It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Why the 188 Day Cycle Is FALSE w/Proof

page: 2
18
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:24 AM

Considering that time in and of itself is flawed due to everyone's watch has a different time on it. I ask a friend what time it is and the watches never equal. So you have to take in the deviation in the time differential between sources which ranges from a couple of seconds to actual minutes....yes I said minutes. In some cases the difference has been almost 15 minutes and that is huge...Because you take 24*60 *188=270,720/15=18,048 minute differential.Which equates to about 5.013hours for every 188 day cycle. This changes your % to 5.1% .So your math is questionable at best MISTER....LOL

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:33 AM
I like option number four, which is that S**T happens. Get over it.

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:09 PM
What if the 188 theory is true and what if other quakes that happen outside that window, are just other quakes that would have happened regardless, due to plate shifting etc. But let's say there was something else that could also cause additional, major earthquakes every 188 or so days. Would it still matter that earthquakes uccur on their own outside that window? Well, no. Not if there is more than one thing causing them.

So, if we have earth, and it's normal earthquake activity... and then we introduce some kind of gravitational pull from a planatary allignment, or object, then wouldn't it cause "additional" earthquake activity on top of normal earthquake activity? So, if in the last few years we've had a 188 pattern of 7.0 or higher, then it doesn't really matter if there are other quakes outside that timeframe, if they are being caused by something else anyway.

So, what I'm trying to say is, anythings possible, including the 188 theory.

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 01:17 PM
Deny the facts, deny the evidence, deny the mathematical odds, attribute everything to "coincidence".

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:18 PM

OK, I suck at math, but let me see if I understand this.

I wake up one morning and say, "The odds of a big earthquake happening somewhere on earth today are about 5%".

Then it happens anyway and I lose a bet on it. So I go to my calendar and I mark a day 188 days in the future and I say, "well the odds of it happening again on that specific date are only 0.5%, so i'll just make another bet and get my money back".

Then in 188 days I lose again. And I keep going, and I lose 60% of the time, even though I should be winning 99.5% of the time.

So I know something's fishy and I check to see if it's always been that way, and i found out no, things have not always been this way, it started in 2009. Shouldn't I conclude that somebody has been stacking the deck since 2009?

It sounds pretty far out that a 188 day cycle was missed for all this time then suddenly jumped out at us. Yet we have this recent unlikely run of more or less evenly spaced major earthquakes. The first thing that comes to my mind is that 188 days may be the operational cycle of a project that is artificially triggering earthquakes.

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:20 PM

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The first thing that comes to my mind is that 188 days may be the operational cycle of a project that is artificially triggering earthquakes.

But why? I was following you all the way up to this point. Why do you suddenly make this leap from, "Hmm, maybe there is a pattern here", to "hmm, not only is there a pattern but now I'm going to assume, based on nothing BUT that pattern, that the CAUSE of it is some artificial 'project' (i.e., manmade)."

Do you not see the rather large gap there?

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:43 PM

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

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.

I'm confused by this. You say you chose 5 years? When to patterns start? You seem to indicate that for an earthquake pattern to be valid it must be for all time, and we'll start with 5 years. Why could the pattern have not started a few years ago? There are other components to the idea, which include location, as well as some form of notoriety, not just vibrations.

What some people complain about in the "debunking" is the idea that all quakes are included, which was never meant to be the case. I'm unclear as to why all quakes have to be included, and all time must be included - is this some kind of scientific law that ends all discussion when patterns are not all time?

The other very curious thing to me is the almost pathological adherence to the idea that quakes just happen and there is nothing more to it. It seems truly odd to me that there is a social and scientific doctrine that is so ingrained into people that to look for patterns or cause and effect with regard to quakes is blasphemy of the highest order. This should be the topic examined: why is earthquake prediction considered witchcraft? Why is so important for no other factor to influence the shaking of the planet but random movement of tectonic plates that no one can see with their eyes? One must admit, the polarization here is out of order for the topic; this is always a sign there is hidden information, as the adherence to an absolute is always the clearest demonstration of indoctrination.

