It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Signs that 12/21/2012 is upon us?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Let's see tomorrow, when this 3 times cme bulldozer comes rushing in to the earth. Will we have increased activity tomorrow? We only need to wait 1 day to find out. We've been averaging 1, sometimes 2 6.0+ quakes a day. Let's keep count tomorrow, late in the evening/night.




posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 



Let's see tomorrow, when this 3 times cme bulldozer comes rushing in to the earth. Will we have increased activity tomorrow? We only need to wait 1 day to find out. We've been averaging 1, sometimes 2 6.0+ quakes a day. Let's keep count tomorrow, late in the evening/night.

Have you ever considered learning how science works. Right now you are simply wasting your time. How will you be able to differentiate a coincidence from an actual connection?

On average there is a 6 or better earthquake every other day. I checked the USGS worldwide list and I do not see a 6 or better quake each day. Where did you get that claim?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
The problem with earthquakes is that the events appear to be random. There are a lot of the events and they are spread out somewhat evenly. If they were spread out evenly then they would not be random. For example, on the number line the counting numbers are spread out evenly and are not random. The notion that the events are spread means that if large time periods, such as years, are inspected there are about the same number of events. What is often hard for people to understand is that apparent clustering does not mean that the data is NOT random. Random events may appear to have significant clusters, but that is not the case.

To discriminate between clusters expected to be found in random data and actual clustering takes some statistical analysis that is able to distinguish between the two. Simply looking at data and using what is euphemistically called "ocular mathematics" leads to failed conclusions.

BTW, the branch of math known as ocular mathematics is based on a single postulate. That postulate states that if it looks right it must be right. Ocular mathematics is the basis for many if not all hoaxes.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Oh, sorry, yesterday's 6.0 got knocked to a 5.9 and the day before to a 5.8. The rest are 6.0+

earthquake.usgs.gov...



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 


So some quakes were adjusted in magnitude with some being raised and some being reduced.

And now we end up with 5 quakes in 6 days that are 6.0 or greater. So what? That's rather typical.

Is that your point, that its just normal out there?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


No, actually it is not. In 2009, we were averaging 1 6.0+ quake per ~7 days
2010, it was 1 6.0+ quake every 5-6 days
early 2011, one almost every day,
now 1+ every day

check the stats if you don't believe me, I've been watching a long time



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 



No, actually it is not. In 2009, we were averaging 1 6.0+ quake per ~7 days
2010, it was 1 6.0+ quake every 5-6 days
early 2011, one almost every day,
now 1+ every day

check the stats if you don't believe me, I've been watching a long time


You are completely wrong.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

2009 161 quakes 6 or bigger You claim 1 per 7 days or about 52. You were off by 109 quakes.
2010 173 quakes 6 or bigger You claim 1 per 5-6 days or about 61 to 73 a year. You were off by 100 or more.
2011 158 quakes to date. You claim 1 plus per day or about 220. You are off by 70 or more.

Your stats are incredibly off. Don't quit your day job.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Yes, I see by that chart that I was wrong in my assumptions of previous years, but I also see that we have already had in 7 months as many quakes as the whole year in the past. And I'm not quitting my day job, I'm just trying to learn about my world. You are helping me with that also. Thank you



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 



Yes, I see by that chart that I was wrong in my assumptions of previous years, but I also see that we have already had in 7 months as many quakes as the whole year in the past. And I'm not quitting my day job, I'm just trying to learn about my world. You are helping me with that also. Thank you

You should have checked before posting. Your claims were very, very wrong and it would have been a simple matter to check before posting. Had you checked you would have seen that your recollection was not on target and you might have wondered where you went wrong.

We have not had as many quakes 6 and above this year as we had last year. The number is closing in, but that does not mean that the same rate of events will continue into the rest of the year.

Just because there might be more quakes in one year is not the same as saying quakes are on the increase. Not all years are gong to be the same. With random events it is expected that there will be apparent clusters.

In addition more quakes are located each year. The magnitudes of quakes is determined with greater precision each year.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 


The quakes you see on these websites are merely the ones that were detected. Could easily be a 6.0+ eq everyday. Possibly twice a day. We won't know till technology improves to the point that they can be monitored. Still a long way to go but it'll get there. Best thing to do for any of us is stay calm and think clearly. Enjoy the show.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSprepared
It would seem that some other scientists do believe that the sun is affecting seismology on earth.

Enough to build a new satellite to monitor it, spending millions to get it up by 2015.

Maybe these are just a bunch of crackpot scientists also.




This proves that they aren't hiding anything unknown by the general population relating to the world collapsing into itself in 2012. Why would they work so hard for something like this in the post-dated future if that was the case?

I feel like you've contradicted yourself at this point.
edit on 5/8/2011 by andriod because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by rainyday
 


Why would you supposed that there are so many quakes of that magnitude?

What I see is speculation without evidence and that has been going on for this thread and so many others. Yes, it is true that only located quakes are listed. Do you have any reason to believe that such a small fraction of the quakes of that magnitude are detected and located.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
There are many quakes that are very minuscule that are gone unreported judging by media standards.

The website I posted below does report them, but rarely are they felt. We get hundreds a year up here in Canada every year, and you'd never know it unless looking at websites like this one. Note how most are below a 2.0 magnitude average.

Based on this info, I certainly don't see an increase whatsoever, but the same statistics as the years before.

EarthquakesCanada

I think it's a matter of sheer paranoia as of late. It seems as though people WANT the world to end, and will go searching for any excuse for it to happen.
edit on 6/8/2011 by andriod because: broken link, fixed



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


I am not speculating anything, only stating that it is in fact possible. If someone doesn't believe it is possible then that is thier choice.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by rainyday
 


We are already detecting most if not all 6.0+ earthquakes. We know that seismograph technology has greatly increased in the past 20 years. This can be seen in the fact that a significantly larger number of low level quakes are being detected. However, there is no difference in the number of larger quakes detected today compared to 1990.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


My point exactly. It's the same numbers. There only "appears" to be more of an increase due to an increase in our technological advances.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join