Technosoul attempts to prove a potential theory with test.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Netopalis Techno: One possible problem with your theory: Take two people doing this, but with diametrically opposed expected results. Logically, both cannot occur. Thoughts?

Sounds like a good and standard procedure of science. But it is not like taking a pill, one good and the other being a surgar pill. Because a "gut" feeling, coming form out of the blue is more metaphysical.

Now rat poision would cause everyone to get very sick or die. So we can know in fact that it is the cause of such a effect. Smoking would be different because some people get sick and some don't who all smoke. So that can of stat would be more like guesswork. But what about a "revelation" as they call it in modern religions - and "faith" (belief)? Whould the other person need to have no faith? Or What?

[Technosoul]

For a week the news media (I used CNN) has been running a major story about a mine cave in that happened in Utah.

Yesterday a Major 8 point quake hit Peru causing wide spread damage and killing lots of people and today a strong aftershock took place. A major double wamming (two) earthquake impact.

Peru quake disaster area hit by powerful aftershock - Yahoo! News

An 8.0 quake does not happen every month even if you scan the whole globe, to cause deaths and distruction. Not in conformity with the normal "stats" which I knew nothing about when I posted my first O.P.

The formula worked.

Stating it would happen within 30 days is a "short window" of predictablity when it comes to doing a prediction of this type.

Still time left for more evidence to surface (also).

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zeebadee Heh, this was great. Almost as tough as predicting that there will be a full moon next month. There are on average 120 earthquakes a year in the 6-6.9 range, 18 in the 7-7.9 range, and 1 in the range above that. This equates to 139 "major" earthquakes a year worldwide, for an average of more than 1 significant earthquake every 3 days. Pretty brave of you to establish a window for your prediction of two in 30 days. Earthquake Facts & Figures

Only a 1 chance of a 8.0 quake happen during a year, as in Peru. Add to that the chance that it would likewise become a big news story because it happen in a populated area and lots of people died. No one can predict that using normal stats, and narrow the window for it happening to the time limits of the next month, but I did based on my formula without knowledge of what the 'averages' are.

I was not trying to predict earthquakes that happen most of the time at least somewhere on earth. I was predicting the kind that would be abnormal enough to be concidered by most to be unpredictable.

The data from "out of the blue" did not give details but only the fact that something odd would happen earthquake wise within 30 days, not once but twice.

See above post #22. The evidence supports that my experiment had positive results favoring my theory.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: sdbest Ahhh! Man! What am I supposed to do with earthquake predictions? Short real estate? Regards S.

This experiment has nothing to do with what you can use it for. Unless you can use data from out of the blue which might be for your advantage.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo Completely justified objections, since you didn't make any theories. Then you didn't understand what was explained to you about what science is and how it works? I suspected as much. That seems to be totally meaningless. What does it mean, since faith is belief (without supporting evidence). Moreover, that isn't a formula. What was it that you tested? Your bogus "formula?" How is your "prediction" a test of anything but your ability to state the obvious? Why is it that you think that this is any more scientific than any of your other blue daydreaming? That's right. And you still haven't. As has been pointed out to you by Zeebadee, you haven't actually predicted anything. In fact, scientific predictions are much more specific than a statement of what is already known as a statistical fact. I predict that in the next 30 days that somewhere in the U.S. at there will be two occasions in which a locality will receive an inch or more of rain in a 24 hour period. How's that for a prediction? Nonsense, right? At least as risky as your prediction. So what. You didn't predict either of these earthquakes. You didn't actually give us any sort of meaningful time and you didn't predict a specific location. It is meaningless to claim that you are predicting anything when all you claim is that there will be an earthquake somewhere on earth in the next 30 days. It is as meaningless as my prediction of rain. You forgot to mention that you were predicting a sure thing. In other words, your weren't predicting anything - only stating the obvious. Doesn't seem so. There is no such thing as peer review at volconvo. You don't seem to know what the term means. But that still doesn't make it science. Your "formula" doesn't suggest anything that can be tested through prediction and experiment. In other words, you are well aware that you "prediction" is essentially meaningless. No it didn't, since you didn't predict it. You didn't tell us where it was going to happen or when to any meaningful extent. That's nonsense. You didn't predict a specific event. You only "predicted" that events that happen constantly would happen somewhere at some time.

