as of June 18, 2011, a 3rd revision has been released
Revisions still do not equate to accepted for publication or even the first steps to peer review. A revision might have addressed some areas or clarified some claims, it is still in a way worth little until it's taken on and tested independently. If nobody can find reason to do so in theory, let alone in practice, then the paper needs to do a whole lot more than it currently does.
the article is from the Royal Astronimical Society, and is published by Cornell University
Cornell are the main sponsors of arXiv, essentially providing funding for the servers and little else. They haven't published this paper as arXiv is a preprint archive, a storehouse if you will for papers awaiting review. Publication history will be listed under the abstract for a paper if it ever see's publication in a journal. No publication or peer-review status, and it might as well be a blog post.
I find no reference to the Royal Astronomical Society, and has been explained a few times above, the paper can be traced only to Dr Mensur Omerbashich himself, who is not a member of the RAS.
the article does not claim planetary alignments cause quakes, thus the reason "the math" was not provided
Then why is it titled "Astronomical alignments as the cause of ~M6+ seismicity"? I could dive into the first paragraph to pick out more sentences that pretty much spell out that the idea is that alignments cause quakes if you want…
the article theorizes 6.0+ magnitudes are caused by a combination of factors, the most influential being the alignment of "celestial bodies"
So it doesn't claim planetary alignments cause quakes, at yet it claims the most influential factor in causing earthquakes are alignments of celestial bodies. You are aware that's practically a contradiction, right?
celestial bodies are any and all objects of gasous or solid matter cores, not of intelligent design, in the vacuum of space
What's the definition of 'core'? Comet's don't have cores as such, yet Omerbashich is on the back of Comet Elenin like every other proponent of nonsense - heck, according to the paper, it's supposedly the cause for quite a few rumbles.
6.0+ magnitudes occur as a result of long-alignment of celestial objects with that of the Earth during naturally occuring tectonic displacement (naturally referenced as 5.9 magnitude and below)
Seeing as 'naturally occurring tectonic displacement' is a daily occurrence, why hasn't he proposed that it's more likely to rain heavier during an alignment? That's the only analogy I can think of here, taking a natural occurring event, claiming the biggest of those events are due to external forces, then provide no means of explanation to support the claim.
the magnitude of quakes induced through long-alignment is proportionate to the length of gravitational drag (or tail) in relation to the distance of the Sun. No where is an objects gravity or mass used to argue, explain, calculate or conclude anything in this theory
Considering the fact that gravity and mass is going to be the strongest method by which any events like those proposed could occur, I for one find that rather strange that they're completely ignored in any calculations. It couldn't be because tidal forces and the like can be calculated for any object on the back on an envelope could it?
alignment and drag are influenced by speed; therefore speed is an underlying factor, or catalyst, in this theory
The two references to speed I found in the paper mention that the faster something is, the less of a seismic impact or whatever you want to call it the object will have. If going slow is an underlying factor, why does he bandwagon onto Elenin (the fastest moving object mentioned in his paper) in order to claim earthquakes will be on the rise, only to say that as it gets faster it's not a problem at all? Surely the slow moving gas giants have more of an impact on seismicity than Elenin. Except of course they don't, what with the aforementioned tidal forces they exert on the Earth being abysmally weak.
how often was the statement "status as a scientiest is dubious" used on someone eccentric, different and messy, someone like Nikola Tesla? And we (should) all know how eager the government was to swoop in literally hours after being discovered dead
Tesla couldn't give many of his ideas away, let alone sell them to anyone, governments included. To use the argument of 'crazy people turn out to be right' is not going to fly around here. Omerbashich has put his money where his mouth is and his ideas appear to have far more flaws than strengths, hence the work not being published.
there are certainly those in the field of science who's patents have surpassed $1 trillion in profits and reciepts, Tesla and Edison being two simple examples
So Omerbashich's almost laughable patent dispute is now one of your arguments in favour of supporting his ideas? I do admire the poetic language he used in the angry letter he wrote to the Patent Office though. Well, I say admire…
have you ever met a doctor with the 8th grade grammatical and punctuation skill-set used by todays American newspapers? I've yet to met anyone from the field of science whose writing I can clearly make out and read straight through
Nope, so what's your point? The language of science is different from the language of journalism, which is different from the language of education, which is different from the language of YouTube comments. Science papers don't have to be linguistically approachable, they have to be testable, verifiable and so on. That's all there really is to it, experimentation of a claim. Omerbashich's claim needs a way to go before it sparks the interest of astrophysicists and the like, and it'd help if he did actually get some math down, for one example.