Fri, 02 Apr 2004 01:02:49 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I remember an old PBS show on Volcanoes where advances in that science
now allow for practical predictions. The advance if my memory serves me
at all was that there are 2 waves in seismographs of the large wave and
then of another somewhat hidden wave. The advance came when it was
recognized that this hidden wave fairly predicts when a volcano will
become dangerous.

Last Tuesday on PBS was a show on Tornadoes and it was stated in that
program that how tornadoes are created are still a mystery. It was
mentioned that a powerful downdraft seems to always precede the
formation of a tornado. And it was discovered that small rotary or
vortices of wind at the ground seems to help in the formation of a
twister Tornado. It was said on the show that the creation of Tornadoes
cannot be predicted and cannot be modeled.

I am going to try to make a stab at perhaps a furtherance to
understanding Tornadoes. It may or may not help but when in such a
situation a try is better than nothing.

What I propose is that there does exist a physics model or analogy to a
tornado and surprizingly no-one on the show spoke of it. I am refering
to the bathtub drain when lifted becomes a vortex twister. So these
physics phenomenon of bathtub drain of water is similar to Tornado
twisters only one is water and the other is air. What starts the water
twister is simply a hole of the drain. What then starts the Tornado is
another hole. But what kind of "hole"?

Now I am going to try another trick. I am going to throw the idea that a
Volcano has 2 waves to monitor and the 2nd wave is a predictor of
eruption. A Volcano erupting is analogous to the bathtub drain creating
a spiral of water only in the volcano it is in the opposite direction.
In the bathtub it is gravity and in the volcano it is mounting pressure
to release. So, now, if volcanoes have 2 waves to monitor then does a
bathtub drain have 2 waves to monitor? And transferring that logic to a
Tornado. Does a Tornado in some respects act like a bathtub drain and
does a Tornado act like a volcano and does a Tornado have 2 waves
involved?

So I am trying to cross analogize bathtub drain to tornado to volcano
and since volcanoes are somewhat predictable, perhaps there are 2 waves
involved in tornadoes and then make them predictable.

I would guess that the waves of tornadoes since they exist as in
volcanoes, involve the amount of energy latent in the skys during a
thunderstorm. If a thunderstorm does not have the energy to create "hail
particles" then it probably does not have the energy to create a tornado
or at least a dangerous tornado. So one of the waves involves the latent
energy of the skys to create a tornado. The other wave involves the
downdraft energy.

Also, earthquake predictions seem to be another phenomenon we have
little luck in predicting. But earthquakes seem unrelated to bathtub
drains. And it seems as though we should be able to predict tornadoes in
the future long before we get a handle on predicting earthquakes.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
www.archimedesplutonium.com
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I spelled meterology wrong and should be meteorology. Funny how weather
gets mixed up with meteors and comets.

Today I want to try or attempt to connect all four of these phenomenon and
find some physical link that all 4 have in common. Earthquakes, Tornadoes,
Volcanoes and Bathtub-drain. Perhaps include a 5th in Hurricanes.

Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:41:37 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


I spelled meterology wrong and should be meteorology. Funny how weather
gets mixed up with meteors and comets.

Today I want to try or attempt to connect all four of these phenomenon and
find some physical link that all 4 have in common. Earthquakes, Tornadoes,
Volcanoes and Bathtub-drain. Perhaps include a 5th in Hurricanes.

BathtubDrain is the ultimate model and the unifyer. We can all imagine that a
Tornado and Hurricane have holes as a bathtub drain has a hole which creates
the rotary motion. We can imagine that the Volcano is a reverse bathtubdrain,
or, a hole that is from inside the earth to outside whereas hurricanes and
tornadoes are holes from the sky to the ground or water. So we can imagine
that Tornadoes, Hurricanes and Volcanoes all three are bathtubdrainholes as a
physical phenomenon.

But can we imagine Earthquakes as a bathtubdrainhole? Harder to imagine. But
here I have to ask the question. Would Earth ever have any earthquakes if it
were a planet that was not spinning on its axis of rotation? Intriguing
question. If true, then Earthquakes also are a bathtubdrainhole phenomenon of
physics.

If all the above is true in part or whole then the connecting link for all
four of these geological and physics phenomenon of Earthquakes, Hurricanes,
Tornadoes and Volcanoes are linked by one physics phenomenon and that is
Bath-Tub-Drain-Hole.

And if that is true then since Volcanoes are predictable, then Hurricanes and
Tornadoes and Earthquakes should all be predictable.

And since one of them maybe, emphasize the maybe, is preventable by human
interaction ( I wanted to say treatable like a medical disease) because a
bathtubhole is treatable or cured by blockage of the hole drain.

Here I can imagine some cure for a tornado by an airplane flying overhead
into the heart of a tornado and dumping liquid nitrogen as a sort of "hole
filler" much like a bathtub plug.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
www.archimedesplutonium.com
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:57:30 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


If all the above is true in part or whole then the connecting link for all
four of these geological and physics phenomenon of Earthquakes, Hurricanes,
Tornadoes and Volcanoes are linked by one physics phenomenon and that is
Bath-Tub-Drain-Hole.

I need to point out a gap in logic of the scientists that appeared on that NOVA
PBS show on Tornadoes in that they remarked there is no physics model. There
well is a physics model in that of a bathtubdrainhole. But there exists a 2nd
model that the scientists on that program should have discussed and that is a
Hurricane for we can say that a Tornado is simply a hurricane on land and a
hurricane is a tornado at ocean. So if we can delve into how a hurricane is
created we can then re-apply that knowledge to how a tornado is created on land.

So the gap in logic of the scientists who appeared on the NOVA show on Tornadoes
is 2 gaps in logic. There are two models at least for tornadoes, and one is a
bathtubdrainhole and the other is a hurricane.



And if that is true then since Volcanoes are predictable, then Hurricanes and
Tornadoes and Earthquakes should all be predictable.

And since one of them maybe, emphasize the maybe, is preventable by human
interaction ( I wanted to say treatable like a medical disease) because a
bathtubhole is treatable or cured by blockage of the hole drain.

Here I can imagine some cure for a tornado by an airplane flying overhead
into the heart of a tornado and dumping liquid nitrogen as a sort of "hole
filler" much like a bathtub plug.

Perhaps solid-iodine at a very low temperature or liquid xenon or liquid kryton
would form a nice plug for the hole that is a tornado. Not sure exactly whether
a airplane can fly close into the center of a tornado.

And if any of the above does cure a tornado, the cure would be for those
tornadoes formed near large metro areas.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
www.archimedesplutonium.com
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...

I need to point out a gap in logic of the scientists that appeared on that NOVA
PBS show on Tornadoes in that they remarked there is no physics model. There
well is a physics model in that of a bathtubdrainhole. But there exists a 2nd
model that the scientists on that program should have discussed and that is a
Hurricane for we can say that a Tornado is simply a hurricane on land and a
hurricane is a tornado at ocean. So if we can delve into how a hurricane is
created we can then re-apply that knowledge to how a tornado is created on land.

Let's point out a gap in your logic.

Look up the following terms and then report back with your findings.

Baroclinic (hint, synoptic scale systems which spawn supercells and
tornadoes)
Barotropic (hint, the type of system a hurricane is)

Saying a tornado and a hurricane are the same thing is like saying a
Porsche and a Yugo are the same thing. At the very basic level, they
are; get under the hood, however, and the differences end.

Regards,

Mike

In article ,
(MikeDinGRI) wrote:
snip

Baroclinic (hint, synoptic scale systems which spawn supercells and
tornadoes)
Barotropic (hint, the type of system a hurricane is)

Saying a tornado and a hurricane are the same thing is like saying a
Porsche and a Yugo are the same thing. At the very basic level, they
are; get under the hood, however, and the differences end.