A peer review of which you advocate would be done by a science journal before they publish a article about a new theory. The editors of that publication would submit the article to experts in the field of science which is the topic. Those reveiwing the topic would then say that the theory is okay or they would say that it is in error, or sometimes they might recomend that a few minor corrections be made before publications. Once done the journal will publish it or return the article (theory) to the writer as rejected. That is how a peer review is conducted by editors of a science journal. Volconvo is not a science jounal however, and this is an experiment and not a final 'theory'.

I think that I did post a metaphysical formula that can be used to confirm the paranormal source being downloaded.

I was unaware of the averages for earthquakes of different magnitudes or that would cause big news stories. That is unimportant because any quake that falls within the norms cannot be counted. Only the two that are not the average norms consituting an educated guess.

As it turned out my experiment worked. The 8.0 quake in Preu that killed over 500 people kept CNN busy for days reporting that major event. Then we had the mine cave in that CNN reported about for days and days, and this was a very odd earthquake even if only a 3.9 magnitude because it was not caused by shifts in the fault line plates, but rather because the mine company had dug too many mine caves and that cause the mountain to tremble with what minirs call "bumps".
Representing one of the first major man-made quake to kill a bunch of people, both the first miners trappend as well as a rescue team, creating a two fold event. Such a quake happen when the mines caves cannot support the weight above them and the pop outwardly and the cave floor buckles up from the bottom, then the roof of the mine falls down. That major incident will cause the government to rethink how they go about approving mine safty.

Tomorrow morning is the 19th again... end of time limted test.

I have made my case because CNN reported on two major news stories involving quaking earth shifts. Which does not happen every month or on an average of months through out the year.

As a side note I found it very interesting that the mine quake happened in Utah which is the home state of their so called famous Mormon prophets.

See above post # 22 for added details.

[Praxius]

Hey, I went one step further.... I predicted everything thus far in regards to this whole terrorism crap...

I've yet to see in the recent future anything poking a nuclear war yet... but WWIII is coming.

But I'm not saying this is any great feat..... anybody who reads a little history and doesn't stop at the first answer given, could easily predict all this..... it's actually sickening that most haven't or those who have in power, didn't try and actually stop this BS..... but there ya go and that's another topic.

The point is, most things can be predicted more accuratly if one just opens their own eyes and make their own conclusions...... rather then always resorting to a pile of scientists on TV. They're good for some things but not everything in your life.

It's pretty easy for someone to just think of several conclusions to a situation and usually one will come true..... then you're never wrong

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Praxius Hey, I went one step further.... I predicted everything thus far in regards to this whole terrorism crap... I've yet to see in the recent future anything poking a nuclear war yet... but WWIII is coming. But I'm not saying this is any great feat..... anybody who reads a little history and doesn't stop at the first answer given, could easily predict all this..... it's actually sickening that most haven't or those who have in power, didn't try and actually stop this BS..... but there ya go and that's another topic. The point is, most things can be predicted more accuratly if one just opens their own eyes and make their own conclusions...... rather then always resorting to a pile of scientists on TV. They're good for some things but not everything in your life. It's pretty easy for someone to just think of several conclusions to a situation and usually one will come true..... then you're never wrong

George Bush is so predictable you sure don't need a crystal ball to know his next move. Predictions can also be made with educated guesses.
Some people are more sensitive to earth (mother nature) and can pick up on hints that others would quickly overlook, it takes a certain knack for that sort of thing.

Using education we can note cycles in history that take place, those cycles speed up and last for shorter amounts of time as we progress with that momentum. We presently are in a repeat cycle of fundamentalism simular to what it was like just before the New World (America) was discovered, when we last experienced religious terrorism of any magnitude. We should pass through this time zone by the year 2012. Not sure what new discovery will take place as we shift into another era - and a new historical cycle.

A limited nuclear exchange is not off the table yet concidering how many governments have such weapons. But not doomsday for the whole planet.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Technosoul Only a 1 chance of a 8.0 quake happen during a year, as in Peru. Add to that the chance that it would likewise become a big news story because it happen in a populated area and lots of people died. No one can predict that using normal stats, and narrow the window for it happening to the time limits of the next month, but I did based on my formula without knowledge of what the 'averages' are. I was not trying to predict earthquakes that happen most of the time at least somewhere on earth. I was predicting the kind that would be abnormal enough to be concidered by most to be unpredictable. The data from "out of the blue" did not give details but only the fact that something odd would happen earthquake wise within 30 days, not once but twice. See above post #22. The evidence supports that my experiment had positive results favoring my theory.

