Jump to content

The Breakthrough - Human thinking is changing


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 342
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Accidental Discovery - Is this a "Particle Beam Weapon" or a Transport method ?

 

.....

I really would like my time back. Can I at least bill you for it?

spamystyle 13 hours ago

 

I've watched all of that video. That last comment echoes my feelings too. He could have condensed that video to well under 1 min - the real 'meat' was just that couple of seconds of the beam though his endeavours to find a route to the ellipse was mildly interesting but far too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accidental Discovery - Is this a "Particle Beam Weapon" or a Transport method ?

 

.....

I really would like my time back. Can I at least bill you for it?

spamystyle 13 hours ago

 

I've watched all of that video. That last comment echoes my feelings too. He could have condensed that video to well under 1 min - the real 'meat' was just that couple of seconds of the beam though his endeavours to find a route to the ellipse was mildly interesting but far too long. That's why I didn't bother to post the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David talking about the infamous Project Looking Glass and the run up to 2012...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqKVPxCg8dQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PROJECT MOCKINGBIRD? - Threatened by the Web ?

 

Did you like the film, Network ?

If so, you may like this podcast which talks about how a Global power elite took over the media, and used it to distort reality.

 

Until recently, the Reality that "The 1%" wanted you to believe was the only reality you got to hear. Now we have the Internet, and an alternative view of reality is leaking out.

 

460%3E_5225184.jpg

 

281: The One Percent Narrative - October 26, 2011

 

MP3 : http://c-realmpodcast.podomatic.com/enclosure/2011-10-26T06_20_22-07_00.mp3

 

KMO turns the first half of this week's C-Realm Podcast over to rational UFO researcher, Larry Lowe, who weaves together clips from the movie Network, a clip from last week's episode, and historical information about Project Mockingbird to demonstrate how the CIA and corporate propagandists manage the opinions of the many for the benefit of the few. Later in the episode, Tim Bennett, creator of the film What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire, talks about the difficult process of grappling with marginalized topics and fringe ideas. Both Tim and his partner Sally Erickson will be presenters at the upcoming Local Futures conference. Jay Smooth describes how the OWS movement is outing the corporate "ringers," and KMO concludes with a reading from a recent blog post by Matt Tiabbi about the most recent Corporate Media strategy to discredit the OWS movement. Music by Deep 1 and Rhiannon Giddens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A BREAKOUT IN EARTHQUAKE OCCURANCES ! Here's the data:

 

So?

As has been pointed out before (from US Geological Survey data), that's just the long term average.

And, wasn't the world meant to end (again) yesterday? :lol:

Relax man, "ital al b alri" (Joe Black) ;)

JD,

Clearly, you are a disrupter rather than a Truth-Seeker.

You haven't bothered to look at the data as closely as I have. The only detailed data we have is annually since 1980, and it totally backs up everything that I have been saying.

 

Here's a chart

earthquakes.gif

 

And here's a Table giving a statistical summary:

 

Period==== =Deaths :6.-6.9 :7.-7.9 :8-9.9 ::7.-9.9

Ave:'80-11 030,947 : 129.2 : 13.21 : 0.79 :: 13.99 : Mean, 21 years

STD:'80-11 067,644 : 30.21 : 03.86 : 0.89 :: 04.01 : Standard Dev.

+1 x StDev 098,591 : 159.4 : 17.07 : 1.68 :: 18.00

+2 x StDev 166,235 : 189.6 : 20.92 : 2.58 :: 22.01

=== ===

Year: 2010 320,129 : 150.0 : 22.00 : 1.00 :: 23.00

Yr.:2011E* 025,636 : 198.0 : 21.60 : 1.20 :: 22.80

 

*2011E= (The Estimate for 2011, is 10 months x 12/10 )

 

You will see that data for both 2010, and 2011-Estimated

is beyond two Standard Deviations away from the Mean.

This is statistically significant, according to my partner,

who studied statistics as part of her Oxford Phd, though

she says: "I would prefer to have more data."

 

We may need to wait a few more years to satisfy her.

 

 

As you know, I never said the World would end, but some did

think we are headed into a period which will be :

"The End of the World as we know it" and a new consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A BREAKOUT IN EARTHQUAKE OCCURANCES ! Here's the data:

 

 

JD,

Clearly, you are a disrupter rather than a Truth-Seeker..

 

 

Obviously not dear Dr. I spend my life seeking truth.

 

Perhaps it's just that I am trained to avoid the trap of seeing patterns that fit my theories, when in fact those patterns don't exist.

 

You haven't bothered to look at the data as closely as I have

 

:lol: The old classic "I know better".

 

Do you look at the data more closely than the US Geological Survey that has been studying these things for many many years?

 

Of course not.

 

You will see that data for both 2010, and 2011-Estimated

is beyond two Standard Deviations away from the Mean.

This is statistically significant, according to my partner,

who studied statistics as part of her Oxford Phd, though

she says: "I would prefer to have more data."

 

I note that you had been very careful with your words here, which I'm certain is because your partner told you there is nowhere near as much data as would be required for this type of analysis.