If you live through both, you know they are not the same thing.
It's like claiming that snow and rain are the same thing just
because both involve H_2O falling from the sky. Survival techniques
differ.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

2 Apr 2004 21:43:22 -0800 MikeDinGRI wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...

I need to point out a gap in logic of the scientists that appeared on that NOVA
PBS show on Tornadoes in that they remarked there is no physics model. There
well is a physics model in that of a bathtubdrainhole. But there exists a 2nd
model that the scientists on that program should have discussed and that is a
Hurricane for we can say that a Tornado is simply a hurricane on land and a
hurricane is a tornado at ocean. So if we can delve into how a hurricane is
created we can then re-apply that knowledge to how a tornado is created on land.

Let's point out a gap in your logic.

There was no gap in my logic. What happened is that you hypercircumadded onto my dissertation.
You made a grave logical error of not understanding what I said.

Nowhere in my above do I say Hurricane equals Tornado. I did say that the bathtubdrainhole model
of hurricane equals the bathtubdrainhole model of tornado.

You seem and wish to believe that I said that Hurricane equals Tornado equals Earthquake equals
Volcano. I said nothing like that. I did say that bathtubdrainhole of Tornado equals
bathtubdrainhole of Hurricane equals bathtubdrainhole of Earthquake equals bathtubdrainhole of
Volcano.

Finding a connecting link such as bathtubdrainhole is equal. Not the phenomenons themselves.

I cannot teach you how to read and comprehend what is said, and besides it is a huge waste of my
time. And you should not be in science judging from your comments.




Look up the following terms and then report back with your findings.

You need a crash course education in logic for you are unable to even read someone else without
misunderstanding them. You are so silly and cannot even recognize that a model is connective
links and the equality is not hurricane equals tornado but that the bathtubdrainhole is equal.

So get yee to a book on logic and also, learn that a period at the end of a sentence demarks the
entire "thought" and not like you which picks out a phrase which you have done to misrepresent
my dissertation.

Get yee to a course in logic for you have little.



Baroclinic (hint, synoptic scale systems which spawn supercells and
tornadoes)
Barotropic (hint, the type of system a hurricane is)

Saying a tornado and a hurricane are the same thing is like saying a
Porsche and a Yugo are the same thing. At the very basic level, they
are; get under the hood, however, and the differences end.

Regards,

Mike

Sad to see that alot of people in science like Mike cannot even read and understand and
comprehend what they read before they make some stupid comments.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

Propitious that yesterday I started this thread and last night on the TV of BBC world news was a
report that a group of scientists is forecasting earthquakes to hit LA and Japan soon.

I suspect that group is not really a forecasting and predicting of any sort of accuracy and that it
is very very crude. I suspect it has no real tangible science behind their claimed prediction.

I would say the only predictable science for Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Tornadoes (Hurricanes are
easily spotted so need not be predicted) is the science of the 2 waves that predicts when volcanoes
are about to erupt. So I suspect that the alleged earthquake predicting group is more like
tea-leaves science and that the Volcano predicting group has "real science" behind it.

It would be nice for PBS to air on Tuesday in a 2 hour program first that NOVA show on how
Volcanoes are predictable (it even showed a dumb group of scientists working near a volcano that
erupted and killed some people) and then in the second hour to show the recent NOVA on Tornado
chasers.

The benefit by showing those programs one after another is that the viewers brains, some of them
may turn on a light and they may then say "aha, perhaps there are 2 wave like phenomenon associated
not only with Volcanoes but with Tornadoes and that if we can pinpoint the 2 waves of Tornadoes we
may then be able to predict when Tornadoes come into existence.

My guess of the 2 waves associated with Tornadoes is the latent-energy of a thunderstorm system.
That if a system is unable to produce hail particles it simply does not have the latent-energy to
create a tornado or a dangerous tornado because not all tornadoes are lumped as a twistor motion.

But anyway, getting back to Earthquakes. I would bet that an Earthquake is directly related to the
rotation or spin of the planet Earth and that if our planet did not rotate on axis that earthquakes
would be so rare. So that any earthquake predictor must have the Earth axis of rotation as a
guiding mechanism. And the bathtubdrainhole-Model is what the Earth spin rotation is.

So that to predict Earthquakes is to pool-together the features of Earth of weak layers of rocks
coupled with the spin axis of Earth. Most earthquakes occur closer to the equator than near the
poles of earth and that is because of spin axis.