What crap. You didn't predict an 8.0 earthquake, you predicted "within the next 30 days the news will report two major earthquakes.". You didn't define what constitutes a "major" earthquake, you didn't tell us anything about what kind "would be abnormal enough to be concidered by most to be unpredictable", and you didn't define what "something odd would happen earthquake wise" means either. You didn't even really predict that ANY earthquakes would actually occur at all, merely that "the news will report two"

Your "prediction" is nothing more than meaningless drivel. Why don't you demonstrate some REAL faith and plug a few specifics into your next "prediction"? Have you got the guts to put your "equation" to a real test?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zeebadee What crap. You didn't predict an 8.0 earthquake, you predicted "within the next 30 days the news will report two major earthquakes.". You didn't define what constitutes a "major" earthquake, you didn't tell us anything about what kind "would be abnormal enough to be concidered by most to be unpredictable", and you didn't define what "something odd would happen earthquake wise" means either. You didn't even really predict that ANY earthquakes would actually occur at all, merely that "the news will report two" Your "prediction" is nothing more than meaningless drivel. Why don't you demonstrate some REAL faith and plug a few specifics into your next "prediction"? Have you got the guts to put your "equation" to a real test?

If I did not mention the magnitude before because it was not important to state such. And I later defined "major" as a quake that would become a major news story. None the less someone gripped that quakes up too a magnitude of 7.9 are 'common' and so this is like predicting the sun will shine tomorrow. Where as a stronger magnitude happens on an aveage of only once per year.

In spite of your attempt to downplay this experiment it still stands as proven. Two major events involing reported earthquakes happened that became very newsworthy. Events that were odd enough and that CNN spent a lot of air time to cover. Those "quakes" stood out relative to all the normal quakes that happen which are not major news events.

Such events do not happen on a regular bases each month.

It is impossible to "have the guts" to give more details because my guts were not the Source of those predictions. The data I related came too me not from me, and I cannot add what was not provided in the way of details because I can only report what I get "from out of the blue". If details did not come from out of the blue then I work with what I get.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Technosoul If I did not mention the magnitude before because it was not important to state such. And I later defined "major" as a quake that would become a major news story.

Just more blather. Here's a list of the major quakes in 2006:

"Large / Noteworthy Earthquakes for 2006

2006 01 02 - East of South Sandwich Islands - Magnitude 7.4
2006 01 02 - Illinois - Magnitude 3.6
2006 01 04 - Gulf of California - Magnitude 6.6
2006 01 08 - Southern Greece - Magnitude 6.8
2006 01 27 - Banda Sea - Magnitude 7.6

2006 02 10 - Colorado - Magnitude 3.8
2006 02 22 - Mozambique - Magnitude 7.0
2006 02 26 - South of the Fiji Islands - Magnitude 6.4

2006 03 14 - Seram, Indonesia - Magnitude 6.7
2006 03 22 - Western Montana - Magnitude 4.2
2006 03 31 - Western Iran - Magnitude 6.1

2006 04 20 - Koryakia, Russia - Magnitude 7.6

2006 05 03 - Tonga - Magnitude 8.0
2006 05 16 - Kermadec Islands Region - Magnitude 7.4
2006 05 16 - Nias Region, Indonesia - Magnitude 6.8
2006 05 26 - Java, Indonesia - Magnitude 6.3 Deadliest Earthquake in 2006

2006 06 11 - Kyushu, Japan - Magnitude 6.3

2006 07 17 - South of Java, Indonesia - Magnitude 7.7
2006 07 27 - Southern Alaska - Magnitude 4.8

2006 08 11 - Michoacan, Mexico - Magnitude 5.9
2006 08 20 - Scotia Sea - Magnitude 7.0

2006 09 01 - Bougainville Region, Papua New Guinea - Magnitude 6.8
2006 09 10 - Gulf of Mexico - Magnitude 5.8
2006 09 28 - Samoa Islands Region - Magnitude 6.9

