. The two events are certainly related. At least evidence suggests that. Of course I'd agree the sun's increased activity ushered in the end of the Maunder Minumum and the Little Ice Age.


    As for the list. I'll compose it offline so I'm not hasty, but those replies should suffice as "coming attractors." (Pun intended.)
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Equation editor? I would recommend LaTeX: Online LaTeX Equation Editor - create, integrate and download

    Then you can just paste the code here in [tex] tags.

    If you want math symbols, there are some standard fonts out there already; e.g. TM Math Fonts
    I am not certain where, but I think I mentioned I don't do latex. (Well... I paint with the stuff and experiment with milkweed latex... ) I've looked at it before and was not satisfied, plus why would I want to learn another language when I'm writing one of my own that just might become a new Open software standard? Thanx for the links just the same.
     

  63. #62  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    1. Truthfully I'd have to review this whole thread to see how I made use of "mysteries."
    Or read the first sentence of your first post.

    2. I don't believe I said the end of the Maunder Minumum woke up the sun.
    That'll be the second sentence of the same post.
    John Galt and tk421 like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    [QUOTE=tk421;313411The issue is a narrow one, but you keep moving the goalposts. One need not think too hard to imagine why. But the question is a very simple one: What causes beat tones? I explained it mathematically (in words, but clear ones). You offered handwaving, but no refutation, so you have tacitly conceded the points I made.


    Now if you could get back to a real discussion of your ideas, it would be most welcome. .[/QUOTE]


    Is this a DI-TOROID Field?

    Here's a thread that had 134 views but no discussion. Let me wave my hands to draw attention to that nasty little thread. What we confirm in that discussion can affect several aspects of this one. i actually posted one of this thread's proliferations prior to posting this thread. How does THAT relate to chronology protection?
     

  65. #64  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,359
    So hector, are we actually going to continue to discuss your opening geology topic, or is the majority of the posts going to be about the topic you and tk421 are batting about?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  66. #65  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I am not certain where, but I think I mentioned I don't do latex. (Well... I paint with the stuff and experiment with milkweed latex... ) I've looked at it before and was not satisfied, plus why would I want to learn another language when I'm writing one of my own that just might become a new Open software standard? Thanx for the links just the same.
    Have you looked at this: GNU Octave ?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  67. #66  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Hector, Hector, Hector. you do make it so damn difficult to address you positively. Even Strange was perfectly well aware that my first two questions related to the first two sentences of your OP. Now you assert we are insulting you and implicitly showing you no respect, yet here Strange had taken sufficient time and made sufficient effort that he was familiar with your offered argument in some detail.


    For the record this is what you said. "it would seem the end of the Maunder Minimum wakened not only the sun's activity but possibly the supervolcano as well."

    Now that is plain stupid. You know, and acknowldge by your response, that it is plain stupid. And I don't think it is what you meant. I think you were just being loose in your writing. Heh, this isn't English 101. We all make errors in almost every post. So I offered you a way out. I suggested this was just clumsy writing and you through a hissy fit, accusing me of insulting you. Well, excuse me, but seemingly by your own admission you'd just written something so clumsily it meant the opposite of what you intended. All you had to say was "Oops! got that wrong. Thanks." But no! You have to defened the indefensible and identify me as the guilty party, intent only on being negative.

    Shit man, if you write something so badly it is ambiguous or nonsense, do you seriously mean you shouldn't be called on it? And all I asked was for you to confirm that you'd got it wrong, so we could move on. So that's dealt with now. Let it lie.

    Thank yo for offering to make a list, but that's probably unecessary. If I understand you correctly the mysteries you were refering to relate not so much to the caldera itself, but to the connection you think it has, orather that its activity has with solar activity. If that's your meaning, then that too is clarified and we can move on.

    Now for ****'s sake can you stop taking offence at every damn question asked and observation made. For someone who is fond of telling other they have no people skills it really is laughble., so drop the injured bystander act and lets focus on data. If it is agreeable to you i should like to delve into your claims concerning the effects of freezing on geyser activity. OK?

    tk421 likes this.
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I am not certain where, but I think I mentioned I don't do latex. (Well... I paint with the stuff and experiment with milkweed latex... ) I've looked at it before and was not satisfied, plus why would I want to learn another language when I'm writing one of my own that just might become a new Open software standard? Thanx for the links just the same.
    Have you looked at this: GNU Octave ?
    I second that implied recommendation wholeheartedly. Octave is a largely Matlab-compatible open-software package. No need to waste time reinventing the wheel by yourself when there's a community out there that has already done it better than any individual could hope to do.
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Now for ****'s sake can you stop taking offence at every damn question asked and observation made. For someone who is fond of telling other they have no people skills it really is laughble., so drop the injured bystander act and lets focus on data. If it is agreeable to you i should like to delve into your claims concerning the effects of freezing on geyser activity. OK?
    Amen to that!
    Last edited by tk421; March 13th, 2012 at 11:16 AM. Reason: kept it simple
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So hector, are we actually going to continue to discuss your opening geology topic, or is the majority of the posts going to be about the topic you and tk421 are batting about?
    Sounds good to me. I'll just ignore the riff raff.

    I think we left off discussing fracking as a comparison. If you aren't too busy, maybe you could search a good article about the processes that take place in fracking. At the moment I just stopped in to see if anyone had actually responded to the ditoroid geometry thread. Nottagotta...

    This is a point I'd like to make here though. NASA really showed us some of their nonsensible approach. Neither Mariner nor Messenger nor Voyager nor the current Mars rovers have been equipped to assess seismology on Mercury or Mars. The Russians were thoughtful enough to include seismology in their probes to Venus, so we know it is both seismic and volcanic. Had NASA thought to retrieve seismic data from a dead, dry rocky planet that has a magnetic field and from a still slightly wet, non-volcanic planet with no detectable magnetic field, we would have some added critical data about the connections between the sun and our seismic/volcanic activity. Instead we will have to rely on mathematical propositions that might answer these questions at best.

    I don't remember if I thanked you for your input. Just in case, thanx again.

    I think what we need to explore is the effects of fracking. I can compare it to a 1cm thick by say 30 cm diametermedium steel pipe cemented into the ground allowed to fill with water and freeze over the winter. The steel has a modulus of about 1,000,000 Kg/cm^2, still the freezing will split the pipe along its axis and usually not along the weld. That is saying expanding water develops at least >1,000,000 Kg/cm^2. We should compare this to fracking mediums.
     

  71. #70  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So hector, are we actually going to continue to discuss your opening geology topic, or is the majority of the posts going to be about the topic you and tk421 are batting about?
    Sounds good to me. I'll just ignore the riff raff.
    Go fuck yourself asshole!
    tk421 likes this.
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Hector, Hector, Hector. you do make it so damn difficult to address you positively. Even Strange was perfectly well aware that my first two questions related to the first two sentences of your OP. Now you assert we are insulting you and implicitly showing you no respect, yet here Strange had taken sufficient time and made sufficient effort that he was familiar with your offered argument in some detail.


    For the record this is what you said. "it would seem the end of the Maunder Minimum wakened not only the sun's activity but possibly the supervolcano as well."

    Now that is plain stupid. You know, and acknowldge by your response, that it is plain stupid. And I don't think it is what you meant. I think you were just being loose in your writing. Heh, this isn't English 101. We all make errors in almost every post. So I offered you a way out. I suggested this was just clumsy writing and you through a hissy fit, accusing me of insulting you. Well, excuse me, but seemingly by your own admission you'd just written something so clumsily it meant the opposite of what you intended. All you had to say was "Oops! got that wrong. Thanks." But no! You have to defened the indefensible and identify me as the guilty party, intent only on being negative.

    Shit man, if you write something so badly it is ambiguous or nonsense, do you seriously mean you shouldn't be called on it? And all I asked was for you to confirm that you'd got it wrong, so we could move on. So that's dealt with now. Let it lie.

    Thank yo for offering to make a list, but that's probably unecessary. If I understand you correctly the mysteries you were refering to relate not so much to the caldera itself, but to the connection you think it has, orather that its activity has with solar activity. If that's your meaning, then that too is clarified and we can move on.

    Now for ****'s sake can you stop taking offence at every damn question asked and observation made. For someone who is fond of telling other they have no people skills it really is laughble., so drop the injured bystander act and lets focus on data. If it is agreeable to you i should like to delve into your claims concerning the effects of freezing on geyser activity. OK?

    I think you are beating a dead horse. I didn't say I was injured. In fact I said I could care less. I clarified my meaning and if it makes you feel good, "Whoops! Missed that one."

    I still say your people skills, as well as your heartthrobs' people skills, suck. If I were someone who cares about the internet riff raff demanding this or that, thus so "injured" would you think it good people skills to pour more salt in the wound? Try that mirror exercise...
     

  73. #72  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Well said John. Hector, what the hell is wrong with you? Are you so childish that you are unable to handle any disagreement with your ideas? Let's get something straight. Calling John Galt riff raff is like Hitler calling Mandela an asshole. Grow up will you?
    tk421 likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I am not certain where, but I think I mentioned I don't do latex. (Well... I paint with the stuff and experiment with milkweed latex... ) I've looked at it before and was not satisfied, plus why would I want to learn another language when I'm writing one of my own that just might become a new Open software standard? Thanx for the links just the same.
    Have you looked at this: GNU Octave ?
    No but I will. I would kindly ask you to stop trying to make me into a clone of your MO. People who re-invent wheels often come up with a better one and certainly learn a lot in the process. I have yet to see a program or code package that perfectly fits my needs. Unless it's taboo here to put a jpg graphic in a post, we should do fine with complex math in a few weeks. Thank you for the suggestion just the same.
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    No but I will. I would kindly ask you to stop trying to make me into a clone of your MO.
    You have got to develop a thicker skin and better reading comprehension. Strange did you a kindness in merely asking if you had looked at Octave. He did not say "You must use this."

    Go back and re-read the full text of what he wrote.
    John Galt likes this.
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    @John Galt: I guess you're riff and I'm raff!

    I wear the moniker proudly.
     

  77. #76  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    What is an "MO"?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Well said John. Hector, what the hell is wrong with you? Are you so childish that you are unable to handle any disagreement with your ideas? Let's get something straight. Calling John Galt riff raff is like Hitler calling Mandela an asshole. Grow up will you?
    Actually I didn't state any names. If growing up means acting like you, a moderator at that, just did, then No, I prefer to be childish.

    Some people, myself included, view people who resort to the use of power words (explitives) to be megalomaniacal. Have you ever looked at yourself in a mirror and cussed yourself out? I learned that rehearsal process over 40 years ago.

    Per your disclaimer: You are completely wrong and I pretty much did correct you. The "professor" was the only one responding to the riff raff label. If it didn't hit a nerve JG wouldn't have responded in such a violent manner.
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    What is an "MO"?
    Modus operandi, professor.

    Now I'm going to go change a breaker so I can reduce my chances of data loss.
     

  80. #79  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Get real will you? You have been at odds with respected members since you got here. A 'bad word' is a whole lot less insulting than you behaviour in this thread and others, make no mistake about it. And are you specifically saying you did not mean John? You're not fooling anyone if you are. Don't you have any character? Again, try and behave like an adult with some backbone instead of moaning about every opposing view expressed.
    tk421 likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  81. #80  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,359
    Hector, you do understand that freezing is NOT a factor that will have any effect on the geothermal activity of the yellowstone caldera right? The heat from the magma chamber is enough to keep long term permafrost development from reaching any notable depth.

    Also, as I have stated, the basement rock of the yellowstone complex is gneiss and schist which is overlain by rhyolites, tuffs, and other volcanic rocks. Fracking is used in lacustrian and other sedimentary rock, and works due to the layered nature of the rock breaking it on those layers. This is not a method that will work with solid igneous masses found at yellowstone.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  82. #81  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    What is an "MO"?
    Modus operandi, professor.
    That was the only thing I could think of; it just didn't seem to make sense in the context (especially as I have never used Octave).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Get real will you? You have been at odds with respected members since you got here. A 'bad word' is a whole lot less insulting than you behaviour in this thread and others, make no mistake about it. And are you specifically saying you did not mean John? You're not fooling anyone if you are. Don't you have any character? Again, try and behave like an adult with some backbone instead of moaning about every opposing view expressed.
    Actually I didn't mean John, but he certainly has been losing my respect with the increasing use of power words. I suggest again you try the mirror exercise. FWIW... the people skills one develops from this type of reverse sensitivity self training are a babe magnet. As for character, you have failed to notice I use my smiling, bearded face next to an alternative energy device I invented that trimmed almost $100 off my electric bill last summer, with plans for the improvements this year, so it will work in winter. That and the fact that I fight back against injustice, real world or internet, should tell you this charaqcter is a fighter. I don't have to hide my face.