 

As such, the analysis is irrelevant. This is most easily seen by looking at the years 85 to 89 during which (according to your "beyond two Standard Deviations away from the Mean" theory meaning Earth is undergoing Major Earth Changes), the earth stopped changing :lol:

 

Another point is that, according to the National Earthquake Information Centre, the average number of big quakes per year is 18, not 14. Time for a new graph perhaps?

 

Myth #4: The world is ending because there are more earthquakes now than ever

The number of earthquakes has actually decreased in the past several years. The earth experiences about 50 earthquakes per day, and 18 major earthquakes per year,

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/5-Earthquake-Myths-132190993.html

 

 

So, all in all, far from being a "disrupter", I would say I was actually more of a truth seeker than you.

 

As such, can we have less of the name calling when we don't agree? There really is no need for it.

 

 

We may need to wait a few more years to satisfy her.

 

I couldn't possibly comment :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Regardless of data the prudent thing to do is to prepare with back up food etc and become self sufficent as possible, and that way your bases are covered. I'd also avoid living on the coast (the exception would be if you are elevated well above sea level) but that's just me.

I agree completely.

A statistically-significant data set is now staring us in the face!

But some so-called scientists still choose to ignore it. If I make preparations, and nothing dire has happened, have I really lost anything? But if I fail to prepare, and a quake or tsunami hits, I am far worse off, and maybe my life, and the lives of my family are endangered.

 

It is funny to see the so-called scientist stick his head in the sand, and call me "desperate" for sharing the facts...

 

That is a little desperate is it not?

 

See what the experts say (US Geological Survey) and perhaps you can then appologise to them!

Talk about delusions of grandeur :unsure:

 

So, all in all, far from being a "disrupter", I would say I was actually more of a truth seeker than you.

I am hardly desperate, merely seeking to share the facts where relevant.

 

I cannot analyse data that I do not have. The only data provided by USGS is from 1980. Who knows on what basis any previous data might have been prepared.

 

YOU stated that there was not significant change in Quake activity, but the 2010 and 2011 data shows something different. Deaths (in 2010), 6-6.9 and 7-7.9 quakes (for both 2010 and 2011) were more than two standard deviations away from the Mean. This meets a test of significance. If you can find GOOD data from before 1980 from a reliable and consistent source, I will happily look at it.

 

Meantime, you should apologise for your negative comments. The Data was staring you in the face and you did not bother to look at it. Some Truth-seeker you are ! Just a prejudiced non-observer. Being in denial of the data, seem so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could we keep this to just one thread perhaps?

 

I agree completely.

A statistically-significant data set is now staring us in the face!

 

 

No it's not, it's (according to the experts) just a couple of years of near normal activity.

 

But some so-called scientists still choose to ignore it. If I make preparations, and nothing dire has happened, have I really lost anything? But if I fail to prepare, and a quake or tsunami hits, I am far worse off, and maybe my life, and the lives of my family are endangered.

 

It is funny to see the so-called scientist stick his head in the sand, and call me "desperate" for sharing the facts...

 

How is reading the research of experts sticking your head in the sand?

 

Interesting that you have to resort to name calling and casting assertions on my profession. is this the normal behaviour of a "so-called" financial expert :rolleyes:

 

And if you want to keep your family 100% safe from tsunami and quakes, dont live next to the sea in a quake zone. Simple.

 

I cannot analyse data that I do not have. The only data provided by USGS is from 1980. Who knows on what basis any previous data might have been prepared.

 

Exactly, you are starting to get the picture.

 

YOU stated that there was not significant change in Quake activity, but the 2010 and 2011 data shows something different.

 

Er no, the experts stated it.

 

However, it doesn't take a genius to realise one swallow does not a summer make. (See next comment)

 

Deaths (in 2010), 6-6.9 and 7-7.9 quakes (for both 2010 and 2011) were more than two standard deviations away from the Mean. This meets a test of significance.

 

So what? Deaths from Atlantic hurricanes were far higher in 2004 and 2005 than many years previous, or any since. People all ran around saying things had changed and this was so significant.

 

Guess what. It wasn't.

 

You of all people (a so-called financial expert :rolleyes: ) should understand that past performance is no indication of future performance.

 

Meantime, you should apologise for your negative comments.

 

What negative comments, I've just questioned your questionable methods and flawed analysis and added facts to the debate. Do you see that as negative?

 

The Data was staring you in the face and you did not bother to look at it.

 

Really? Is this why all the real experts think that there is no significance in the current number of quakes? Are they really all wrong and you are right? Wow that's really some confidence you have.

 

Or perhaps, it is just possible that you are wrong and mistakenly seeing patterns where none exist and in fact those that have spent their lives studying these things might know a little more about it than you?

 

Some Truth-seeker you are ! Just a prejudiced non-observer. Being full-of-Bull, seem so!

 

More insults, hmmm, interesting.

 

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Gandhi :lol:

 

Being in denial of the data

 

Not ignoring data Dr B, just knowing how to treat it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told JD that he was "caught with his pants down",

and should find the prior data, or accept what we have (I want to check for a cycle)

He responded...