2006 10 02 - Maine - Magnitude 3.8
2006 10 15 - Hawaii region, Hawaii - Magnitude 6.7
2006 10 17 - New Britain region, Papua New Guinea - Magnitude 6.7
2006 10 20 - Near the Coast of Central Peru - Magnitude 6.7
2006 10 20 - Northern California - Magnitude 4.5

2006 11 13 - Santiago del Estero, Argentina - Magnitude 6.8
2006 11 15 - Kuril Islands - Magnitude 8.3 Largest Earthquake in 2006

2006 12 26 - Taiwan Region - Magnitude 7.1
2006 12 26 - Taiwan - Magnitude 6.9"
Earthquake Hazards Program: Earthquake Information for 2006

Quote by: Technosoul In spite of your attempt to downplay this experiment it still stands as proven. Two major events involing reported earthquakes happened that became very newsworthy. Events that were odd enough and that CNN spent a lot of air time to cover. Those "quakes" stood out relative to all the normal quakes that happen which are not major news events. Such events do not happen on a regular bases each month.

Your "prediction" is crap. As we all can see, "newsworthy" quakes happen pretty frequently.

When you can add some specifics to your "predictions", then maybe we'll think you have something more to offer than hot air and nonsense.

[Maryjane]

Ordered take out Chinese a few weeks back. When the meal was over, my son asked if I was going to read the fortune in the cookie?

"Nah", I replied. I already know what it's going to say. "Be kind to people and you will be successful."

He read it and handed it to me...It actually said:

From now on your kindness will lead you to success. :eek:

Wadda ya know? I can predict fortune cookie sayings!! I think we all get hunches from time to time. An actual prediction is rare. I too would be impressed if your prediction was more specific.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zeebadee Just more blather. Here's a list of the major quakes in 2006: "Large / Noteworthy Earthquakes for 2006 2006 01 02 - East of South Sandwich Islands - Magnitude 7.4 2006 01 02 - Illinois - Magnitude 3.6 2006 01 04 - Gulf of California - Magnitude 6.6 2006 01 08 - Southern Greece - Magnitude 6.8 2006 01 27 - Banda Sea - Magnitude 7.6 2006 02 10 - Colorado - Magnitude 3.8 2006 02 22 - Mozambique - Magnitude 7.0 2006 02 26 - South of the Fiji Islands - Magnitude 6.4 2006 03 14 - Seram, Indonesia - Magnitude 6.7 2006 03 22 - Western Montana - Magnitude 4.2 2006 03 31 - Western Iran - Magnitude 6.1 2006 04 20 - Koryakia, Russia - Magnitude 7.6 2006 05 03 - Tonga - Magnitude 8.0 2006 05 16 - Kermadec Islands Region - Magnitude 7.4 2006 05 16 - Nias Region, Indonesia - Magnitude 6.8 2006 05 26 - Java, Indonesia - Magnitude 6.3 Deadliest Earthquake in 2006 2006 06 11 - Kyushu, Japan - Magnitude 6.3 2006 07 17 - South of Java, Indonesia - Magnitude 7.7 2006 07 27 - Southern Alaska - Magnitude 4.8 2006 08 11 - Michoacan, Mexico - Magnitude 5.9 2006 08 20 - Scotia Sea - Magnitude 7.0 2006 09 01 - Bougainville Region, Papua New Guinea - Magnitude 6.8 2006 09 10 - Gulf of Mexico - Magnitude 5.8 2006 09 28 - Samoa Islands Region - Magnitude 6.9 2006 10 02 - Maine - Magnitude 3.8 2006 10 15 - Hawaii region, Hawaii - Magnitude 6.7 2006 10 17 - New Britain region, Papua New Guinea - Magnitude 6.7 2006 10 20 - Near the Coast of Central Peru - Magnitude 6.7 2006 10 20 - Northern California - Magnitude 4.5 2006 11 13 - Santiago del Estero, Argentina - Magnitude 6.8 2006 11 15 - Kuril Islands - Magnitude 8.3 Largest Earthquake in 2006 2006 12 26 - Taiwan Region - Magnitude 7.1 2006 12 26 - Taiwan - Magnitude 6.9" Earthquake Hazards Program: Earthquake Information for 2006 Your "prediction" is crap. As we all can see, "newsworthy" quakes happen pretty frequently. When you can add some specifics to your "predictions", then maybe we'll think you have something more to offer than hot air and nonsense.