    BTW... I have a friend who is a psychologist, not psychiatrist so only a masters degree, and let her look at this whole thread. She's from Chicago originally, so you don't want to know what she said about you, TK and John. She knows me, knows my work and her words beyond assessing the attackers (she says trolls) as exactly "You're on the net, Doctor. People are 300 pounds and make you think they look like George Clooney. Do these people act like him? No. So, what do you expect?"

    Honestly. I just want to discuss this issue about Yellowstone and my reasons for playing my hunch that the caldera will be in a runaway mode, not unlike the methane plumes mentioned in the launch post links.

    Another thing the psych noticed was that I had offered an apology, but nobody else was man enough to follow up on that.

    Do you get paid to be a moderator? ... or is it just an ego trip?
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    What is an "MO"?
    Modus operandi, professor.
    That was the only thing I could think of; it just didn't seem to make sense in the context (especially as I have never used Octave).
    Oh... then you were using me as a guinea pig?

    I'd like to get back to "story problems" for a while.

    Mars: Magnetic Field and Magnetosphere

    This is about the fields on mars. I still have found nothing about seismic data there except that it "may" have some rumblings.
     

  85. #84  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Getting back to the proposed relationship between solar flares and volcanic activity...

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Yes. Also, you are correct, the energy involved in the magnetic field of even the sun is like a group of 500 refridgerator magnets clustered together. The Earth is like 10 of those and Jupiter is like 50. Not so, though, about the Earth being protected and what effectively happens is a domino effect occurring back and forth between the sun and the planets like a sea of those magnets. CBS News had a NASA scientist last night describing the effect of Tuesday's solar storm as "shaking the Earth's magnetic field."
    So this very weak field was "shaken" (to some unquantified degree) by a solar flare. That shaking had no effect on anything on the ground, as far as I know. That reinforces the idea that solar wind/flares has too little energy to have much effect on the earth.

    I will say this. The weeks we have solar flares that reach the news, I have more quake notices of 6M and above hitting my email inbox from the USGS.
    That is not very compelling. A proper analysis of the correlation of solar flares and following quakes would be interesting.

    If you did your own searches I imagine you'll find more to support all that than to fail it.
    I did do a search when you brought this up. I couldn't even find anything on the more ... um ... "speculative" web sites.

    So do you have an evidence of a connection or is this just speculation?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  86. #85  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Oh... then you were using me as a guinea pig?
    I just thought it might be useful and wondered if it was one you had already rejected. I didn't mention MATLAB (or Mathematica) as you showed a preference for open source. (I have never used either of those either.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Hector, you do understand that freezing is NOT a factor that will have any effect on the geothermal activity of the yellowstone caldera right? The heat from the magma chamber is enough to keep long term permafrost development from reaching any notable depth.

    Also, as I have stated, the basement rock of the yellowstone complex is gneiss and schist which is overlain by rhyolites, tuffs, and other volcanic rocks. Fracking is used in lacustrian and other sedimentary rock, and works due to the layered nature of the rock breaking it on those layers. This is not a method that will work with solid igneous masses found at yellowstone.

    Believe it or not, I was wondering about the rock strata to assess that. Now we are getting somewhere. What do you know about the overall structural integrity of the caldera and the surrounding areas? Are there any graphic representations describing faults, fractures, magma chambers, tubes and even potential weak areas where water could be introduced naturally, say after a quake?
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Getting back to the proposed relationship between solar flares and volcanic activity...

    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Yes. Also, you are correct, the energy involved in the magnetic field of even the sun is like a group of 500 refridgerator magnets clustered together. The Earth is like 10 of those and Jupiter is like 50. Not so, though, about the Earth being protected and what effectively happens is a domino effect occurring back and forth between the sun and the planets like a sea of those magnets. CBS News had a NASA scientist last night describing the effect of Tuesday's solar storm as "shaking the Earth's magnetic field."
    So this very weak field was "shaken" (to some unquantified degree) by a solar flare. That shaking had no effect on anything on the ground, as far as I know. That reinforces the idea that solar wind/flares has too little energy to have much effect on the earth.

