Nancy's way out when nothing happens in 2003
I M Openminded
I predict is her "out" when her planet does not arrive in 2003. She has
predicted a second pass in 2011 and she will say that the 2003 pass was
not quite close enough to be noticed (but she will claim that there
wre/are strange happenings that folks ignore) ... so wait till 2001.
Here are some URLs
Her out ... a second pass in 2011:
http://www.zetatalk.com/index/iscnilog.htm
some interesting science
Red Light: http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p141.htm
Magnetic Grip: http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p142.htm
Long Day (the moon does not rotate):
http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p143.htm
More of this stuff at: http://www.zetatalk.com/index/Z03.HTM
Sarah Mc
> Scanning through the directory structure at Nancy's server, I found what
> I predict is her "out" when her planet does not arrive in 2003. She has
> predicted a second pass in 2011 and she will say that the 2003 pass was
> not quite close enough to be noticed (but she will claim that there
> wre/are strange happenings that folks ignore) ... so wait till 2001.
>
> Here are some URLs
> Her out ... a second pass in 2011:
> http://www.zetatalk.com/index/iscnilog.htm
Naw, that's her "7 years to turn around" theory. My guess is she'll
say the Zetas found a way to move the planet, to save mankind. She'll
say no one took her word for it, so the Zetas kindheartedly moved the
planet to avoid the extiction of the human race.
>
> some interesting science
> Red Light: http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p141.htm
Yep, more really, really bad science, and it was easily disproven by
my 8 year old son yesterday at noon, last evening at sunset, and again
this morning at sunrise. (We finally had some clear skies in the
northeast)
>
> Magnetic Grip: http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p142.htm
>
> Long Day (the moon does not rotate):
> http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p143.htm
I never caught this one before - lol. Thanks for pointing it out.
Simply disproven with an apple and and orange placed on the kitchen
table.
>
> More of this stuff at: http://www.zetatalk.com/index/Z03.HTM
The more she writes, the more ignorant and silly she becomes. She
really should stick to topics that aren't disproveable by an
elementary school child though. As her date gets closer and closer, I
expect to see even less intelligence emerge.
Idon't
Also in that same paragraph is a comment about the air currects
continuing to circulate so that people on the "dark side" of Earth
during a stoppage of rotation do not freeze. This would contradict
Nancy's assertion that Mastadons living near a new pole position would
"flash-freeze". The same circulation would keep those areas warm
longer than that.
Regards, I
PS. Thanks for the work on imaging, etc.
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Sarah Mc <sara...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>Naw, that's her "7 years to turn around" theory. My guess is she'll
>say the Zetas found a way to move the planet, to save mankind. She'll
>say no one took her word for it, so the Zetas kindheartedly moved the
>planet to avoid the extiction of the human race.
At her request of course ... quickly followed by a request for money! :-)
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
Jan
> Scanning through the directory structure at Nancy's server, I found what
> I predict is her "out" when her planet does not arrive in 2003. She has
> predicted a second pass in 2011 and she will say that the 2003 pass was
> not quite close enough to be noticed (but she will claim that there
> wre/are strange happenings that folks ignore) ... so wait till 2001.
Incorrect.
ZetaTalk states that the second passing will be on the other side of the
sun, with little effect (almost like the current disturbances).
The given date for the passing is still late May 2003.
<snip>
Regards,
Jan
Greg Neill
news:V1de8.11330$HL2.2...@news2.ulv.nextra.no...
No, the website most clearly stated that there would be a second
passing seven years later.
Jonathan Silverlight
<sara...@hotpop.com> writes
>I M Openminded <open...@telocity.com> wrote in message
>news:<3C78CCE7...@telocity.com>...
>> Scanning through the directory structure at Nancy's server, I found what
>> I predict is her "out" when her planet does not arrive in 2003. She has
>> predicted a second pass in 2011 and she will say that the 2003 pass was
>> not quite close enough to be noticed (but she will claim that there
>> wre/are strange happenings that folks ignore) ... so wait till 2001.
>>
>> Here are some URLs
>> Her out ... a second pass in 2011:
>> http://www.zetatalk.com/index/iscnilog.htm
>
>Naw, that's her "7 years to turn around" theory. My guess is she'll
>say the Zetas found a way to move the planet, to save mankind. She'll
>say no one took her word for it, so the Zetas kindheartedly moved the
>planet to avoid the extiction of the human race.
I wonder if she thought up this scam by herself, or if she read it
somewhere. She reminds me of Dr. Strabismus in James Michener's "Space"
- did Michener base his character on a specific person?
Jeff Lowe
> I predict is her "out" when her planet does not arrive in 2003. She has
> predicted a second pass in 2011 and she will say that the 2003 pass was
> not quite close enough to be noticed (but she will claim that there
> wre/are strange happenings that folks ignore) ... so wait till 2001.
>
> Here are some URLs
> Her out ... a second pass in 2011:
> http://www.zetatalk.com/index/iscnilog.htm
I now ask the Zetas if they wish to respond:
A: ....snip some weird stuff about test tube zeta hybrids.........
Remember, John Waddel, that it is not necessary for you to have a new home
the instant you leave your existing home. Taking a sabbatical in the spirit
world is not a bad idea, and is in fact recommended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Folks, we have the makings of a Kool-Aid-Kult here!
scary.
Idon't
> Read the Last Line of this Zeta Talk Article.......
> "I M Openminded" <open...@telocity.com> wrote in message
> news:3C78CCE7...@telocity.com...
> > Scanning through the directory structure at Nancy's server, I found what
> > I predict is her "out" when her planet does not arrive in 2003. She has
> > predicted a second pass in 2011 and she will say that the 2003 pass was
> > not quite close enough to be noticed (but she will claim that there
> > wre/are strange happenings that folks ignore) ... so wait till 2001.