Hmm, only one 8.0 quake on your list for 2006. And one with a 8.3 magnitude. For the whole 12 months.

I do not think they all caused such distruction and death that they became major news stories? You would have to provide the news story not just stats from an earthquake tracking site in order to make your case.

Earthquakes that get lots of news attention are not as common as you are attempting to claim. Especially two of them happening during the same month, what are the odds of that happening?

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul Hmm, only one 8.0 quake on your list for 2006. And one with a 8.3 magnitude. For the whole 12 months.

Since you didn't predict the magnitude of the quakes, how is that statement even relevant? Obviously, major quakes are common and thus to "predict" two in 30 days without any specifics isn't really a prediction - just a statement of the obvious.

I do not think they all caused such distruction and death that they became major news stories? You would have to provide the news story not just stats from an earthquake tracking site in order to make your case.

Do you mean "destruction"? How is that relevant. You didn't predict any destruction and death.

Earthquakes that get lots of news attention are not as common as you are attempting to claim. Especially two of them happening during the same month, what are the odds of that happening?

Quote good, actually. Why don't you do the math for 2006 with the data provided for us.

By the way, my prediction of an inch of rain in a single day was fulfilled - in my back yard. The first was the one I already mentioned the day after my prediction, and the second was the day before yesterday when we got 3 1/4 inches in a single day. Amazing!

Tell you what. Put your money where your mouth is and actually predict something. Tell us when (the date) and where (like in the list) the next two quakes of greater than 5.0 will happen in the world. If you "formula" actually has any value, then you can do it. Your failure to make the prediction will only underline the fact that your "formula" is a delusion.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Maryjane Ordered take out Chinese a few weeks back. When the meal was over, my son asked if I was going to read the fortune in the cookie? "Nah", I replied. I already know what it's going to say. "Be kind to people and you will be successful." He read it and handed it to me...It actually said: From now on your kindness will lead you to success. :eek: Wadda ya know? I can predict fortune cookie sayings!! I think we all get hunches from time to time. An actual prediction is rare. I too would be impressed if your prediction was more specific.

That was funny, most of the cookies and horoscopes just give out some sage advice and they leave the interpretation of success up to the reader. I also made a lucky guess once with a lotto ticket and won $53.00 dollars. But your guess was a little more then just a matter of random luck, it came to you from out of the blue, and because you knew somewhat about what kinds of advice they put in those cookies.
I am not trying to prove that I have some rare gift or anything like that, everyone can experience the same thing - in your case a cookie and in my case a couple of earthquakes. The 30 day window js as specific as I was able to report, as it turned out the two events unfolded during the last week of that time frame. A close enough time frame so that the results could be announced and confirmed before it is forgotten about.
If I was able to pin-point the exact location then that would be very distruptive to me and my personal life style, because I would feel obligated to save people with advanced warnings and then I would be famous and people would swarm about nagging me all the time about it and I would have no more peace and quiet. Plus I would get a big fat head with ego problems to deal with. Better this way I would think, at least this way things are still normal. So sorry about not being super specific but that's how the cookie crumbles.

[Technosoul]

[quote=gallo;422136]Since you didn't predict the magnitude of the quakes, how is that statement even relevant? Obviously, major quakes are common and thus to "predict" two in 30 days without any specifics isn't really a prediction - just a statement of the obvious.
Do you mean "destruction"? How is that relevant. You didn't predict any destruction and death.
Quote good, actually. Why don't you do the math for 2006 with the data provided for us.

By the way, my prediction of an inch of rain in a single day was fulfilled - in my back yard. The first was the one I already mentioned the day after my prediction, and the second was the day before yesterday when we got 3 1/4 inches in a single day. Amazing!