    I will say this. The weeks we have solar flares that reach the news, I have more quake notices of 6M and above hitting my email inbox from the USGS.
    That is not very compelling. A proper analysis of the correlation of solar flares and following quakes would be interesting.

    If you did your own searches I imagine you'll find more to support all that than to fail it.
    I did do a search when you brought this up. I couldn't even find anything on the more ... um ... "speculative" web sites.

    So do you have an evidence of a connection or is this just speculation?
    Not at my fingertips without some digging in 2 other machines. I believe there's a good degree of speculation in most every science, but I try to avoid presenting from those depicting religion driven "science." I'm not always so quick to label a speculation from someone as pseudo-science, still I'm not a gullible guy either.
     

  89. #88  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Not at my fingertips without some digging in 2 other machines. I believe there's a good degree of speculation in most every science, but I try to avoid presenting from those depicting religion driven "science." I'm not always so quick to label a speculation from someone as pseudo-science, still I'm not a gullible guy either.
    I'm not quite sure what that means. I would hope that any evidence is from reputable sources; e.g. the USGS for earthquake data, peer reviewed papers on correlations, etc. I certainly wouldn't expect religion to play any part.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  90. #89  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,359
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Hector, you do understand that freezing is NOT a factor that will have any effect on the geothermal activity of the yellowstone caldera right? The heat from the magma chamber is enough to keep long term permafrost development from reaching any notable depth.

    Also, as I have stated, the basement rock of the yellowstone complex is gneiss and schist which is overlain by rhyolites, tuffs, and other volcanic rocks. Fracking is used in lacustrian and other sedimentary rock, and works due to the layered nature of the rock breaking it on those layers. This is not a method that will work with solid igneous masses found at yellowstone.
    Believe it or not, I was wondering about the rock strata to assess that. Now we are getting somewhere. What do you know about the overall structural integrity of the caldera and the surrounding areas? Are there any graphic representations describing faults, fractures, magma chambers, tubes and even potential weak areas where water could be introduced naturally, say after a quake?
    a quick search for a Yellowstone geophysical map yields this:yellowstone_caldera_map2.jpg
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Not at my fingertips without some digging in 2 other machines. I believe there's a good degree of speculation in most every science, but I try to avoid presenting from those depicting religion driven "science." I'm not always so quick to label a speculation from someone as pseudo-science, still I'm not a gullible guy either.
    I'm not quite sure what that means. I would hope that any evidence is from reputable sources; e.g. the USGS for earthquake data, peer reviewed papers on correlations, etc. I certainly wouldn't expect religion to play any part.
    1. I have a lot of data on HD's in 3 machines, including this net machine. Like many, I've had some machine failures, so it's sometimes tedious to access just the perfect piece of reference.
    2. There's stuff out there that is biased or even rehashed and deliberately tainted on some sites. Usually they are associated with a religious based site or conspiracy type site. Notwithstanding that, there's a degree of speculation in nearly everything.
    3. Just because it isn't mainstream doesn't make it pseudo-science.
    4. But I'm not gullible enough to buy into the deeper fringes. Still, consider an equivalent to Dr. Philo Farnsworth posting something he wants to get some inpuit or reproof over. Say one of his "fusors." Those still draw debate from all camps.

    I hope that clears all that up.



    Paleoichneum,

    Tunnelling project in difficult geological conditions in Korea

    This is a tunneling project in Korea. It mentions 3D hydraulic fracturing as one of the tunneling methods.

    Does that affect your opinion?
     

  92. #91  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I hope that clears all that up.
    Well, if it means you are going to stick to science and not religion, then yes.

    But why you would even bother to mention that is beyond me. Tell you what, I won't reference any food blogs in the discussion, OK.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,927
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    I believe there's a good degree of speculation in most every science, but I try to avoid presenting from those depicting religion driven "science." I'm not always so quick to label a speculation from someone as pseudo-science, still I'm not a gullible guy either.
    The Hubble Tends to Validate the Bible - SciForums.com
     

  94. #93  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    2. There's stuff out there that is biased or even rehashed and deliberately tainted on some sites. Usually they are associated with a religious based site or conspiracy type site.
    Quite. Which is why we should stick to reputable, ideally peer-reviewed, sources.

