I was just looking at the clock earlier today and noticed for the
first time that it was pointing at three axioms of Weatherlawyer's
tenets:

10, 7 and 2:30

With the hands on the first 2 numbers the resultant indicated was to
2:30, the idealised lunar spell for tornadoes.

10 o'clock is the spell (I believe) that tends to produce volcanic
eruptions:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...8ea45226eb1 b

And 7, of course is a classic wet spell. And the time at 2:30 is one
that tends to produce tornadic events or perhaps derechos in the USA.

looking for flukes? Perhaps I'd better stick with tea leaves.
It's just that however the hands are arranged, the thing works out in
such a manner.

Meanwhile here is something more on acoustics:

It seems to me that this focii problem will turn out to be a matter of
acoustics rather than the random stress release of plate tech.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...bd82aae6 c0c4

That thread also forecast the disappearance of Mr Angry:
"I await with bated breath to see what bit of science you
misinterpreted this time.

I won't be holding my breath, however."

When one's breath has abated and one is no longer responsible for
witholding it, the only alternative is death, is it not?
Sad or what?

I took from the middle of summer 2004 to the middle of summer 2008 to
recognise the magnitude of the dependency of geophenomena on
acoustics?
THAT is sad!

On Sep 1, 11:59 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

It seems to me that this focii problem will turn out to be a matter of
acoustics rather than the random stress release of plate tech.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...se_frm/thread/...

I have been trying to ignore the obvious with the propagation of
cyclones and that other end of the trumpet, anticyclones. I want to
find out what causes channels in the air by which the song of the
earth is carried from one place to another.

It isn't enough to suppose that sound in the upper atmosphere has to
travel somewhere and from somewhere else.

Sound from a stringed instrument is intimately connected to the way
the string is set up and what plucks it. It doesn't just happen. Of
course it doesn't. But I am not worried about explaining how it occurs
in the sky in the first place. That bit is obvious.

I am worried about where it goes to next. And maybe how it is
constrained in getting there.

The roaring noises of a distant river or road that can on some days be
heard more clearly than on others, tells us that some sort of
inversion channel is in place. The same sort of weather betrays
aircraft noise patterns and other strong noises whatever their source.

We know that it must be being channelled. And we think we understand
how inversions bend and flex the sound waves involved.

The question left then is: Does it work up higher in the atmosphere?

And the make or break one:
How does it get back down into the earth?

I think I posted this somewhere about a month or so bback but I can't
find it. So let's see if I can rework it.

On Sep 1, 4:05*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sep 1, 11:59 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:



It seems to me that this focii problem will turn out to be a matter of
acoustics rather than the random stress release of plate tech.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...se_frm/thread/...

I have been trying to ignore the obvious with the propagation of
cyclones and that other end of the trumpet, anticyclones. I want to
find out what causes channels in the air by which the song of the
earth is carried from one place to another.

It isn't enough to suppose that sound in the upper atmosphere has to
travel somewhere and from somewhere else.

Sound from a stringed instrument is intimately connected to the way
the string is set up and what plucks it. It doesn't just happen. Of
course it doesn't. But I am not worried about explaining how it occurs
in the sky in the first place. That bit is obvious.

I am worried about where it goes to next. And maybe how it is
constrained in getting there.

The roaring noises of a distant river or road that can on some days be
heard more clearly than on others, tells us that some sort of
inversion channel is in place. The same sort of weather betrays
aircraft noise patterns and other strong noises whatever their source.

We know that it must be being channelled. And we think we understand
how inversions bend and flex the sound waves involved.

The question left then is: Does it work up higher in the atmosphere?

And the make or break one:
How does it get back down into the earth?

I think I posted this somewhere about a month or so bback but I can't
find it. So let's see if I can rework it.

I can't find it either so, YES - please do rework it for us.

On Sep 2, 8:38 am, Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:05 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

The question left then is: Does it work up higher in the atmosphere?

And the make or break one:
How does it get back down into the earth?

I think I posted this somewhere about a month or so back but I can't
find it. So let's see if I can rework it.

I can't find it either so, YES - please do rework it for us.

Us?

You want to know how sound travels?

Ok then but only because it will upset Skywise to find anyone other
than him reading my trash.

The roaring noises of a distant river or road that can on some days be
heard more clearly than on others, tells us that some sort of
inversion channel is in place. The same sort of weather betrays
aircraft noise patterns and other strong noises whatever their source.

We know that it must be being channeled. And we think we understand
how inversions bend and flex the sound waves involved.

The question left then is: Does it work up higher in the atmosphere?

And the make or break one:
How does it get back down into the earth.

We know from the way seismographs behave that the earth carries a huge
amount of noise from wherever to wherever. But do the sounds originate
in the earth as some would have us believe?

I happen to find plate tectonics a ridiculous idea. So my mind is
already made up. That doesn't mean I haven't got to provide an
alternative source if the meanderings of lumps of rock the size of
continents isn't going to do it.

