-- (one@more.time), August 11, 1999.
Please explain the Aug. 11th thing to me.greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
OK. I am new here. Today as a matter of fact. My friend and I were just surfing around about Y2k stuff. I would like someone to please tell us what this date means? It is all too technical for us. Just simple terms please. Why is the 11th and the 13th important? Something about an eclipse? Why is that a big deal?? Is this really something to worry about? My parents don't know anything and neither does any of my friends parents. Does this have anything to do with Y2K? This is not my real e-mail sorry about that. We would just like to have it explained very simple for us. Thank you.
-- Elimay (Eli@may.clampet), August 07, 1999
dim, shadow, kaboom
-- prophesy convergence (hopi@aztec.nostradamus.fatima), August 07, 1999.
On this date I will molest another intern.
-- dickless husband of Madame Hillary (slickwillie@whitehouse.gov), August 07, 1999.
to troll or not to troll ...August 11 + 13 are A OT (allegedly Off-Topic). August 21 + 22 are GPS rollover. September 9 is Testing Day and maybe a bitsy bit of End Of File. September 23 is a Fatima #3 watch day.
If you are new, keep your eye on the prize: 1/1/2000. The rest will seep into your cognition gradually as you immerse yourself in our Date Swamp. ) Zeebonkers.
PS Do your parents know you've wandered in here? There are infectious memes floating about, and Chicken Little fevers.
-- eli may or may not (be@troll.playdumb), August 07, 1999.
Well I wanted a little more than dim, shadow, kaboom. But that was very very funny! And yes, I know it is OT but since you were talking about it anyway, I thought you could explain it to me. And yes my parents know I am looking for Y2K information. They don't care as long as I am not going to porno places or chat rooms. I guess I am not welcome though. I will go find out somewhere else. Thanks for nothing. Bye.
-- Elimay (Eli@may.clampet), August 07, 1999.
Like any cult, there is some haze on daze, and a measure-your-skin initiation period. Every poster child is tested and put thru the troll-a-meter. As you lurk/post you will see the need for this. You will also learn to scroll and click and wade through the archives, and New Questions and Recent Answers to research the answers to your questions.In fact, this is a database forum set up as a Q & A.
Since you are new, but already know what OT is (?), you get some benefit-of-the-doubt coupons. Here's one:
OT - August 11 & 13Your mission, should you choose to stay on this site ...
-- welcome bandwagon (bitter@bump.road), August 07, 1999.
Buh Bye
-- (De@d_gra.nny), August 07, 1999.
I did read that post, that's how I knew it was off topic. Because it said so in that post. I read it and still don't know what the heck they are talking about. I just wanted someone to say what it was in easier terms.he result, a high order X-Class flare, with an associated Coronal Mass Injection drawn directly towards the earth, as opposed to the recent CME's that have been pulled outward away from the Earth.
A CME from an X class flare would take approximately 48 hours to reach the Earth... 48 hours from August 11 is August 13, see Aztec Calendar, etc.,
What does it mean???????????????????????????????????? I honestly don't know what they are talking about here!
-- Elimay (Eli@may.clampet), August 07, 1999.
The sun is hot. The sun is big. The sun has storms. The sun has solar flares. Sometimes their throw-outs are very big, and sometimes they head towards the earth. Sometimes they can knock out satellites, electrical grids, and other electronic carrying widgets which support life for artifically-dependent too-many-people.Science, astronomy, telescopes, etc. are able to view these things more now than ever, but the technology for sky-gazing is at the baby-step level. Technology advances have outpaced man's emotional or managerial evolution.
We know, scientifically, that August-February poses some extraordinary possibilities in the sky. We are a bit trepidatious that the ancient cultures, more attuned to the natural rhythms of Earth, also saw this time specifically as earth-shattering and human view-changing.
So we are trying to read into the "signs" any clues possible as forewarnings.
-- TimeBomb 101 (benefit@the.doubt), August 07, 1999.
Elimay... this is strictly unscientific but it may help you out a little bit. CME's are the result of the sun throwing off stuff it no longer needs or wants. Coronal Mass = Sun, Ejections = well you get it. It's said that these ejections, if large enough, can screw up the earth's entire magnetic field and cause lots of problems ie.poor to no satellite communications (knocked out a whole bunch of pagers in May of 1998)plays tricks on the grid and electricity COULD become a problem and on the really bad side...if it was "the grand-daddy of them all" it could possibly cause a polar shift which would really screw things up. OR it could go totally un-noticed by anybody but the folks who are tracking them. Hard to say, it's been a long time since we've been through a "Solar Maximus" (really heavy CME activity)and I haven't seen anything published on it that makes me want to form an opinion about it. If you like to read get a copy of "Solar Flare" by Larry Burkette. It's a great read and if you think Y2K all the way through it you'll come out ahead in the long run. Good luck and never be afraid to ask questions...only dumb people think they know it all.
-- Mother Hen (gathering@herchicks.com), August 07, 1999.
Timebomb and Motherhen, Thank you very much for taking me seriously. I really was curious to know what it was all about. I know nothing about solar activity and such. I figure if something happens to end the world like that then there is nothing we can do about it anyway so why worry, right? but really thank you for not being rude to me asking a question.
-- Elimay (Eli@may.clampet), August 07, 1999.
The problem is, chances are far more likely that if anything happens, the world will not end but be harder to live in. That's why preparation helps no matter what the scenario. But some people are stone-resistant to cans of soup and water, and will find any excuse not to have some "living insurance" in their pantry.
-- TimeBomb 101 (benefit@the.doubt), August 07, 1999.
Elimay,There will be a solar eclipse on August 11. It will be a total eclipse along a path from the North Atlantic Ocean through Europe and the Middle East to India. Notably, this path will cross more heavily-populated areas than any other total eclipse for many years before or afterwards, so it's been heavily publicized, in Europe at least.
Many people want to attach supernatural or pseudo-scientific meanings to this eclipse. Often these people also want to convince others that there is some magical or mystical meaning to Y2K. I recommend taking note of who tries to convince you that something catastrophic will happen on August 11 or shortly afterwards (August 13 is supposedly tied into various mystical stuff), so that when nothing of the sort happens you'll know who to ignore in the future.
X-class flares and coronal mass ejections (CMSs) are real, but there has been no causal connection shown between those solar events and eclipses or other alignments of planets and their moons. Those who claim that there is such a connection have, as far as I know, presented no reliable evidence to back up their claims. They seem to rely on scary descriptions of solar flares and CMEs and the assignment of mystical powers to astronomical alignments to keep people from noticing that no correlations between eclipses or alignments and those events have been observed in the past.
