I've already addressed that quote and only rejected the proposed connection between the moon's distance from earth and weather based phenomena because there is no evidence to support it other than, "there was a super moon, something bad happened near it, therefore the super moon caused it" that logic is horrible, present EVIDENCE that it could have played a roll and I will gladly change my mind. I want to specifically address hurricane Katrina now. Katrina happened more than FIVE lunar cycles AFTER the super moon so to suggest the super moon had anything to do with it without any evidence is just bad science.

Just because three scientists say there could be a relationship does not make it true or even likely. And before you say "well it doesn't make it false either" I'm not implying that, but it will take evidence before it will be considered by the general scientific community.

The 8.9 Earthquake moved the entire tectonic plate, so naturally there would be aftershocks on the coastlines that also border that plate, such as Alaska, California, Mexico, and China. The Tsunami was caused by the earthquake, and the major flood is caused by the combination of large amounts of rain coupled with the fact that the temperature increasing is causing the winter's snow to melt. A lot of snow melting + tons of rain = flooding.


I see your three accredited scientists and raise you all of the tens of thousands of scientists that aren't worried about it at all.

They may not be technically, but they can be in a rational sense. Think of it this way, I am looking at a number of possible solutions to a puzzle. I look further into solution one as being a possible answer. I grow increasingly skeptical as I find more and more evidence that says that this is the wrong solution. Eventually, I decide it is no longer a meaningful option as a solution and I move onto one of the other possible solutions that I have. I continue to investigate the other solutions without avail. Because my skepticism kept me from fully investigating solution one, I was never able to solve the puzzle. So I am not talking about it in the sense of the scientific community, but in the sense of individual progress. In effect, individual progress would ultimately accelerate the progress of the scientific community as a whole.



So what happens when everyone decides to abandon the possibility of it due to lack of evidence? Then the true evidence to prove that it can or is true, would never be claimed.

This post was edited by tdgosu on Mar 13 2011 07:08pm

LOL

/Thread.

the moon moves farther and farther away each new moon. perigree/apogee are exremes for the month and vary quite a bit cycle to cycle. 1 billion years ago the moon was 300% bigger.

o man i must have been drunk. perigee/apogee are not measured vs months they are just points where the moon is closest/farthest from earth.