Originally posted by auraura
TextOriginally 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
edit on 14-9-2011 by ttimez because: (no reason given)
One is a lie, so take your pick. Oh wait, don't, you could pick the truth by accident. 