Most earthquakes occur near tectonic plate movement but that plate movement is connected to spin
axis of Earth.

Earthquakes are alot more difficult to lasso with science of prediction than are tornadoes or
hurricanes or volcanoes. But difficulty is not impossibility.

If all 4 of these phenomenons of earthquake,tornado,hurricane and volcano, if all 4 have a
commonlink to bathtubdrainhole-model and if all 4 have a commonlink of two-waves involved. Then it
will be possible to predict not only volcanoes when they are close to eruption phase but also
predicting major earthquakes. This means we find 2 waves associated with earthquakes. I said a
possible 2 waves of tornadoes is latent-energy. That maybe a sufficient clue as to predicting
earthquakes is latent energy in that we find the WEAKEST rocks near tectonic fault zones and we
then work out the axis of rotation as to when it will destroy that weak-rock layers.

I believe we can identify weak rock layers underground with various devises. So the predicting of
earthquakes would be a mapping of the weakest rock layers worldwide. And then we couple that
mapping with latent energy needed to upset that weak layer which involves rotation on axis of
earth.

Yes, I suspect I am onto the correct path for predicting earthquakes. It is a matter of mapping the
weakest underground rock layers. Someone should be able to do that for California and for Japan and
then compare the two and work backwards in history as to when earthquakes hit California and Japan.

Weakest rock layers means not only composition but gaps in the rock layers.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
2 Apr 2004 21:43:22 -0800 MikeDinGRI wrote:

You seem and wish to believe that I said that Hurricane equals Tornado equals Earthquake equals
Volcano. I said nothing like that.

From:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:15:39 -0600
Message-ID:
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:15:36 -0600
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Reply-To: NOiwEMAIL
Organization: www.archimedesplutonium.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.geo.geology
Subject: cure for tornadoes connecting
Tornadoes,Volcanoes,Earthquakes,Hurricanes,bathtub drain all into one

PBS show on Tornadoes

You Said:

"I need to point out a gap in logic of the scientists that appeared on
that NOVA
PBS show on Tornadoes in that they remarked there is no physics model.
There
well is a physics model in that of a bathtubdrainhole. But there
exists a 2nd
model that the scientists on that program should have discussed and
that is a
Hurricane for we can say that a Tornado is simply a hurricane on land
and a
hurricane is a tornado at ocean. So if we can delve into how a
hurricane is
created we can then re-apply that knowledge to how a tornado is
created on land."

I think your words speak for themself.

Finding a connecting link such as bathtubdrainhole is equal. Not the phenomenons themselves.

I cannot teach you how to read and comprehend what is said, and besides it is a huge waste of my
time. And you should not be in science judging from your comments.

And you shouldn't be in science judging by your complete ignorance of
the synoptic and mesoscale dynamics involved in cyclogeneis and
tornadogensis.


Look up the following terms and then report back with your findings.

You need a crash course education in logic for you are unable to even read someone else without
misunderstanding them. You are so silly and cannot even recognize that a model is connective
links and the equality is not hurricane equals tornado but that the bathtubdrainhole is equal.

Nothing to misunderstand. See above.

Baroclinic (hint, synoptic scale systems which spawn supercells and
tornadoes)
Barotropic (hint, the type of system a hurricane is)

Saying a tornado and a hurricane are the same thing is like saying a
Porsche and a Yugo are the same thing. At the very basic level, they
are; get under the hood, however, and the differences end.

Regards,

Mike

Sad to see that alot of people in science like Mike cannot even read and understand and
comprehend what they read before they make some stupid comments.

Yet, you still believe a tornado and hurricane are the same type of
cyclone, the only difference is whether it's over land or water.

You know, they do have these things called satellites, radars,
soundings, NWP models, etc. which inidicate that there may be a
slight, yes, a SLIGHT, difference between tropical cyclones and
tornadoes.

Maybe you should trade in your copy of Aristotle's "Meteorologica" and
pick up a copy of Bluestein's "Synoptic-Dynamic Meteorology in
Midlatitudes" and join the rest of us as we go into the 21st century.

Barring that, maybe you and Sollog could team up and become the next
Abbott and Costello.

Regards,

Mike