The truth about October 28th. It just got real. it's big.

Seriously...lol.

reply to post by athenegoddess

Can you tell me how astrology works please?

That's the silly game that astrology plays. Been done every time it fails miserably in a test. There is the sad tale that the wrong method or another method was used. It really doesn't matter because the problem is that all of these things claiming to be astrology and making predictions based on birth charts or whatever you want to call them fail.

Here you claim:

With one look at your birth chart I can predict your love life, your career, your mother and father's influence over you, your personality, interests, manner of death... etc.

That's just a load of hooey. Why would anyone fall for this malarkey?

Yes its true, it is a sham. Just like everything else in this Universe. Which can only indicate one thing. Nothing is real, but rather, Maya. The sooner it ends the sooner we get to wake up from this horrid nightmare.

reply to post by stereologist

What do you mean that you can't be sure that alignments are not correlated with quakes? There is the entire science of statistics that provides methods to determine if a set of data is different or in some sense meaningful or in this case if a relationship exists. The answer is no.

Even if an Earth-quake happened 1 out of a million or a billion for each alignment with Jupiter. That would infer that it could induce Earth-quakes if we could prove it somehow but it would probably be improbable to to the chance that a significant Earth-quake would occur during 1 of these many alignments and/or times during an alignment.


You're logic doesn't make any sense because we haven't been recording alignments long enough to rule out any chances.

You are not a scientist. Because scientist would know better than that.

To think openly.

Waiting for your sources still and even if you provide them. What i have stated above would trump any of them

Just be satiated you can't prove it and it irks you.

I know it hurts badly but its how science works.

reply to post by TheUniverse


Statistically speaking if an earthquake occurred only once every million or billion alignments, then we could deduce that there is no correlation between the two. Your F value would be so far from statistically significant that one would have no choice but to conclude that there is no connection.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Imtor

 

Oh and mind doing a bet? You send me 100 USD if nothing disastrous happens on Oct 21st 2011 or around that time>?

Can you provide a definition for disastrous? Would a war battle, a regular hurricane, a train crash, a hotel fire, a sunken ship, plane crash, etc. qualify?

Something from the magnitude of '2012' cataclysms - something that would nearly cause end of the world or so, but large earthquake would do too. So far there was end of the world several times this year. Try again with another date.

Originally posted by athenegoddess
Um, astrology isn't feelings. It's math and utilizing your mind to the highest degree to decipher the barrier between the spiritual and the physical/material. Tell me, why do you follow 'scientists' who have given us nothing!

I can easily use that formula with astrology. Astrology is a very deep art! I'm betting you know nothing.

edit on 7/9/2011 by athenegoddess because: (no reason given)

Astrology is piece of crap. Im not even going to waste my time explaining because I just realized im wasting my time doing so for clueless people. But you ridiculued it anyway so all is good, it is Art ok, good one, definitely not science, It does not make any accurate predicitions and prediction in the firts place is guessing. I am not going to make a whole waste of time to discuss why Astrology is so useless, google 'Astrology pseudoscience' and it will tell you all.

reply to post by TheUniverse

Even if an Earth-quake happened 1 out of a million or a billion for each alignment with Jupiter. That would infer that it could induce Earth-quakes if we could prove it somehow but it would probably be improbable to to the chance that a significant Earth-quake would occur during 1 of these many alignments and/or times during an alignment.

Not true at all. That definitely does not infer or imply or suggest in any manner that quakes are related to alignment. I think you need to learn a little about how the world works. Consider the Sun. It is larger than Jupiter and closer and it is not correlated with quakes.

You're logic doesn't make any sense because we haven't been recording alignments long enough to rule out any chances.

Your argument is based on ignorance of the methods being used to study the phenomena. You have no reason to believe that one way or the other. You are simply basing the claim without knowledge of what needs to be done ro has been done.

You are not a scientist. Because scientist would know better than that.

Again, you have no idea what you are saying. Your inference here is based on your own ignorance of the situation.

Waiting for your sources still and even if you provide them. What i have stated above would trump any of them

A laughable claim since you have provided nothing of interest. All you have done is provide a few links and then made ridiculously absurd inferences. You have not shown that magnetism is causative with quakes. You have not shown that any of the potential indicators are well connected with quakes. Your claims are simply flawed.

I know it hurts badly but its how science works.

The one thing that is abundantly clear is that you have little understanding about scientific practices.

reply to post by Imtor

Something from the magnitude of '2012' cataclysms - something that would nearly cause end of the world or so, but large earthquake would do too. So far there was end of the world several times this year. Try again with another date.

I think you have me confused with someone else because I think the 2012 claims make as much sense as investing in a slide rule company.

prediction in the firts place is guessing.

Not all predictions are guesses. Consider that eclipses have been accurately predicted since ancient times.

Cheers.

reply to post by stereologist

Not true at all. That definitely does not infer or imply or suggest in any manner that quakes are related to alignment. I think you need to learn a little about how the world works. Consider the Sun. It is larger than Jupiter and closer and it is not correlated with quakes.

Most Ignorant Statement i have ever heard. From one who claims to be a disciple of Science.

The sun also causes fluctuations in the Magnetic Field so that is inherently the most absurd statement.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
=================================================

Wikpedia- Earths Magnetic Field

This makes the compass usable for navigation. The cause of the field can be explained by dynamo theory. A magnetic field extends infinitely, though it weakens with distance from its source. The Earth's magnetic field, also called the geomagnetic field, which effectively extends several tens of thousands of kilometres into space, forms the Earth's magnetosphere. A paleomagnetic study of Australian red dacite and pillow basalt has estimated the magnetic field to be at least 3.5 billion years old.

Yes it weakens from the distance to source but you are claiming that fluctuations in the Electromagnetic field do not cause quakes.

Jupiter can and is know to possibly cause fluctuations in the Earths magnetic Field through head-tail interactions between their magnetic fields.

Seismo-electromagnetics is an area of research aimed at earthquake prediction.

Seismo-electromagnetics

Seismo-electromagnetics is the study of electromagnetic phenomena associated with seismic activity such as earthquakes and volcanos, and also the use of electromagnetic methods in seismology such as magnetotellurics. Links between the electromagnetic fields in the lithosphere and those in the atmosphere and ionosphere are also studied. Earthquake prediction is one of the aims of this area of research

You're Statements are inherently childish ignorant and have no basis you have failed to provide one source for any of your ludicrous claims.

You can't be 100% sure and that's a fact. You're just angry because you know its true.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Statistically speaking if an earthquake occurred only once every million or billion alignments, then we could deduce that there is no correlation between the two. Your F value would be so far from statistically significant that one would have no choice but to conclude that there is no connection.

Statistically speaking if there were in in 1-50 million chance in winning the lottery and someone won.

Wouldn't that de-bunk your absurd statement.

That's right.

Although the Chance of deducing it would be hard because most likely an Earth-quake of large caliber would occur during the alignment with all these chances.

So it would be hard to deduce.

So inherently you're statement is completely untrue.

reply to post by TheUniverse

The sun also causes fluctuations in the Magnetic Field so that is inherently the most absurd statement.

The Sun does indeed cause changes in the Earth's magnetosphere, but that does not imply that changes in the Earth's magnetosphere cause earthquakes. In fact, it is probably the other way around; earthquakes cause changes in the magnetosphere due to shifts in the Earth's crust. Earthquakes, however, clearly do not cause any changes in the Sun.

reply to post by TheUniverse

Most Ignorant Statement i have ever heard. From one who claims to be a disciple of Science.

The sun also causes fluctuations in the Magnetic Field so that is inherently the most absurd statement.

The Sun does not cause quakes. End of story.

Please show me anything whatsoever that the Sun is correlated with any class of quakes. All you can do is post material that does not show a link between the Sun and quakes.

You're Statements are inherently childish ignorant and have no basis you have failed to provide one source for any of your ludicrous claims.

Nothing you have shown shows that magnetism causes quakes. Your inability to separate out possible quake indicators from the causes of quakes is the main issue here.

You can't be 100% sure and that's a fact. You're just angry because you know its true.