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 07, 1999.
From an Arch Crawford post on Silicon Investor: Major Instability by Arch Crawford Editor, Crawford Perspectives The world will get a strong dose of Millennial Madness during the coming eclipse series. Political, military and social unrest at maximum with economic and financial repercussions aplenty! There may be surprise attacks across national borders, possibly involving Israel, and assassination attempts on world leaders, possibly including the U.S. We do not say these things lightly. This sequence of T-squares and Grand Crosses among the "wandering stars' is unprecedented in our lifetimes, and maybe for Millennia! Do you think we are alarmist? Can we frighten you into taking some modicum of defensive measures, personally and financially? If you're waiting for greater proximity to Y2K before tightening up, don't! Whatever you might be coerced to do for your own safetydo it now! Remember that we have a long history of predicting dates of astronomic moments which have often coincided with monstrous world events! Not all of these predicted events affected our markets. Many did. Among the greatest planetary alignments we brought to readers' attention were: Top day before the "October Massacre" of 1979, biggest point decline in history (to that date) in 1986, exact date of the Challenger explosion, exact high day before 1987 crash, exact day of Kobe earthquake, Lunar Eclipse conjunct Pluto 2 days before Chernobyl explosion, Lunar Eclipse forming Grand Cross when Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait, Saturn square Neptune date of "Hunt Debacle" Saturn square Pluto date of Chiapas Uprising, Saturn semi-square Neptune date of Peso devaluation, Saturn/Neptune conjunction opposed Jupiter 2-3 days before Berlin Wall came down, exact date of drowning of 900 in ferry accident, date of Diana's deathand many more! The next 60 days will make all these look like a walk in the park! Never, ever, have we observed combination after deadly combination culminating one after another in a truly apocalyptic sequence. To those among the spiritual or religious communities, some of whom are planning gatherings for the Solar Eclipse, I give this advice: "Start sooner and pray harder!" To those who believe in nothing, I give this advice: "If there's something you have really wanted to do and haven't done yetdo it now!" If there is someone you haven't told "I love you!" best to do that now, as well. Although the sequence has already begun building, it can be observed openly by July 18, and even the dull-witted will become aware by July 21 that something is amiss. The biggest events will most likely occur Monday, July 26 when the first T-square forms involving Sun/Mercury conjunction opposing Neptune, all square Jupiter! This is extremely inflationary and will disrupt currencies and financial markets. Possibility of chemical spills, deception, germ warfare and tragedies at sea. Then comes the Lunar eclipse on the 28th conjunct Neptune and square Jupiter = more of the same! The third T-square reaches maximum energy on Saturday, August 7th. This combination of Sun opposing Uranus, both squaring Mars symbolizes open, In Your Face Confrontation, Warfare, Explosive Tempers, Explosive Hardware! August 11, 1999! This is The Big One, the MOTHER of all Solar Eclipses about which the 16th century seer, Nostradamus wrote: "A King Of Terror will come from the skies" Ebertin's Combination of Stellar Influences says of Mars/Saturn = Uranus: "The ability to give as well as to take under provocation, the inclination to apply brute force, a test of nervous strength, the intervening by higher power, separation, death. Dell Horoscope magazine opines: "This eclipse might augur a paradigm shift of global proportions." Richard Giles, writing for Gordon Michael Scallion's Earth Changes Report writes: "What's at stake hereis the basic stability and strength of the free market system. Struggles for control of the world economy and issues of ownership of the world's resources are in balance. War over land and rights to resources are very likely. Neptune in Aquarius will foster a mystical and humanitarian revival of the world at a mass level, offering many people their first transcendental glimpse of the planetin late July expect people claiming to be a messiah to emerge. This energy also favors sudden reversals of fortune in the markets." The greatest after-shocks are triggered with the formation of a second Grand Cross on August 16-17, involving Jupiter, Neptune, Mercury and Moon. How many thousands of years since we have encountered a Double Grand Cross? The Pluto station on the 18th will aggravate underground movement and, likewise, the realignment of power structures, physical and social. Further powerful astronomic hits on August 24, 26 and 29 add to the general chaos of this intense period. Editor's Note: Arch Crawford is editor of Crawford Perspectives, 6890 E Sunrise Dr., Ste. #120-70, Tucson, AZ 85750, 1 year, 12 issues, $250. Published since 1977, Crawford provides quinessential market timing by planetary cycles and technical analysis. A 900 Hotline service is available at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. EDT for $4.30 total per 2-3 minute call 1-900-776-3449.
-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), August 07, 1999.
Elimay (continued),"coronal mass ejections (CMSs) are real" should have been "coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are real" in my preceding.
About solar flares and CMEs: they've happened many times before in every past year, without much effect on Earth that means anything to everyday life. It is true that certain types of electronic equipment are more subject to damage from side effects of such events than manmade stuff was in the past, but it's also true that electric utilities are much better prepared to avoid such damage than they were at the last solar maximum in 1989.
>I figure if something happens to end the world like that then there is nothing we can do about it anyway so why worry, right?
... and some of the people raising a fuss about solar flares and CMEs in this forum _want_ you and others to worry, because they get a kick out of that.
- - - - - - - - - -
Mother Hen,
A couple of notes:
>and on the really bad side...if it was "the grand-daddy of them all" it could possibly cause a polar shift
No, this is not possible. Some may say it, but that doesn't make it possible.
Ask someone who claims this is possible to show you their assumptions and calculations of the forces involved, then publish the figures here (so we can debunk them).
>it's been a long time since we've been through a "Solar Maximus" (really heavy CME activity)
Only a decade -- 1989.
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 07, 1999.
No Spam...Pompous ass...
No, no correlation has been shown between total solar eclipse and solar maximum... would you care to fill us in on the last time this happened, and who was around to make scientific observations?
I haven't heard anyone assigning mystical powers to astronomical alignments, outside of astrologist, which I am not one. What has been suggested is that physical variations in the magnetic field of the solar system brought on by alignment of planetary bodies., ie, the earth and the Moon, at a time when the sun is most volatile, could in fact create greater than normal response.
I also don't recall anyone saying the end of the world would be the result. Simply that the potential is there for some pretty spectacular results, and maybe a bit of inconvenience if our cell phones, pagers, and god forbid, power grids, take a siesta do to a sun fart...