So do cyclones provide enough vibration to set up a sort of sympathy
deeper in the planet?

When you think how much noise a couple of turbines can do in lifting a
few hundred tons of aluminium, it stands to reason the reaction to
shifting billions of tons of air just as far and just as fast is going
to accomplish similar sorts of things on a much grander scale.
Paraffin powered turbines are no more than glorified air compressors
after all.

I wonder if there is some place that has taken measurements of these
things.

That's as far as I kept track. I think I got a spell check organised
by the next installment and stopped using OOo.

On Sep 2, 9:22 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sep 2, 8:38 am, Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet

wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:05 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

The question left then is: Does it work up higher in the atmosphere?

And the make or break one:
How does it get back down into the earth?

I think I posted this somewhere about a month or so back but I can't
find it. So let's see if I can rework it.

I can't find it either so, YES - please do rework it for us.

Us?

You want to know how sound travels?

Ok then but only because it will upset Skywise to find anyone other
than him reading my trash.

The roaring noises of a distant river or road that can on some days be
heard more clearly than on others, tells us that some sort of
inversion channel is in place. The same sort of weather betrays
aircraft noise patterns and other strong noises whatever their source.

We know that it must be being channeled. And we think we understand
how inversions bend and flex the sound waves involved.

The question left then is: Does it work up higher in the atmosphere?

And the make or break one:
How does it get back down into the earth.

We know from the way seismographs behave that the earth carries a huge
amount of noise from wherever to wherever. But do the sounds originate
in the earth as some would have us believe?

I happen to find plate tectonics a ridiculous idea. So my mind is
already made up. That doesn't mean I haven't got to provide an
alternative source if the meanderings of lumps of rock the size of
continents isn't going to do it.

So do cyclones provide enough vibration to set up a sort of sympathy
deeper in the planet?

When you think how much noise a couple of turbines can do in lifting a
few hundred tons of aluminium, it stands to reason the reaction to
shifting billions of tons of air just as far and just as fast is going
to accomplish similar sorts of things on a much grander scale.
Paraffin powered turbines are no more than glorified air compressors
after all.

I wonder if there is some place that has taken measurements of these
things.

That's as far as I kept track. I think I got a spell check organised
by the next installment and stopped using OOo.

I received a couple of news letters from the owner of Skywarn Forums
telling me about some of the latest upgrades, so I wrote back
explaining in scholarly tones that he was some sort of a fool for
banning me then inviting me to view his handiwork.

So he wrote back that I wasn't banned, so I went to have a look see if
I could find anything on there that concerns this thread. As I had
cleared the cache a time or two since going there I had no trouble
getting in. But that all changed when I tried to sign in.

Maybe he is having trouble with his servers. But it is on
Sourceforge... there again the weather would make his site pretty
busy. There again, I live 1/3 of a world away and wouldn't be
penalised for hitting it in the middle of the night. None the less I
couldn't get in.

So stuff the place. I will write it all again from scratch.

Or not, as the case may be.

Weatherlawyer wrote in news:4e3219f3-c870-40c1-
:

reading my trash.

You speak so highly of yourself.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 04:05:14 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer
wrote:

*snip*
The roaring noises of a distant river or road that can on some days be
heard more clearly than on others, tells us that some sort of
inversion channel is in place. The same sort of weather betrays
aircraft noise patterns and other strong noises whatever their source.

We know that it must be being channelled. And we think we understand
how inversions bend and flex the sound waves involved.

It's called ducting.


The question left then is: Does it work up higher in the atmosphere?

No reason why not.


And the make or break one:
How does it get back down into the earth?

May not. The sound may just simply duct between thermal layers and
never reach the ground.

Cheerz!
Roger

On Sep 2, 7:11 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

snip

I received a couple of news letters from the owner of Skywarn Forums
telling me about some of the latest upgrades, so I wrote back
explaining in scholarly tones snip

Two tiny questions --
Who described your tones as scholarly?
Regardless of who said your tones were scholarly, why have you never
used scholarly tones here with your friends?

--mirage

On Sep 4, 8:49 am, mirage wrote:
On Sep 2, 7:11 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:



snip

I received a couple of news letters from the owner of Skywarn Forums
telling me about some of the latest upgrades, so I wrote back
explaining in scholarly tones snip

Two tiny questions --
Who described your tones as scholarly?

Me.
Can't you read?

Regardless of who said your tones were scholarly, why have you never
used scholarly tones here with your friends?

I don't have any friends.

(Something for you to bear in mind for when I am rich and famous, or I
die in penury; either way, loser, don't forget -should you live that
long.)

On Sep 3, 6:02 am, Skywise wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote in news:4e3219f3-c870-40c1-
:

reading my trash.

You speak so highly of yourself.

Would you like a chance to rethink your position on that?