Strange

It doesn't need to go back that far. I think we can assume the rate of earthquakes is, on average, consistent over time. Because there is no reason to consider unsupported claims. And this is the perfect time to use the adage: the plural of anecdote is not not data. The physics is pretty simple. Newtonian gravity shows your guesses are unsupportable. Please provide a reference that confirms this was the largest comet seen. So you agree that the figure you keep using is wrong. Please stop using it then. The Moon does not cause continental drift. And if it does have a slight affect on earthquakes it is definitely not "sure", as your link confirms. And the moon is millions of times more massive than a comet and (more significantly) much, much closer. That is why comets do not raise tides. Why don't you do the simple arithmetic to calculate the force a comet would have on Earth? No he wasn't. And the article you link to doesn't say that he was.

The universe has always had energy.

What does "form" mean in this context? Your idea just seems a little too vague at the moment.

Can you provide a reference to where I should "go and look"? I have never heard of this "well-known philosophical fact", except from you. Is there a wikiepdia p;age on it? Or something on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? I am asking questions. As always you are evading them or giving vague, unhelpful answers. Like the following: And how exactly would it do that (in ways that the scientific method cannot)? What exactly would it tell us about evolutionary process? What exactly would it tell us about the origin of the universe? Presumably it would tell us the universe has an origin? What else? What exactly would it tell us about the nature of the universe? What exactly would it tell us about why scientists cannot find [dark?] matter? (I assume that is what you are referring to as there is not normally any difficulty finding matter.) What exactly would it tell us about "nonlocality and other weird phenomena"? And what do you believe is wrong with the current understanding of those things? If you are going to say you don't know the answers to those questions, can you tell us how you can be so sure it will have such a far reaching effect?

The statement "all X are false" is hardly neutral. It is a pretty positive statement of your belief. Aaaand ... here we go again. We can start the countdown to when you stop posting and blame us for not knowing the answers. How, exactly, would it be useful in theoretical physics and biology? As your claims are philosophy, not science, these people you support would dismiss your vague waffle out of hand.

Including this statement, presumably. But you have never shown how this rejection has any value; what it can be used for, for example.

That is not a "fact"; it is a hypothesis. That is an appeal to authority. And I'm afraid I have watched enough TV documentaries to know that they are irrelevant to scientific discussion. No.

And yet the moon causes tides (but not earthquakes). Comets do not cause tides or earthquakes.

I am very disappointed to see this after all your other very intelligent and perceptive posts.

I can't follow how you get to that conclusion. The moving train was supposed to be equivalent to the rotating Earth. On the train jumping (or throwing things) is not affected by the motion of the train (Galilean relativity, inertia, etc). Exactly the same is true about you being carried along by the rotating Earth. The atmosphere is not solid. Why? Lets get back on our fast train, perhaps the shinkansen. Imagine you are in the centre of a carriage and there is a target at each end. When you fire a bullet at the front target, would you expect it to take a different time to reach it than the rear target?

I have no idea if any such book exists. It is irrelevant. There are statistics for the frequency of earthquakes. Compare the numbers in the period claimed with other periods. As you are unwilling to do this, we can just dismiss the claim. So there is no mechanism and therefore no reason to think there is any such effect. Apparent size tells you nothing about distance unless you also know the actual size. Also, was that the size of the comet or its tail? And please show how you calculated 1.22AU.

Yes, you seem to stop posting whenever pushed for answers. And then pop up again a few months later with the same vague unsupported claims.

If you claim a concentration, then you MUST be able to show this by comparing the numbers over that period with other periods. Come on, it's not hard. Then you should have no problem referencing the peer reviewed papers where this physics is described. You tell me. It was your claim.

I don't think there is any answer to that. Why are there three dimensions? Why does electric charge exist? The definition of acceleration is a bit different in GR. For example, someone in freefall is not accelerating. You can tell this is the case because when you are accelerating you feel a force - for example, when your car accelerates you are pushed back in your seat. But when you are in freefall, you feel no force. However, you do feel a force when standing on the ground. That is when you are accelerating! I am disappointed that you are still too lazy to understand the very simple quote mechanism: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/

Quite a lot. We have landed a probe on one. You claim that there was "a concentration of earthquakes and eruptions along a period of two to three years". The information on the numbers and strengths of earthquakes is readily available so it should only take you a few hours to demonstrate that this period was exceptional (or not). As there is no physics behind it, why do you consider it a plausible mechanism? It's up to you support your claims. How did they determine the distance? What is the physics behind a comet affecting weather?

Does anyone suggest a supernatural cause? There are a number of natural causes hypothesized, but I haven't heard anyone suggest it is ghosts. So there are only natural explanations (I include "we don't yet know" in that set).

You want easy to understand advice? Get over yourself. Grow up. Stop being a dick.

So as well as being terminally immature, you have serious reading comprehension problems.

Then you should be able to provide the analysis requested. Where is it?

I'm confused. You were asked to name something real with only supernatural explanations. All of those things are real and (with the possible exception of Boris's hair) have naturalistic explanations. There is nothing supernatural about any of them (not even Boris's tonsure). I don't know what that means. How can "only" and dark matter, for example, be mutually exclusive?

You do know the whole left brain - right brain thing is a complete myth made up new-age cranks? But apart from that, most mathematicians and physicists (and ver possibly other scientists) seem to have a very keenly evolved aesthetic sense. You will often see mathematical theorems, scientific theories or experiments described as "elegant" or "beautiful".

Not only a strawman but utterly incomprehensible as well. Well done.

I always thought he was an insane idiot, that kinda confirms it.

Well, we can use all of that information. And that is how people came to the surprising conclusion that expansion appears to be accelerating. Apart from that, they all tell a consistent story. (And, of course, the red-shift data is not the strongest evidence for the expanding universe. There was debate about alternative models for decades after that was first seen.)

I agree that some of jajrussel's ideas are correct; for example (proper) time is always local for an observer. And the invariant speed of light is always a local measurement as well. But there also seems to be some confusion, but it isn't clear what it is...