Elimay, no one knows anything for certain, except that we live in an interesting time. It's fun to speculate about things, such as the apparent convergence of real world physical phenomena occurring in synch with so many predictions and prophecies about this specific time period. It is an interesting diversion, taken offense to by what are commonly called trolls here.
Trolls are mean spirited little people that enjoy insulting, taunting, and generally disrupting those around them. They seldom offer facts to prove their positions, and instead rely on caustic remarks and twisting of others comments to prove that they are the superior intellect.
If nothing happens beyond the total Solar Eclipse on August 11th, who really gives a damn? Not me... but trolls like No Spam would like to use the fact that some of us like to play with fascinating ideas and twist and turn them to see if there is a puzzle there to be solved, and if there is no puzzle, and we toss it aside for a new toy, that we are incompetent fools and now you should follow his divine light of narrow minded self-righteous believe-only-the-powers-that-be drivel.
By the way No Spam, since you discredit the theory, and I assume you understand the term theory, of gravitational influence from planetary alignment creating magnified effects on Solar Maximum, perhaps you would care to share with us the definitive research that dismissed this theory during the last total solar eclipse that occurred during a solar maximum? Dates & names please?
Ok, I spell checked, but don't get used to it :)
-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), August 07, 1999.
Well...It's not so much the "Last" solar eclipse of the 20th Century that I'm anxiously anticipating...
It's what's gonna be SEEN near the sun by so many "Highly Populated" regions of the world that's got my real attention...
Comet Lee (not sure if it's a Gent or a Lady) will become visible for the first time since it's slingshot ride around the sun...
From the data recorded Worldwide, someone outa ba able to tell us how close to the Earth this things gonna fly... :)
Concerned, Yes.... Panic, Nah...
http://www.astroarts.com/
-- Nailbender (No_Eclipse_for_US@Aug11.net), August 07, 1999.
No Spam,I see you are you're usual charming self as ever...
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 07, 1999.
I've followed Arch Crawford for a long time, even got his News Letter for a while. He's right some times, and wrong more times, not some one to make financial decisions with. Many of his dates in the article just above have already passed with no apparent disruptions, at least not the type he was talking about. July 18, July21, July 26, July 28, and today Saturday, Aug 7.
-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), August 07, 1999.
Elimay - I'm glad you are looking for y2k information, especially since your parents don't know anything about it. I hope the negative comments here don't keep you from pursuing useful information.Here are some urls you can copy and paste into the address window for some of my favorite y2k sites.
Mrs. Survival - lots of good tips on how to prepare. Aimed at women mostly. MrsSurvival
Girl Scouts of America - has a Y2K page, after all their motto is "Be Prepared"! Girl Scouts
Yahoo.com has a special news section that pulls in articles about y2k from publications around the world. Yahoo Full Coverage Y2K
I hope some of these sites have the information you are looking for. My email is real if you remove the X (spam problems). There are lots of other sites with good information.
-- mommacares (harringtondesignX@earthlink.net), August 07, 1999.
Sorry I messed up the links but it looks as though they'll work anyway.
-- mommacares (harringtondesignX@earthlink.net), August 07, 1999.
Thanks mammacares. You are right, my parents said Y2K was something I shouldn't waiste my time worrying about because they wouldn't let anything happen. BUt they aren't saving food or anything either. Anyway, thanks to everyone who was nice enough to give me real answers. My real name is Sydney.
-- Elimay (Eli@may.clampet), August 07, 1999.
Elimay: Do you like to mudwrestle? Also, do you still have that pet monkey or chimp?
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 07, 1999.
Elimay, don't take the King of Spain personally; he has this strange obsession, and asks everybody new the same thing. We really ought to draw straws or have a lottery and throw someone in the mud with him to help him get over it. Or would that just feed his passion? Anyway, it isn't normal, so don't worry about it.
-- mud pie (rope@him.off), August 08, 1999.
Mudpie, Yeah, I was wondering what his problem was. Thanks.
-- Elimay (Eli@may.clampet), August 08, 1999.
just to add 2 more cents...if i remember correctly, there was a very large CME in 1989 that knocked out power in Canada to about 600,000. this solar cycle is supposed to be the strongest on record so there is the possibility of an even stronger CME. the strongest period is supposed to be between late-1999 and mid-2000. comet lee is supposed to come closest to earth between august and, i think it was, may. it is a new comet who's orbit is largely unknown. there are different orbit estimates for it, given the way it came into the solar system. casinni(sp?) satellite is also supposed to make it's closest path to earth within the next 2 weeks (i don't remember the date) on it's way to saturn. it's carrying something like 74 lbs of plutonium. anyone needing links, please e-mail me directly; i think i still have them in old e-mails. if you do, please give me a couple of days to get back to before flaming the hell out of me as i do have other things to do. :)
-- sarah (qubr@aol.com), August 08, 1999.
Sarah,King of Spain is developing a complex - he just asked me to ask you if you mud-wrestle???
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 08, 1999.
Elimay,I can give you some additional information about the events of Aug 11 and 13. The 11th is the day of the eclipse which others have already described. The 13th is an event which is significant only if you believe in astrology. Astrology attaches significance to astronomical events. In particular, the event on the 13th is known as a Grand Cross. It is a cross formed in the heavens by the planets.
A Grand Cross is considered a very ominous sign. If you would like to learn more about just what some astrologers are saying about the astrological significance this Grand Cross has, and the relationship to the millenium, there are many sites I could refer you to. Just email me, I will be glad to oblige. I have studied astrology for many years and know the basics.
In regards to y2k this month, the GPS rollover is the 22nd.
I do not think you are a troll and would be glad to help you if you want to contact me personally. I have been lurking here since last Dec and it can get a little rough at times. In our defense, some of us are really a bit on edge by the many people who come here to attack and ridicule. Others are just naturally temperamental.
Good luck on learning about y2k. After lots of research, I think it is going to be a difficult time. Preparation can really help to get through it. But we are getting no leadership from the govt. or business. So we not only have to dig for facts that are being hidden, we have to try to piece them together and make some decisions. This is very hard to do. I would be happy to email you what I have found if you like.
Good luck.
Lora
-- Lora (artemis45@hotmail.com), August 08, 1999.
Carl,>Pompous ass...
Well, astronomy has been my principal hobby for most of my life. In ninth grade, I did my "careers" project on being an astronomer.
I went to college at the California Institute of Technology, AKA "Caltech", because of their strong astronomy program (Caltech runs the Palomar and Mount Wilson Observatories and the Jet propulsion Laboratory), though I changed my major to mathematics.