> >
> > Here are some URLs
> > Her out ... a second pass in 2011:
> > http://www.zetatalk.com/index/iscnilog.htm
In that link, the "zetas" predict richter 15 earthquakes- this has
been the source of much discussion here on sci.astro. For those
keeping track of the various predictions, tho..... on her most recent
public appearance (Blakeradio.com) Nancy predicts only "*richter 9*
quakes". No small difference. That show is being periodically replayed
there. Nancy also states, near the end of the show, that PX has now
been imaged in infrared. That was one of the few details that is not
enthusiastically supported by the host. I'm not sure if he didn't know
about that "sighting", or he actually knew of it but also of the
non-proof it constituted and didn't want to go there.
I
Stig Bull
> In that link, the "zetas" predict richter 15 earthquakes- this has
> been the source of much discussion here on sci.astro. For those
> keeping track of the various predictions, tho..... on her most recent
> public appearance (Blakeradio.com) Nancy predicts only "*richter 9*
> quakes".
How convenient. She probably actually took the time to check up on quakes
and the richter scale, and discovered her own richter 15 predictment was
just a load of physical nonsense so now she's changing all to make the
distaster ah, more suitable and in a more realistic manner.
To those of her minions who *still* believe her after this embarassing
incident (Jan/Ian, The small kahuna, JosX and others) I just have to say:
tut, tut!
--
Stig Bull
No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this electronic
message. To reduce download time, this message is made of 100% recycled
bytes.
Jan
>
> In that link, the "zetas" predict richter 15 earthquakes- this has
> been the source of much discussion here on sci.astro. For those
> keeping track of the various predictions, tho..... on her most recent
> public appearance (Blakeradio.com) Nancy predicts only "*richter 9*
> quakes". No small difference.
Nancy and the Zetas have repeatedly explained Richter 15 equivalent to
Richter 9 in magnitude, but longer. This is supported by A. Gerald Brady of
Applied Technology Council in an e-mail to one of the TT members in 1997,
where he states:
"The Richter scale loses much of its meaning higher than 7 or 8; you must
talk "moment magnitudes" after that. The maximum shaking doesn't get much
bigger as the magnitude rises above 7 or so; it lasts longer instead".
<snip>
Regards,
Jan
Greg Neill
news:3c7a9...@news2.prserv.net...
The size of the shaking isn't the point. It's the energy released.
The energy still scales with the magnitude, so magnitude 15 will
still melt the Earth through and through.
This latest attempt to duck and dodge is simply a continuation of
the pitiful display that the ZetaCult puts on.
Jan
Keep changing the subject, eh?
The posting by Idon't was related to an alleged inconsistency between
Richter 15 and Richter 9 predictions by Nancy and the Zetas.
Btw, how did you establish the necessary energy required to "melt the
Earth"?
Regards,
Jan
I M Openminded
Nancy simply doesn't understand logarithmic scales, whether it is
magnitudes or the Richter scale. Magnitude 11 vs. 20 means nothing to
her, Richter 9 vs. 15 means nothing to her.
Bill Nelson
> Nancy and the Zetas have repeatedly explained Richter 15 equivalent to
> Richter 9 in magnitude, but longer. This is supported by A. Gerald Brady of
She made NO such distinction.
> Applied Technology Council in an e-mail to one of the TT members in 1997,
> where he states:
> "The Richter scale loses much of its meaning higher than 7 or 8; you must
> talk "moment magnitudes" after that. The maximum shaking doesn't get much
> bigger as the magnitude rises above 7 or so; it lasts longer instead".
Which means A Gerald Brady knows little more about earthquakes than does
Nancy. His claim is false.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Greg Muncill
>
>Nancy and the Zetas have repeatedly explained Richter 15 equivalent to
>Richter 9 in magnitude, but longer. This is supported by A. Gerald Brady of
>Applied Technology Council in an e-mail to one of the TT members in 1997,
>where he states:
>"The Richter scale loses much of its meaning higher than 7 or 8; you must
>talk "moment magnitudes" after that. The maximum shaking doesn't get much
>bigger as the magnitude rises above 7 or so; it lasts longer instead".
>
And you still don't understand what he was saying. Check
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html
for conversion between Richter's magnitude and seismic moments
or seismic energy. Then peruse down near the bottom and read
that a Richter Magnitude 12 earthquake would possess the energy
to split the earth (160 trillion tons of TNT). Now, knowing that the
Richter scale is a logarithmic scale, what would YOU think would be
the power that a magnitude 15 quake would produce. The math
is right there to figure it out Jan boy.
Greg Muncill
Silver Spring, MD
@joricks.com Ricky Bennett
news:3c7ae609...@news.mindspring.com...
> And you still don't understand what he was saying. Check
>
> http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html
>
> for conversion between Richter's magnitude and seismic moments
> or seismic energy. Then peruse down near the bottom and read
> that a Richter Magnitude 12 earthquake would possess the energy
> to split the earth (160 trillion tons of TNT). Now, knowing that the
> Richter scale is a logarithmic scale, what would YOU think would be
> the power that a magnitude 15 quake would produce. The math
> is right there to figure it out Jan boy.
I think their table is off. Since a magnitude increase of 2 is equal to
multiplying the yield by 1000, the last line (mag. 12) should either be
magnitude 11.5 or the seismic energy yield should be 1 quadrillion tons.
For that matter, extending the scale to magnitude 15 would give a seismic
energy yield of 32 quintillion tons. I don't think I want to be anywhere in
the solar system when something like THAT goes off!
Stig Bull
> The posting by Idon't was related to an alleged inconsistency between
> Richter 15 and Richter 9 predictions by Nancy and the Zetas.
>
> Btw, how did you establish the necessary energy required to "melt the
> Earth"?
Simple maths which all of you seem unable to understand.
