Credit: NASA
---
This is the CME that caused the 9.0 Japan earthquake and tsuanmi. This video shows the event three times and then shows a bar graph. It is also interesting that an object is in orbit infront of the Sun. As the final CME explodes the object is moved drastically out of orbit.
The CME is a charged electric field, a large composite of Z bosons. This event travels at the speed of Charge (electricity) in the medium of the space. We see these events 2-3 days before the charge event hits the magnetosphere. Thus it is not possible for electricty or charge to travel at C.
The CMEC travels until it hits a W+/- boson field that is capable of storing capacitance and intensiy of the Z boson field. This process is described in the papers and postings through out this blog.
When these CMEs hit the Earth's Magnetosphere, it deforms the longitudinal field of the W+/- boson magnetosphere. The intensity absorbsion is affected by the angle of impact and charge of the object.
Another interesting thing is that Japan was not facing the Sun during the CME impact. The epicenter is the point where tension is released. This means more tension was added to the plate system in different areas to cause this release of tension where the epicenter occured.
I get from reading the rest of your blog that you are the Alpha-Troll of pseudo-scientific-crankery but this is just fucking despicable.
ReplyDeletePeople died because of geologic activity along a fault line in the pacific. What you are positing is every bit as shameful as Pat Robertson's remarks about Haiti.
You really should consider just hanging it up already.
Dear anon,
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks for reading enough of my work to form an opinion.
As much compassion for the people of Japan, there is nothing I can do to physically be of benefit. All I can do is ask questions. And questions need to be asked to further our knowledge.
Why was it that the engineers (who were seriously burned) when they entered the water and not as expected a linear increase in radation to distance?
That question should increase safety alone. The capacitance of the water to hold is far greater than that of the lighter density air.
Are alkiline being mixed in the solution?
Certain plants remove radiation from the soil at a faster rate.
And I am willing to sign my arguments.
Aaron Guerami
Okay, I get it, you are the maestro of nonsense. This post was uncalled for still.
ReplyDeleteKeep it up crank,
Anon
Dear anon,
ReplyDeleteI can only hope to try and phrase my questions and postings in a manner that can be of benefit to the situation.
I have written about this topic in prediction of the Haiti and Chile earthquakes. I have major seizures about 2 to 4 days after a major solar flare. It just happened that I had the USGS app on IGoogle. I also found volcanos erupt during these episodes.
My Standard Vibration Model is a derivitive of the Standard Model. It is signifitantly different enough to be called a model of its own. This model does a better job of explaining known phenomena and reducing paradoxes. Please feel free to disprove any posting or paper I have written. I need the honing.
Like any good Crank, I will continue to crank.
Aaron Guerani
>I have written about this topic in
ReplyDelete>prediction of the Haiti and Chile
>earthquakes
Really? You predicted these events? Do have any financial advice to go with those predictions?
Oh wait, you didn't mention anything until After these events occurred - I imagine this was your way of being tactful.
Didn't you also predict that you were going to be on a flight to the moon by now, on a homemade rocket no less:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/09/17/griffin-china-will-beat-us-to-the-moon/
That is unless you are actually blogging from the moon presently. And just so you're clear, supercomputers are gauged by how many flops (floating point operations) they perform, not how many terabytes they store.
If you would only provide some actual math to back these claims up, then yes I would gladly rectify your poor understanding of the subject. Yet all you give in the way of substantive claims are riddles with some mathematical terms peppered on.
Good luck with "reducing paradoxes" in the Standard Model though. You might need an extra layer of tin foil on your head for that.
-Anon
It is quite obvious that you are emotionally attached to what I choose to write about.
ReplyDeleteAarons economy http://aaronseconomy.blogspot.com
I told you how my physical body is effected by these events. I just needed a more valid answer from physicians, other than the stupid look I get.
As for the great day of publish, maybe you should experience a physical reboot.
I do not predict my work in space dynamic. Nor will I discuss plan or evaluations.
China is woking to use the moon. If you do not understand the strengths and tenacity of the Chineese, then I hope you hold no job that involves diplomatic or FINANCIAL relations with China.
For a disabled epileptic to gather the funds and build a 20 opteron system, networked together. I have tested many types of OS's. I am sure you can find some of systems I have that will show up in a BOINC search. If you are that interested.
As for the data. The diety you call Einstein presents an equation. Then you all go nuts. Energy a 3 dimensional field cannot ever equal a vector* a scalar. A vector* a scalar is always a vector. That Mathematically rigerous proof of Einstein's is disproven with a logical statement.
If you still think I am a crank, here is the historical disproof of Einstein's work. The Zeeman effect. It is the effect of strong magnetic fields upon photons. The Zeeman effect is a rigerous proof with major experimental results that are completely discarded by the gravitist.
I have reduced paradoxes with this model. I can only hope you reduce your attachment to one model and evaluate all thew models for how they stand on their own. Please don't compare my model to SM, just understand that is where I started.
Personally I would love more access to raw data to show variations and boundries within limits to certain effects the matter evaluated. I would love to work with people who are not afraid of exploring new ideas and opportunities. I would love to explore what I see. I think I have done a good job so far.
Aaron Guerami
To quote the Bio from your "Economics" blog,
ReplyDelete"Florida needs to change its medical marijuana laws. THC helps my epilepsy and general physical condition"
Maybe you're an oldfart who did a lot of acid in the sixties or some kid having a laugh, either way I'll grant you that your bullshit is some kind of malicious genius.
Case in point, "I do not predict my work in space dynamic. Nor will I discuss plan or evaluations," whatever the fuck that means. Is your work also not predict (sic) in time dynamic as well?
This one is a real gem too, "As for the data. The diety you call Einstein presents an equation. Then you all go nuts." Very quotable material indeed, but you go on still, "Energy a 3 dimensional field cannot ever equal a vector* a scalar. A vector* a scalar is always a vector." It takes talent to make this kind of shit up, so my hat is off to you.
-Anon
Anon, Thanks for the conversation. It is my presumption that you are of genius level intelligence. You would not have been able to agrue with me unless you are vastly more intelligent than most.
ReplyDeleteSo why is genius always evaluated as malicious, evil, self-centered? I am none of those things you describe me as.
If you wish to evaluate this model for its merits and failures then I expect you have read the posted papers and the blog.
Aaron
Aaron: "I expect you have read the posted papers and the blog."
ReplyDeleteJust curious, but the papers seem out of date with the blog and comments. For instance, in your Disproof of Gravity, you make several points:
1) Regarding helium baloons: You accepted as reasonable a commenter's posting of the gravity-based explanation of why a helium baloon rises.
2) Commutative: This reasoning has been attacked many times by commenters, and I've not seen it properly defended. Do you still believe this?
3) Multi-body: You accepted a commenter's post regarding how this is handled properly. In fact, this one was enlightening, because in response to this post, you commented "But that is not the real problem with gravity." So it would seem (3) is no longer part of your argument at all.
So net result: the papers seem out-of-sync with your current theory and are thus very hard to read without knowing what to ignore and what not to.
Thank you for reading my work and being so open to its concepts.
ReplyDeleteYes, I cannot describe in posting formats how this model has matured. It happens in my mind so fast. I can explain it verbally quickly.
I must re-modeling it to fit the new lines of thinking and support. I think I will start with an index and fill it in. I will link it to the top of the page soon.
You are right.
Thanks,
Aaron Guerami
With the recent CME on March 8, 2012, there was a global increase in earthquake activity seen on March 10 and 11, 2012. Thank you for your observations on this. It may help those involved with disaster preparedness. CMEs do have an effect on plate tectonics and a global increase in earthquake activity.
ReplyDelete