(Side note: Some of my former classmates working at JPL continue the Caltech tradition of inscribing a certain set of initials somewhere on the body of every spacecraft that passes through JPL. These initials, representing a traditional derogatory phrase about one of the oldest four undergraduate student houses and usually explained to outsiders as being the genitive form of the common Latin noun for "god", also appeared prominently in both the episode of the TV show _Mission Impossible_ that was filmed partly on location at Caltech about 1968 and in the 1985 comedy film _Real Genius_, whose director was married to a Caltech graduate.)
>No, no correlation has been shown between total solar eclipse and solar maximum...
Of course not. OTOH, what I wrote above was about the lack of causal connection between eclipses and *flares/CMEs*. Flares and CMEs occur throughout solar cycles, not just at maxima (though they're more frequent then).
>would you care to fill us in on the last time this happened,
If "this" refers to a total solar eclipse near a solar maximum, then: March 18, 1988 and July 22, 1990. Between those two occurred two annular solar eclipses and two partial solar eclipses. The difference in alignment of Moon-Earth-Sun during the latter differs by only a fraction of a degree from the alignment during a total solar eclipse, so it seems to me that annular and partial eclipses should count, too.
There are at least two solar eclipses (total, annular, or partial) each calendar year.
Not to mention that the Moon, Earth, and Sun are also aligned during lunar eclipses, which are as frequent as, and in addition to, the solar eclipses mentioned so far.
>and who was around to make scientific observations?
Thousands and thousands or people.
>I haven't heard anyone assigning mystical powers to astronomical alignments, outside of astrologist, which I am not one.
It's a frequent theme in postings to this forum. Check past threads on the upcoming eclipse, comet Lee, and so forth. Lots of tie-ins to Nostradamus.
>What has been suggested is that physical variations in the magnetic field of the solar system brought on by alignment of planetary bodies., ie, the earth and the Moon, at a time when the sun is most volatile, could in fact create greater than normal response.
Show me the figures from anyone who's calculated the forces involved.
>I also don't recall anyone saying the end of the world would be the result.
... nor did I mention "end of the world" ...
>Simply that the potential is there for some pretty spectacular results, and maybe a bit of inconvenience if our cell phones, pagers, and god forbid, power grids, take a siesta do to a sun fart...
Yes, but there's no scientific evidence that such events are correlated to planetary/satellite alignments, which was my point in above postings.
>Trolls are mean spirited little people that enjoy insulting, taunting, and generally disrupting those around them. They seldom offer facts to prove their positions, and instead rely on caustic remarks and twisting of others comments to prove that they are the superior intellect.
... and you're calling _me_ a troll, Carl ??
You haven't been reading this forum very long, have you?
I'm one of the ones offering facts to debunk the nonsense presented by the trolls!
>trolls like No Spam
Carl, I suggest you consult some of the people who've contributed (in a positive way) to this forum for a long time and ask their opinions before calling me a troll.
>would like to use the fact that some of us like to play with fascinating ideas and twist and turn them to see if there is a puzzle there to be solved, and if there is no puzzle, and we toss it aside for a new toy, that we are incompetent fools
No, that is a distortion of my views and aims. Please do not slander me so, Carl. Do your research next time.
>and now you should follow his divine light of narrow minded self-righteous believe-only-the-powers-that-be drivel.
Do you believe in gravity, Carl? If so, does that make you self-righteous?
Do you trust that the laws of physics used by engineers in designing the vehicles you use are valid? If so, does that mean you consider those laws to be drivel?
I'm quite willing to believe new stuff ... _if_ there is reliable evidence for it. Either show me the reliable evidence for the theory of connection between planetary alignments and solar flares/CMEs, or admit that there isn't any.
>By the way No Spam, since you discredit the theory, and I assume you understand the term theory,
Yes. Do you understand the term "evidence"?
>of gravitational influence from planetary alignment creating magnified effects on Solar Maximum,
Theory of gravitation (Did you mean Newtonian or relativistic?) -- Yes.
Theory of celestial mechanics, including planetary alignments -- Yes.
Theory of "gravitational influence from planetary alignment creating magnified effects on Solar Maximum" -- actually, I haven't seen any proponent of this give a clear, precise, testable statement of the theory, only some vague "will influence" statements that no one will pin down.
Will you please precisely state the theory of "gravitational influence from planetary alignment creating magnified effects on Solar Maximum" for us, in such a manner that we can test whether its predictions come true? Before August 11, if at all possible.
>perhaps you would care to share with us the definitive research that dismissed this theory during the last total solar eclipse that occurred during a solar maximum?
As far as I know, there was no significant solar flare or CME of magnitude to make a noticeable disruption (other than static on TV reception, and the like) of everyday life for those who were not solar astronomers on either of the following dates or the few days following each: 1988 Mar 18, 1990 Jul 22
>Dates & names please?
Dates: above.
Names: If you want names of astronomers, check Sky & Telescope magazine for those years, or the roster of Bear Lake Solar Observatory, or the more technical solar-astronomical professional journals of the time.
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 08, 1999.
Andy,You don't like it much when I debunk your drivel and presnt factual evidence to contradict your nonsense, do you?
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 08, 1999.
No Spam,As Carl explained to you - we are just indulging in a little off- topic speculation - nothing wrong with that as evinced by the number of replies to several of these posts...
I think carl also remarked that you were a pompous ass.
I would not disagree.
Happy debunking No Spam - let's touch base on this next Sunday shall we?
Toodle pip!
-- andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 08, 1999.
for nsphttp://www.enterprisemission.com/images/lee195~2.jpg
-- andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 08, 1999.
Sarah,>comet lee is supposed to come closest to earth between august and, i think it was, may.
There's been some confusion about this in past threads. It seems that some people viewing a particular diagram did not take into account that it was a 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional situation, and erroneously thought that it showed the comet closely approaching Earth in August.
Comet Lee's closest approach to Earth was last May, and it is now (August) dozens of millions of miles farther away from Earth than it was in May. By September, it will be twice as far from Earth (over 100 million miles) as it was in May.
>it is a new comet who's orbit is largely unknown
Some people are, for various reasons, claiming that Comet Lee's orbit is somehow unstable or unknown. In fact, its orbit has been determined precisely enough to predict its future positions to within a fraction of a million miles, less than 1% of its distance from Earth. There is absolutely, positively, no chance of its colliding with Earth.
>there are different orbit estimates for it, given the way it came into the solar system.
The differences between orbital estimates amount to only a small fraction of its distance from Earth.