Lastly, while I applaud your mathematical skills, math is not proof of anything at all. Math is a language, like English, or Pictograms, that is simply used to describe things. The reason it is valuable to a certain degree is that most people agree on the terms, but it is not an absolute rather an evolving language - one that is not universal by the way. So "proof" via an equation is not really proof of anything, but another explanation offered by agreed upon terms.

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 02:53 PM
Waves come in periodic and repeating patterns.

When a new wave series from a "splash" far away happens and reaches you finally, you see an "emergence" of a new pattern that comes in a relatively predictable manner, though certain things in the environment can cause some deviations despite the overall pattern being detectable.

Gravity creates waves. Gravity distorts matter (aka planets).

When you are driving down a road with grooves in it your car gets "jolted" each time it hits a trough or a peak. We are driving through a 3D road and the road has changed... it's got more "bumps" that jolt our car.

It's fascinating to watch people who think they are huge fans of science not realize they are actually playing the same role as the church did when denying the earth rotated around the sun (because it was OBVIOUS IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE to them). But the reality was they didn't understand what was being explained, and the theories were incomplete because they were in their infancy.

Just like the first "theories" of flight were almost all "wrong", but were pointing in the right direction.

Stop and really think about what you've done with your imagination when trying to figure out what is possible even if you aren't sure how (which is the principle tool of scientific revolution). Every piece of scientific information needed to understand what is happening to our region of the universe is sitting there staring at us, waiting for more than a handful to believe flight is possible, or can expand their consciousness enough to imagine how the earth could orbit the sun.

This is not as hard to see if you stop being afraid that everything you've been taught was wrong or incomplete. History should show you that there is a long proud tradition of us having to admit that everything we had been taught was mistaken... and adapting to the new possibilities that were previously unimaginable.
edit on 2012/3/21 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:09 PM

What your are missing is that the pattern is a recent development.

What seems more likely? That a very massive object we've never seen before (despite all the times in the past we were falsely told it was about to smash into us) moved into a position where it began to affect Earth and only Earth a few years ago, and then, instead of passing by and the cycle ending again, it began to synchronize its movements with the Earth in order to preserve the cycle?

Or that after realizing that they were accidentally causing small earthquakes with irresponsible mining techniques, humans found a way to enhance and control the effect for their own purposes, and began using this new technology in an organized and controlled way?

Natural processses don't just suddenly move from disorder to rigid order, and then preserve it, with only occasional glitches in the schedule. Humans behave that way all the time though.

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 03:13 PM

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

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...

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, 21 2012 @ 03:40 PM
188 cycle is false because it is a rigid concept.
If these earthquakes are caused by an unseen body, then we are at the mercy of how it danced.
probability is not an appropriate math here, maybe we should try calculus

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by The Vagabond
What seems more likely? That a very massive object we've never seen before (despite all the times in the past we were falsely told it was about to smash into us) moved into a position where it began to affect Earth and only Earth a few years ago, and then, instead of passing by and the cycle ending again, it began to synchronize its movements with the Earth in order to preserve the cycle?

Or that after realizing that they were accidentally causing small earthquakes with irresponsible mining techniques, humans found a way to enhance and control the effect for their own purposes, and began using this new technology in an organized and controlled way?

Well yes, if only these two possibilities were in the hat, I'd have to pick #2.

But what's limiting our choices to these 2?

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 05:14 PM
It seems this idea was taken a bit differently than I intended, so let me clarify a few things.

1) Kepler's Law. If you don't know what it is, and want to understand planetary mechanics, look it up. There is no large mass object incoming towards the Earth. If you understood anything about the force of gravity, you would know it is inversely proportional to the distance of the object. That means the further out you go, the weaker the force. The moon is 1/4 the size of the earth and 250K miles away and has just enough gravity to change the tides and influence tectonics. It would take an object several times larger than Jupiter and closer to use than Mars to change our gravity in any kind of measurable way. You can add up ALL of the planets in a perfect alignment at their closest approach to one another, and the change to gravity would be less than if the moon by itself moved from apogee to perigee and back. Oh, it must be some big conspiracy, right? Ok... go to your nearest astronomy club and ask anyone in that club what they think. Or if you are really bold, I dare you to walk into an observatory and ask someone there to explain Kepler's Law(s) of planetary motion.

2) @crankyoldman - math describes our physical world in a language that doesn't change, which is numbers. To say that math doesn't mean anything is pretty ignorant and arrogant. What would you prefer we explain the natural world with? If numbers NEVER change... 1 is 1, 2 is 2, etc... then they are perfect for representing natural processes that don't change either. Granted, science is always changing direction on things, but one thing that has never changed is numbers, which is why I chose to use math to show the chances of someone being right about this "pattern".

3) Using a simple scientific method of gathering facts, you can PROVE as I have that 188 days doesn't work. People's replies are "it's 189 days", "it's give or take 10 days", "you forgot leap years", "you forgot to count the minutes"... etc. I don't see any of you even taking a stab at the math, yet you'll spend all day poking holes in mine? LOL
Good luck with that....

4) Why can I take ONLY the 7+ quake from Mexico and follow 188 day cycles and not any 7+ quake and have it follow the same pattern or cycle? That doesn't make any sense at all... if there was some rythmic pattern to the tectonics of the Earth, it would present itself in a lot of other ways, and with more than just 1 set of quakes. There would be other things happening every 188 days.

I would love to find a pattern in these quakes, I've been searching for one for years...because if I can save one person's life by warning them of an impending quake, I've done what I set out to do. The fact of the matter is, I DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DO ANY OF YOU!!!! At least I am attempting to approach it with sound reasoning.

Bottom line... people want to believe that they are somehow more special in this life than any other human who lived before us, or that we're going to witness a cataclysmic event so large, it will destroy the earth and you all hope that you're left to rebuild it. I get it. The world is in disarray.... but rather than DO SOMETHING TO FIX IT YOURSELVES, you hope that someone or something else will do the work for you. YOU don't want to take out the elites, you hope that a planet from the far reaches of space will crash into us and do it. YOU don't want to deal with all of the corruption in the world, you hope it falls apart as a result of financial Armageddon.

Please don't take your anger and frustration out on me. I feel the same way you all do, the difference is that I go out every day, whether it be on ATS or in my personal life, and try to make a difference every chance I get.

Can you say the same? Be the change you want to see in the world.

~Namaste

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:14 PM
I just wanted to add that I went back to 2002 with the 188 day cycle, and also tried it with 189 days and 187 days...

There is NO pattern with them. There are plenty of points where there are no earthquakes anywhere near the dates in question.

Another point... if I were to take the Vanuatu region and look at quakes in that area, there are several "patterns" when looking at 3 month view, then 6 month view, and 1 year views. But none of them are consistent. They appear that way at a cursory glance, but when you include the wider range of data, they fall apart very quickly and just become a small pattern among the noise.

And one final point... why is it that we're so special that we would find this pattern all of a sudden when scientists and amateurs have been working, in some cases around the clock, on trying to find a cause for quakes or a predictable pattern for centuries?

I don't claim to know the answers... there are too many variables at work to say one thing or another causes an earthquake. For anyone to think they can figure it out is highly arrogant IMO. The Earth is moving around the sun at 30K miles per hour, with the solar system moving around 450K mph and the milky way moving around 1.2 million mph, all to our "current" knowledge of course. Just taking that into consideration, and trying to figure out what could be causing the planet to shake is a joke. They could be caused simply by our velocity as we move, by gravitational waves from an old supernova, by the Earth's core, by the interstellar gas cloud outside of our solar system, etc..... there are any number of things to explain it. Most humans have never left their home country, let alone have any clue what's happening outside the planet. There is so much more we need to understand as a species before we can even wrap our heads around what may be behind earth quakes.

Ok, I'll get off my soap box now.

~Namaste
edit on 21-3-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

18