Any measurement method that produced a result would point strongly to
the mechanism[s] involved. [Gravity, EM, Sonic,Geographical etc]
Not Scientific 'proof' [or argument] - these are 'add ons' needed to
explain issues more broadly and give a rational framework.
Just to measure Hummmmzzz would be a big plus !
In science, prediction of a mechanism or event is needed to confirm a
postulation and so even we are 'doing science' in a basic way, however
limited our means- and if only at the 'postulation' stage.
I agree , the ocean hum work seems out of the park -for hum as we know
it, but shouldn't be denied a place as it at least acknowledges the
problem and makes new info available.
Second and third order effects cannot be ruled out- with known or
unknown elements intruding into the equation.{see line 1 above]
A major element , for me, is that the sea's a huge energy well
available on our watery planet.
Hum certainly has 'that feel' to it.
On Nov 23, 4:33 pm, Will Godson <[email protected]> wrote:
> No it is not! Pure theory, rational argument and logical deduction
> are. Measurements simply back that up. Even if you could measure it,
> it still wouldn't tell you what the cause was.
>
> As far as S/SW wind in Pau is concerned: That would fetch cold air off
> the Pyrenees which could create a temperature inversion improving the
> transmission of sound.
>
> As for the ocean waves paper: How dare they use the terms 'hum' and
> 'earths hum' as if they were 'definitive' That is an outright conceit
> and was more than likely worded that way to provide yet another blind
> alley for people searching for information on the real Hum.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hum
Sufferers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/hum-sufferers?hl=en.