If you want further information, I can point you to the bulletins publishing Comet Lee's orbital elements and explaining them.
>casinni(sp?) satellite is also supposed to make it's closest path to earth within the next 2 weeks (i don't remember the date) on it's way to saturn. it's carrying something like 74 lbs of plutonium
... in containers which were designed and tested to be able to withstand reentry into the Earth's atmosphere, in case of accident, and impact on the ground afterwards, without spilling their contents.
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 08, 1999.
Andy,You know very well that you present your nonsense in such a way as to try to convince others that it is correct. If you'd be honest and label your stuff as fiction, that would be different.
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 08, 1999.
Up Yours No Spam :)
-- andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 08, 1999.
No Spam,In your child-like way, you AGAIN have swallowed HOOK, LINE and SINKER the usual gubbmint LIES...
Can't you ever break free from the gubbmint mind control on your pea- brain?
THIS
is what you said...
"... in containers which were designed and tested to be able to withstand reentry into the Earth's atmosphere, in case of accident, and impact on the ground afterwards, without spilling their contents.
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 08, 1999."
NO SPAM PLEASE,
PLEASE read and DIGEST the following FACTS!!!
Please try not to impersonate a MAROON all your life NSP!
[snip]
Webster's Dictionary: Disingenuous:
"insincere, unforthcoming, withholding vital information."
TRNP's Dictionary: "depending on reporters and viewers to be ignorant, stupid or have no memory."
"There have been no previous failures.
The plutonium RTG's have always performed exactly as designed."
--Beverly Cook, Dept of Energy, 10-15-97, 10 minutes before Cassini launched with 72 pounds of deqadly plutonium, speaking live to CNN reporter, broadcast around the world. * * *
WE INTERRUPT THIS SNOW-JOB TO GIVE YOU THE FACTS:
1.
In 1964, a SNAP 9A satellite failed to achieve orbit, re-entered the upper atmosphere over Madagascar and burned up. Its RTG released its full plutonium 238 contents. It was not designed to survive re-entry. The SNAP-9A RTG "performed exactly as designed" by dispersing plutonium worldwide, nearly tripling the amount of that lethal isotope detectable globally in the environment up to that time. (Hardy Report, 1972)
Cassini's RTG's were designed to contain their plutonium on launch and to the greatest extent possible in an inadvertant re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere on flyby in Aug 1999. But no matter how well designed for containment, no design can keep them from vaporizing and releasing much of their plutonium contents when, if an accidental re- entry occurs, they speed into the Earth's atmosphere at nearly 42,000 miles per hour--faster than a comet. It's worthwhile noting that Cassini's 72 pounds of plutonium dwarf SNAP 9A's 2.1 pounds.
2.
The plutonium capsule from Apollo 13 fell into the Pacific. It "performed exactly as designed" by remaining intact when it fell into water, although it's so deep we have no way of knowing. If Apollo's plutonium RTG had landed on a hard surface, according to NASA, it would probably have broken open and released its radioactive contents.
3.
A Nimbus B satellite exploded after takeoff from Vandenberg in 1968 and its two Pu RTG's fell into the Santa Barbara Channel. Again, they "performed exactly as designed" by remaining intact when they fell not onto a rocky hard surface (although close to one) but into water.
The "design" of modern RTG's depends largely upon the luck of where they land. If they land on water, they're designed to survive without breaking open. If they land on land, they're designed to most likely not be able to remain intact but instead to spread their Pu contents all over the place. Luckily, that hasn't happened yet.
Let's listen again to Beverly Cook of the Dept of Energy as she glibly told the world and an ignorant CNN reporter 10 minutes before Cassini launched:
"There have been no previous failures. The plutonium RTG's have always performed exactly as designed."
Feeling reassured?
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Latest news 2-12-99:
T h e C a s s i n i G a m b l e
Earl Budin, M.D. Associate Clinical Professor of Radiology, UCLA Medical Center F.H. Knelman, Ph.D. Former Prof. Env. Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz
N. Meshkati, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Civil Engineering University of So. California
The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration launched a space vehicle on October 15, 1997 on a 7-year flight to study the distant planet Saturn in hope of "understanding the birth of evolution of our solar system" (from Final Environmental Impact Statement, FEIS, June 1997, page 1). However, because the ship contains 72 pounds of radioactive Plutonium (P-238), it poses a major public health threat if NASA follows through with its plans to return it from Venus to circle Earth (for a so-called Earth Fly-By) to increase its speed on route to Saturn. Federal regulations require an independent evaluation whenever radioactive material is introduced into space. A Nuclear Safety Review Panel consisting of a representative of the U.S. EPA, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Defense, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and NASA issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) July 1997, which noted major discrepancies in the various Environmental Impact Statements by NASA:
1. NASA claimed the Plutonium containers "were designed to withstand re-entry" into our atmosphere (FEIS p. E94 et al.). Yet the SER noted that they were not designed to withstand the heat of an accidental re- entry at the planned flyby-by speed of 10 miles per second (p. 3-24).
2. NASA claimed that almost none of the Plutonium could become airborne in any accident (FEIS p. E44). In contrast the SER notes that 9 kilograms could become airborne in respirable form, the only hazardous state (p. 3-19).
3. NASA estimated that in the event of an accident the Plutonium could cause 120 fatal cancers (Final Supplemental EIS, p.4-9). Yet, the SER states "tens of thousands" cancer deaths could result from a major accident (p. ES-4).
4. NASA discusses the cancer-causing potential of Plutonium on the basis of the cancer dose from general ionizing radiation. Yet the SER notes "the probability of a single inhaled particle inducing a cancer" (P. 3-12). This was reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (April 1997) from experiments performed at Columbia University, financed in part by NASA, yet completely ignored in all their EIS's. The SER however omits mentioning that each kilogram of Plutonium contains trillions of radioactive atoms, and the number of fatal cancers might be many times greater than the tens of thousands estimated by the SER.
5. NASA claims the chance of an accidental re-entry of the space-ship into our atmosphere is less than one in a million. Yet a Jet Propulsion Lab report (May 1997) lists 18 different types of malfunctions that may occur, including electrical short-circuits, meteors and space debris striking the space probe, and erroneous ground commands. At the planned Fly-By speed of 10 miles per second, a loss of control lasting only 42 seconds could result in the Cassini's re-entry into our atmosphere where the ship will burn up.
[end snip]
-- andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 08, 1999.
Does:Z1X4Y7 = No Spam Please ???????
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 08, 1999.
