ASTROLOGY AND EARTHQUAKES
Really
> Astrology and Earthquakes
>
> We are presenting here a detailed analysis of the
> earthquake according to the planetary positions. Four
> astrology heavyweights have given us a feedback on the
> possible connection between happening of Earthquakes and
> astronomy and astrology.
Jay, there is no connection between astronomy and astrology. You can stand on
your head or smoke a pipe through your backside, but you will _never_ be able to
legitimize the hocus-pocus asstrollogy crap as a "science". It's bogus, bogus,
bogus!
Warning: Astrology is for entertainment purposes only. Asstrollogers cannot be
held responsible for the likely divergence of their predictions and actual
events.
El Pulpo!
BTW.
Jay, stop flooding the groups. One day you will make someone mad Vato.
El Pulpo!
Volker Doormann
> "Jai Maharaj" <j...@mantra.com news:alt.bonehead.jai-maharaj > wrote:
>
> > Astrology and Earthquakes
>
> Jay, there is no connection between astronomy and astrology.
Hi Really,
light drops not off because you close your eyes. Science is to keep open
the eyes for all possible correlations, especially for things, which
_seems_ not logical to us.
(BTW, I have filtered Jay M.)
If you state a nonconnection between astronomy and astrology, it means
nothing if you have no proof of it.
Astronomy is a basic trade in astrology since the days in Mesopotia 4000
years ago and it was the evidence of events like earthquakes or war times
in correlation to eclipses or low order divisions of the 6 times 60° of
the course of the planets on their path on the sky, what generates the
sky science including spherical geometry, planetary movement or handle a
circle mathematically. And if one is able to recognize a sense in the
great scientific astronomical and mathematical work of the people in
Mesopotamia, then he must realize, that they have taken the planetary and
eclipse cycles for understanding the 'signs of the time' in a
psychological manner.
> You can stand on your head or smoke a pipe through your backside, but
> you will _never_ be able to legitimize the hocus-pocus asstrollogy
> crap as a "science".
Things are or not. They doesn't need politics.
Since the Sumerinan Mathematicans in Mesopotamia have connected some
special astronomical planetary aspects with earthquake, Astrologers have
ever stated a connection between low order divisions of planets on
eclipic circle positions and earthqakes.
If you are interested, you can take a look on the following list, where
the angle positions of some planets are listed, on the time when an
earthqake occour on earth:
yyyy.mm.dd hh:mm:ss
-----------------------------------------------------
Mexico
1991.01.01 00:06:31 Sun 280°03'35"
Uranus 279°43'47" (0°)
Burma
1991.01.05 14:57:11 Sun 284°21'21"
Neptun 284°16'36" (0°)
Turkey
1992.03.13 17:18:40 Mars 318°52'
Uranus 317°22'
Neptun 318°34' (0°)
Moon 104°23'
Saturn 314°13' (180°)
Hokkaido
1993.01.15 11:06:06 Uranus 318°31'
Neptun 318°54' (0°)
Sun 295°19'
Pluto 235°00' (60°)
California
1994.01.17 12:30:55 Sun 297°10'
Venus 297°16' (0°)
Pluto 237°32' (60°)
Uranus 291°45'
Neptun 291°05' (0°)
Kobe Jpn.
1995.01.16 20:45:52 Sun 296°15'
Uranus 296°24' (0°)
Moon 116°25' (180°)(within 20 min.ofFullMoon)
Jamnagar Ind.
2001.01.26 03:16:41 Sun 306°14'
Neptun 306°16' (0°)
Mars 229°20'
Uranus 319°59' (90°)
San Salvador
2001.02.13 14:22 Sun 324°57'
Mercury 323°40' (0°)
Moon 216°27'
Neptun 306° 57' (90°)
Sun 324°57'
Saturn 54°25' (90°)
Mercury 323°40'
Saturn 54°25' (90°)
Mars 239°20'
Jupiter 61°48' (180°)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the same day (2001.02.13), as the last mentioned earthquake occoured,
a second one has occoured in Sumatra, with approx. the same planetary
positions, as the local meridian projected to the ecliptic on 178°00',
while the local meridian of the San Salvador time cuts the ecliptic at an
angle of 269°59', which is also approx an angle of 90° (exact 92°).
It may be random or not, I have done no statistic work on it, but it
doesn't lokes like random data.
I have stated and written here in sci.geo.earthquake the rules I have
found. I think these rules can be recognized in the data I have listed
here. And not at least the two quakes on the 2001.02.13 shows, that the
longitude of an earthquake coordidinate fits an ecliptic position that
has also low order division positions like p.e 180°, 90°, 60°, 45, 30° or
0°.
If one computes a value I, which is summarized from the temporal
ecliptically positions pos[1] to pos[10] with
1=Sun,2=Mon,3=Mer,4=Ven,5=Mar,6=Jup,7=Sat,8=Ura,9=Nep,10=Plu
of the main bodies in our solar system by the following algebra ...
for i := 1 to 10 do
for k := 1 to 10 do
begin
alpha := diff(pos[i],pos[k]);
{diff(a,b) computes the angle distance of 2 bodies}
if (k<>i) and (k>i) then
begin
y := 4 * sqr(cos(alpha));
y0 := abs(0-y); { 90° }
y1 := abs(1-y); { 60° + 120°}
y2 := abs(2-y); { 45° + 135° }
y3 := abs(3-y); { 30° }
y4 := abs(4-y); { 0° + 180° }
z0 := 1/(y0+0.005); {The value of 0.005 limits the peak height}
z1 := 1/(y1+0.005);
z2 := 1/(y2+0.005);
z3 := 1/(y3+0.005);
z4 := 1/(y4+0.005);
I := I + (z0+z1+z2+z3+z4);
end;
end;
... the value may indicate the state of harmonic resonance.
I have done this algebra for every 5 minutes for the month of
January in 1995, and the value peaks for 20:45 on the 16th, exakt
to that time when the Kobe Quake has occoured.
Random?
Because these rules are not only to be recognized for geocentric events,
they also can be recognized for sun flare events ( It should be
noticed here, that the sun flares may have connections to the
temperatures on earth (a Scientist from Denmark has shown a correlation
of clouds densitiy and the average temperatures in the past)).
J H Nelson, Shortwave Radio Propagation Correlation with Planetary
Positions, RCA Review March 1951 pp 26-34. J.H. Nelson, Planetary
Position Effects on Shortwave Signal Qualities Electical Engeneering
(AIEE USA) Vol 71 pp 421-424 (1952).
If you are able to read German, please feel free to take a look on my
page:
http://doormann.tripod.com/moden01.htm
I have no idea weather the connection of planetary positions and
earthquake are physical or astrological caused. If it is physical, then I
think, only some trigger energy of gravitational waves, maybe focussed by
the bodies in our sun system generate modes on our earth as they are
measured also from the sun can caues such effects. If it is 'only' pure
astrology, never mind, who cares.
Things are or not.
Thank you
Volker
--.
Volker Doormann
Hamburg Germany
e-mail: doo...@attglobal.net
Volker Doormann
> Nice subset.
> Now post the positions for all Earthquakes...
Nice demand.
Now jump out of the window..
> That is the problem you have mined the Data for just events which fit
> your need, and ignore those that don't fit the requirement of an
> astrologers current pet claim.
OK Bob.
You read the algorithm:
> > for i := 1 to 10 do
> > for k := 1 to 10 do
> > begin
> > alpha := diff(pos[i],pos[k]);
> > {diff(a,b) computes the angle distance of 2 bodies}
> > if (k<>i) and (k>i) then
> > begin
> > y := 4 * sqr(cos(alpha));
> > y0 := abs(0-y); { 90° }
> > y1 := abs(1-y); { 60° + 120°}
> > y2 := abs(2-y); { 45° + 135° }
> > y3 := abs(3-y); { 30° }
> > y4 := abs(4-y); { 0° + 180° }
> > z0 := 1/(y0+0.005); {The value of 0.005 limits the peak
> > height}
> > z1 := 1/(y1+0.005);
> > z2 := 1/(y2+0.005);
> > z3 := 1/(y3+0.005);
> > z4 := 1/(y4+0.005);
> > I := I + (z0+z1+z2+z3+z4);
> > end;
> > end;
> >
> >I have done this algebra for every 5 minutes for the month of
> >January in 1995, and the value peaks for 20:45 on the 16th, exakt
> >to that time when the Kobe Quake has occoured.
> >
> >Random?
Using the same algorithm on two month, it calculates for
» the minute of the earthquake a maximum value «
for:
Date: 1995.01.16:
http://doormann.tripod.com/19950116.gif
*AND*
Date 2001.01.26:
http://doormann.tripod.com/260101.gif
still random? Not significant?