People asked questions and I answered them in a manner to remove doubts. The other poster thought I was just predicting that the two quakes would have something to do with the magnatude recorded. And he protested that quake in the range of 6.0 up to 7,9 are common as rain falling on a day when rain coulds are in the sky. The Preu quake was 8.0 which is above the "common" bracket. The quake also became a major news story. As did the Utah quake. To become a major news story a quake must do more then just sit there and shake. Everyone should have enought logic in their brain matter to know that the news people will only make a major earthquake story out of an quake if people are killed, injured, and if buildings come tumbling down on cars and other stuff. When they ask for donations and the red cross takes action. When emotions are effected. You know that darn well so stop pretending and playing dumb with your attempts to dodge what is self evident. And you know darn well that such events as I just noted do not ocur twice every month on an average. Many times I noted that I was not predicting what anyone would call "average events" that happen all the time.

I made the prediction (with following details), it happened, and that is a matter of fact. Because I knew it would happen based on knowledge that was not provided by scienitific methods used to project the odds.

And so the test also is evidence that the method I employed for that prediction worked.

If I get some info from out of the blue about when and where the next 5.0 quakes will happen I will let you know. I have no control over what is revealed or when.

By the way you forgot to post the big news story about that inch of rain in your back yard. Look for about 3 inches or more rain in your back yard on Thursday and into the weekend.

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul By the way you forgot to post the big news story about that inch of rain in your back yard.

But it was a news story. Of course, my back yard wasn't reported. I'm just reporting from my rain gage. Nevertheless, I predicted it, and it happened in my back yard.

You can, in fact, search the news for the results of tropical storm Erin and find that my paltry 3 1/4 inch was nothing. Perhaps you didn't pay attention to the reports of flooding in OK and KA. That was the result of much more than an inch in a day.

Look for about 3 inches or more rain in your back yard on Thursday and into the weekend

So your are predicting, out of the blue, that I will get 3 inches of rain over 4 days? Actually, that's not an unusual event. It's a bit late in the year, but this has been an unusual year. I will carefully monitor the rain from midnight Wednesday until midnight Sunday. We're in a bit of a seasonal dry spell right now (barring hurricanes and tropical storms) so I don't see your prediction as happening.

However, even if I get 3 inches of rain over 4 days, what have you predicted, since 3 inches of raid in a single day isn't unusual? Just as you "predicted" earthquakes. Duh! Statement of the obvious isn't meaningful.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo But it was a news story. Of course, my back yard wasn't reported. I'm just reporting from my rain gage. Nevertheless, I predicted it, and it happened in my back yard. You can, in fact, search the news for the results of tropical storm Erin and find that my paltry 3 1/4 inch was nothing. Perhaps you didn't pay attention to the reports of flooding in OK and KA. That was the result of much more than an inch in a day. So your are predicting, out of the blue, that I will get 3 inches of rain over 4 days? Actually, that's not an unusual event. It's a bit late in the year, but this has been an unusual year. I will carefully monitor the rain from midnight Wednesday until midnight Sunday. We're in a bit of a seasonal dry spell right now (barring hurricanes and tropical storms) so I don't see your prediction as happening. However, even if I get 3 inches of rain over 4 days, what have you predicted, since 3 inches of raid in a single day isn't unusual? Just as you "predicted" earthquakes. Duh! Statement of the obvious isn't meaningful.

Which is my point also. For all I know it migh be sunny in your back yard tomorrow. In this case I was speculating that hurricane Dean might push some rain clouds out far enough to give you all in Houston a little shower. But that prediction did not come "form out of the blue", nor did I say that such was the case. And that weather report that I made is no more dependable ( and is less so ) then those you might hear about on the TV news stations.

You were trying to compare predicting averages or 'good' chances of an inch of rain with the prediction I made about the two major earthquakes.

Two different things all together.

As I already explained in above postings.

You just made a meaningless comparison.

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul You just made a meaningless comparison.

And you made a meaningless prediction - or rather, you actually didn't predict anything at all.