Possibly - the two buggers are as pedantic as each other, probably twins seperated at cloning...
-- andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 08, 1999.
Andy,1. Why do you introduce the example of the SNAP 9A when the very statement you present says, "It was not designed to survive re-entry"?? That means that case was not comparable to the Cassini, whose plutonium containers _were_ designed to survive reentry.
Also, note that the SNAP incident was in 1964, whereas Cassini was launched 30 years later. Do you presume that the engineers learned nothing from past events or that there were no advances in design or testing in those three decades?
>no design can keep them from vaporizing and releasing much of their plutonium contents when, if an accidental re- entry occurs, they speed into the Earth's atmosphere at nearly 42,000 miles per hour
But the Cassini containers _were_ designed to survive a 42,000 mph reentry! It's a matter of having enough ablative material on the outside.
2. There was no plutonium capsule on Apollo 13. It did not have a plutonium RTG. So why do you claim that it did? Was it because you swallowed somebody's propaganda hook, line, and sinker?
Do you care to try to present reliable evidence that Apollo had a plutonium RTG? Or admit that you are wrong about this?
And again, you present an example from more than two decades before Cassini. Can't you present any modern example (because the modern designs are better than the ones from the 1960s)?
3. Nimbus B, from ... well, well ... 1968 ... once again more than two decades before the Cassini. Why do you present this old case as though it were relevant to 1990s designs?
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 08, 1999.
Read what I posted again NSP...We are talking lies, obfuscation and semantics - pure gubbmint NASA "spin" (lies)...
In each case - "performed exactly as designed" ...
GEDDIT YET NO SPAM???
-- andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 08, 1999.
1. NASA claimed the Plutonium containers "were designed to withstand re-entry" into our atmosphere (FEIS p. E94 et al.). Yet the SER noted that they were not designed to withstand the heat of an accidental re- entry at the planned flyby-by speed of 10 miles per second (p. 3- 24).
-- andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 08, 1999.
Andy,"A Nuclear Safety Review Panel consisting of a representative of the U.S. EPA, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Defense, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and NASA issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) July 1997, which noted major discrepancies in the various Environmental Impact Statements by NASA:"
When one group of government bureaucrats contradicts another group of government bureaucrats, their status as government bureaucrats is not itself a sufficient basis for a presumption of accuracy/inaccuracy. :-)
No Spam Please,
Whatever the outcome of the Cassini/Pu episode, I would like to thank you for taking the time to bring your experience and insights to this thread.
Jerry
-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), August 08, 1999.
Jerry,Do you KNOW much about NASA? Do you know their reputation (well- earned I might add)?
I value No Spam's contribution too, just wish he would lightnen up a little and actually open up his mind to new ideas - especially the one that NASA has a habit of lying outrageously when it suits them.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 08, 1999.
Andy,I have no doubts that some people in NASA (along with many other organizations) will publish information that suits their purposes, and will attempt to avoid publication of contrary information.
But unless all of the information that they publish is inaccurate, the fact that someone publishes inaccurate information is not sufficient to enable you to decide which of what they publish is accurate and which is inaccurate.
On what basis, if any, are we to take the authors of the SER as being beyond question? They are each "representatives" of agencies which have had questionable publications of their own.
To put it in an extreme form, even a professional con artist will often make accurate statements; but knowing that does not tell us which of his statements are the inaccurate ones.
Jerry
-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), August 08, 1999.
No SpamYou asked for reliable evidence for the connection of planetary alignments and solar flares/CMEs. I will limit this to total solar eclipses occurring during solar maximum, as that was the subject of the threads you chose to attempt to debunk.
First for those who care to make their own observations, a few links to the data and charts.
For a list of Total Solar Eclipses from 1900 to 1998 -
http://www.earthview.com/timetable/pastTSE.htm
For plots of solar cycles, as well as historical solar and geomagnetic data beginning in 1954-
http://www.dlc.com/solar/
As data was not available prior to 1954, I limited myself to Solar Cycles 19 - 22. After examining the plots of the cycles, I selected Total Solar Eclipses that occurred during the peaks of those cycles. I also included the March 18, 1988 event you referenced, although that occurred at the very beginning of Solar Max in Cycle 22, but since you included it, so will I.
Here are the events I selected to examine to see if any pattern appeared that would suggest a casual link between planetary alignment between just the earth and the sun. Geomagnetic effectiveness would not be a measure, as the geoposition of the active regions, as well as other possible magnetic influences, would determine as to whether the effects would impact the earth. However, solar flux and sunspot number would be an indicator of increased flares/CME's, geoeffective or not, associated with the event.
Solar Cycle 19 - Max time frame chosen - April, 1956 - October 1959 June 8, 1956 October 23, 1957 October 12, 1958 October 2, 1959
Solar Cycle 20 - Max time frame chosen - October 1966 - October 1972 (note - this was a fairly quite cycle, more so than any other listed here) November 12, 1966 November 2, 1967 September 22, 1968 March 7, 1970 July 10, 1972
Solar Cycle 21 - Max time frame chosen - June 1978 - June 1983 February 26, 1979 February 16, 1980 July 31, 1981
Solar Cycle 22 - Max time frame chosen - September 1988 - March 1992 March 8, 1988 - included as No Spam specifically mentioned this one July 22, 1990 July 11, 1991 June 30, 1992
Of these 16 Total Solar Eclipses I observed two patterns.
Pattern 1 - what I can only describe as a trough effect. There is a step decline in solar flux and sunspot number typically beginning 2-3 days prior to the event, followed 2-3 days after the event by a spike in solar flux and sunspot number. This occurred in 8 of the 16, although 1 event, February 26, 1979, saw only a minor increase following the event, however, the other 8 were fairly well pronounced.
Pattern 2 - the spike. In these cases a sudden surge in solar flux and sunspot number occurring on or within a day or two of the actual event. I observed these in 7 of the events.
July 11, 1991, was a clear exception, but interestingly enough, there was a sharp spike in the Planetary A Index July 9, and again on July 13.
March 7, 1970, will a weak trough example, showed a sharp Planetary A Index spike on March 8.
July 10, 1972, as well as March 18, 1988, both showed spikes in Planetary A Index 7 days after the events, with spikes continuing after the March 18, 1988 event from March 25 - April 5.
So basically, we have 4 of 16 events, ie., 25% of Total Solar Eclipses have associated either immediately around the event (12.5%), or within 7 days of the event(12.5%), large spikes in the Planetary A index.... statistically significant?