> Doctoring data sets makes you look foolish.
[ ] I can write nonsens.
[ ] I can't verify Data.
Volker
Volker Doormann
Bob Officer wrote:
> >> That is the problem you have mined the Data for just events which
> >> fit your need, and ignore those that don't fit the requirement of
> >> an astrologers current pet claim.
> >
> >OK Bob.
>
> IT is easily falsified...
Nonsense. The relation of big earthquake events with a plot of planetary
coordinates including 10 bodies and some 10 division angles and some 10
matching local longitudes including drifting continental plates is _not_
a simple "1 bit yes/no question/problem". It is more fuzzy, more than you
may assume. If things around earthquakes would be as simple as you would
substatiate, at least one scientist has already solved the »earthquake
process in time« in the past.
> >> >[algorithm source text]
> >> >
> >> >I have done this algebra for every 5 minutes for the month of
> >> >January in 1995, and the value peaks for 20:45 on the 16th, exakt
> >> >to that time when the Kobe Quake has occoured.
> >> >
> >> >Random?
> >
> >Using the same algorithm on two month, it calculates for
> >
> > » the minute of the earthquake a maximum value «
> >
> >for:
> >
> > Date: 1995.01.16:
> >
> > http://doormann.tripod.com/19950116.gif
>
> Where are the events equal to the Kobe Quake, that should have
> happened on Jan 1, duel events happening on the 4th, 11th... and so
> on with every peak your graph shows.
Your phantasy.
The _highest_ peak results from the coincidence of the most low order
division angles for the same time. I never stated, that each single peak
means or indicate an earthquake.
I stated that the same 5 minutes out of 44640 minutes in the first month
in the year 1995 where a simple low order harmonic algorithm delivers the
highest value are identical with the 5 minutes in that month, when the
Kobe Earthquake occour.
The chance is 5 : 44640 or 1 : 8928 that this is random.
> > http://doormann.tripod.com/260101.gif
>
> Still where are the events for the matching peaks during that month?
> 23rd, and 24th?
See obove.
In the same 5 minutes out of 44640 minutes in the first month in the year
2001 the same algorithm delivers the highest value as in the 5 minutes in
that month, when the Earthquake in India occour.
Again, the chance is 5 : 44640 or 1 : 8928 that this is random.
And the chance, that this 2 cases are random is 1/8928 * 1/8928 or
1.2e-8 (!) .
> >[ ] I can't verify Data.
>
> Selecting subsets of data is bad science.
No. Science is the ability to listen to all facts. Examples are also
facts. They are like single measuring points in a graph und they might be
not fulfil the hole truth, but they doesn't indicate bad science.
IMHO it depends on the ability of the scientist, wether measuring points
results in understandable physics, not necessary data itselfs.
> Not pointing out that peaks happen without matching events makes it
> even worse.
Your phantasy is still far away from that what i wrote.
If one is interested to verify the presented curves and needs geocentric
ephemeris of the 10 bodies for the two month in question, it can be
downloaded p.e. from:
http://www.astro.ch/swisseph/ae/1900/ae_1995.pdf
http://www.astro.ch/swisseph/ae/2000/ae_2001.pdf
Volker
Thomas A. Russ
> Bob Officer wrote:
>
> > >> That is the problem you have mined the Data for just events which
> > >> fit your need, and ignore those that don't fit the requirement of
> > >> an astrologers current pet claim.
> > >
> > >OK Bob.
> >
> > IT is easily falsified...
>
> Nonsense. The relation of big earthquake events with a plot of planetary
> coordinates including 10 bodies and some 10 division angles and some 10
> matching local longitudes including drifting continental plates is _not_
> a simple "1 bit yes/no question/problem". It is more fuzzy, more than you
> may assume. If things around earthquakes would be as simple as you would
> substatiate, at least one scientist has already solved the »earthquake
> process in time« in the past.
So it seems that you are basically saying that there is no predictive
value to your work. It would appear that you are able to construct some
correlation in RETROSPECT, but not be able to do anything prospectively.
As a further aside, unless you can make your hypothesis less fuzzy, as
you term it, it will have to remain an unscientific hypothesis. One of
the essential characteristics of a scientific hypothesis is that the
hypothesis must be defeasible. In other words, there must be some way
to demonstrate a failure of the hypothesis. Can you give us an example
of data which, if discovered, would render your hypothesis false?
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute t...@isi.edu
Volker Doormann
"Thomas A. Russ" wrote:
> Volker Doormann <doo...@attglobal.net> writes:
> > ... The relation of big earthquake events with a plot of planetary
> > coordinates including 10 bodies and some 10 division angles and some 10
> > matching local longitudes including drifting continental plates is _not_
> > a simple "1 bit yes/no question/problem". It is more fuzzy, more than you
> > may assume. If things around earthquakes would be as simple as you would
> > substatiate, at least one scientist has already solved the »earthquake
> > process in time« in the past.
>
> So it seems that you are basically saying that there is no predictive
> value to your work. It would appear that you are able to construct some
> correlation in RETROSPECT, but not be able to do anything prospectively.
Not realy. If you have followed my demonstration with the simple harmonic
algorithm, then you can understand, that this computation can be made _after_
and event _as well_ as previosly. If one had run the algorithm somewhat in the
past, the computed result value is still the same with a maximum on the 26th of
January 2001 resp. for the minutes on the 16th of January in 1995 for Kobe,
*because* the value is mathematical summarized only from simple harmonics and
from *well* known planetary motions for the _future_ (!). For that in princip
it can be used als prospectivily. The main problem I see is to decide wether
a spike in a that curve 'must' result in an earthquake or *not*, because also
if there is a planetary trigger for the strained continental plates, nobody
knows, if this trigger is high enough. Second, a single location in lateral
and longitunal coordinates seems until now not to result from this planetary
caluculations. For that it is for nobody usefull to know an accurate time
for a 'possible' quake, when there no location can be given to or only some
6 or 4 longitudes.
> As a further aside, unless you can make your hypothesis less fuzzy, as
> you term it, it will have to remain an unscientific hypothesis. One of
> the essential characteristics of a scientific hypothesis is that the
> hypothesis must be defeasible. In other words, there must be some way
> to demonstrate a failure of the hypothesis. Can you give us an example
> of data which, if discovered, would render your hypothesis false?
I think you missunderstand my aim. I'm not Galilei and this newsgroup isn't
the Church of Rome. I have no thesis. I have repeated named a coincidence
of two processes, harmonical planetary aspekts in relation to multiple
local longitudes, on one of that have earthquake taken place in the past
with an significant harmonic index of the summarized algebra. Thats it.
I have the same question to this as you.
Because of that I think it is the time first to verify the presented data. And
I do not think that anyone can run down the significance of the summerized curve
data I have shown for the month of January for the years 1995 and 2001 created
with the same algorithm.
You ask for a fasification setup. OK.
I have studied a lot of big earthquakes, and I have found for earthquakes (>7.0)
_always_ a planetary situation, where at least 3 planets have an low order
division angle of the ecliptic (360° divided by n, n=(1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12),
using an error of max. 2-3°. Additional mostly one of the ecliptic n-angle
position is identical with the cuting point 'medium coeli' (p.e. midday
ecliptic position of the sun) of the local meridian of the earthquake
location. That means - AFAIK - that *no* big Earthquake had happend, while
__minor then 3 planets__ had simultaniously geocentric angle distances that
are fitting in these ranges.
One further interesting point is, that not a minor part of big earthquakes
occour on a situation, where the ascending point of the ecliptic ist very near
to East and logically the descending point of the ecliptic is very near to West
observed from the local meridian of the event. This situation occours
only twice a day on each latitude, also on low latitudes. It is a situation,
where the _longitude_ of the earthquake location has equal angle distances
of 90° to two locations on the equator, where the zenith and nadir direction
(center of earth) build one straight line from one part of the eccliptic
to the opposite one. To my experience this is also more then randomly.
Some (!) examples are this earthquakes:
28. Dec 1989 Australia
20. Oct 1991 India
30. Sep 1993 Latur India
13. Feb 2001 San Salvador
13. Feb 2001 Sumatra
Ecliptical graphs: see -> <http://doormann.tripod.com/eqs01.htm>
Please note the difference angle of the ecliptical ascending point
(Asc) to the medium coeli (Mc) on the ecliptic.
Thank you
Volker
--.