    Notwithstanding that, there's a degree of speculation in nearly everything.
    And the purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate that by insisting on evidence and reproducability.

    3. Just because it isn't mainstream doesn't make it pseudo-science.
    No, but if it claims to be science but is unsupported by evidence, then it is.

    4. But I'm not gullible enough to buy into the deeper fringes. Still, consider an equivalent to Dr. Philo Farnsworth posting something he wants to get some inpuit or reproof over.
    I was going to say "who" but I googled him. I fail to see the relevance.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Hector, you do understand that freezing is NOT a factor that will have any effect on the geothermal activity of the yellowstone caldera right? The heat from the magma chamber is enough to keep long term permafrost development from reaching any notable depth.

    Also, as I have stated, the basement rock of the yellowstone complex is gneiss and schist which is overlain by rhyolites, tuffs, and other volcanic rocks. Fracking is used in lacustrian and other sedimentary rock, and works due to the layered nature of the rock breaking it on those layers. This is not a method that will work with solid igneous masses found at yellowstone.
    Believe it or not, I was wondering about the rock strata to assess that. Now we are getting somewhere. What do you know about the overall structural integrity of the caldera and the surrounding areas? Are there any graphic representations describing faults, fractures, magma chambers, tubes and even potential weak areas where water could be introduced naturally, say after a quake?
    a quick search for a Yellowstone geophysical map yields this:yellowstone_caldera_map2.jpg
    Cool! I have some maps, but not this one. This depicts hydrothermal explosion craters. Now this is helpful in providing direction.
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_explosion

    __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
    Hydrothermal Explosion Craters in Yellowstone National Park
     
    Hydrothermal explosions are not a type of volcanic eruption. Although the required energy probably comes from a deep igneous source, this energy is transferred to the surface by circulating meteoric water rather than by magma. The energy is stored as heat in hot water and rock within a few hundred feet of the surface.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________
    http://specialpapers.gsapubs.org/content/459/1.abstract
    Yellowstone National Park: Volcanic Activity, Hydrothermal (Steam) Explosions
    Tsunami linked to Yellowstone crater - USATODAY.com
    Yellowstone at risk of Hydrothermal explosion, not Volcanic

    Well, Paleoichneum,

    That direction took us to some interesting opinion from more than the quacksalvers.

    It's too late to change the poll but I'm wanting to become prepared for 5 years...? No. Any moment.

    Many perspectives on the park state the caldera is overdue for an erruption.
     

  97. #96  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,359
    Hector, it is highly unlikely that the caldera is going to suddenly erupt in the next 5 years. As noted on the US geological Survey webpage for Yellowstone CVO Website - Yellowstone Caldera, Wyoming The major eruptive cycle is about 700,000 years long, with the last major eruption being 60,000. Thus if hte cycle continues as normal (there is no evidence suggesting its not!) the next eruption will be due in about 640,000 years.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Hector, it is highly unlikely that the caldera is going to suddenly erupt in the next 5 years. As noted on the US geological Survey webpage for Yellowstone CVO Website - Yellowstone Caldera, Wyoming The major eruptive cycle is about 700,000 years long, with the last major eruption being 60,000. Thus if hte cycle continues as normal (there is no evidence suggesting its not!) the next eruption will be due in about 640,000 years.
    Two issues: What are the 700,000 year old signs leading up to a major erruption? What were the effects of human activity during those years leading up to the major erruption?
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indiana. Near Indy. On the top of the Eastern "buttcheek."
    Posts
    183
    I checked out the link. I actually have that webpage saved once, but it would be tedious to find and may have even been lost through hard drive failure. (I'll never buy another external HD... )

    I think we are still missing some pieces of this puzzle. At best, an eruption is not imminent, but a hydothermal event could be. We are really back to asking whether the conditions were all the same or even vaguely similar. Unless this discussion starts heading into ET's I doubt if there was a sufficiently advanced (or perhaps dumb enough) society to create artificial earthquakes and perhaps a greenhouse effect that could alter what may prove to be a delicate balance. As for solar activity and its potential effect on this planet's systems, we have 400 years of records at best and 20 years of advanced solar studies. Somehow I have a problem relying on mainstream scientific opinion that changes too often and is "courteous" enough to say "whoops" after O rings or ceramic tiles or a mis-welded spacer at the bottom of a breeder reactor cost lives or threaten major cities. (The latter refers to Fermi Energy I in Detroit during the 70's.)
     