I M Openminded
The complet quote from that message us still available at
http://www.zetatalk.com/shelter/tshlt08c.htm
It reads:
---------------
In response to your e-mail to ATC, 8/8/97:
Underground structures would fare better than surface structures, other
things being equal, because the ground shaking is less there; it
increases as it ascends from bedrock to the surface. The seismic
structural engineering design community can design for you a structure
that will fare well against any ground shaking; it might cost, though.
The Richter scale loses much of its meaning higher than 7 or 8; you must
talk "moment magnitudes" after that. The maximum shaking doesn't get
much bigger as the magnitude rises above 7 or so; it lasts longer
instead. Reinforced is fine, but domes or geodesic domes are nothing
special in the horizontal shaking of an earthquake; they are just
lightweight roofs that hold themselves up against their own weight,
which is acting vertically. The comment on underground structures
applies to domes, too. Your question regarding magnitudes of 15 indicate
naivete.
Regards.
A. Gerald Brady, P.E., Ph.D.
--------------
Note the concluding sentance.
I M Openminded
Another response that you folks seem to have ignored is at
http://www.zetatalk.com/shelter/tshlt08e.htm
-----------
Hi there. Interesting question. The first thing I have to explain to you
is the earthquake measurement problems. The most common measurement
scale is the Richter Magnitude scale. On the Richter scale, quakes of
2.0 or less are usually not felt by people. The largest quakes in the
world have had magnitudes of 8.8 to 8.9. Although there is no limit to
the upper end of the Richter scale, the theoretical limit is about 9.5
simply based on the fact that rocks experiencing enough pressure to
break that violently will actually bend or melt before they break. The
Seismic Moment measurement is becoming the more often used (and more
accurate) form of measurement. The largest known quake on this scale
measured at 9.6. There is no scale or measuring method which could
result in a "15 point quake" as you suggest.
--------------------
Note the words about "bend or melt" at about Richter 9.5
I M Openminded
About the recent attempt to say that Nancy never predicted an actual
magnitude 15 event, only a long lasting Richter 9 event that would be
magnitude 15 equivalent. Lets look at the record:
from http://www.zetatalk.com/index/iscnilog.htm
------------------------------
Subj: Cataclysm Questions
Date: 95-03-20 00:39:57 EDT
From: SaquoNancy
I now ask the Zetas if they wish to respond:
A: We are delighted to see an ISCNI member poking about in the Question
from the Netherlands thread!
...
The first pass will occur, by our calculations, early in the year 2003.
All the cataclysms expected will occur during this pass - tidal waves,
earthquakes of a magnitude 15 Richter point, and a cloud of volcanic
dust that will make the atmosphere dense as dusk for decades.
----
David Paterson
>Jan wrote:
>
>> The posting by Idon't was related to an alleged inconsistency between
>> Richter 15 and Richter 9 predictions by Nancy and the Zetas.
>>
>> Btw, how did you establish the necessary energy required to "melt the
>> Earth"?
>
>Simple maths which all of you seem unable to understand.
You're forgetting that showing any signs of understanding maths or
science will immediately get you marked down as a "disruptive influence"
in Zeta circles! Better to stay ignorant and not rock the boat :-))
Seriously though, it makes me worry about the standard of science
education around the world if people are so totally (and sometimes
willfully) ignorant of such basics as logarithmic scales and simple
geometry or trigonometry. it doesn't bode well for the future of
science.
DP
jrla...@shell.golden.net
David Paterson <david.p...@noluncheonmeat.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>Seriously though, it makes me worry about the standard of science
>education around the world if people are so totally (and sometimes
>willfully) ignorant of such basics as logarithmic scales and simple
>geometry or trigonometry. it doesn't bode well for the future of
>science.
You spelled mankind wrong!
Michael L. Cunningham
> The first pass will occur, by our calculations, early in the year 2003.
> All the cataclysms expected will occur during this pass - tidal waves,
> earthquakes of a magnitude 15 Richter point, and a cloud of volcanic
> dust that will make the atmosphere dense as dusk for decades.
Shouldn't that read...
"...and a cloud of volcanic dust that will make them dense as lead for
decades." <g>
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS
2001 Grand Am GT
e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre
Sept. 11, 2001
Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war!
Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
"If you want to be counted... stand up!
If you want to be heard... speak up!
If you want to be appreciated... shut up!"
We've been notified by Building Security that there
have been 4 suspected terrorists working at our office.
Three of the four have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin,
Bin Loafin, and Bin Drinkin have been taken into
custody. Security advised us that they could find no
one fitting the description of the fourth cell member,
Bin Workin, in our office.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Bill Nelson
> Seriously though, it makes me worry about the standard of science
> education around the world if people are so totally (and sometimes
> willfully) ignorant of such basics as logarithmic scales and simple
> geometry or trigonometry. it doesn't bode well for the future of
> science.
What people fail to grasp is that, for one unit increase in Richter
magnitude, the energy output increases about 32 times. It is not a
simple power of 10 increase. So an earthquake of 12 magnitude releases
about 1,000,000 times as much energy as a magnitude 9 quake.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Jan
>
> Another response that you folks seem to have ignored is at
> http://www.zetatalk.com/shelter/tshlt08e.htm
> -----------
> Hi there. Interesting question. The first thing I have to explain to you
> is the earthquake measurement problems. The most common measurement
> scale is the Richter Magnitude scale. On the Richter scale, quakes of
> 2.0 or less are usually not felt by people. The largest quakes in the
> world have had magnitudes of 8.8 to 8.9. Although there is no limit to
> the upper end of the Richter scale, the theoretical limit is about 9.5
> simply based on the fact that rocks experiencing enough pressure to
> break that violently will actually bend or melt before they break. The
> Seismic Moment measurement is becoming the more often used (and more
> accurate) form of measurement. The largest known quake on this scale
> measured at 9.6. There is no scale or measuring method which could
> result in a "15 point quake" as you suggest.