Volker Doormann Hamburg Germany
Thomas A. Russ
>
> "Thomas A. Russ" wrote:
> > So it seems that you are basically saying that there is no predictive
> > value to your work. It would appear that you are able to construct some
> > correlation in RETROSPECT, but not be able to do anything prospectively.
>
> Not realy. If you have followed my demonstration with the simple harmonic
> algorithm, then you can understand, that this computation can be made _after_
> a spike in a that curve 'must' result in an earthquake or *not*, because also
> if there is a planetary trigger for the strained continental plates, nobody
> knows, if this trigger is high enough.
That is what I meant by not having any predictive value. It appears
that you cannot tell in advance whether the coincidences you have
noticed will be associated with any activity or not. It seems to me
that this greatly weakens any argument for a cause-and-effect
relationship.
This also ties in to BoB Officer (I think?) challenges about the missing
events at other high points of the cycle.
> > As a further aside, unless you can make your hypothesis less fuzzy, as
> > you term it, it will have to remain an unscientific hypothesis. One of
> > the essential characteristics of a scientific hypothesis is that the
> > hypothesis must be defeasible. In other words, there must be some way
> > to demonstrate a failure of the hypothesis. Can you give us an example
> > of data which, if discovered, would render your hypothesis false?
>
> I think you missunderstand my aim. I'm not Galilei and this newsgroup isn't
> the Church of Rome. I have no thesis.
You're right about part of this. This newsgroup is attempting
(sometimes more successfully than others :) to apply principles if
scientific and evidential reasoning to claims made. That would be in
contrast to a faith-based interpretation of the world.
But you do have a thesis. You are asserting some connection between
astrological observations and earthquake activity.
> You ask for a fasification setup. OK.
>
> I have studied a lot of big earthquakes, and I have found for earthquakes (>7.0)
> _always_ a planetary situation, where at least 3 planets have an low order
> division angle of the ecliptic (360° divided by n, n=(1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12),
> using an error of max. 2-3°.
Well I guess I don't quite understand exactly what a "division angle of
the ecliptic" is, but it would appear from the in-line definition that
this would be angles of 360°, 180°, 120°, 90°, 60°, 45°, 36° and 30°,
each one with an error of +/- 3°. I will presume that you can measure
these angles in either direction around the circle. That would mean
that for any given point on the circle, it will be satisified by a body
that is 0-3°, 27-39°, 42-48°, 57-63°, 87-93°, 117-123°, and 177-180°
away (and symmetrically for the other half circle). This accounts for
about 26% of the angular measures.
Now, since we haven't specified exactly which planets need to be in this
alignment, the main question that you need to answer is what percentage
of all time is included by your criteria and what percentage is
excluded? The real weakness in your claim seems to be that your
proposed correlating phenomena occurs quite frequently, whereas large
earthquakes occur very infrequently. That, in and of itself, would seem
to be evidence against your hypothesis. Frankly, I don't seen any way
for you to rebut this problem.
And this, of course, completely ignores the lack of any plausible
mechanism by which a causal link could be operating.
> Additional mostly one of the ecliptic n-angle
> position is identical with the cuting point 'medium coeli' (p.e. midday
> ecliptic position of the sun) of the local meridian of the earthquake
> location.
The "mostly" is problematical, since it doesn't allow an objective, 3rd
party observer to determine whether the condition should hold or not.
Apparently it doesn't have to be true, otherwise it would be a firm
condition. Since it isn't universally true of the observations, why is
it even mentioned in the hypothesis?
> That means - AFAIK - that *no* big Earthquake had happend, while
> __minor then 3 planets__ had simultaniously geocentric angle distances that
> are fitting in these ranges.
So, does this mean that if someone finds an earthquake of magnitude >
7.0 for which fewer than 3 planets fulfilled your criterion, that you
will abandon the hypothesis that star positions have anything to do with
earthquakes?
One of the real problems with just proposing correlations is that if you
make the universe of objects you observe and can draw on large enough,
you will always be able to find some correlation with historic data. If
you find you have to often revise the theory in response to new events,
that should be a sign that you should abandon the approach, since it may
mean you are chasing spurious, chance coincidences.
Stealing an example from Edward Tufte's book "The Visual Display of
Quantitative Information", p.15, there is a chart showing that in 1929
both the New York and London stock prices were inversely correlated with
the amount of solar radiation reaching earth. His commentary was "A
silly theory means a silly graphic."
Volker Doormann
> Volker Doormann <doo...@attglobal.net> writes:
> >
> > "Thomas A. Russ" wrote:
> > > So it seems that you are basically saying that there is no predictive
> > > value to your work. It would appear that you are able to construct some
> > > correlation in RETROSPECT, but not be able to do anything prospectively.
> >
> > Not realy. If you have followed my demonstration with the simple harmonic
> > algorithm, then you can understand, that this computation can be made _after_
> > and event _as well_ as previosly....The main problem I see is to decide wether
> > a spike in a that curve 'must' result in an earthquake or *not*, because also
> > if there is a planetary trigger for the strained continental plates, nobody
> > knows, if this trigger is high enough.
>
> That is what I meant by not having any predictive value. It appears
> that you cannot tell in advance whether the coincidences you have
> noticed will be associated with any activity or not.
Correct. Do *you* know any scientific argument, that is related to that?
> It seems to me that this greatly weakens any argument for a cause-and-effect
> relationship.
Maybe. But who cares. No scientist is able to tell you any true day- or night-
temperature in your town for the 10th of May in 2001, and I'm shure, that a lot of
scientist are involved in that 'science' of meterology with more then a
100MHz Pentium CPU, that I use.
> > I think you missunderstand my aim. I'm not Galilei and this newsgroup isn't
> > the Church of Rome. I have no thesis.
>
> You're right about part of this. This newsgroup is attempting
> (sometimes more successfully than others :) to apply principles if
> scientific and evidential reasoning to claims made. That would be in
> contrast to a faith-based interpretation of the world.
As far as I know, no one of this scientists, who are working since decades on the
'Science of Earthquakes', ever have demonstated, that one is able to foresee
still one earthquake process in time. Please correct me, if I'm wrong. And if I'm right,
then I do not can see any argument, that proofs, that 'The Science of Earthquakes'
is more then a reporting network of events in the *past*.
You are wrong, if think, that any of that, what I have written is involved with
faith. I repeat it for you. All that, what is involved in my calculations are PURE
ASTRONOMICAL data, as they are published by the NASA.
> But you do have a thesis. You are asserting some connection between
> astrological observations and earthquake activity.
This thread may titled with astrology, but astrology is in no way involved in this.
PURE ASTRONOMICAL Data, as they are published by the NASA have been taken to
summerize the harmonic index. Please do not mix this up.
> > You ask for a fasification setup. OK.
> >
> > I have studied a lot of big earthquakes, and I have found for earthquakes
> > (>7.0)
> > _always_ a planetary situation, where at least 3 planets have an low order
> > division angle of the ecliptic (360° divided by n, n=(1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12),
> > using an error of max. 2-3°.
>
> Well I guess I don't quite understand exactly what a "division angle of
> the ecliptic" is, but it would appear from the in-line definition that
> this would be angles of 360°, 180°, 120°, 90°, 60°, 45°, 36° and 30°,
> each one with an error of +/- 3°.
Right. It is simple a division of a circle with _integer_ numbers.
> I will presume that you can measure
> these angles in either direction around the circle. That would mean
> that for any given point on the circle, it will be satisified by a body
> that is 0-3°, 27-39°
I think you mean: 27-33°
> , 42-48°, 57-63°, 87-93°, 117-123°, and 177-180°
Because multiple angles of 30° are involved, the range of 150°+- 3° = 147-153°
are must also taken in account.
> away (and symmetrically for the other half circle). This accounts for
> about 26% of the angular measures.
Yes.
> Now, since we haven't specified exactly which planets need to be in this
> alignment, the main question that you need to answer is what percentage
> of all time is included by your criteria and what percentage is
> excluded?
There is no time excluded.
> The real weakness in your claim seems to be that your
> proposed correlating phenomena occurs quite frequently, whereas large
> earthquakes occur very infrequently. That, in and of itself, would seem
> to be evidence against your hypothesis. Frankly, I don't seen any way
> for you to rebut this problem.
I think that this problem results from your imagine, that an computable
index is compulsorily bound with eartquake events in a linear manner.
But this must not be true. I do not know how big the harmonic index must be,
that this results in an earthquake. I think it is similar to a resonating body,
like a glass that receives soundwaves, where it depends on many facts, at what
level of energy the glass is breaking. Do you can imagine, that this level
of energy is different, wether the sound comes from top or from the side?
And moreover, if the sound comes from p.e. three directions inphase
which are 120° apart from each other? If you agree, then shurly you can
estimate, that a temporary planetary setup of 10 bodies in a plane (ecliptic)
can change the threshold for an earthquake likewise.
> And this, of course, completely ignores the lack of any plausible
> mechanism by which a causal link could be operating.
Things are not always linear. If the people should drive their cars only by
positive and/or negative 1g acceleration packs in time to a target, they never
would be able to fix this, because the relation between acceleration and distance
is strictly nonlinear. I think, it is more necessary to learn from nature, what
happens really, than to call for plausibility, waht ever this mens . And that
scientist of the 'science of earthquakes' must try & learn new pathes, if
they would not be fired from the society, that seems to me unalterable.
> > Additional mostly one of the ecliptic n-angle
> > position is identical with the cuting point 'medium coeli' (p.e. midday
> > ecliptic position of the sun) of the local meridian of the earthquake
> > location.
>
> The "mostly" is problematical, since it doesn't allow an objective, 3rd
> party observer to determine whether the condition should hold or not.
> Apparently it doesn't have to be true, otherwise it would be a firm
> condition. Since it isn't universally true of the observations, why is
> it even mentioned in the hypothesis?
I have reported experience. I do not know the statistical value of this plots.
If one is interested to make a dissertation on this, maybe hopefully then
there are more anwers than (new) questions.
> > That means - AFAIK - that *no* big Earthquake had happend, while
> > __minor then 3 planets__ had simultaniously geocentric angle distances that
> > are fitting in these ranges.
>
> So, does this mean that if someone finds an earthquake of magnitude >
> 7.0 for which fewer than 3 planets fulfilled your criterion, that you
> will abandon the hypothesis that star positions have anything to do with
> earthquakes?
Are you realy not from the church of Rome?
I think if there is not a _significant_ number of earthquakes out of the known,
that are fitting in my rules, then we can discuss on this later.
> One of the real problems with just proposing correlations is that if you
> make the universe of objects you observe and can draw on large enough,
> you will always be able to find some correlation with historic data. If
> you find you have to often revise the theory in response to new events,
> that should be a sign that you should abandon the approach, since it may
> mean you are chasing spurious, chance coincidences.
Your thinking is only based on statistic. You talk about the universe and the
philosophy of proofs. I talk about the science of earthquakes through a yet unknown
possible relation of planetary positions and earthquakes. I have given a hint.
Nobody must follow that path.
Thank you
Volker
--.
"Don't open your diamonds in a vegetable market. Tie them in bundle and keep them
in your heart, and go your own way." "A diamond was laying in the street covered
with dirt. Many fools passed by. Someone who knew diamonds picked it up." (Kabir)
<http://doormann.tripod.com/moden01.htm>
Thomas A. Russ
> > It seems to me that this greatly weakens any argument for a cause-and-effect
> > relationship.
>
> Maybe. But who cares. No scientist is able to tell you any true day- or night-
> temperature in your town for the 10th of May in 2001, and I'm shure, that a lot of
> scientist are involved in that 'science' of meterology with more then a
> 100MHz Pentium CPU, that I use.
I must confess I don't see the point of this line of argument.
As far as I know, there aren't any meteorologists making any claims
about being able to make any such predictions.
> As far as I know, no one of this scientists, who are working since
> decades on the 'Science of Earthquakes', ever have demonstated, that
> one is able to foresee still one earthquake process in time. Please
> correct me, if I'm wrong. And if I'm right, then I do not can see any
> argument, that proofs, that 'The Science of Earthquakes' is more then
> a reporting network of events in the *past*.
From my outside observers perspective, I think this taking too narrow a
view of things. Prediction of specific earthquakes is not necessarily
the only benchmark by which to measure the scientific progress made in
seismology. The development of the theory of plate tectonics goes a
long way toward explaining why earthquakes happen where they do.
Understanding of the processes of fault rupture has done much to allow a
prediction of the potential size of earthquakes along particular
faults. This allows one to make informed decisions about the
requirements for building construction.
Now, in a separate thread, Gerhard Fryer has raised some questions about
whether earthquakes are, in fact, predictable in principle, let alone in
practice. If that conjecture proves to be correct, then there may not
be any way to make such a prediction.
The inability of physicists to predict exactly when a particular
radioactive atom will decay doesn't mean that nuclear physics hasn't
amounted to much, nor does it detract from those things that can be said
about radioactive decay in the aggregate.
> You are wrong, if think, that any of that, what I have written is involved with
> faith. I repeat it for you. All that, what is involved in my calculations are PURE
> ASTRONOMICAL data, as they are published by the NASA.
The data may be based in fact. What I wonder about is why you think
there is any connection between the astronomical data and earthquakes.
It seems to me that all of the arguments point the other way: There is
no a priori connection between the cycles you analyze and events.
Sometimes events occur and sometimes not. There is no mechanism linking
the astronomical entities to earthquake fracture processes, and others.
> > But you do have a thesis. You are asserting some connection between
> > astrological observations and earthquake activity.
>
> This thread may titled with astrology, but astrology is in no way involved in this.
> PURE ASTRONOMICAL Data, as they are published by the NASA have been taken to
> summerize the harmonic index. Please do not mix this up.
OK.
> > > I have studied a lot of big earthquakes, and I have found for earthquakes
> > > (>7.0)
> > > _always_ a planetary situation, where at least 3 planets have an low order
> > > division angle of the ecliptic (360° divided by n, n=(1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12),
> > > using an error of max. 2-3°.
> >
> > Well I guess I don't quite understand exactly what a "division angle of
> > the ecliptic" is, but it would appear from the in-line definition that
> > this would be angles of 360°, 180°, 120°, 90°, 60°, 45°, 36° and 30°,
> > each one with an error of +/- 3°.
>
> Right. It is simple a division of a circle with _integer_ numbers.
>
> > I will presume that you can measure
> > these angles in either direction around the circle. That would mean
> > that for any given point on the circle, it will be satisified by a body
> > that is 0-3°, 27-39°
>
> I think you mean: 27-33°
No, I mean 27-39° because you have 30° +/- 3 and also 36° +/- 3 and they
overlap.
> > , 42-48°, 57-63°, 87-93°, 117-123°, and 177-180°
>
> Because multiple angles of 30° are involved, the range of 150°+- 3° = 147-153°
> are must also taken in account.
>
> > away (and symmetrically for the other half circle). This accounts for
> > about 26% of the angular measures.
>
> Yes.
Actually, it then looks like even more of the time period is being
covered. The larger the slice of all time during which some conjunction
occurs the more ridiculous it is to suppose that the conjunctions have
any meaning.
Taken to an extreme, I would imagine that for any given time during the
year, you would be able to find a correlation similar to the ones you
have been writing about. If that is true, then it would truly mean that
there is no predictive value, since any time at all would be covered.
> > Now, since we haven't specified exactly which planets need to be in this
> > alignment, the main question that you need to answer is what percentage
> > of all time is included by your criteria and what percentage is
> > excluded?
>
> There is no time excluded.
I must suppose my argument was not clear. If there really is no time
excluded, then the proposed correlations are meaningless, since you
would be able to find one for any time at all during the year.
What I was asking is what part of the entire year is completely free
from any of the harmonic index conjunctions that you write about?
> I think it is similar to a resonating body,
> like a glass that receives soundwaves, where it depends on many facts, at what
> level of energy the glass is breaking.
On what basis to you believe this to be true? Are you aware of any
evidence that there is any energy, harmonic or otherwise that is present?
> If you agree, then shurly you can
> estimate, that a temporary planetary setup of 10 bodies in a plane (ecliptic)
> can change the threshold for an earthquake likewise.
Actually I can't imagine, let alone estimate, that there is any such
connection. Why do you think there is such a connection?
> > And this, of course, completely ignores the lack of any plausible
> > mechanism by which a causal link could be operating.
>
> Things are not always linear. If the people should drive their cars only by
> positive and/or negative 1g acceleration packs in time to a target, they never
> would be able to fix this, because the relation between acceleration and distance
> is strictly nonlinear.
Actually, I think this is false. There doesn't seem any theoretical
reason why people couldn't do this. (There is the practical problem
that continuous 1g acceleration for any length of time will result in
speeds that are too high to be plausible, but I'll ignore that for the
moment.)
Just because a process is nonlinear doesn't mean that it is
unpredictable. Aerodynamic drag is nonlinear, but that doesn't stop
anyone from either designing aircraft, nor from predicting what the top
speed of such an aircraft is likely to be based on information about its
drag characteristics and the propulsive power available.
> > So, does this mean that if someone finds an earthquake of magnitude >
> > 7.0 for which fewer than 3 planets fulfilled your criterion, that you
> > will abandon the hypothesis that star positions have anything to do with
> > earthquakes?
>
> Are you realy not from the church of Rome?
Truly not.
I am merely trying to see if your proposal can be considered a
scientific hypothesis. One characteristic of a scientific hypothesis is
that it is falsifiable. In other words, there are conditions under
which the hypothesis will be abandoned because it is found to be
inconsistent with the facts.
I am trying to assess what conditions would lead you to conclude that
there is no correlation between the location of astronomical objects and
earthquake activity. To qualify as a scientific hypothesis, there must
be some potential evidence that would invalidate your proposal. If
there is no possible evidence that would invalidate the hypothesis, then
it would not be a scientific hypothesis. Instead it would either be
vacuously true and therefore uninteresting or else it would be an
article of faith rather than a testable theory explaining facts.
> I think if there is not a _significant_ number of earthquakes out of the known,
> that are fitting in my rules, then we can discuss on this later.
OK. What would a significant number of earthquakes be? The answer to
this question depends a lot on the ratio of times when an earthquake
should occur according to your hypothesis to the times when one should
not. This goes back to the question raised earlier as to which times
were excluded.
For example, if only 1% of a year were times when earthquakes were
supposed to be able to occur, then it would be a lot easier to test than
if 98% of the year were considered to be times when earthquakes were
likely to occur.
Could you compute the appropriate windows of potential activity and
non-activity for the rest of the year? What days and times are covered
and what days and times are excluded. That would allow a prospective
evaluation of your proposal.
> Your thinking is only based on statistic. You talk about the universe and the
> philosophy of proofs. I talk about the science of earthquakes through a yet unknown
> possible relation of planetary positions and earthquakes. I have given a hint.
The problem is that there are an infinite number of unknown relations
that one could propose. What distinguishes this one from any other
correlation that could be made? Why should anyone believe that
following this particular hint is likely to be more fruitful than
following some other path?
> Nobody must follow that path.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Mike Williams
ideas are described almost perfectly in Robert Park's book "Voodoo Science".
Doorman's ideas are a textbook example of what 1932 Nobel Prize-Winning
chemist Irving Langmuir called "pathological science" - "the science of
things that aren't so." Russ points out each of the logical fallacies that
typify such junk science.
Read the book. It's one of the better ones on the subject. I bet that Russ
has already read it, and doubt very much that Doorman should bother (for
reasons also well-covered in the book).
P.S. I inadvertently sent this post first to Thomas Russ' e-mail address.
Sorry!
--
Michael Williams
Arroyo Grande, CA USA
"Philosophy is a game with objectives and no rules.
Mathematics is a game with rules and no objectives."
"Thomas A. Russ" <t...@sevak.isi.edu> wrote in message
news:ymiitm1...@sevak.isi.edu...
Volker Doormann
"Thomas A. Russ" wrote:
> Volker Doormann <doo...@attglobal.net> writes:
>
> > > It seems to me that this greatly weakens any argument for a cause-and-effect
> > > relationship.
> >
> > Maybe. But who cares. No scientist is able to tell you any true day- or night-
> > temperature in your town for the 10th of May in 2001, and I'm shure, that a lot
> > of scientist are involved in that 'science' of meterology with more then a
> > 100MHz Pentium CPU, that I use.
>
> I must confess I don't see the point of this line of argument.
You argue, that my observations are not usefull for a practicable earthquake
forecast. But this idea is only in your haed; I never have spoken about forcasting
earthquakes. I have spoken from observations and coincidences. But out from *your*
idea you try to discredit my observations by the argument, that this must be
useless, because it can't fullfill *your* claims: »forcasting earthquakes«.
If the only value of your science is, that it can forcast proccesses, then I have
tried to remind you, that your claim to science is at lest not fulfilled by the
scientist of the 'science' of meterology.
> As far as I know, there aren't any meteorologists making any claims
> about being able to make any such predictions.
As far as I know from my TV, CNN and many friends around the world, meteoroligist
predict every half hour temperatures for the future. If you are searching for
a forecast tool for eathquakes, you are wrong with me. I deal with science,
observations and Nature.
> > As far as I know, no one of this scientists, who are working since
> > decades on the 'Science of Earthquakes', ever have demonstated, that
> > one is able to foresee still one earthquake process in time. Please
> > correct me, if I'm wrong. And if I'm right, then I do not can see any
> > argument, that proofs, that 'The Science of Earthquakes' is more then
> > a reporting network of events in the *past*.
>
> From my outside observers perspective, I think this taking too narrow a
> view of things. Prediction of specific earthquakes is not necessarily
> the only benchmark by which to measure the scientific progress made in
> seismology. The development of the theory of plate tectonics goes a
> long way toward explaining why earthquakes happen where they do.
> Understanding of the processes of fault rupture has done much to allow a
> prediction of the potential size of earthquakes along particular
> faults. This allows one to make informed decisions about the
> requirements for building construction.
This debilitates not my argument about the incompetence of this science in
forecasting earthquakes.
> Now, in a separate thread, Gerhard Fryer has raised some questions about
> whether earthquakes are, in fact, predictable in principle, let alone in
> practice. If that conjecture proves to be correct, then there may not
> be any way to make such a prediction.
Philosophy. I have learned, that physical processes have a cause. And if
there is a an effect, then there must be a cause. It seems to me, that you
are direct the problem out of the world of natural science to a system of
philosophy or to authoreties of believing systems.
> The inability of physicists to predict exactly when a particular
> radioactive atom will decay doesn't mean that nuclear physics hasn't
> amounted to much, nor does it detract from those things that can be said
> about radioactive decay in the aggregate.
Shaking earth is simple Mechanics and not Quantum Mechanics. This argument
does not proof, that physical processes in general are not predictable.
> > You are wrong, if think, that any of that, what I have written is involved with
> > faith. I repeat it for you. All that, what is involved in my calculations are > > > PURE ASTRONOMICAL data, as they are published by the NASA.
>
> The data may be based in fact. What I wonder about is why you think
> there is any connection between the astronomical data and earthquakes.
Well, I have demonstrated, with one of several very simple harmonic algorithm that
delivers an summerized index, that is highest in _*two*_ _*different*_ time
sequences of one month (January 1995 and January 2001) for the time, when similary
an earthquake occour. This value is one out of 8928 5-minute time steps that are
possible in that month of 31 days. This means, that the chance that this is is
random is 1.2E-8. In opposite to you I wonder, that you can't see this significant
coincidence through my two grafic examples.
> It seems to me that all of the arguments point the other way: There is
> no a priori connection between the cycles you analyze and events.
> Sometimes events occur and sometimes not. There is no mechanism linking
> the astronomical entities to earthquake fracture processes, and others.
I have taken two time periods of 31 days. And I have summarized each 5 Minutes
the harmonic index from a very, very simple harmonic algorithm. This _simplest_
harmonic index already results for exact the 5-Minute time increment of the
earthquake event in ___both___ runs a maximum index.
What a possible mechanism is linked to this is a very very differnet question.
> > I think you mean: 27-33°
>
> No, I mean 27-39° because you have 30° +/- 3 and also 36° +/- 3 and they
> overlap.
Sorry, you are naturally right.
> Actually, it then looks like even more of the time period is being
> covered. The larger the slice of all time during which some conjunction
> occurs the more ridiculous it is to suppose that the conjunctions have
> any meaning.
>
> Taken to an extreme, I would imagine that for any given time during the
> year, you would be able to find a correlation similar to the ones you
> have been writing about. If that is true, then it would truly mean that
> there is no predictive value, since any time at all would be covered.
You are still and still doing philosophy of imaginations, but you have nothing said
to the significance of 1.2E-8 that is a statistical value from two times 8298
single summations. Shure, you still can reject significance values, if you claim,
that this setup must be enhanced by a factor of 10 or 1000. I do not claim that
this simple harmonic algorithm delivers any value, that is related to Richter. I
have used it only to show, that this harmonic distribution of planets is
computable. Each other algorithm, a Fast Furier Transformation or what else may
deliver a better harmonic index, thats fits to the most or all major earthquakes.
> > > Now, since we haven't specified exactly which planets need to be in this
> > > alignment, the main question that you need to answer is what percentage
> > > of all time is included by your criteria and what percentage is
> > > excluded?
> >
> > There is no time excluded.
>
> I must suppose my argument was not clear. If there really is no time
> excluded, then the proposed correlations are meaningless, since you
> would be able to find one for any time at all during the year.
I think, I have a different understanding of statistics.
If I calculate in a arbitrary time period of p.e. one day a harmonic index from the
temporary planetary positions for each 5 minutes, and the index is maximized at a
timestep of 08:50 pm UT, while all other values are lower, then I say, that I have
one value - out of 288 (12 * 24) - that has a coincidence with an earthquake event,
that was at 08:46:52.1 pm UT. The chance, that this relation is random is 1/288 =
3.5E-3. Now I extend the timespan from one day to 31 days. In that holds the time
of 20:50 pm UT on the 16th of the month the highest value, while all other have
again lower values. Then I say, that I have one value - out of 8928 (12 * 24 * 31)
- that has a coincidence with an earthquake event, that was at 20:46:52.1 pm UT on
the 16th of the month. The chance, that this relation ist random is now 1/8928 =
1.1E-4.
This extension from one day to 31 days shows to me, that this enhancement in the
timespan enlaged the significance and not, as you suggest makes it meaningless.
_If_ in the result of the computation for the month _would_ be appear some hundred
values, that are would be higher than the maximum value from the day comutation,
_then_ I would agree with you, that this indicates noise. But (!) this is not true.
> What I was asking is what part of the entire year is completely free
> from any of the harmonic index conjunctions that you write about?
Clever. I don't realy no. I have never searched for this. I think this would be a
good Job for those, who like to do Falsification work.
> > I think it is similar to a resonating body,
> > like a glass that receives soundwaves, where it depends on many facts, at what
> > level of energy the glass is breaking.
>
> On what basis to you believe this to be true? Are you aware of any
> evidence that there is any energy, harmonic or otherwise that is present?
One thing is the observation of coincidence and an other thing is the physical
process, that causes an effect.
A long as you state, that you do not see any significance, I think it is senseless
to discuss any possible natural physical process.
> > If you agree, then shurly you can
> > estimate, that a temporary planetary setup of 10 bodies in a plane (ecliptic)
> > can change the threshold for an earthquake likewise.
>
> Actually I can't imagine, let alone estimate, that there is any such
> connection. Why do you think there is such a connection?
Because from my observations in general each of the 10 bodies was involved
in a harmonic pattern while an earthquake.
> Just because a process is nonlinear doesn't mean that it is
> unpredictable. Aerodynamic drag is nonlinear, but that doesn't stop
> anyone from either designing aircraft, nor from predicting what the top
> speed of such an aircraft is likely to be based on information about its
> drag characteristics and the propulsive power available.
That what I meant is the thinking of cause => effect, that you have claimed.
This is not always visible to us. Maybe you know, that some expensive waether
effects in the last years (simple nonlinear) do not shows their source of cause
evidently. I think it would be helpful, if the amount of intelligence is adated to
the process, and not vice versa.
> I am merely trying to see if your proposal can be considered a
> scientific hypothesis. One characteristic of a scientific hypothesis ...
It may be of interest for you, wether my observations are fulfill your claims.
I'm realy not interested in that.
To me there is a possible relation between planets and earthquakes, because already
a simple harmonic index from the angulary distribution delivers a
significant correlation. Naturally it may of interest, what physical process(es)
are involved here, but also without knowing all details of the hole process it
seems to me that any serious significance in this relation is worthy to study
on this further.
Thank you
Volker
Volker Doormann
Mike Williams wrote:
> Wow! what a great post from Thomas Russ.
I agree. But it seems to me, that reading a discussion is not a great work.
> The elements of Volker Doorman's ideas
Stop. Hold on.
First, my name is Volker Doormann. Second, I have presented no ideas.
I have presented observations, as they are can be observed from everyone.
I think it is your idea, if you are starting here false informations.
> are described almost perfectly in Robert Park's book "Voodoo Science".
I think, if you would argue, that you are wuold be taken serious, then
you should argue out of yourself. I have also some books here.
> Doorman's ideas are a textbook example of what 1932 Nobel Prize-Winning
> chemist Irving Langmuir called "pathological science" - "the science of
> things that aren't so." Russ points out each of the logical fallacies that
> typify such junk science.
If you mean, that science is more worthy, then to write junk to a science group,
then you can learn, that your lines here, which contains ad hominem arguments but
no scientific argument, demonstrate that you have a splitted mind.
> Read the book. It's one of the better ones on the subject.
I think not, you better should read: 'The Ending of Time' Dialoges from David Bohm
and Jiddu Krishnamurti.
> "Philosophy is a game with objectives and no rules.
> Mathematics is a game with rules and no objectives."
If one have enough playing games, he is looking for reality.
And the only reality he can find, is inside of his own self.
Volker Doormann
AugustsBks
information you'd like to share about specific planetary aspects that seem
linked to earthquake occurrence, and whether quadratures (squares) as well as
conjunctions and/or oppositions are effective? Whether the moon phase or angle
is prominent in any way? And whether aspects to the Midheaven and Ascendant,
etc., by malefics (Mars, Uranus, Saturn, Pluto) in a certain longitude and
latitude, seem to trigger earthquakes in that locality?? And is the effect
immediate, or delayed, just as a solar eclipse that was total over Asia Minor
seemed to trigger EQ's in Greece and Turkey days and weeks later.. Thank You!
-e.a.
Volker Doormann
AugustsBks wrote:
> Mr. Doormann, sorry, I'm missing the start of this thread.
Hi,
Please let me say here, that any discussion on geocentric planetary aspects, its
ecliptical coordinates and its aspekt to the earth are still astronomical data.
They are based on the measured data and can be used for sending objects to other
planets *or* to interpret the signs of the time, as astrologers it does. No one can
claim the planets for his own trade.
In this thread I deal with some planetary aspects, and they are mostly the same,
as the aspects, what astrologers use for their interpretations.
I have found that the aspekt angles, which delivers an integer number if one
computs 4 times its squared cosine function, can be found in most cases of
earthquakes.
[ p.E. 30°: cos(30°) = 0.866025404 and (0.866025404)^2 = 0.75 X 4 = 3 ]
These angles are: 0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 90°, 120°, 135°, 150°, 180°.
There may be also an angle of 36°. All this angles are based on integer divisions
of the circle: 1, 12, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2. I never have observed 5 or seven. I think
all planets including sun and moon are involved, and there is no planet, that shows
a dominate role.
It ist interesting, that the Midheaven position of the ecliptic join this harmony
of the planertary distribution, but it seems, that because there are mostly mode 6
or mode 8 quakes the local meridian or longitude can not be estimated.
The Kobe quake was 20 minutes after Full Moon. But in many other cases the Moon has
mostly exact 30° to any other body. I think, in the most cases there is no delay in
the occourences of the quake. But in some cases an quake has occoured in
fullfilling the rules about the harmonic distribution, but not always with a pefect
symmetry to the midhaven.
I have no hints that the locations are selected from eclipses. I think the quakes
occour on that places, where the strain of the plates is waiting for a trigger. And
that are all the well known places as we all know them. But as the example from
this month has shown on the 13. Februar
http://doormann.tripod.com/eqs01.htm
that for two graet quakes (San Salvador and Sumatra) on the same day the midhaven
has shifted about 90°.
Ascendent has IMHO no meaning except if it measure 90° from midhaven.
Thank you too
Volker
OCTOCOACH
ASSH&$#&$s.....
Take it to another NG.!
Volker Doormann
<derc...@privacy.com> wrote:
> Hey!
yes?
> ASSH&$#&$s.....
> Take it to another NG.!
1. As far as I know is this NG a forum, in that scientific arguments relating to
earthquakes can be discussed.
2. If you have any scientific argument, that a discussion about a relationship of
other bodies than our earth from this solar system never can have an interaction to
an earthquake process, than feel free and argue it.
3. As far as I know, is an interaction of at least two bodies of our solar system a
well known force that acts on the earth. Moreover, if this two bodies have angle
distances of 0° or 180° to each other one can observe an amplification of the
force. If I remember it correctly, act this force on the elasticity of the
different continental plates in a different manner. Moreover, such deformation from
other bodies in our solar system are changing the global mass situation in a very
different way and amplify the deformation process of the plates and on its borders.
4. Learn to quote.
5. If you think, that your ad hominem arguments ( " ASSH&$#&$s..... " ) are
necessary to post it to this sci.-NG, then it shows to the science community all
over the world that you: <derc...@privacy.com> would like to receive serious
e-mail from <ab...@earthlink.net>.
6. Thank you for listening.
Volker
--.
"Between the conscious and the unconscious, the mind has put up a swing: all earth
creatures, even the supernovas, sway between these two trees, and it never winds
down. Angels, animals, humans, insects by the million, also the wheeling sun and
moon; ages go by, and it goes on Everything is swinging: heaven, earth, water,
fire, and the secret one slowly growing a body. Kabir saw that for fifteen seconds,
and it made him a servant for life." (Kabir 1398-1518)
OCTOCOACH
That was what I was going to say.... :)
I think he should try alt.astrology or alt.predictions. or maybe alt.usenet.kooks.
DC
Bob Officer wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:53:35 +0100, in sci.geo.earthquakes Volker Doormann
> <doo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >
> ><derc...@privacy.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey!
> >
> >yes?
> >
> >> ASSH&$#&$s.....
> >> Take it to another NG.!
> >
> >1. As far as I know is this NG a forum, in that scientific arguments relating to
> >earthquakes can be discussed.
>
> But when the fallacies you insist are at work, nothing happens. What you
> have designed is a method of post-dicting events. The method you have
> decided to use is so easy to manipulate that out of the 30,000 plus know
> solar bodies, there will always at least be two "active".
>
> >2. If you have any scientific argument, that a discussion about a relationship of
> >other bodies than our earth from this solar system never can have an interaction to
> >an earthquake process, than feel free and argue it.
>
> If you did the real math, you would realize the 747 flying overhead has
> more mass in relation to most all of the bodies in the solar system. What
> you have proven is the apophenia works. The human mind will find patterns
> where ever it can. The simpler the mind the great ease at discovering False
> Patterns. Apophenia at work.
>
> >3. As far as I know, is an interaction of at least two bodies of our solar system a
> >well known force that acts on the earth. Moreover, if this two bodies have angle
> >distances of 0° or 180° to each other one can observe an amplification of the
> >force. If I remember it correctly, act this force on the elasticity of the
> >different continental plates in a different manner. Moreover, such deformation from
> >other bodies in our solar system are changing the global mass situation in a very
> >different way and amplify the deformation process of the plates and on its borders.
>
> You are wrong. There are many web sights on one "famous alignment and
> "forces that were at work at the time.
>
> http://www.clockwk.com/tides/
>
> Had some nice graphic which might help you understand what you have is
> nothing but apophenia.
>
> Also:
> http://www.teleport.com/~tcollins/conjunct.shtml
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planets.html
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/align.html
> http://research.amnh.org/~summers/may_5_2000/
>
> Let's round out you education a bit more with:
>
> http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/btcarrol/skeptic/apophenia.html
>
>
>
> >4. Learn to quote.
>
> Snort...
> Learn to research and find if you have re-discovered a broken wheel running
> on a bent axle.
>
> >5. If you think, that your ad hominem arguments ( " ASSH&$#&$s..... " ) are
> >necessary to post it to this sci.-NG, then it shows to the science community all
> >over the world that you: <derc...@privacy.com> would like to receive serious
> >e-mail from <ab...@earthlink.net>.
>
> OK, He may had stepped over board, but Volker, by declaring you are an
> asshole. But That is freedom of speech. If you don't like the label, modify
> your actions. Like the old joke says... "You can't fool those round flies".
>
> You are not producing new information. What you have discovered was
> debunked since 1932.
>
> >6. Thank you for listening.
>
> Thank you for playing, for your parting gift for playing, a solid brass
> doorknob...
Volker Doormann
Bob Officer wrote:
> >1. As far as I know is this NG a forum, in that scientific arguments relating to
> >earthquakes can be discussed.
>
> But when the fallacies you insist are at work, nothing happens.
Did you have any scientific agument against my served datas?
> What you have designed is a method of post-dicting events.
However.
If you would take it to compute an index for this month
from that simplest algebra, which selects hormonics, you
can see two major peaks. One is on the 2001.02.13th and
one is on the 2001.02.25th. I hope you have followed the
more greater events this month and you are able to verify
this. If you are aware about the time when I have published
this algorithm, you can estimate, what it is in real.
> The method you have decided to use is so easy to manipulate that out of the
> 30,000 plus know solar bodies, there will always at least be two "active".
The one who is manipulating is you. You speaks about the rest of the bodies which
we call asteroides. I not. I have named explicite 10 bodies and it should be
clear, that this means: Sun Moon Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptun
and Pluto. As far as i know most af the 30000 + bodies you mention, have taken
place at a distance from the sun between Mars and Jupiter, and it is discussed,
that this maybe was sometime in history of our solar system only one body. And if
you would like to see the relation of the 9 planets of the Sun in Number to the
fraction of circulation per year around the Sun see this graph:
<http://doormann.tripod.com/plancyc3.jpg>
It shows by _Number_, starting with Nr. 2/Venus, 3/Earth, 4/Mars, 5/Asteroides,
6/Jupiter, 7/Saturn, 8/Uranus, 9/Neptun and 10/Pluto. It seems, that out of that,
the distances of our solar bodies are following also a harmony, because the
distances are well related to the circulation time as we have learned from Kepler
(BTW. Kepler have written a Book about the things, which are well working in
astrology).
I think, it should be more helpfull, that if you did not have any serios argument
against my presented data, that you may hold it to you.
> >2. If you have any scientific argument, that a discussion about a relationship
> >of other bodies than our earth from this solar system never can have an
> >interaction to an earthquake process, than feel free and argue it.
>
> If you did the real math, you would realize the 747 flying overhead has
> more mass in relation to most all of the bodies in the solar system.
I did not have spoken about mass. You did. BTW. AFAIK is the mass of the sun, which
is part of the solar system not to be neglect.
> What you have proven is the apophenia works. The human mind will find patterns
> where ever it can. The simpler the mind the great ease at discovering False
> Patterns. Apophenia at work.
What you have written in this sentence is exakt this.
> >3. As far as I know, is an interaction of at least two bodies of our solar
> >system a well known force that acts on the earth. Moreover, if this two bodies
> >have angle distances of 0° or 180° to each other one can observe an
> >amplification of the force. If I remember it correctly, act this force on the
> >elasticity of the different continental plates in a different manner. Moreover,
> >such deformation from other bodies in our solar system are changing the global
> >mass situation in a very different way and amplify the deformation process of
> >the plates and on its borders.
>
> You are wrong.
Please argue yourself. It ist not clear for me what you call wrong.
The deformation of the earth from tidial forces?
The changing local gravitation force from this deformation?
> http://www.clockwk.com/tides/
> http://www.teleport.com/~tcollins/conjunct.shtml
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planets.html
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/align.html
> http://research.amnh.org/~summers/may_5_2000/
> http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/btcarrol/skeptic/apophenia.html
This seems to me, that you have no scientific arguments against my observations.
Have you?
Maybe you should had added some URL's from Disneyland.
> >5. If you think, that your ad hominem arguments ( " ASSH&$#&$s..... " ) are
> >necessary to post it to this sci.-NG, then it shows to the science community all
> >over the world that you: <derc...@privacy.com> would like to receive serious
> >e-mail from <ab...@earthlink.net>.
>
> OK, He may had stepped over board, but Volker, by declaring you are an
> asshole. But That is freedom of speech. If you don't like the label, modify
> your actions. Like the old joke says... "You can't fool those round flies".
No. You talk aboutr free speech, and have no other arguments than to take
philosophical ideas. But this is a place, where science, Math, and Natural Science
is the base. Please argue in this context or discuss it with some philosophers.
> You are not producing new information. What you have discovered was
> debunked since 1932.
You are producing not a new attitude in cases of possible unknown relationships in
nature. It is well known a standard in human 'science'. Power instead of arguments.
> Thank you for playing, for your parting gift for playing, a solid brass
> doorknob...
Fine Bob. Please ignore my further postings. I will do it the same way.
Thank you
Volker
Volker Doormann
Yes, but you have not.
Learn to quote.
Volker
Atanu Dey
> "Between the conscious and the unconscious, the mind has put up a swing: all earth
> creatures, even the supernovas, sway between these two trees, and it never winds
> down. Angels, animals, humans, insects by the million, also the wheeling sun and
> moon; ages go by, and it goes on Everything is swinging: heaven, earth, water,
> fire, and the secret one slowly growing a body. Kabir saw that for fifteen seconds,
> and it made him a servant for life." (Kabir 1398-1518)
errrrr... whoever translated the above supposedly from Kabir was
taking poetic license at best and simply lying at worst. Kabir could
not have known about supernovas. Unless of course supernovas is a
species of 'earth creatures' that is mentioned in the quote.
Atanu
Volker Doormann
Atanu Dey wrote:
> ...
> errrrr... whoever translated the above supposedly from Kabir was
> taking poetic license at best and simply lying at worst. Kabir could
> not have known about supernovas. Unless of course supernovas is a
> species of 'earth creatures' that is mentioned in the quote.
>
> Atanu
It was translated by Robert Bly.
Here are some more voices to Robert Bly's Translation of Kabirs Poems:
<icono...@freedom.usa.com Columbia, MO , 1. April 2000:
' My Favorite Kabir Book
We all have our various standards in choosing spiritual poetry. My own approach is
decidedly non-academic; the test for me is whether it resonates inside me. (A tuning
fork will begin to resonate when another with identical pitch is struck near it. I
read widely in spiritual literature, and wait until I begin to feel that "tuning
fork" or God-Self inside resonate with the God-Self that is outside.)
I have read this book many times and still tears fill my eyes to the point that I
can't see. I have heard Kabir's metaphors quoted by other spiritual teachers - for
example, the fish swimming in the ocean that believes it is thirsty - but never knew
the source. Now I have a whole book of metaphor and poetry from someone who
apparently experiences life as I do:
"When my friend is away from me, I am depressed; nothing in the daylight delights me,
sleep at night gives no rest, who can I tell about this?...."
Robert Bly has written a short section in the back of the book titled "Some Rumors
About Kabir," which is written in an accessible way--his language is never inflated
or difficult. This is quite appropriate considering the opinion Kabir himself
expressed regarding "religious academics" who have an outward religious appearance
while having "deep inside, a loaded gun." I especially like the story of how Kabir
blasted the 1500 meditators for refusing Mirabai's female presence at their
gathering. "You know what I see in this hall?" Kabir asks. "1500 male egos!"
I have learned that not all poetry attributed to Kabir was actually authored by him.
Apparently there was a practice in which later poets would write poems and attribute
them to Kabir. My other Kabir books (those with hundreds of pages) have plenty of
poems in them that do not resonate. For me, a very high percentage of the Robert Bly
translations resonated.
"What Kabir talks of is only what he has lived through. If you have not lived through
something, it is not true" (Poem 28)
Roberty Bly wrote in his afterward that he did not translate some of Kabir's poems
for which he did not have correlative experiences. He also wrote "I love his poems,
and am grateful every day for their gift." Perhaps it is this honesty, and genuine
appreciation as a like-hearted seeker, that makes this little book of 44 poems so
powerful.
This is a great book of poetry written in very accessible language. You will like
it! '
<Alan Roettinger Agoura, CA , 22. Januar 2000
' A miss is as good as a mile
With no disrespect to Mr. Bly intended or implied, I must say that in creating his
"versions" of Kabir's poems, he has interpolated his own limited understanding of
their meaning and in so doing, has trivialized them. Kabir was no mere philosopher,
whose work may be pulled apart and analyzed, toyed with and rehashed with impunity.
He was a Master, whose words are chosen carefully to drive an important message home:
"What you are seeking is within you".
Remarkably iconoclastic for his time, he pulled no punches and made no excuses for
his views on religion, ritual, beliefs and superstitions. He unabashedly sings the
glory of his own experience and enthusiastically recommends it to one and all. Even
to translate his words into another language is risky enough, although their power
has managed to shine through. But to fabricate one's own "versions" is to make the
arrogant assumption that one is on the same level as Kabir, and thus able to diddle
with the Master's words without changing their value, import or meaning. I have
always found Kabir's songs both inspiring and challenging. Far from incomplete or
irrelevant to my time, they require no updating or commentary, but demand that I
become conscious and find the Truth within me, as he has done himself. I don't get
the feeling he would ever muck with my poems; I don't get the feeling he would
appreciate my mucking with his. Mr. Bly has done a service in exposing Kabir's work
to the western mainstream, but not an unqualified one, for in doing so, he has placed
his own perception, like sticky little fingerprints, all over it. '
<Rachel Astarte Piccione (nang...@yahoo.com) New York City, USA , 8. November 1999
' "Few translators work with such power and such humility."
Since receiving it as a gift from my father -- poet Anthony Piccione -- I have held
onto, referred to, cherished, shared, and respected this collection of Kabir
translations by Robert Bly. I even used it as part of my syllabus when I taught
writing.
Few translators work with such power and such humility. There is pure celebration in
these poems that calls us back to the true source of love and spiritual wholeness:
ourselves.
It's a gift Kabir knew we needed to rediscover. Bly knows it, too, or these
translations would never resonate the way they do.'
A Reader from Berkeley, CA , 4. March 1999:
' Wake Up to Your Desire for God
Robert Bly is at his best in this short and powerful collection of poems by Kabir.
The poems are witty, spiritually challenging, and very fresh. When I want a spiritual
version of a double espresso, this is the book that comes off the shelf. If you enjoy
the translations of Rumi by Coleman Barks, then you have an idea of the style of
these poems <http://www.serve.com/cyberkaya/kabir.htm> '
RBOYENS
>I have spoken from observations and coincidences.<
You are missing the point. If I told you that my observations were that every
day an earthquake occurred, the sun rose in the east and set in the west, what
would you think of those obsrvations? The observation is absolutely correct,
but so what? It does not mean the two are related or that one suggests the
other. The point the others are trying to get to you is that there will always
be some coincidence between events, especially if one of the events is quite
common.
Rob, S.E.
Volker Doormann
RBOYENS wrote:
> Volker Doormann wrote:
>
> >I have spoken from observations and coincidences.<
>
> You are missing the point. If I told you that my observations were that every
> day an earthquake occurred, the sun rose in the east and set in the west, what
> would you think of those obsrvations?
Oh Man. I think you have not a understand what we are talking about.
Coincidence. Coincidence by time (!). In your observation you link from events,
that occour each day in exacty the same way on well known times to times in that
day on an arbitrary time with an earthquake. Because you do not have more than one
event for one time segment, the chance, that this is random is 1/1 = 1. It *is*
random. It is not significant.
In my observations the significance is approx. 1e-8 because the chance, that in
that time window of 5 minutes - while the harmonic index is highest - from total 31
days an earthquake occour is 1E-4. Multipling it with a second case with the same
significance it is 1e-8. That means that this is not random.
I hope you can follow that logic.
Volker
OCTOCOACH
" Are you the peoples door man? or the peoples doormat?"
Vorsicht.
Volker Doormann
"Thomas A. Russ" wrote:
> My only comment is that there is NO AMPLIFICATION of the gravitational
> forces with the new and full moon alignments. There is simply the
> ADDITION of the forces.
Fact is, that the force is _increased_ while these alignments. It is
_greater_ in Number.
> To imagine that the effects when aligned are greater than just the sum
> of the forces would be incorrect. I suspect that any theory that relied
> upon such an amplification would also be incorrect.
If the gravitational force from Sun and Moon deforms the Earth, and as an
resulting effect the mass of that volume is also moving. This moved mass
increase the level of gravitation. This changed gravitation is in result an
amplification effect of the primary tidal force.
Volker
Volker Doormann
"Thomas A. Russ" wrote:
>
> Volker Doormann <doo...@attglobal.net> writes:
> Actually, the significance you claim is not correct. Your argument is
> based on a post-hoc fallacy. What that means is that you have chosen
> your correlations after the fact of the two earthquakes was already
> known.
Since when do change the time of computing, wether this is significant.
or not?
AFAIK physical processes depnds not on that. What you suggest is, that
Math, that is done to two different time should deliver different values.
That is fun.
I do not agree with you.
> The real test of whether there is any significance to your correlations
> is in prospective tests, which seem so far to have been failures. In
> other words, the harmonic peaks which are computed for the future (i.e.,
> before one knows if an earthquake will occur or not) have not been
> correlated with any events. It is the failure of such a prospective
> test that leads most people reading this to reject any hypothesis of a
> connection between the events you cite.
I do not agree again. This what you write is in relation to the power of the
algorithm. But this is only a very simple algorithm. If one would like to
test it, he can test it as well for events in the past, as also for future.
No doubt. But. The point is _not_ the power of the algorithm, it is the grade
of significance, that results from some several algorithm, that includes
some harmonic Math like Fast Fourier Transformation or any of such algebra.
And this (!) significance, wether is is measuered from past events as well
from coming events is _exclusive_ the center of interest. And I think it
is 'only' work, to evaluate this significance with clean statistics for
an amount of big earthquake events with a proper average value.
> BTW, I think your argument that you are merely posting observations and
> not actually proposing a connection is a bit disingenuous. It seems
> that you have some reason that you are not articulating for even looking
> for correlations between earthquakes and astronomical bodies other than
> the sun and the moon.
Right.
But that does not changes any observations.
Volker