  100. #99  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,359
    Are you suggesting that for the first 2.1 million years of the cycle the conditions were exactly the same leading up to each of the three events??
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  101. #100  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by HectorDecimal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Get real will you? You have been at odds with respected members since you got here. A 'bad word' is a whole lot less insulting than you behaviour in this thread and others, make no mistake about it. And are you specifically saying you did not mean John? You're not fooling anyone if you are. Don't you have any character? Again, try and behave like an adult with some backbone instead of moaning about every opposing view expressed.
    Actually I didn't mean John, but he certainly has been losing my respect with the increasing use of power words. I suggest again you try the mirror exercise. FWIW... the people skills one develops from this type of reverse sensitivity self training are a babe magnet. As for character, you have failed to notice I use my smiling, bearded face next to an alternative energy device I invented that trimmed almost $100 off my electric bill last summer, with plans for the improvements this year, so it will work in winter. That and the fact that I fight back against injustice, real world or internet, should tell you this charaqcter is a fighter. I don't have to hide my face.
    Well, congratulations on your bushy beard and on being a fighter for justice. However, I am not concerned with your conduct in your personal life. On this forum though you have been acting childishly, complaining about criticism of your decidedly "alternative" ideas, as if this is a prom planning meeting or something. This, however is not a prom planning meeting, it is a science forum. That means you have to be able to face up to the "bad" of your ideas head on, instead of simply complaining about the effort being put into evaluating it. Is it really that impossible for you to see the utility in going after the bad of your ideas first? In a scientific context, bad means potentially wrong. It is not a matter of opinion. There actually exists an objective wrong in science. You should be thanking people for taking the time to evaluate your ideas thoroughly, instead of just agreeing with everything you say. If you can't do that, then you really don't belong here. Go to an "alternative science" forum where you'll get all the validation you so crave.

    BTW... I have a friend who is a psychologist, not psychiatrist so only a masters degree, and let her look at this whole thread. She's from Chicago originally, so you don't want to know what she said about you, TK and John. She knows me, knows my work and her words beyond assessing the attackers (she says trolls) as exactly "You're on the net, Doctor. People are 300 pounds and make you think they look like George Clooney. Do these people act like him? No. So, what do you expect?"
    I couldn't care less what your psychologist friend thinks. She obviously doesn't understand what we are talking about and how your behaviour on this forum is grossly unacceptable. We make no bones about what our areas of expertise are or not and have in most cases years of experience in showing just what they are. People like John Galt are respected members exactly for showing this kind of integrity and regard for scientific rigour that you sorely lack.

    Honestly. I just want to discuss this issue about Yellowstone and my reasons for playing my hunch that the caldera will be in a runaway mode, not unlike the methane plumes mentioned in the launch post links.
    Then stop moaning at every turn when people find flaws in your suppositions! Really, you should be grateful that they take the time to do that. Don't you care about whether your ideas are good one or not? The hindrance in the way of a proper discussion is you!

    Another thing the psych noticed was that I had offered an apology, but nobody else was man enough to follow up on that.
    Yet, you have not changed your MO one bit. What is your apology worth then?

    Do you get paid to be a moderator? ... or is it just an ego trip?
    Nice loaded question. No I don't get paid and I did not volunteer either. I do this because I care about the quality of this forum and I love all forms of science. It is my job to moderate discussion. What really gets me going though is when people like you have the balls to act like children, claim to be scientists but have no regard for the scientific method or have suspect claims to knowledge, are unable to stand any criticism of their harebrained ideas and then have the gall to dismiss and rubbish the substantial efforts of respected members.
    Paleoichneum, John Galt and tk421 like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Yellowstone caldera erruption.
    By AXEL in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: March 11th, 2012, 06:47 AM
  2. Any evidence for Yellowstone extinction?
    By x(x-y) in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 29th, 2010, 08:54 PM
  3. Yellowstone, could the end be near?
    By ronan in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: March 27th, 2009, 03:40 AM
  4. yellowstone
    By marnixR in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 26th, 2008, 07:28 PM
  5. An atheists journey to god
    By Vashti's Daughter in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: August 16th, 2005, 02:37 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •