TPP wrote: Point being that IMHO, the sun spots/flares effect the earth much more than we realize. The MASSIVE MAGNETIC fields sent out by sun flares, are messing with the tectonic plates, and our magnetic fields!
[EDITED: IMO, since, where dealing with 3 different studies, NO body is looking at the big picture. Space science - Solar flares emitting magnetic fields,
Climate Science - what's causing all this quickly melting snows, causing floods,
Tectonic plate movement, Earth Science - What causing all the recent seismic activity, as shown on map.
IMO, (and it has been proven in some cases), NOBODY is TALKING with each other. I Believe that all 3 events are one in the same starting with the Solar Flares, and going from there.
(All I wanted to show was the AMOUNT of quakes that are happening, and I cut the list way down from site)
If you’ve had time yet to visit the site, you’ll be surprised as to how many pages, of seismic events happened JUST YESTERDAY, Worldwide.
That is an interesting notion, TPP. I'd never consider it. Now I wonder how much force magnetic flares impart on the earth. Also, if there is a direct connection between heightened tectonic activity and sun spot activity, one would expect to find a direct correlation between the activity of the two processes. I'm unaware of heightened plate tectonic activity on an approximately 11 year cycle.
There are some who look across various disciplines to piece together a more viable working hypothesis. Indeed, when one sees various disciplines pointing in the same direction that a working hypothesis becomes a far more powerful idea. As an example, several of us argued about an interpretation of a group of rocks with polar opposite ideas of what they represented. But when independent paleontologic and geochemical work came to their own conclusions, those results meshed well with one but not the other idea. The notion that climatologists invite the results of other relevant disciplines such as astrophysics, geology and biology is something I strongly support, because they are not getting the whole picture of what guides climate change. And, making it a political football has done and continues to do more harm than good in reaching profound insights.
Rockdoc Franz wrote: Odds and ends indeed, no pun intended. Something I had no clue about is now hot news.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-s ... 53164.html
Be sure to read this. It is most interesting information.
What brought about semengate? The following lines, especially the final one.
Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).
Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: "So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates."
This concluded from studies that show.
There is growing evidence that human semen has the potential to produce profound effects on women. We have replicated the effects showing female college students having sex without condoms are less depressed as measured by objective scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. We've also examined the data as a function of whether the students were using hormonal contraceptives, whether they were in committed relationships, and how long these relationships have lasted. The anti-depressant properties of semen exposure do not vary as function of any of these conditions. It is not a question of whether females are sexually active, since students having sex with condoms show the same level of depression as those who are not having sex at all.
As many of you know there is a growing body of evidence to support this (pun intended)
You might also mention that Dr. Greenfield was forced to resign because of this finding. That is what the story emphasised. It is not PC. So science is not solely fact driven!
Sort of reminds one of a thread a week or so ago in which a forum member stated as much. And many objected to that statement.
Wrong. NOT FORCED. Chose to resign. Not for his own research findings, but for quoting the works of others and trying to be clever with words. You make it seem that his research was flawed, NOT the case at all. The article was not about him having to resign, but how stupid it was to garner such reaction to one sentence he wrote when a whole body of research by others brought to light the findings he was reviewing. Just another case were PC is the name of the game. Purely asinine is what the world has come to I would say. Even opinions are no longer tolerated with the social police.
Again, you apparently have read what you wanted to read. Dr. Greenfield was writing a review of other's works not his own. Those articles he reviewed and summarized came from refereed journals that require facts. Once again your own wish to portray science as something it is not rears its ugly head through misstatements. If you are going to report, do so accurately.
Nice spin. But his research was not flawed. He had to resign because of the pressure from the scientific community who would not accept. They could not accept fact. They bend science to their point of view. Science is not fact, but consensus.
So, in light of this, can we accept science as the pure facts and uncorrupted? I think not.
Apparently, you have read into my post what you want it to say. Nice try.
Time to call BS. Being accurate in what you report is a matter of integrity and that is why we part company over the Dr. Greenfield issue. Your null hypothesis is wrong so your ability to draw valid conclusions regarding science from the Greenfield incident is wrong. What you choose to believe about science in general stands apart from the referenced article. Being a scientist and actively practicing the scientific method I have a different opinion on how I and other scientists work and it is not by consensus. If that were the case, we would all vote on a particular theory as opposed to arguing and looking for additional facts that either refute or support a working hypothesis. You are entitled to your erroneous beliefs.
Science is not by concensus? That is absurd! I call BS. Consider peer review, journals, etc. What is accepted as fact is definitely by concensus. How dare you insult the intelligence of the public. It smacks of arrogance.
Then let me be arrogant. Peer reviewed journals have little to do with acceptance. Journal editors generally make those decisions based on whether or not the material covered in the publication fits into the spectrum of the Journal's subject matter. Peer review is to insure proper scientific methods were followed, that the writing is readable and clear, it is mostly editing with suggestions for touching on topics that were not fully addressed but ought to be. It's obvious to me that you have never published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Not only have I published in such journals, but also reviewed papers submitted for publication. Yet you accuse me of misleading others when you pretend expertise. That is BS.
Only once, do I recall having a reviewer recommend that a paper ought not to be published and it had nothing to do with consensus, but with the worthiness of the science being reported. The question was it novel enough scientific breakthrough to warrant inclusion in the prestigious journal Science? It was deemed a ground-breaking scientific discover and ended up being my first publication. The reviewer took great pains to point out areas they wanted to see improved.
Somewhere in my files there is a copy of a reviewed version of a paper I submitted for publication. In it you can see exactly what takes place in the peer review process. Perhaps you will want to have a look? I'm also preparing several new papers for publication in scientific journals, I'll keep you in mind when I get the peer reviews back so you can gain some actual insight into what takes place. It's not what you think it is. Oh, I the reviewers vary and the one I liked least came from a person who suggested that I have someone, for whom English was not a second language, read my paper first. Apparently he did not like my writing style.
I can't remember the amount of the magnetic interfeance, but it is pretty large, I've been watching the Solar Flares and the seismic activity for a few years and what am seeing in that the DEEPER seismic activity usually acures when we have solar activty of large amount, but what was interresting was that (damn, can't remember but I think it was a week) before the 9.0 in Japan there where 4 Class M flares one after another, and the quake was deep, and IMO that was when we got hit by the wave, and if that holds true it is also about the time the snow melt increased (which are now floods), I also believe that it triggered a MASSIVE amount of surface quake though the WHOLE middle of Europe.
Another question, which I've haven't dug into just yet is why did SPAIN get slammed, it's really rare, because they are pretty much protected from the Continental Convergent Boundary, by shallow land mass under water, and a VERY large underwater shelf to the north. What else i find intresting in that Mt. Etna (also RIGHT on the Continental Convergegent Boundry), Erupted at 02:43:34, which release pressures, but at 15:18:58, a quake hit in the Tyrrhenian Sea at 26km (3.2), and shorthly after that and the 4 that hit Spain hit at 16:53:15, NOT so deep only 11 km (and a 2.9) that was a very large amount of area to move that fast, than it took until 21:48:23 to hit Sagres at 19 km (with a 2.9). Just follow the Continental Convergegent Boundry...
http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php
Things are happening...
TPP wrote: Point being that IMHO, the sun spots/flares effect the earth much more than we realize. The MASSIVE MAGNETIC fields sent out by sun flares, are messing with the tectonic plates, and our magnetic fields!
[EDITED: IMO, since, where dealing with 3 different studies, NO body is looking at the big picture. Space science - Solar flares emitting magnetic fields,
Climate Science - what's causing all this quickly melting snows, causing floods,
Tectonic plate movement, Earth Science - What causing all the recent seismic activity, as shown on map.
IMO, (and it has been proven in some cases), NOBODY is TALKING with each other. I Believe that all 3 events are one in the same starting with the Solar Flares, and going from there.
(All I wanted to show was the AMOUNT of quakes that are happening, and I cut the list way down from site)
If you’ve had time yet to visit the site, you’ll be surprised as to how many pages, of seismic events happened JUST YESTERDAY, Worldwide.
That is an interesting notion, TPP. I'd never consider it. Now I wonder how much force magnetic flares impart on the earth. Also, if there is a direct connection between heightened tectonic activity and sun spot activity, one would expect to find a direct correlation between the activity of the two processes. I'm unaware of heightened plate tectonic activity on an approximately 11 year cycle.
There are some who look across various disciplines to piece together a more viable working hypothesis. Indeed, when one sees various disciplines pointing in the same direction that a working hypothesis becomes a far more powerful idea. As an example, several of us argued about an interpretation of a group of rocks with polar opposite ideas of what they represented. But when independent paleontologic and geochemical work came to their own conclusions, those results meshed well with one but not the other idea. The notion that climatologists invite the results of other relevant disciplines such as astrophysics, geology and biology is something I strongly support, because they are not getting the whole picture of what guides climate change. And, making it a political football has done and continues to do more harm than good in reaching profound insights.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
A close-up shot of the Lagoon Nebula's center shows the delicate structures formed when powerful radiation from young stars interacts with the hydrogen cloud from which they sprang. The color-coded image was created from exposures taken with the Hubble Space Telescope's Advanced Camera for Surveys. Light from glowing hydrogen is colored red, light from ionized nitrogen is green, and light through a yellow filter is colored blue.
http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/22/5157221-waves-break-on-a-stellar-lagoon
This portion of the Lagoon Nebula was imaged in three filters sensitive to optical and far-infrared light by Argentinean astronomers Julia Arias and Rodolfo Barba, using the Gemini South telescope in Chile with the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph.
Click here for a larger version of the image.
That's cool in that it hits home that the ground is literally moving beneath our feet!
Maybe this research will lead to fewer battles over end-of-life care in regards to vegetative states
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110512/ ... id=FBK_NPG Researchers distinguish between vegetative and minimally conscious states.
Test measures spark of consciousness
Amber Dance
Published online 12 May 2011 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2011.287
But today in Science, researchers report a test that can distinguish between states of consciousness using a simple electroencephalogram (EEG) and some mathematics1.
The test suggests that the key difference between minimally conscious and totally unconscious non-coma states is communication between the frontal cortex — the planning, thinking part of the brain — and the temporal cortex, where sounds and words are processed.
The researchers say that the technique could help doctors to make accurate diagnoses about consciousness, and better predict how a patient will recover. Having this extra information might help families to make difficult decisions about a loved one's care or end of life in cases such as that of Terri Schiavo, who was removed from life support in 2005 after several years in a vegetative state.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
