Judge Hades Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 So, the earthquajke did very little in terms effecting the orbiatal path of the planet. Well, that is to be expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 for a gif image of the tidal wave movement click me <{POST_SNAPBACK}> that's just... wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguars4ever Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 for a gif image of the tidal wave movement click me <{POST_SNAPBACK}> that's just... wow <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The height of the wave was 60 feet in some places. :'( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLD SKOOL WHEELMAN Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Damn. That's all I can muster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 for a gif image of the tidal wave movement click me <{POST_SNAPBACK}> that's just... wow <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The height of the wave was 60 feet in some places. :'( <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 Umm... humanity has been around for about 100,000 years... and the last pole shift almost wiped us out. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> several million, actually, if you want to go back to zinjanthropus and all... and the poles shift around all the time without ill affect. this last bit is untrue, darque, unless you have some evidence? taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 ... snip... And every 21,000 it reaches a maximum, which have a small effect on climate! if you're referring to the precessional wobble of the earth, it has nothing to do with the earth's orbit around the sun. it's the wobble of the earth around its axis, which occurs on a 26,000 year cycle and it has a rather large impact on climate... taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 this last bit is untrue, darque, unless you have some evidence?taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yup, I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessSarah Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I did some number crunching to help put things in perspective...(Mostly for the midwesterners or those familiar with U.S cities) The death toll from the earthquake and tsunami has now hit 156,000. The death toll in Indonesia alone is now reported at 94,000--- The population of Bellevue, Ralston, La Vista and Papillion combined is just over 96,000. 156,000 is roughly two Memorial Stadiums-- gone. Lincoln's population is 225,000-- With 156,000 dead, that leaves only 69,000 people left in Lincoln. Omaha's population is 390,000-- Almost half the city would be gone. India's reported death toll is right around 9,500-- Say goodbye to Central High School, Millard North High School, Millard South High School, Millard West High School and Ralston High School. Thailand is at just about 5,000-- That's Ogallala wiped off the map. Sri Lanka has reported their death's at 47,000-- Adios Grand Island. Proud purveyor, owner and operator of the Wonder Twins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draakh_kimera Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Taken from wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake ): Estimated Deaths: Indonesia 400,000 India 14,488 Thailand 11,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Yup, I do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well!!!??? taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 btw... before you go posting your "evidence" i'll start off with the following: space.com article and another space.com article and finally British Geological Survey a good line from this one in answer to the question "Is there any danger to life?"... which is "Almost certainly not." a good discussion thread at BA can be found here. sooooo, darque, maybe you're checking the wrong sites? hype != science, remember that rule first and things get easier. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Yup, I do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well!!!??? taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 you said you have evidence... but i started out with the debunking first so it might be hard for you to prove. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 btw... before you go posting your "evidence" i'll start off with the following: space.com article and another space.com article and finally British Geological Survey a good line from this one in answer to the question "Is there any danger to life?"... which is "Almost certainly not." a good discussion thread at BA can be found here. sooooo, darque, maybe you're checking the wrong sites? hype != science, remember that rule first and things get easier. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What exactly is the point you seem so desperate to make? I'm talking about the past not what will happen in the future. As a side note: there's also some evidence to support the idea that the solar wind itself will protect the earth in the instance we don't have magnetic field protection for any length of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 you said you have evidence... but i started out with the debunking first so it might be hard for you to prove. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1) This is way off topic not science today... find your own "proof" for either side of the argument.... I've got more important things to do 2) I've already addressed that part. You're on a one sided war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 darque, you said "and the last pole shift almost wiped us out." which is UNTRUE!!! i've shown you why... prove it otherwise. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 As a side note: there's also some evidence to support the idea that the solar wind itself will protect the earth in the instance we don't have magnetic field protection for any length of time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i never said losing our magnetic field wouldn't be bad, btw... just that a shift in the poles isn't bad. the solar wind is exactly the reason we need the field. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 darque, you said "and the last pole shift almost wiped us out." which is UNTRUE!!! i've shown you why... prove it otherwise. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You did? <-- bored smiley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 did you even bother to read the links i provided? darque, i deal in facts and provable science... not pseudo-science such as what you often fall for. when you get over this penchant, you'll be a much more believable debater. coincidentally, you still have not provided any "evidence" that the last polar shift "nearly wiped us out." maybe it's because, as i stated, you have no case. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darque Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 No... you don't seem to understand.. I'm making no effort because I don't care to... Why are you trying to have an argument about anything in a thread that's about one of the greatest tragedies ever, a tragedy that happens to still be ongoing? Does this make you feel like a better person somehow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLD SKOOL WHEELMAN Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Why are you trying to have an argument about anything in a thread that's about one of the greatest tragedies ever, a tragedy that happens to still be ongoing? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Intervention: If it is kept civilized, I do believe you could call it a debate. However, it will still be out of place and not totally pertinant to the present discussion brought up when the topic first started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 No... you don't seem to understand.. I'm making no effort because I don't care to... then maybe you should lay off the crackpot pseudo-science claims??? Why are you trying to have an argument about anything in a thread that's about one of the greatest tragedies ever, a tragedy that happens to still be ongoing? a tragedy yes, but is that a good excuse for you to lay out your ridiculous claims? it is you that made mention of what may happen due to a shift... incorrectly. so tell me, who's trying to capitalize on tragedy? me with science, or you with ridiculous nonsense? Does this make you feel like a better person somehow? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> not in the least. if you haven't figured it out by now, i refute false claims in any thread i encounter them. once you get past this simple truth, maybe you'll wise up for future debate? taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 However, it will still be out of place and not totally pertinant to the present discussion brought up when the topic first started. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> agreed, but such diversions are not unusual. i feel terrible for the lives affected by this earthquake, but that does not excuse baseless claims by pseudo-scientists that wouldn't know the scientific method if they had to recite it daily. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts