Why the 188 Day Cycle Is FALSE w/Proof

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Ok, so I thought I would take a crack at this.... mostly because I have followed quakes rather closely for a number of years (due to my fascination with their link to solar flares/CMEs) and would have seen this 188 day pattern emerge sooner. Plus, everyone on the internet is freaking out without doing some simple math and fact-checking, so I thought I would ease the minds of the few who care to listen.

It's been a while since I've done probability so there is a chance (no pun) that I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

So, let's start with the numbers:

Starting with 2012 and going back 5 years to 2007, taking us to 3/20/2007 to the day:

365 * 5 = 1825 - approximate number of possible days (possible outcomes)

2007-2012 total 7-7.9 quakes = 86
2007-2012 total 8+ quakes = 7

Total significant quakes = 93 (number of possible events)

Probability of a quake greater than 7 magnitude occurring on any given day over the 5 year period: 93:1825 = 5%

Now we need to know the total possible outcomes over the 5 year period for the 188 day cycles:

3/20/2012 (7.6 Mexico)
3/20/2012 - 188 days = 9/14/2011 (7.3 Fiji - 9/15/2011)
9/14/2011 - 188 days = 3/10/2011 (7.9/9.0 Honshu Japan - 3/11/2011)
3/10/2011 - 188 days = 9/3/2010 (7.0 New Zealand - 9/3/2010)
9/3/2010 - 188 days = 2/27/2010 (8.8 Chile - 2/27/2010)
2/27/2010 - 188 days = 8/23/2009 (closest is 8.1 on 9/29) off by +36 days
8/23/2009 - 188 days = 2/16/2009 (closest is 7.2 in Indonesia on 2/11) off by -5 days
2/16/2009 - 188 days = 8/12/2008 (nothing in August) completely off
8/12/2008 - 188 days = 2/6/2008 (closest is 7.4 in Indonesia on 2/20) off by +14 days
2/6/2008 - 188 days = 8/2/2007 (7.2 Vanatua - 8/1/2007)

This gives us 10 distinct events that have the possibility of occurring.

Using the same variables for possible outcomes, we calculate the probability of a greater than magnitude 7 quake occurring EXACTLY 188 (even 189 if you wanted to) days apart in a 5 year period of 1825 days.

This gives us a probability of 10:1825 = .5% possibility of occurrence that an earthquake will occur every 188 days AND be magnitude 7 or greater. (or .995 = 99.5% chance it will NOT happen exactly 188 days apart)

This is incredibly low odds.

Out of a 5 year period and a possible 10 attempts to fall within the 188 day cycle with a +/- of 1 day, we get 6 solid hits of 10. This gives a probability of 6:10 = .6 = 60% that a greater than magnitude 7 quake will occur out of our 10 possible events. This clearly shows that it is a coincidence over the last 5 years, regardless of the last 5 occurrences being 188 days apart, the rest are not. The pattern would need to continue to repeat going back to 2007 to be even close to giving this a real probability of greater than 90% (which is what you want to establish a pattern of any kind, is to get as close to 1 as possible.) and it breaks down in 2009.

Take the .5% possibility that a 188 day cycle can occur, then factor the 60% chance that a magnitude 7+ quake can occur in that window, the odds that a magnitude 7 quake occurring exactly 188-189 days apart in a 5 year period with the sampling of data is .003 or .3% - which again, is very low odds.

For the sake of this argument, you can basically say the possibility of both the cycle and the quake occurring together perfectly are less than 1%.

Taking the 188 day cycle, and looking for a repeatable pattern that occurs, you can see that it is not a consistent pattern and the odds of it occurring are so low, that it is almost impossible for it to happen as expected in a statistical probability of occurrence.

What this means:

1) There is no pattern. This is the most likely explanation. Geologically speaking, a 5 year window is nothing but it is enough to set a baseline sample, so the fact that the pattern breaks down only halfway through that time slice demonstrates that it is a significant coincidence, not a statistical probability of any kind.

2) There is a pattern emerging. This will require CLOSELY monitoring the next 188 days to see if another major quake occurs and then the numbers will change, but not by much, because if we go back beyond 5 years, the probability decreases even more as there are fewer hits and greater possible outcomes. This decreases probability, not increases it, contrary to what most people would like to believe.

3) The mind sees what it chooses.

Choose for yourself, but facts and numbers speak for themselves.

I don't believe there is a pattern here as much as I would LOVE for there to be one.

Please check your facts people. Even if I'm wrong on the math, I think I have established that there is no pattern here.... yet.

Probability:

www.easycalculation.com...
www.easycalculation.com...

Quake Stats:
www.easycalculation.com...
earthquake.usgs.gov...

Date Math:
www.timeanddate.com...

~Namaste




posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Wait a second...

Your proof is a ratio???

A .5% chance is still a CHANCE. There is no fact in your "proof" just as there isn't (yet) any fact in the theory...

Really though, that was bad.

You're pretty good at math though!


Not to mention you contradict yourself by saying there is a pattern "emerging"... but in the title it's "false".
edit on 20-3-2012 by My.mind.is.mine because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
Wait a second...

Your proof is a ratio???

A .5% chance is still a CHANCE. There is no fact in your "proof" just as there isn't (yet) any fact in the theory...

Really though, that was bad.

You're pretty good at math though!


Not to mention you contradict yourself by saying there is a pattern "emerging"... but in the title it's "false".
edit on 20-3-2012 by My.mind.is.mine because: (no reason given)


Apparently, you pick option 3.


Aside from the math, the 188 day cycle breaks in 2009, therefore it is not a cycle unless you only want to count the last 2 years and not the last 3.

Correlation is not causation, as much as you want to believe it is. The pattern also breaks again in 2007, and again in 2006. How far back would you like me to go to get the math down to 0%? Even if my math isn't precise, the farther back you go, the more the 188 day cycle falls apart in a dramatic fashion.

I said that a possible pattern could be emerging, I didn't say it was established so I never contradicted myself.

Thanks for your positive feedback and excellent contribution to the thread. I looked at your other threads and can see you are drinking the 188 calorie kool-aid.
Please look at the links I provided and then come back with a better argument.

~Namaste



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Thank you OP, for discrediting pseudo-science.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
Wait a second...

Your proof is a ratio???

A .5% chance is still a CHANCE. There is no fact in your "proof" just as there isn't (yet) any fact in the theory...

Really though, that was bad.

You're pretty good at math though!


Not to mention you contradict yourself by saying there is a pattern "emerging"... but in the title it's "false".
edit on 20-3-2012 by My.mind.is.mine because: (no reason given)


Apparently, you pick option 3.


Aside from the math, the 188 day cycle breaks in 2009, therefore it is not a cycle unless you only want to count the last 2 years and not the last 3.

Correlation is not causation, as much as you want to believe it is. The pattern also breaks again in 2007, and again in 2006. How far back would you like me to go to get the math down to 0%? Even if my math isn't precise, the farther back you go, the more the 188 day cycle falls apart in a dramatic fashion.

I said that a possible pattern could be emerging, I didn't say it was established so I never contradicted myself.

Thanks for your positive feedback and excellent contribution to the thread. I looked at your other threads and can see you are drinking the 188 calorie kool-aid.
Please look at the links I provided and then come back with a better argument.

~Namaste


Has anybody said that this pattern was established? It's validity is still under scrutiny. I'm confused as to why so many people are trying to debunk it when it hasn't even been established as anything above a 45% fact.

This is like an abortion...
edit on 20-3-2012 by My.mind.is.mine because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


The point is that it would be a NEW pattern, not an existing one, if there were truly something there in the first place.

You can't say you only want to evaluate the last 2 years where the 188 day cycle has been SEEN, because that is not how you determine a true pattern and establish causation or correlation. If you are going to look for a trend, you have to go back and take a wide sampling of data, which is the reason I went back TWICE the amount of time that the 188 day cycle has been noticed.