>
> --------------------
> Note the words about "bend or melt" at about Richter 9.5
Living in a part of the world where I daily can see evidence of this (i.e.
mountains), I have no problems understanding the energies that would be
released in such an earthquake. The idea that the whole crust will melt, as
some have suggested, is however completely unfounded.
The effects that can be expected, according to the ZetaTalk site at
http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p21.htm, are:
"Weak spots among the Earth's crustal plates give way. The Pacific Ocean
will shorten, and the Atlantic widen. Subducting plates will subduct
greatly. Mountain building will occur suddenly, primarily increasing in
areas already undergoing mountain building. All told, the better part of an
hour, but at certain stages, only minutes."
Regards,
Jan
Jan
> What people fail to grasp is that, for one unit increase in Richter
> magnitude, the energy output increases about 32 times. It is not a
> simple power of 10 increase. So an earthquake of 12 magnitude releases
> about 1,000,000 times as much energy as a magnitude 9 quake.
What else is new about the logarithmic scale?
We all know that the measurement of dB follows the same logarithmic scale,
yet we also know that the perceived effects follow a linear scale. That is
because the energy is not concentrated or focused, but spread out in a 3D
continuum.
Even though the depth dimension may be a bit constrained with respect to
earthquakes, the same principle applies to the Richter scale. However,
being at the epicenter of a 9+ quake might not be a good idea...
Regards,
Jan
Jan
> The complet quote from that message us still available at
> http://www.zetatalk.com/shelter/tshlt08c.htm
>
> It reads:
> ---------------
> In response to your e-mail to ATC, 8/8/97:
>
> Underground structures would fare better than surface structures, other
> things being equal, because the ground shaking is less there; it
> increases as it ascends from bedrock to the surface. The seismic
> structural engineering design community can design for you a structure
> that will fare well against any ground shaking; it might cost, though.
> The Richter scale loses much of its meaning higher than 7 or 8; you must
> talk "moment magnitudes" after that. The maximum shaking doesn't get
> much bigger as the magnitude rises above 7 or so; it lasts longer
> instead. Reinforced is fine, but domes or geodesic domes are nothing
> special in the horizontal shaking of an earthquake; they are just
> lightweight roofs that hold themselves up against their own weight,
> which is acting vertically. The comment on underground structures
> applies to domes, too. Your question regarding magnitudes of 15 indicate
> naivete.
>
> Regards.
> A. Gerald Brady, P.E., Ph.D.
> --------------
> Note the concluding sentance.
It should be obvious that the e-mail was a reply to a question on how to
protect against Richter 15 quakes, which is why I only quoted the relevant
parts.
I have no problem with A, Gerald Brady's comment about naiveté, as the world
has yet to experience any Richter 9+ earthquakes. Any attempts to ride out
such a quake (should it ever occur) in a geodesic dome or underground
structure is indeed naive.
Regards,
Jan
Stig Bull
> Living in a part of the world where I daily can see evidence of this (i.e.
> mountains), I have no problems understanding the energies that would be
> released in such an earthquake. The idea that the whole crust will melt,
> as some have suggested, is however completely unfounded.
What, we both live in the same city so I can see the same mountains you can.
Do you believe *earthquakes* created the mountains?
> The idea that the whole crust will melt,
> as some have suggested, is however completely unfounded.
None has suggested that the crust will melt. It's a fact. If you care to do
the maths you'd understand yourself. Go on, it's maths that you had already
in 6th or 7th grade in school.
> The effects that can be expected, according to the ZetaTalk site at
> http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p21.htm, are:
> "Weak spots among the Earth's crustal plates give way. The Pacific Ocean
> will shorten, and the Atlantic widen. Subducting plates will subduct
> greatly. Mountain building will occur suddenly, primarily increasing in
> areas already undergoing mountain building. All told, the better part of
> an hour, but at certain stages, only minutes."
As will be proven once you do the maths and _understand_ what powers are
involved, you'll quickly realise that what that web page is talking about,
is *nonsense*. But by all means, use that site as your scientific guide and
fignore what *hundred of years* worth of research in science and geology
has thought us if it makes you happy.
Don't expect to be taken seriously if you do, though.
Stig Bull
> What else is new about the logarithmic scale?
>
> We all know that the measurement of dB follows the same logarithmic scale,
> yet we also know that the perceived effects follow a linear scale. That is
> because the energy is not concentrated or focused, but spread out in a 3D
> continuum.
So in your world, audio volume and energy released from nuclear weapons and
earthquakes are the same kind?
Greg Neill
> "Bill Nelson" wrote:
>
> > What people fail to grasp is that, for one unit increase in Richter
> > magnitude, the energy output increases about 32 times. It is not a
> > simple power of 10 increase. So an earthquake of 12 magnitude releases
> > about 1,000,000 times as much energy as a magnitude 9 quake.
>
> What else is new about the logarithmic scale?
>
> We all know that the measurement of dB follows the same logarithmic scale,
> yet we also know that the perceived effects follow a linear scale. That is
> because the energy is not concentrated or focused, but spread out in a 3D
> continuum.
No, it's because the ear's response curve is also logarithmic.
Greg Muncill
>
>We all know that the measurement of dB follows the same logarithmic scale,
>yet we also know that the perceived effects follow a linear scale. That is
>because the energy is not concentrated or focused, but spread out in a 3D
>continuum.
>
As Greg Neil said, the response of the ear is also
logarithmic (nonlinear). It has nothing to do with
the energy not being focused. Try some other
loophole.
Greg Muncill
>
>Living in a part of the world where I daily can see evidence of this (i.e.
>mountains), I have no problems understanding the energies that would be
>released in such an earthquake. The idea that the whole crust will melt, as
>some have suggested, is however completely unfounded.
>
It is unfounded as Richter magnitude 15 earthquakes are
not possible. IF THEY COULD OCCUR, then you would get
the whole crust melting.
>The effects that can be expected, according to the ZetaTalk site at
>http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p21.htm, are:
<blah><blah><blash>
Please stick with the point of contention at the
moment - the possibility of Richter 15 earthquakes
and not further statements regarding your
catastrophe to come. As the thread topic you
have carried over clearly states - this is about
your contention for magnitude 15 earthquakes.
So, do you have ANY seismologist who you can
produce to back you up? Your reference from
your website certainly doesn't.
Greg Neill
> protect against Richter 15 quakes, which is why I only quoted the relevant
> parts.
>
> I have no problem with A, Gerald Brady's comment about naiveté, as the
world
> has yet to experience any Richter 9+ earthquakes. Any attempts to ride out
> such a quake (should it ever occur) in a geodesic dome or underground
> structure is indeed naive.
>
> Regards,
> Jan
The quote was, "Your question regarding magnitudes of 15 indicate
naivete.", which suggests that implying a magnitude of 15 is
physically possible shows a lack of understanding of the magnitude
scale and the physics involved. As the old saying goes, anything is
possible when you don't know what you're talking about.
Jan
> Please stick with the point of contention at the
> moment - the possibility of Richter 15 earthquakes
> and not further statements regarding your
> catastrophe to come.
This is *not* the point of contention in this thread.
This thread started because "I'dont" under the heading "Nancy's way out:
Koolaid Time!" posted:
"[...] the "zetas" predict richter 15 earthquakes- this has been the source
of much discussion here on sci.astro. For those keeping track of the various
predictions, tho..... on her most recent public appearance (Blakeradio.com)
Nancy predicts only "*richter 9* quakes". No small difference."
I merely pointed to the explanation for this apparent inconsistency, and
why I believe Nancy lately has corrected this to Richter 9.
> As the thread topic you have carried over clearly states
> - this is about your contention for magnitude 15 earthquakes.
I think a better explanation would be a worldwide, prolonged magnitude 9
earthquake.
Btw, is the thread topic better suited to your requirements now? :-)
Regards,
Jan
Jan
> > "Bill Nelson" wrote:
> >
> > > What people fail to grasp is that, for one unit increase in Richter
> > > magnitude, the energy output increases about 32 times. It is not a
> > > simple power of 10 increase. So an earthquake of 12 magnitude
> > > releases about 1,000,000 times as much energy as a magnitude 9 quake.
> >
> > What else is new about the logarithmic scale?
> >
> > We all know that the measurement of dB follows the same logarithmic
> > scale, yet we also know that the perceived effects follow a linear
> > scale. That is because the energy is not concentrated or focused, but
> > spread out in a 3D continuum.
> No, it's because the ear's response curve is also logarithmic.
Sound, as any energy dispersed into a 3D continuum, will drop with distance
according to the inverse square law. Therefore the ear has wisely enough
been engineered to be more sensitive to lower energy levels, i.e. following
a logarithmic response curve.
The result? A linear *perceived effect*.
Regards,
Jan
Greg Neill
You're still confused, mistaking distance-loudness effect
with intensity-loudness. For a given intensity of sound
at a specific point, doubling the intensity does not
increase the perceived volume due to the ear's logarithmic
response. Even so, the energy in the sound wave has been
doubled.
One can posit that the ear's evolved response curve is
designed to maximize the dynamic range of sounds perceivable.
Greg Neill
It won't work if the energy expended is the same as the magnitude 15
event - the time span is just not enough to cover the orders of
magnitude foolishness; you end up with the same catastrophic
results.
Here's a little problem for you to work out. How long would a continuous
magnitude 9 event have to last to equal the energy of a magnitude 15 event?
Greg Muncill
>
>Sound, as any energy dispersed into a 3D continuum, will drop with distance
>according to the inverse square law. Therefore the ear has wisely enough
>been engineered to be more sensitive to lower energy levels, i.e. following
>a logarithmic response curve.
>
>The result? A linear *perceived effect*.
>
As Greg Neil pointed out, you are confusing the
dropoff of energy with distance as the the variation
of loudness of a signal to the human ear with the
variation of intensity of output.
It is this simple. Put on a pair of headphones
and listen to a tonal sound at 50 dB. Increase
the sound level to 100 dB. You, through your
ear, will perceive a doubling of the sound level.
The POWER increase to reach that sound level,
however, has increased by 5 orders of magnitude.
You have done nothing with distance. The
distance of the speakers inside the headphone
to your ears has not change. Do you comprehend
this now?
Greg Muncill
>
>I merely pointed to the explanation for this apparent inconsistency, and
>why I believe Nancy lately has corrected this to Richter 9.
>
Are you saying she has backtracked to 9.0 magnitude
earthquakes, with no reference to Richter 15 magnitude
earthquakes.
>
>I think a better explanation would be a worldwide, prolonged magnitude 9
>earthquake.
>
Sorry, that will not work either. As per Greg Neil's suggestion I
calculated from the website I provided to you earlier what the
difference in energy is between a magnitude 9 earthquake
and your hypothetical magnitude 15 earthquake. The energy
increase is 9 orders of magnitude! (1X10 to the 9th increase
in energy).
For convenience let us allow you 30 seconds for a magnitude
9 earthquake to last, although this seems pretty short. In order
to dissipate the magnitude 15 event through a continuous
magnitude 9 earthquake you are going to have that earthquake
last OVER ONE THOUSAND years. Are you perhaps starting
to get a little bothered by the nunbers Jan?
>Btw, is the thread topic better suited to your requirements now? :-)
>
The other one was fine too. You are the one who started bringing
in the other junk about increased spreading and subduction rates,
which had nothing to do with the present discussion.
Michael L Cunningham
> Living in a part of the world where I daily can see evidence of this (i.e.
> mountains), I have no problems understanding the energies that would be
> released in such an earthquake. The idea that the whole crust will melt, as
> some have suggested, is however completely unfounded.
>
> The effects that can be expected, according to the ZetaTalk site at
> http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p21.htm, are:
> "Weak spots among the Earth's crustal plates give way. The Pacific Ocean
> will shorten, and the Atlantic widen. Subducting plates will subduct
> greatly. Mountain building will occur suddenly, primarily increasing in
> areas already undergoing mountain building. All told, the better part of an
> hour, but at certain stages, only minutes."
I love it when someone refers to ZetaTalk as if it were on par with a
scientific journal. LOL!
I live in Southern California and knowing the faults and the math that you
so miserably fail to understand have a hard time taking your posts seriously
concerning earthquake magnitudes. "According to ZetaTalk" is your canned
response but show us the science that backs the "effects" you so proudly
trot out in front of us as "proof".
"Subducting plates will subduct greatly"... exactly what in the hell does that
mean and what is the science behind it?
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT
Bill Nelson
> "Bill Nelson" wrote:
>> What people fail to grasp is that, for one unit increase in Richter
>> magnitude, the energy output increases about 32 times. It is not a
>> simple power of 10 increase. So an earthquake of 12 magnitude releases
>> about 1,000,000 times as much energy as a magnitude 9 quake.
> What else is new about the logarithmic scale?
It isn't new - just unknown to most people.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> "[...] the "zetas" predict richter 15 earthquakes- this has been the source
> of much discussion here on sci.astro. For those keeping track of the various
> predictions, tho..... on her most recent public appearance (Blakeradio.com)
> Nancy predicts only "*richter 9* quakes". No small difference."
> I merely pointed to the explanation for this apparent inconsistency, and
> why I believe Nancy lately has corrected this to Richter 9.
So, explain WHY the magnitude has been reduced. Further, is this R9 over
all the surface of the Earth or just selected portions?
> I think a better explanation would be a worldwide, prolonged magnitude 9
> earthquake.
It it were, then NOTHING manmade would remain standing - not even Nancy's
worm beds.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Greg Muncill
>
>It is this simple. Put on a pair of headphones
>and listen to a tonal sound at 50 dB. Increase
>the sound level to 100 dB. You, through your
>ear, will perceive a doubling of the sound level.
>The POWER increase to reach that sound level,
>however, has increased by 5 orders of magnitude.
>
dB versus loudness representation molloxed
up somewhat. For every 10 dB increase the
sound level will double. Thus to double
from 50 dB you add 10 dB. The sound
intensity would rise by a factor of 10 to get
a doubling of loudness. For a discussion of
loudness and the difficulty in evaluating
it for the human ear check:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/loud.html#c2
The other point is the energy required to
reach the 10 fold increase in intensity.
The energy required will depend upon
the efficiency and response of the
electrical or mechanical device producing
the sound. This can scale at some
other larger value than 10. In fact if
you convert between intensity and some
other measure, such as acoustic pressure,
the scaling factor is 20, not 10.
Sorry for the confusion. Still does not
change the fact that the loudness scale
reflects changes in 10 in intensity to
approximately double the perceived sound
volume WITHOUT changing the source/receiver
distances. It's been a while since I worked
with the dB/Intensity conversion but I
at least remembered that.
Nancy Lieder
> What people fail to grasp is that, for one unit
> increase in Richter magnitude, the energy output
> increases about 32 times. It is not a simple power
> of 10 increase. So an earthquake of 12 magnitude
> releases about 1,000,000 times as much energy as
> a magnitude 9 quake.
And an earthquake affecting the ENTIRE WORLD would have that much more
“energy” behind it than one affecting just Northridge, or Turkey, for
instance. What is the “energy” required to jolt the entire North
American plate, upon with the entire North American continent rests?
Richter is not ONLY the force of the jolt, which Jan has explained does
not really increase after a certain point, it reflects the SCOPE of the
quake. And I’m not talking here about whether someone on the other side
of the world can register the quake on a seismometer, I’m talking about
whether that seismometer flys off the table and smashes into the wall!
Your a math wiz, Bill, how much larger than the some of the recent 8.0
quakes would a quake have to be to make all the pottery IN THE WORLD fly
off the table and hit the wall, tear bridges apart and waffle the
roadways ALL AROUND THE WORLD, jiggle brick and stone buildings into a
mass of rubble on the ground IN EVERY CITY AND TOWN, and make Bill
Nelson say “Oops” round about May 15, 2003?
It's a Miracle
at about 7 or greater the gound liquifys.What it means is the dirt
particles get so energetic they slide over each other like molecules in
a liquid.If you were on the surface you would just sink like
quicksand.The only way to measure it after that would be to measure how
long it lasts.As far as i know the only time it happened was in alaska
in early 1900's
~A2D~
Greg Muncill
>the reason why the richtor scale after 7 or 9 isn't accurate is because
>at about 7 or greater the gound liquifys.What it means is the dirt
>particles get so energetic they slide over each other like molecules in
>a liquid.If you were on the surface you would just sink like
>quicksand.
You are referring to liquiefaction. The focal point of the
earthquake is not in unconsolidated surface sediments.
The shaking of the sediments BY the earthquake motion
leads to liquiefaction. This is a near surface phenomenon
and not directly related to earthquake strength. For more than
you ever wanted to know about soil liquiefaction check:
http://www.ce.washington.edu/~liquefaction/html/main.html
>The only way to measure it after that would be to measure how
>long it lasts.As far as i know the only time it happened was in alaska
>in early 1900's
No. The strongest earthquake measured was the Chilean
quake of 1960 at 9.0. The Alaska quake of 1964 (not
early 1900's) was 8.5. Check:
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html
This will tell you all about how the Richter scale
works and how the earthquake magnitudes and
corresponding energetics of earthquakes are
calculated.
Greg Muncill
liquefaction, not liquiefaction. Sorry.
Greg Muncill
Sarah Mc
The only people that are going to say "oops" round May 15, 2003 are
your clueless cult members Nancy.
Keep wiggling. Where's your answers to the real questions?
Greg Neill
> > What people fail to grasp is that, for one unit
> > increase in Richter magnitude, the energy output
> > increases about 32 times. It is not a simple power
> > of 10 increase. So an earthquake of 12 magnitude
> > releases about 1,000,000 times as much energy as
> > a magnitude 9 quake.
>
> And an earthquake affecting the ENTIRE WORLD would have that much more
> "energy" behind it than one affecting just Northridge, or Turkey, for
> instance. What is the "energy" required to jolt the entire North
> American plate, upon with the entire North American continent rests?
Ask the voices in your head and report back to us. Then
we'll check the figures and laugh at you again. Why break
the current pattern?
> Richter is not ONLY the force of the jolt, which Jan has explained does
> not really increase after a certain point, it reflects the SCOPE of the
> quake. And I'm not talking here about whether someone on the other side
> of the world can register the quake on a seismometer, I'm talking about
> whether that seismometer flys off the table and smashes into the wall!
The size of the waves may not increase much, but the energy
content sure does. All the excess goes into rock deformation,
shattering, melting, etc. You can't avoid thermodynamics, its
rules are:
1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You cannot leave the game.
>
> Your a math wiz, Bill, how much larger than the some of the recent 8.0
> quakes would a quake have to be to make all the pottery IN THE WORLD fly
> off the table and hit the wall, tear bridges apart and waffle the
> roadways ALL AROUND THE WORLD, jiggle brick and stone buildings into a
> mass of rubble on the ground IN EVERY CITY AND TOWN, and make Bill
> Nelson say "Oops" round about May 15, 2003?
Again, ask the voices in your head. Don't expect us to provide
you with good numbers to turn into more ZetaSpew. You've
got a purportedly infallible alien information source, so
use it. The results should be another hilarious science gaff.
Jan
* Any UNfocused energy released in a 3D continuum will drop off by
distance in accordance with Newton's inverse square law;
* Energy may be focused by a number of techniques (flashlights reflectors,
Yagi antennas, satellite uplink dish, laser) to reduce the energy loss;
* To compensate for the energy drop-off by distance, whoever originally
designed the human ear made it more sensitive to lower energy levels,
hence the logarithmic response curve.
* Combining the effects of the inverse square law for dispersion of sound
energy with the ear's response curve results in a *perceived* linear
reduction of the sound energy level by distance.
* Since the ear has this built in distance compensations feature, i.e. the
logarithmic response curve, it will of course also respond according to
the same logarithmic scale when exposed to high energy levels at short
distances.
How difficult can this be?
Regards,
Jan
Jan
> Jan wrote:
>
> > What else is new about the logarithmic scale?
> >
> > We all know that the measurement of dB follows the same logarithmic
> > scale, yet we also know that the perceived effects follow a linear
> > scale. That is because the energy is not concentrated or focused,
> > but spread out in a 3D continuum.
>
> So in your world, audio volume and energy released from nuclear weapons
> and earthquakes are the same kind?
The dB in Communications:
"The term dB or decibel is a relative unit of measurement used frequently in
electronic communications to describe power gain or loss. Decibels are used
to specify measured and calculated values in audio systems, microwave system
gain calculations, satellite system link-budget analysis, antenna power
gain, light-budget calculations and in many other communication system
measurements. In each case the dB value is calculated with respect to a
standard or specified reference."
History and Original Use:
"The decibel unit was originally invented by Bell Telephone Labs as the
Bel and given its name after Alexander Graham Bell. The decibel is 1/10 of
this original unit. The Bel unit was defined as a ratio of power levels of
10 to 1 (ten times the power or one-tenth the power). In Telephones,
amplifiers are driving speakers and doing so over long lines. To drive
speakers there needs to be a power transfer. So if you are in the business
of driving speakers, you will analyze how much power there is available and
how much power was lost in getting the signal to the speaker."
Maybe you could also use some time on the Internet to search for information
before you plunge in with both feet, exposing your lack of understanding of
even a simple term like dB? Or maybe you should stick to administrating your
small LAN instead?
Regards,
Jan
PS. Having checked your 77 postings from December 03 to February 27, I have
found that:
01 actually contained any information (unfortunately not of any great
importance, only a list of TEOTW prophecy dates)
04 were NOT directly related to ZetaTalk, Nancy or Planet X discussions
04 contained the word liar
05 contained the 4-letter word f*** or f***ing
08 contained the word kook
13 contained the word minion
13 contained the word stupid
18 contained the word cult
And maybe of interest to your employer:
60 were posted on weekdays between 08:00 and 17:00 when you were supposed to
administrate their LAN...
Greg Muncill
>
>* Any UNfocused energy released in a 3D continuum will drop off by
> distance in accordance with Newton's inverse square law;
>
Very true Jan, but you were using this basis to explain
the response of the human ear to dB signals, something
completely different. Energy drops off with distance. Yeah.
But if you are still producing 10^9 times the energy you
STILL HAVE A PROBLEM.
>* Energy may be focused by a number of techniques (flashlights reflectors,
> Yagi antennas, satellite uplink dish, laser) to reduce the energy loss;
>
Ande this has what to do with the present discussion?
>* To compensate for the energy drop-off by distance, whoever originally
> designed the human ear made it more sensitive to lower energy levels,
> hence the logarithmic response curve.
>
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Are you even reading
my responses or checking my references. Let's try
this one more time. This time LOOK at this reference.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/loud.html#c2
dB is calculated as a log ratio of intensity. The reference intensity
and intensity of interest for calculating the response of the human
ear are calculated at the SAME DISTANCE. Read the source I
pointed out again. To double the sound output of one violin in
an orchestra it takes 10 VIOLINS. Go back and read the
sources again.
>* Combining the effects of the inverse square law for dispersion of sound
> energy with the ear's response curve results in a *perceived* linear
> reduction of the sound energy level by distance.
>
Same points as above. You are obviously very confused.
>* Since the ear has this built in distance compensations feature, i.e. the
> logarithmic response curve, it will of course also respond according to
> the same logarithmic scale when exposed to high energy levels at short
> distances.
>
Read my reference again. There is NO MENTION of distance in
the discussion for equating the dB versus "loudness" relationship.
IF you move the listener away from the source, yes, Jan you will
get a dropoff. That's what I work with in ocean acoustic propagation.
But that is independent of the response of the ear at A SINGLE
DISTANCE.
>How difficult can this be?
>
Yes, really.
Greg Muncill
previous discussions I also refer you back to:
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html
You will note that the effect of distance is taken
into account when calculating the Richter
Magnitude, so your hand waving about 3D
dissipation of the energy does not apply to
Richter Magnitude calculations.
Jan
> "Jan" wrote:
>
> > designed the human ear made it more sensitive to lower energy levels,
> > hence the logarithmic response curve.
> >
>
> WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Are you even reading
> my responses or checking my references. Let's try
> this one more time. This time LOOK at this reference.
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/loud.html#c2
No, I did not check your reference initially. Having done so now I fail to
see the relevance.
The ear's response curve varies with frequency, as it rolls off below ~100Hz
to no response below ~20Hz. The roll-off of high frequencies varies with
age, but for the younger people, the cutoff point is ~20KHz.
The ear's response curve also varies with energy levels, in the main on a
logarithmic curve, but due to the roll-offs of low and high frequencies,
these tend to become weaker at lower energy levels. Therefore contour
filters may be needed to generate a perceived flat response. Such contour
filters are often popularly referred to as "loudness" filters.
Which relevance this has to the original discussion about logarithmic curves
and my comment about the *perceived* linear effect is beyond me. I have
merely tried to illustrate the ingenious design of our ears, and how the
logarithmic response curve (disregarding the smaller variances in the lower
& higher frequency ranges) balances out the inverse square law so that
UNfocused sound energy (i.e. not in the concert hall or through the home
stereo loudspeakers) follow a *perceived* linear response curve with
distance.
Discussions about sounds, music etc. may be interesting as such, but we are
now getting rather far off from the original topic, so I would prefer to end
this thread here.
Regards,
Jan
Bill Nelson
> Your a math wiz, Bill, how much larger than the some of the recent 8.0
> quakes would a quake have to be to make all the pottery IN THE WORLD fly
> off the table and hit the wall, tear bridges apart and waffle the
> roadways ALL AROUND THE WORLD, jiggle brick and stone buildings into a
> mass of rubble on the ground IN EVERY CITY AND TOWN, and make Bill
> Nelson say "Oops" round about May 15, 2003?
I am not a math whiz. But even a magnitude 9 quake, if uniform around the
world would probably turn everything into rubble.
Note that we have never recorded a magnitude 9 quake in all of written
history. The closest was a mag 8.9 - a magnitude 9 would have several
times as much energy.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Stig Bull
> Maybe you could also use some time on the Internet to search for
> information before you plunge in with both feet, exposing your lack of
> understanding of even a simple term like dB? Or maybe you should stick to
> administrating your small LAN instead?
Now who's plunging in it with both feet? You are the one who started
babbling about decibel and thus compared it in some weird way to
earthquakes and the energy released.
Puny attempt at insulting me noted.
> PS. Having checked your 77 postings from December 03 to February 27, I
> have found that:
>
> 01 actually contained any information (unfortunately not of any great
> importance, only a list of TEOTW prophecy dates)
> 04 were NOT directly related to ZetaTalk, Nancy or Planet X discussions
> 04 contained the word liar
> 05 contained the 4-letter word f*** or f***ing
> 08 contained the word kook
> 13 contained the word minion
> 13 contained the word stupid
> 18 contained the word cult
Nice statistics. You do have a lot of spare time, don't you? Here's more:
liar, liar, liar, kook, kook, minion, cult, stupid, liar, kook, minion,
minion, cult.
There, I guess you have some for you interesting work on a Friday evening
so you can amuse yourself instead of just being bored.
> And maybe of interest to your employer:
> 60 were posted on weekdays between 08:00 and 17:00 when you were supposed
> to
> administrate their LAN...
First of all, I don't administer our LAN. Second, I am a consultant and
does all of my work outside our office. Also, feel free to call my employer
if you like.
--
Stig Bull
No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this electronic
message. To reduce download time, this message is made of 100% recycled
bytes.
Greg Neill
> "Greg Muncill" wrote:
> > "Jan" wrote:
> >
> > >* To compensate for the energy drop-off by distance, whoever originally
> > > designed the human ear made it more sensitive to lower energy levels,
> > > hence the logarithmic response curve.
> > >
> >
> > WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Are you even reading
> > my responses or checking my references. Let's try
> > this one more time. This time LOOK at this reference.
> >
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/loud.html#c2
>
> No, I did not check your reference initially. Having done so now I fail to
> see the relevance.
As usual for a ZetaCult minion, you fail to see what's put before
you and pick and choose amongst what's left.
On the above mentioned website, in the very first paragraph:
"It must also be considered that the ear's response to increasing
sound intensity is a "power of ten" or logarithmic relationship.
This is one of the motivations for using the decibel scale to
measure sound intensity. A general "rule of thumb" for loudness
is that the power must be increased by about a factor of ten to
sound twice as loud."
Stig Bull
> And maybe of interest to your employer:
> 60 were posted on weekdays between 08:00 and 17:00 when you were supposed
> to
> administrate their LAN...
Giving this statement some thoughts, I'll tell you what, Jan.
You call my employer and tell them I post a lot of messages while I am at
work, you give me the name of your employer and I call them and tell them
you are in a doomsday cult waiting for the end of the world as we know it.
How about that, huh?