Electric Comets, Comet Elenin, Electric Universe Theory, Is NASA Lie Us For Comets

Text

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by ttimez

 

If I remember correctly, Omerbashich describes a "long alignment" as occurring over the period of at least three days. Now if we look at the average number number of 6.0+ earthquakes in a year we see that about 150 occur. This means that on average a 6.0+ earthquake occurs once every 2.5 days. So, if Omerbashich is only looking at alignments that last three days probability alone states that a 6.0+ earthquake will occur during that time period. It has nothing to do with alignments.

i do most heartily apologise if i go slightly off-topic here (and also but not particularly, for the example i shall use), but i really do feel impelled to address this most peculiar argument involving averages.

now if we look at the average number of days in a year that a woman menstruates/bleeds, we see that (all things being average of course) about 60 occur. this means that on average a womans bleeding/menstruation occurs once every 6th day.
so if you are basing your argument on averages alone, probability has pretty much left the building my friend.

fascinating debate guys, thank you all so much for the information...gotta say i'm leaning towards the electric universe theory myself.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by ttimez

 

He was actually watching this thread earlier. He also kind of challenged you to send him an email. He said that he would let me know if you dared to send him an email. He seems to be quite amiable and just having fun with the ridiculousness of this whole Elenin situation.

Wait, I thought you said you had to email this guy in order to grab his attention????

So which one is it, did you have to email this scientist from "down under", or is he actually whispering in your ear what to say on here? One is a lie, so take your pick. Oh wait, don't, you could pick the truth by accident.

Hey here's an idea: write us an "email"!

reply to post by ttimez


I emailed him. He responded. I emailed him again and in his response he mentioned both of our usernames, so I assume that means he saw the thread. If you do a Google search for Omerbashich's and Zanette's names in conjunction this is the first hit that pops up.

Originally posted by auraura
Text

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by ttimez

 

If I remember correctly, Omerbashich describes a "long alignment" as occurring over the period of at least three days. Now if we look at the average number number of 6.0+ earthquakes in a year we see that about 150 occur. This means that on average a 6.0+ earthquake occurs once every 2.5 days. So, if Omerbashich is only looking at alignments that last three days probability alone states that a 6.0+ earthquake will occur during that time period. It has nothing to do with alignments.

i do most heartily apologise if i go slightly off-topic here (and also but not particularly, for the example i shall use), but i really do feel impelled to address this most peculiar argument involving averages.

now if we look at the average number of days in a year that a woman menstruates/bleeds, we see that (all things being average of course) about 60 occur. this means that on average a womans bleeding/menstruation occurs once every 6th day.
so if you are basing your argument on averages alone, probability has pretty much left the building my friend.

fascinating debate guys, thank you all so much for the information...gotta say i'm leaning towards the electric universe theory myself.

edit on 14/9/11 by auraura because: smelling pistake.

Nice post. Seems like the debate is becoming more fascinating by hour. After I didn't listen to that troll's advice and didn't email anyone, I'll keep quoting people who are smarter than us, maybe trolls come to their senses (joking) -- so this is Dr. O on Dr. Z:

"It's a bit odd that the author doesn't recognize that spatial angles can be expressed either in their own units such as degrees, or in units of time (here: "3+ days") as I did (and said so clearly and repeatedly throughout my papers and interviews). So he proceeded on to check the alignments from actual coordinates, only to "prove" what I said at the outline: that the alignments are a feature which controls the seismicity in individual bodies of mass permanently, i.e., via magnified mass-resonance (without a permanent state of unrest -- meaning oscillations going on around the clock -- there could be no magnification of such an unrest going on all year round, either, which is why you can't speak of any correlation whatsoever let alone search for one!) Oh, well. After sitting on his paper for two weeks, I decided to mention it here as a confirmation anyway -- for his effort if not for anything else. (We also seem to share political views against Anglo-Zionist empire, judging by numerous notices on his homepages, as friends warned me about on 14 Sep)."


So what the good Dr. is saying here is that he mentioned Dr. Z's paper (as a confirmation) only because it confirms the obvious. (I guess you don't have to put obvious things in a science paper,at least not to other scientists). It took him 2 weeks to decide on this (wow, talking about patience, just as the research took him like 7 years), and he did so -- but only out of sympathy for Dr.Z's political views. In other words, Dr. O felt sorry for the guy!

OK I admit it, I thought Dr. Z has proven something other than being stupid (if the email is authentic), but now it seems he is just stupid regardless of the email.

So it was obvious. Dr. O simply needs no more proofs. I mean, 3 days, mentioned about 100 timeZ, but not enough for Dr. Z to catch it, instead he went on chasing ghosts... oops, angles (and he uses degrees -- priceless!)

Oh man this thread is now getting really hilarious

Originally posted by ttimez
that the alignments are a feature which controls the seismicity in individual bodies of mass permanently, i.e., via magnified mass-resonance (without a permanent state of unrest -- meaning oscillations going on around the clock

What is "mass-resonance"? Be specific when answering, if you provide any math then it's even better.

reply to post by ttimez

After I didn't listen to that troll's advice and didn't email anyone

If you do not e-mail Dr. Zanette to confirm your accusations, I submit that you be banned for personal abuse and trolling..

reply to post by ttimez


Since we seem to be working as in between men for Dr. Zanette and Omerbashich now, here is Dr. Zanette's response to Omerbashich.

I see from the thread on "electric comets" that our friend ttimez is
becoming a little violent towards me, but I am still waiting for his email!

Notwithstanding all this, I would like to make a little technical point
about so-called good Dr's remarks on my Comment: the alleged equivalence
between angles and times, with respect to the definition of alignments,
is FALSE. A bit of geometry, or a drawing, or some common sense proves
this immediately: the variation with time of the angle between the
aligned planets strongly depends on their mutual distances.

Think, for instance, of an alignment SUN-EARTH-JUPITER as compared with
an alignment SUN-EARTH-NEPTUNE (or Poseidon?). In -say- a three days'
period, the angle between the Sun and Jupiter, as seen from the Earth,
varies much more than the angle between the Sun and Neptune, just
because Neptune is much more distant from our planet than Jupiter. I
will not go the maths of this: a good drawing shows the point clearly.

The lack of a precise definition of what an alignment is, remains one of
the major technical drawbacks of Dr. O's paper. Naturally, this drawback
is obscured -if not squarely annihilated- by the delirious framework of
the whole thing.

Best wishes. Damián

The History Channel had a show on several times today about earthquakes. They induce earthquakes in a laboratory using an electric charge stored in a capacitor. When the capacitor releases its stored energy, it creates seismic waves in a crystalline medium. They used a high speed camera, over a million frames a second, to show how the waves propagate from the release of energy from a capacitor.

Plasma and the changing solar system

Posted: March 10th, 2011



www.markheley.com...

reply to post by Dalke07

Posted here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And many other times. No one can seem to find out who Dr. Alexey Dmitriev is or when or where his paper was actually "published".

Deep Impact—Confirming the Electric Comet

Published on Sep 20, 2012 by ThunderboltsProject In the history of comet science, the most critical moment for the electric comet model was the evening of July 4, 2005. That was when a projectile from the Deep Impact probe struck the comet Tempel 1. The result was a stunning confirmation of key predictions by Wallace Thornhill and others. Since that event, comet discoveries have added numerous additional confirmations.

25 minuets and I actually watched this NASA search for water because it didn't find any.
What NASA did find was shock waves that blew apart the probe.

Comet looks UFO powered so why are flashes in the sky not from a static powered ship.