Now does this PROVE anything. I don't think so, not conclusively. Unfortunately, we only have 4 solar cycles to work with that have matching solar and terrestrial data to work with. Does it suggest that there might be a correlation, especially if taken with other planetary alignments occurring during each of these events? Does to me. But then I guess I never researched a paper on astronomy when I was a freshman in high school, so who am I to say?
Look for yourself, draw your own opinions......
-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), August 08, 1999.
Another quick speculation, and that's all it is, then I've had enough research for a Sunday afternoon...2 of the 16 TSE's had effects 7 days after the event. 7 days from August 11 is August 18, what I believe astrology buffs call a Grand Cross?
Posting on both threads since some may be following one and not the other...
-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), August 08, 1999.
"Ask someone who claims this is possible to show you their assumptions and calculations of the forces involved, then publish the figures here (so we can debunk them)."I'm waiting, No Spam....
-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), August 08, 1999.
when aug 11 rolls around, and nothing happens, you'l have your answer.
-- ed (edrider007@aol.com), August 09, 1999.
Well, ed...In case you haven't completely read things, August 11th is a catalyst, with effects to be observed on August 13, or, after doing some research, August 13, or August 18.
Now normally, with out any convergence of certain predictions, from what I have presented of factual, proven, hisorical evidence, there is a 25% chance of geoeffective solar event occuring in the time frame of August 13-18.. add in all the cultural weather vanes going nuts during this time... I'd say there's a big chance of a dramatic event...
If nothing happens, oh well...
Your belief that nothing will occur is just that, a belief, I did not see any data to support that view, which is what I was faulted for...
I provided data supporting my view... where's yours numbnuts?
If results are the only ruler here, then no one would dare to stick their necks out... it is much safer to wait till after the fact, then claim "I knew that!"
Impress me by standing up and making a claim based on real, hard, facts at your disposal..
If it turns out different, well.. we work with what we have...
You have a 75% chance of being right, I have a 25% chance...
It's not the odds, it's the risk....
-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), August 09, 1999.
Andy & NoSpam --Just to say I appreciate BOTH of your contributions, even when you're butting heads -- you bring out the best in each other.
And you, Carl, thanks for appearing with your good thinking. The paranormal stuff truly has to be held lightly and to have fun with. Watch out or the PSICOPS will get ya!
-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), August 09, 1999.
Carl,I notice that you posted the following:
>"Ask someone who claims this is possible to show you their assumptions and calculations of the forces involved, then publish the figures here (so we can debunk them)."
>I'm waiting, No Spam....
So?
I'm waiting, too.
If you will look again at the context of the sentence of mine that you quoted, you will find that it was in response to Mother Hen's statement "and on the really bad side...if it was 'the grand-daddy of them all' it could possibly cause a polar shift". "It" and "them" referred to CMEs.
IOW, I'm waiting for someone to publish the assumptions and calculations of the forces involved in the theory that "the grand-daddy of" CMEs could "cause a polar shift".
What are _you_ waiting for, and why do you address your declaration about your wait state to me in conjunction with that sentence of mine?
Please let's not get into a bunch of rhetorical games like Andy plays. Just say what you mean, and I'll try to do the same.
Did you mean to indicate that you were impatient to see a response from me in regard to your postings about the patterns you found relating solar eclipses to solar flux and sunspot number? If so, then since you quoted my sentence about "assumptions and calculations of the forces involved" in your posting, I ask that you please post your assumptions and calculations of the forces involved, so we can proceed. Or we can proceed on a different basis if you wish.
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 09, 1999.
Bingo! Regular as clockwork - 3am central mountain time :)
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 09, 1999.
All right No Spam, maybe I did overreact to your dismissal of the ideas being played with here, in what I took as a caustic and offhand manner.I apologize publicly for flaming you personally.
As to your request as to my background in mathematics and science, I am not a mathematician, astronomer, or astrophysicist.
However, my father had a Masters in Mathematics, and was Systems Analyst on the big iron. I grew up with him throwing little mathematical puzzles at me while I was growing up, which actually was kinda of annoying. After the Army, I attended Cal Poly San Luis Obispo as a comp sci major, took all the prerequisite math course, calculus, probability and statistics, physics, logic, etc., besides the actual programming courses.
All my friends who graduated ahead of me landed in boring jobs spending more time documenting code that actually hacking, so when IBM cam out with the PC, I ran over to the local Computerland and went to work selling and repairing PCs. Wrote quite a few little custom apps for, as there wasnt much off the shelf back then. Been in the PC business now for 18 years, have worked with clients such as Raymond Kaiser Engineers setting up their project management software out at Vandenburg AFB as they were building Space Launch Complex #6, ditto for Santa Maria Electric on the Shuttle Recovery Building
Its the perfect job for me, as I get bored doing the same thing over and over again. This way Im always looking at new problems, and how to solve them. Ive worked with aerospace, military, banking, construction, medical name a field and I probably at one time or another had a hand in computerizing one function or another.
Does this qualify me to do a complex mathematical model of the gravitational interactions of the solar system, and any possible influence this might have on solar weather?
No I took a theory proposed over at csy2k, took a couple of other ideas, put them together, and said, Hey, does this look interesting?
Do I have enough of a math & science background to do a cursory examination of data sets and spot what appears outwardly any way to be correlation?
Yes.
So, again, I apologize to you for my caustic remarks aimed at you personally.
If you do have the skills, and time, to totally debunk the theory as proposed by the self asserted mathematician, as well as show me how the research I did proved absolutely nothing outside of minor coincidence, please do, if you feel the need.
-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), August 09, 1999.
Andy,3 am comes as "regular as clockwork" here in the Eastern time zone also. :-)
Jerry
-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), August 09, 1999.
Very droll Jerry, very droll :)
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 09, 1999.
It was just too tempting to resist. :-)Jerry P.S. I don't follow gold markets, but overheard two comments today: 1. some gold leasing firms recently raised their lease rates, 2. gold imports into India have increased in either June or July (I forget which month was mentioned).
-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), August 09, 1999.
-- (one@more.time), August 11, 1999.
Um . . .It was overcast but bright . . .
It got gloomy . .
It got very gloomy . .
It got quite dark. . .
Some people went into the street and gazed at the clouds . .
It got lighter again . .
It went back to normal . .
Im truly devastated that I'll have to wait 91 more years to experience that again . . (well, or install a dimmer switch on the lights in my lounge).
BUT AT LEAST I DIDN'T SPEND MONEY TRAVELLING TO CORNWALL.
Can you say ANTI-CLIMAX ???