I'm not angry. I am surprised at how difficult it is to get you to understand that magnetism does not cause quakes.

reply to post by TheUniverse

Statistically speaking if there were in in 1-50 million chance in winning the lottery and someone won.
Wouldn't that de-bunk your absurd statement.
That's right.

Here is another example of you not understanding a basic issue. The issue has to do with a game and a decided set of rules and a situation with many confounding unknown factors. Take some basic high school math courses and learn why you are so mistaken in so many basic concepts.

Although the Chance of deducing it would be hard because most likely an Earth-quake of large caliber would occur during the alignment with all these chances.

So you are deciding it must be true. It is not! Your post shows that you have no idea how to go about testing this claim of yours. Do you actually think you are the first person with this idea? You are not. The idea that seismic activity on Earth is affected by other celestial objects has been tested and shown NOT to be correlated with the exception of the Moon.

reply to post by stereologist

The Sun does not cause quakes. End of story. Please show me anything whatsoever that the Sun is correlated with any class of quakes. All you can do is post material that does not show a link between the Sun and quakes.

Wikipedia- Plate Tectonics

Regarding the driving mechanism of the plates, various models co-exist: tectonic plates are able to move because the Earth's lithosphere has a higher strength and lower density than the underlying asthenosphere. Lateral density variations in the mantle result in convection. Their movement is thought to be driven by a combination of the motion of seafloor away from the spreading ridge (due to variations in topography and density of the crust that result in differences in gravitational forces) and drag, downward suction, at the subduction zones.

A different explanation lies in different forces generated by the rotation of the globe and tidal forces of the Sun and the Moon. The relative importance of each of these factors is unclear, and is still subject to debate (see also below).

----------------------------------------------------

Wikipedia- Plate Tectonics- Earth rotation related driving forces


1.Tidal drag due to the gravitational force the Moon (and the Sun) exerts on the crust of the Earth

2.Shear strain of the Earth globe due to N-S compression related to the rotation and modulations of it;

3.Pole flight force: equatorial drift due to rotation and centrifugal effects: tendency of the plates to move from the poles to the equator ("Polflucht");

4.Coriolis effect acting on plates when they move around the globe;

5.Global deformation of the geoid due to small displacements of rotational pole with respect to the Earth crust;

6.Other smaller deformation effects of the crust due to wobbles and spin movements of the Earth rotation on a smaller time scale.

reply to post by TheUniverse


As regards the Sun. The issue is with tidal drag. It is that very issue that leads people to look for correlations with the Sun and Moon and seismic activity. Only the Moon correlations with quakes and then only with a few uncommon/rare low intensity quakes. The Moon does not correlate with large quakes. The Sun does not correlate with any quakes.

Nothing you provided in the links shows that there is anything to the issue other than tidal drag.

1.Tidal drag due to the gravitational force the Moon (and the Sun) exerts on the crust of the Earth

That is the only thing you needed to quote. Tidal drag leads to the Earth moving away from the Sun just as the Moon moves away from the Earth.

reply to post by TheUniverse


What you are describing here is different from a correlation. What you just described shows that the lottery is a truly random process. No one person has a statistically significant greater chance at winning than anyone else. However, there is no correlation involved, which is what one would be looking at when it comes to Jupiter and earthquakes.

reply to post by stereologist

The Sun does not cause quakes. End of story. Please show me anything whatsoever that the Sun is correlated with any class of quakes. All you can do is post material that does not show a link between the Sun and quakes.

So you admit your silly assertions are wrong then

reply to post by Xcalibur254

What you are describing here is different from a correlation. What you just described shows that the lottery is a truly random process. No one person has a statistically significant greater chance at winning than anyone else. However, there is no correlation involved, which is what one would be looking at when it comes to Jupiter and earthquakes.

So you observed thousands of alignments of Jupiter with Earth for thousands/ millions of years?

That's right.

You haven't so your assertions are devoid of any coherent reasoning

reply to post by TheUniverse


I am using your own hypothetical data set when an alignment with Jupiter corresponds to an earthquake only once every million or billion times. However, an article has been published in the very thread where scientists did try to correlate alignments with earthquakes, but it did not produce significant results.

reply to post by TheUniverse


As I thought. You are unable to understand what you are posting.

Would you like some help?