Even with twice the time, it doesn't do justice for the true time frame we should be sampling because 5 years of earthquakes is a really short time.

The hard fact is that even with just a 5 year window, the cycle breaks twice, which establishes that it didn't exist prior to 2009. If you are looking for true correlation, you would need a probability of 1 or 100% to say that it will 100% occur every 188 days. I've shown mathematically with probability that it isn't currently possible to establish that unless you start your baseline POST 2009. That would not be a true scientific method of determining a pattern of behavior in the Earth's tectonics.

~Namaste
edit on 20-3-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Thank you OP.

Always good to find the proverbial "breath of fresh air" up in these parts. If only your calm logic was infectious and would catch on.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


so you're telling people that a new pattern isn't a pattern?



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by satron
 


Thank you.


I am not trying to debunk anyone or anything, just trying to establish some facts with practical and sound thinking and following a basic scientific method. I welcome all feedback.

~Namaste



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


so you're telling people that a new pattern isn't a pattern?


I'm not telling people anything except what has been recorded as scientific fact.

You can make up your own mind. If you want to call a pattern something that you see happening 2 years out of the HUNDREDS that we've been recording seismic data, you're welcome to indulge your imagination.

I, on the other hand, can see that if I look back over many years of quake data, there is no pattern. There is coincidence in the last 2 years. If that coincidence continues to extend itself, then we can re-visit the discussion of it being a pattern, but until that time, it is not associated to a 188 day cycle, or you would be able to track it back over many years.

I don't see what your argument is? If you want to call it a theory, you have to state a CAUSE, or your hypothesis. Furthermore, if this were in fact a pattern, you should be able to take ANY 7+ magnitude quake and add or subtract 188 days to get another 7+ quake... and I've shown that the odds of you establishing that are less than 1%.

If I were a gambling man, those aren't odds I would take my friend. I think you're betting on the wrong hand.

~Namaste



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


STOP contradicting yourself. First you say it's an emerging pattern, then you say it's just coincidence.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


STOP contradicting yourself. First you say it's an emerging pattern, then you say it's just coincidence.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND


Dude, this isn't that hard.

He gave 3 options. There was no contradiction.

Seriously, man.....



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


STOP contradicting yourself. First you say it's an emerging pattern, then you say it's just coincidence.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND


Nice strawman tactics... you're afraid to address what I'm pointing out several times over to you.

Each post of yours has nothing to do with the meat of the discussion, you're trying to pick apart semantics.

If you want to argue over the facts here, fine, but I'm not going to go tit-for-tat with you about how you decide you want to define facts, patterns and coincidence.

Pattern - a set of events that occurs repeatedly and consistently. Consistently would mean it goes beyond just 2 years since earthquakes have been occurring for more than 2 years.

Coincidence - a situation in which separate things happen by chance at the same time or in the same way. We are still at this stage until we can demonstrate consistency, which must consider more than just 2 years of events.

~Namaste



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The reason people are looking for verification, is because this is an emerging thread.. Show me somebody who claims this 188 cycle goes back until the beginning of time.... I don't have to prove to you anything about 5 years ago, point blank...

*sigh*

goodnight people....
edit on 20-3-2012 by My.mind.is.mine because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


Again, you want to ignore the facts and selectively pick your sampling of data.

You can't ignore the 5 years I've chosen because that is ignoring facts and when you sample data, you are supposed to use a wide enough set to establish any correlation or patterns in it. Geologically, you can't take 2 years of quake data and say that 4 or 5 earthquakes is an established sampling of data.

You seem to be suffering from apophenia big time. To say that you don't have to prove anything, you may be right, but then you can't argue with what I'm saying without being able to prove your argument. I presented facts, you presented nothing to argue them. Instead, you tried to draw the discussion and argument away from the facts I presented, and focus them on your "belief" rather than logically argue your set of facts to back up your claim.

I wish you would use your passion to form a sound rebuttal instead of picking apart my choice of words.

~Namaste



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
3/20/2012 (7.6 Mexico)
3/20/2012 - 188 days = 9/14/2011 (7.3 Fiji - 9/15/2011)
9/14/2011 - 188 days = 3/10/2011 (7.9/9.0 Honshu Japan - 3/11/2011)
3/10/2011 - 188 days = 9/3/2010 (7.0 New Zealand - 9/3/2010)
9/3/2010 - 188 days = 2/27/2010 (8.8 Chile - 2/27/2010)
2/27/2010 - 188 days = 8/23/2009 (closest is 8.1 on 9/29) off by +36 days
8/23/2009 - 188 days = 2/16/2009 (closest is 7.2 in Indonesia on 2/11) off by -5 days
2/16/2009 - 188 days = 8/12/2008 (nothing in August) completely off
8/12/2008 - 188 days = 2/6/2008 (closest is 7.4 in Indonesia on 2/20) off by +14 days
2/6/2008 - 188 days = 8/2/2007 (7.2 Vanatua - 8/1/2007)


Forgive my minute corrections, but your facts need slight adjusting. Nice work, though.

Earthquakes Magnitude 7.0+ in 2009 - USGS

"2/27/2010 - 188 days = 8/23/2009 (closest is 8.1 on 9/29) off by +36 days"
7.0 in Java, Indonesia on 09/02 (188-9 days) and 7.5 in Andaman Islands, India region on 08/10 (188+13 days)

Still, neither fall in line with 188 day interval.

"8/23/2009 - 188 days = 2/16/2009 (closest is 7.2 in Indonesia on 2/11) off by -5 days"
7.0 in Kermadec Islands region 02/18 (188-2 days)

Once again, still doesn't fall in line.

You're right on for August '08. No quakes at all.

Obviously, the 188-day theory is not true for all time, for at precisely 188 day intervals the history's just not there past 2 years back. Still, 4 fitting the bill out of ~36 for the past two years, according to the average 18 per year (mag 7.0+ since 1990. see bottom of link)... Well, I'll certainly be looking for #6 in 187 days
edit on 20-3-2012 by jlm912 because: conclusion



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


Thank you for pointing out those corrections.

I agree that the history just isn't there, and that's really all I was trying to establish was the difference between a true recurring pattern and a coincidence.

I did the probability just to show how low the possibility is of it happening given a good sampling of data, but it demonstrates how unlikely it is to be a pattern and the very high likelihood that it won't repeat.

~Namaste



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


It looks like you forgot to add +2 days to account for the 2008 and 2012 leap days.

365 * 5 = 1825 + 2 = 1827

Your math is all wrong....



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
the theory that there is an incoming dark mass in binary orbit with the sun can account for the 188 day cycle of earthquakes and other disturbances. When the earth is near a straight line between the sun and the dark mass the gravitational pull on the crust is maximum... but because the object is moving in an elliptical orbit, the line up changes. of course, the earth is moving too. if the object was stationary in space wrt the sun, the line up would occur 365/2 or 182.5 days. the 188 day cycle will disappear when the object is too far away to have gravitational impact and intensify as it approaches the sun.... and the period of 188 days will change as the object approaches then recedes. the orbital path of the object can be estimated from the variation in the 188 day period.

the outline of the orbital dynamics is found by searching youtube for lucus 188 days. full documentary, 1 hr 32 min.

I cannot say I am convinced of what lucus says, but the 188 day (approx) appearance of the 7.4 Oaxaca quake (now 20 over 4.0 at that site) as predicted should call for careful examination of the orbital mechanics by an astronomer. John Moore has done some of this.

The spring side of the 188 day quake cycle will be larger than the fall side, till the mass circles around the sun, then the fall side quake cycle will be greater. so look forward to 188 days plus march 22.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


I believe the 188 day cycle give or take 188 days either way.
I am waiting on Yellowstone's 188 day to get here.....should be awesome.....give or take.





new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join