Regards from cloudy London
W
-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), August 11, 1999.
Carl,Here's my outline response to your postings about the patterns you found relating solar eclipses to solar flux and sunspot number. I had intended to accompany it with graphical examples, but will not have the time to prepare them any time soon.
One way of looking at the modern scientific method, as developed over the past few hundred years by Francis Bacon, Galileo, and other luminaries, is that it is a way of avoiding the self-deceptions that were the weak point of the classical Greek way of analyzing the world.
Our neural system seeks patterns in our sensory perceptions. For purposes of detecting a tiger lurking in forest shadows, that's a key survival skill. For purposes of feeling pleasure when appreciating the beauty or a waterfall, it's great. For purposes of everyday living and planning activities, it's usually satisfactory.
But when that pattern-seeking skill has been applied to a systematic search for knowledge beyond what was everyday life until a few millenia ago, we've found that our mental habits and makeup sometimes interfere with fitting perceptions to independently-verifiable explanations. That is, not all perceived patterns reflect a significant underlying reality.
Among the general principles useful for avoiding self-deception are the following:
(a) First get the facts (data) straight, before drawing conclusions based on them. Consider the origins and limitations of the data.
(b) List your assumptions. State your theory clearly, in a testable form.
(c) Normalize the data -- that is, see to it that all the data is presented in a uniform manner. Example: if one wants to compare curves plotted on different scales, first get all the data plotted on the same scale. This does _not_ mean changing the data to fit one's preconceptions -- be rigorously objective when rescaling any data.
(d) Choose your theory to fit the data, instead of choosing the data to fit a desired theory. It's one thing to notice a pattern and suspect a connection -- but that's not proving a theory. Proving a theory involves objectively determining whether the suspected connection actually exists.
(e) Does the pattern you see really differ from random data? Run some objective tests to compare your theory to random data. Can your theory distinguish random data from the real data?
(f) Consider what you haven't included. And what you have.
Here are some brief applications of these ideas to the case we're discussing:
1. Why are we considering only total solar eclipses? If it's a matter of alignment, then why not include annular eclipses, which have the same alignments? How critical is the alignment to the proposed theory? What about a partial solar eclipse, where the angular distance of the Moon from the Earth-Sun line is only a little greater than for a total or annular eclipse? And what about all the New Moons when the Moon passes just slightly north or south of the Sun -- how far from absolutely straight can the Sun-Moon-Earth line be while still fitting in the theory?
2. What about lunar eclipses? During them, the Sun, Earth, and Moon are aligned just as they are during solar eclipses, except that the Moon is on the far side of the Earth from the Sun instead of the near side? Since both the gravitational and magnetic fields of the Moon are so small compared to those of the Earth, which in turn are so tiny in comparison with those of the Sun, why does it make a difference to the theory whether the lineup is Sun-Moon-Earth rather than Sun-Earth-Moon?
3. Does the theory take into account the origin and limitations of the daily sunspot numbers? Are proposers of the theory aware that since the Sun rotates about once every 26-35 days, varying according to solar latitude, whenever a group of sunspots is rotated past the edge of the Sun and thus is no longer visible from Earth, the daily sunspot number drops because of the disappearance of those sunspots? And that if that group is still active about two weeks later, it will rotate back into view and thus cause the daily sunspot number to jump? And that such changes in the daily sunspot number have nothing to do with any intrinsic property of the Sun or sunspots or Earth but only with the happenstance of whether the sunspots are on the side of the Sun visible from Earth or not?
(Such considerations are why studies of long-term solar behavior use only the "smoothed monthly" sunspot numbers, which are moving averages calculated over several months so that the daily jumps and dips due to rotation of sunspots out of view do not unduly influence the numbers on which the studies are based.)
4. When comparing the shapes of the sunspot number and solar slux curves on various graphs, did you note that differing scales are used for the graphs (0-250, 0-300, 0-350), and adjust them accordingly so that you viewed the data all at the same scale before forming your conclusions about correlation with eclipses?
5. When comparing the shapes of graphs, did you limit your view to only the time spans under consideration? That is, since you mention that your patterns involved changes in sunspot number and solar flux two-three days before and two-three days after eclipse, did you cut out the parts of the curves which fell outside those time boundaries before comparing the surve chapes and slopes, so as not to be influenced by data outside the range under consideration?
Now, notice that this was to be done _after_ it was decided that the proposed theory was to apply to only two-three days on either side of the eclipse, so it's not a matter of choosing data to fit the theory. Actually, in order to determine the time frame, one should previously have done all these steps using different spans. That is, isolate ten-, nine-, eight-, and so forth-day spans around the eclipse dates, then see which gave significantly different results from the others. I'll assume that this has already been done, and it was found that isolations of five-six day spans around the eclipse dates were the only ones showing the described patterns. So then the task becomes proving that patterns in the selected time span are significant.
Having done this isolation of relevant data, did you also prepare a comparable number of extracts of data curves from random dates within the same general time spans, to see whether there really was a significant difference? That is, if faced with an array of, say, six five-day extracts centered on eclipse dates and twenty-four five-day extracts centered on randomly-chosen non-eclipse dates during the same general part of the solar cycle, can your proposed theory consistently tell the difference between them?
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 14, 1999.
Carl (continued),Regarding your observations:
>Of these 16 Total Solar Eclipses I observed two patterns.
>Pattern 1 - what I can only describe as a trough effect. There is a step decline in solar flux and sunspot number typically beginning 2-3 days prior to the event, followed 2-3 days after the event by a spike in solar flux and sunspot number. This occurred in 8 of the 16, although 1 event, February 26, 1979, saw only a minor increase following the event, however, the other 8 were fairly well pronounced.
>Pattern 2 - the spike. In these cases a sudden surge in solar flux and sunspot number occurring on or within a day or two of the actual event. I observed these in 7 of the events.
So, to summarize, in 8 out of 16 cases there was a trough, while in 7 there was a spike. Looks a lot like a half-and-half split to me. Since the graphs of daily sunspot number and solar flux are full of troughs and spikes near solar maxima, just how do your patterns differ from those on non-eclipse dates? Wouldn't any random selection of comparable time spans during solar maxima show a similar distribution of troughs and spikes regardless of whether a total solar (or annular or lunar) eclipse occurred during them?
Patterns are fine. Speculation is fine. But failing to separate fact from fiction when providing information to those asking about natural phenomena is not so fine when there's an atmosphere of anxiety such as around eclipses and end-of-the-millenium and Y2k.
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 14, 1999.