Earthquake in Acapulco

Peter Kovachev says:
March 21, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Volker Doorman and vukcevic, …
I think what I’m trying to understand is where the borders between science and pseudoscience on this one are.
If you belief in pseudoscience then you have not understood the borders of science. Science is operating with what IS, and because it is impossible to define pseudoscience because it IS NOT, there is only science or NOT. Science is using strong arguments and this means giving reasons to the argument. To speak statements, also if they comes from authorities, and/or NO statements like L. Svalgaard is stating as a authority is therefore no science. It is ever necessary to argue on something what IS and giving a reason, which can be checked by the listener.
I have given to you a graph which shows a correlation between Earthquakes and solar system (geometrical) harmonies. The rule in science is, that you can verify the relation or not, but when you do not the verification, you cannot come on again speaking on ‘pseudoscience’.
The very point is that there are two fields of speaking. The one point is speaking about what is yours, your opinion, your ideas or your religion, your own. The other point is science, and on this point only the strength of an argument is relevant and not the speaker or the authority or the science community in number. Who the speaker is, or what labels or academic titles he or she has on his door is not relevant. There is only a chance that an astronomer can give better arguments than a scientist who has knowledge on the physics of oceans if there are questions about the decreasing gravity prior and after eclipses:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/gravimeter.gif
Has Sir Newton an answer why the local gravity is decreasing if the moon is going on to block the sun?
Is there a formula?
There is an argument, that in general, if an celestial object comes near to a conjunction with another object, the local gravitation (on the Sun or on other planets) can be changed.
And as long this effect is not understood, it proves Sir Newton not totally wrong, but it flats down the equation of Sir Newton as not correct.
I have done more as thousand discussions like these and in no case there was an agreement. There is no interest in doing hard research alone against the mainstream guided by the peer reviewers and the science security army conditioned in academies.
This blog is special; if one idiot has some science news, not conform to the dead authorities, there is no discussion, but silence.
V.