[billybobama]

Quote by: Technosoul A lot of people here in the science forum has objected to some of my theory making that came to me from 'out of the blue'. Because I did not provide a test that would effect a result that can be confirmed. And so over in the Religion and Philosophy forum I posted a formula. Belief + faith = expected result. (wihin limitations so noted in that OP). I tested this by reporting and predicting that above average earthquakes will occur within the time limitations of the following 30 day period. (future). That was on July 19, 07. I predicted not just one but that two major earthquakes would happen. Most people feel that normally no one can predict when a earthquake will happen. The following day (Sat. July 21) a 6 point earthquake shook South America. Then on Sunday July 22 two more 6 point magnitude earthquakes occured in China and in Western Iran. According to the news reports. Damage reports still pending. Those happening during the first three days of the total window of 30 days. The China quake left about 2000 people homeless. The predictions founded on my belief and faith in the 'knowing' that came to me from out of the blue. In total so far since that prediction of a few days ago the world has experienced 4 quakes of (or more then) a 6 point magnitude. And a couple of 5 point (or greater) impacts elsewhere. ( one of those being a 5.9 quake ). The details are all documented with needed links under the heading "The Belief Theory potential' in the Religion and philosphy forum. Well, that should shake things up. (opinon). During the "volconvo peer review" one recomendation was suggested to further test and confirm the fomula as outlined and it's proposed concluding facts. The suggested additional test would be designed to debunk any claim that it was just a lucky chance that the odds favored the projections I indicated in the prediction. In spite of the idea that it could have been a lucky guess or whatever the fact still remans that the earthquakes happened as predicted. A future event was predicted in advance based on faith in my belief that I knew it would happen due to data from "out of the blue" , and has been documented and not 'faked'. If you wish you can check out the topic thread and make your comments known.

I have a test for you. Predict what I will do in the next ten minutes. - lol

[treme]

Quote by: christibe I think it is possible to predict something on a gut feeling, certainly. More likely to me though is that it was got through an analysis of the history of the something. You may not have analyzed the statistical probability of the something, but someone may have. I have a sense of interconnectedness between people enough that it might be possible that knowledge is to some extent 'out there'. I don't like 'collective consciousness' so much, but my basic idea is there. MSFT will be within $2 of $28 on August 31, 2007...... lets see. :)

What you just touched on and Techno can sense is out there is what I'm writing about.

I don't think our thoughts about earthquakes or our strong faith in them can MAKE them happen. It does get us to see it and look for it and when we look for earthquakes, we find them.

How do we find them? The information travels. It goes from the ground into the bodies of the people living there. It goes from them somehow to the people that put information online. It goes from there to cyberspace. From there it's goes to a guy who started a thread on Volconvo.com about how he could predict earthquakes.

Then, if we follow the line of thinking that leads us to believe that all existence is what we perceive, we can conclude that Techno didn't really predict that an earthquake was going to happen. He predicted that we (this collective I-don't-know-what) would perceive it. I believe Techno does have a special power. Something his great grandmother definitely didn't have.

More Information. Techno's special power is, the internet. Not only to use to check his prediction, but all the times he read about earthquakes in the past. He didn't just absorb the magnitudes and their locations or how many deaths there were. He, whether intentionally or no, absorbed information about how frequent they are. Even if he didn't take all the dates and times down and tabulate them in an Excel Document and work the numbers to return him the likely-hood that an earthquake would occur, he STILL absorbed the information.

Now, consider the idea that EVERYTHING we do involves different levels of information and predictions based on that. We move the mouse. Why? Because we expect it to move the visible cursor on the computer screen. Our brain has built up the pattern based on immense amounts of tactile and visual information. We predict, subconsciously, that the cursor will move when (and in the same direction on a different plane) as the mouse does.

Given that idea, it's obvious why Techno was able to predict that an earthquake was going to be perceived. Just like he predicts to perceive the engine roaring to life as he turns the key in the ignition. The more information we have about something, the more likely we are to be able to predict it.

But he doesn't need all of the numbers and statistics to predict it, he can do it relatively intuitively using a rule of thumb. An If-Then statement programmed into his subconscious that has summed up all of the information he's gained on the subject (even the unintentional information).

He wanted to predict when an earthquake would happen and based on all of the information he's gleaned about them and their frequency in the past, he used his subconscious rule of thumb and threw the prediction on the table.

IF [Techno's Timeframe] passes at least [This Many] [Events] will occur.

His brain can do this with about as much (but not quite as much) accuracy as a statistician. But it's ok to be wrong because this If-Then rule gets updated with the information. Given the mistake, Techno will likely set a longer Timeframe next time he predicts.

Now did he actually cause the earthquake by predicting it? The actual ground shaking he didn't cause. But he did cause it to be perceived by at least some part of our collective I-don't-know-what. If that happens to just be me because I've been slacking on my international news gathering, it still worked.