Technosoul attempts to prove a potential theory with test.

[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.

Did you predict or cause the earthquakes? Can you now predict where Microsoft stock will be on August 31?

Regards
S.

[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. :)

[Atlas]

Setting that sole example outside, I think believing in something without any analytical support may actually worsen the statistical chance of the thing happening, for if the chance of something happening is 1/X, the chance of it happening while specifically you believe in that specific thing is 1/X * 1/Y (the chance you will believe this will happen), thus giving us a lower number and a lesser probability.

May be an idea for another topic, but here it contradicts the idea that "believing" in something will affect its occurrence positively.

[Zeebadee]

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.

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

[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

Well, there goes the myth that earthquakes are not predictable using the "odds". It would also support the chance that one two of those quakes might cause wide spread damage or be deadly, however only a few seem to cause such major damage such that they are remembered as important tragic events from the past. Relative to that we might narrow the odds down to about 5 a year. With 12 months a year that is still only close to a 40-60 chance when you play the odds. And the odds would be greater for two major quakes to happen in one month if we note that major means "wide spread distruction".

So the odds are in favor of that not happening - way in favor. (as many quakes are in isolated and unpopulared areas or in the oceans).

So I must bide my time and wait for the end of the 30 day period ( counting 30 days as a month) being I did not start on the 1st. Or until something happens. (as already noted in piror posting in the orginal thread over at the Religion forum)

I had to re-interpret the "prediction" after finding out that lots of earthquakes happen and because it would have been pointless to have a huntch about something that happens all the time anyway.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: sdbest Did you predict or cause the earthquakes? Can you now predict where Microsoft stock will be on August 31? Regards S.

I did not predict it but related a huntch. A prediction is not a cause.

I do not have any data "from out of the blue" about Microsoft stock. (or Lotto numbers)

[Technosoul]

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. And that might consitute some need for "belief and faith"? MSFT will be within $2 of $28 on August 31, 2007...... lets see. :)

Good luck.

[Technosoul]

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. :)

So would a gut feeling not require belief and faith to use it?

Quote by: Technosoul I do not have any data "from out of the blue" about Microsoft stock. (or Lotto numbers)

Ahhh! Man! What am I supposed to do with earthquake predictions? Short real estate?

Regards
S.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Technosoul I did not predict it but related a huntch. A prediction is not a cause. I do not have any data "from out of the blue" about Microsoft stock. (or Lotto numbers)

When I first read this thread, I thought you were being facetious. I still find it difficult to believe that you're serious. This is the dumbest thread I've seen in Volconvo. Do you actually think anyone is going to buy your "predictions" about events that naturally occur on an average of more than 5 times what you predict?

And no, you didn't just relate a "huntch"...

"I tested this by reporting and predicting", and "I predicted not just one but that two major earthquakes would happen".

What absolute crap.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zeebadee When I first read this thread, I thought you were being facetious. I still find it difficult to believe that you're serious. This is the dumbest thread I've seen in Volconvo. Do you actually think anyone is going to buy your "predictions" about events that naturally occur on an average of more than 5 times what you predict? And no, you didn't just relate a "huntch"... "I tested this by reporting and predicting", and "I predicted not just one but that two major earthquakes would happen". What absolute crap.

So you are claiming that the news reports that we have 5 times the number of major quakes per month then two? We have on a global scale 10 major quakes per month that can cause wide spread property damange and/or deaths, via quakes of a 6 magnitude of greater?

You claim that emergency groups like the Red Cross should be prepared for helping those 10 areas so declaired as "disaster zones" each month? Because that is the norm?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Technosoul So you are claiming that the news reports that we have 5 times the number of major quakes per month then two? We have on a global scale 10 major quakes per month that can cause wide spread property damange and/or deaths, via quakes of a 6 magnitude of greater? You claim that emergency groups like the Red Cross should be prepared for helping those 10 areas so declaired as "disaster zones" each month? Because that is the norm?

Hey, the issue isn't my "claims", it's YOUR "prediction", but nice try.

And dragging "emergency groups like the Red Cross" into this is just blowing smoke, as I never even mentioned such groups.

You made a "prediction" that there would be 2 major quakes within 30 days when we have, on average, more than 10. But I'll give you credit for making me laugh.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zeebadee Hey, the issue isn't my "claims", it's YOUR "prediction", but nice try. And dragging "emergency groups like the Red Cross" into this is just blowing smoke, as I never even mentioned such groups. You made a "prediction" that there would be 2 major quakes within 30 days when we have, on average, more than 10. But I'll give you credit for making me laugh.

You did not read the whole outline that was elaborated on by me, here and in the main thread at the Religion forum. Otherwise you would not base your opinon on your missunderstanding of what this is about.
I did not say you said anything about the Red Cross. I added that as "more evidence".

None the less, keep on laughing because it is good for your health.

[christibe]

Quote by: Technosoul So would a gut feeling not require belief and faith to use it?

I don't really understand? But yeah, the only thing you could use when relying on your gut feeling is faith and/or belief that it's true.

But its as provable as the idea of collective knowledge, which maybe I believe is where all gut feelings come from.

So, maybe the results of your test were biased by a force outside of your understanding of where the inertia came from?

So the test might not be trusted. :)

[christibe]

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

Nope, like anything, get a couple more Berkshire Hathaways, go long on gold and Google, short your USD and Treasury notes, and insurance insurance insurance your way to financial independence. Stay away from MSFT... my 4$ range was probably very nice to them.

Are they still trading in terrorism futures? Or, weather options?

If I had the cash, I'd hedge soybean options off a long spread... easy money. :)

[gallo]

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'.

Completely justified objections, since you didn't make any theories.

Because I did not provide a test that would effect a result that can be confirmed.

Then you didn't understand what was explained to you about what science is and how it works? I suspected as much.

And so over in the Religion and Philosophy forum I posted a formula. Belief + faith = expected result. (wihin limitations so noted in that OP).

That seems to be totally meaningless. What does it mean, since faith is belief (without supporting evidence). Moreover, that isn't a formula.

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.

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?

Most people feel that normally no one can predict when a earthquake will happen.

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.

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.

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.

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 ).

You forgot to mention that you were predicting a sure thing. In other words, your weren't predicting anything - only stating the obvious.

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).

Doesn't seem so.

During the "volconvo peer review" one recomendation was suggested to further test and confirm the fomula as outlined and it's proposed concluding facts.

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.

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 other words, you are well aware that you "prediction" is essentially meaningless.

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.

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.

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'.

That's nonsense. You didn't predict a specific event. You only "predicted" that events that happen constantly would happen somewhere at some time.

[gallo]

Part I of my amazing, scientific prediction has come true, and I didn't even have to look at the news to see it fulfilled. In the last hour I got an inch of rain in my back yard. Wow! And I'm only one day into my 30 days. This blue daydreaming is sure scientific.

[iclaudius]

Tech, you are truly sickening. Really, it makes me depressed just to read this thread and see that you actually believe those things.

[Netopalis]

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