 

Hardly Dr B.

I am not the one making the wild assertions that go against the views of the experts that dedicate their lives (quite literally in some cases) to the study of these type of events.

You are, and, as such, the onus is on you to prove all the experts wrong.

Good luck with that :D

LOL

The so-called experts made their comments in mid-2010 or earlier. We now have all of 2010 and 10 months of 2011 data - and these past two years show the breakout.

 

I spotted the possible breakout about one year ago, and commented on it then, then have been slow to realose that something new is afoot. How many more months or years will it take for "them" to wake up? We shall see. But you have been shown the data now - Why do you have to do on denying it?

 

As I said, even if there were over 20 large quakes in prior years, I want to see the data, because I believe a cycle may be at work, and it will be interesting to see the harmonics. Would the cycle peak likely come in 2012 or later ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could we keep this to just one thread perhaps?

I think these last two years of data could be rather important.

 

Not only is this "about quakes", it could bring a breakthrough in Thinking Too !

 

If you want to discuss the potential Breakthrough this represents, let's discuss it on the relevant thread, if you just want to talk about the Earthquake data, we can discuss it on the Volcanoes and Quakes thread.

 

The place to STOP discussing it is on DrBubb's Diary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

The so-called experts made their comments in mid-2010 or earlier. We now have all of 2010 and 10 months of 2011 data - and these past two years show the breakout.

 

I spotted the possible breakout about one year ago, and commented on it then, then have been slow to realose that something new is afoot. How many more months or years will it take for "them" to wake up? We shall see. But you have been shown the data now - Why do you have to do on denying it?

 

As I said, even if there were over 20 large quakes in prior years, I want to see the data, because I believe a cycle may be at work, and it will be interesting to see the harmonics. Would the cycle peak likely come in 2012 or later ?

 

But Dr B, the charts you have studied over the years have full data sets and are driven by human decisions.

 

Quakes etc are not.

 

Do you really think that you are the first person to look at data like this and to think you see patterns?

 

Do you really think the researchers might not have thought of this, might not have checked it?

 

Of course you don't, as to think otherwise would surely be the actions of a person whose arrogance extended beyond belief, wouldn't it.

 

Day 1 “Oh look there’s a swallow! Woohoo! It’s summer! “

Next day.....rain “sorry guys, false alarm”

Next day “look there’s a swallow! Woohoo! It’s summer!”

Next day.....rain “I know, I know, sorry again, false alarm”

Next day “look there’s a swallow! Bet it rains tomorrow!” :lol::lol:

 

I think these last two years of data could be rather important.

 

Not only is this "about quakes", it could bring a breakthrough in Thinking Too !

 

If the next few show increasing numbers of bigger quakes, it could indeed start to become significant statistically, (but even then it wouldn't necessarily mean the years after that wouldn't have less and less). Look at the hurricane data, to the untrained eye, it implied things had changed 2004-2005. They had not.

 

However, it's one hell of a leap to equate a year or two with a couple more quakes than normal to major earth-change, and even more to link it to a "breakthrough in Thinking".

 

What exactly do you mean by this?

 

Is it a movement, like the hippies in the 60's, or an evolutionary leap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think that you are the first person to look at data like this and to think you see patterns?

 

Do you really think the researchers might not have thought of this, might not have checked it?

They did their checking some time ago, months before this new data came out.

What was the date of that article that you quoted? Go back and check.

 

(I thought you wanted to discuss this elsewhere - let's go there:

To the Volcano and Earthquakes thread.)

 

Note:

I have already posted a "new" article from this month, which cites a scientific paper suggesting that we are into a new cycle of higher Earthquake activity, like the 1950's and 1960's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's great to see that this debate is still going strong however I feel that JD has an unfair advantage - an understanding of statistical analysis.

 

I've just finished listening to the audio book version of this book and found it very interesting so I'm recommending it:

The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives

 

It explores how random events shape the world and how human intuition tries to fight it. Our brains naturally want to see patterns and order where none exist and consequently we draw many incorrect conclusions. This would be of particular benefit to DR Bubb but I think you may also find it interesting JD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's great to see that this debate is still going strong however I feel that JD has an unfair advantage - an understanding of statistical analysis.

 

I've just finished listening to the audio book version of this book and found it very interesting so I'm recommending it:

The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives

 

It explores how random events shape the world and how human intuition tries to fight it. Our brains naturally want to see patterns and order where none exist and consequently we draw many incorrect conclusions. This would be of particular benefit to DR Bubb but I think you may also find it interesting JD.

I suggest you look at the data on the other thread, which clearly supports the existing theory of a 37 year Earthquake cycle. The only fine-tuning that I am suggesting is that we could see a mid-cycle peak in 2015-16 or so - these mid-cycle periods have often brought some major quakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes.

 

I have a degree from Harvard with a minor in economics (having started out as a math major with excellent grades in coursework in that field.) My partner has a Phd in psychology (Dr XXXX) from Oxford, and did plenty of statistical work in writing her thesis. She thinks there might be something in the summary work I have done so far. I invite JD to mention his credentials, and I wonder how impressive they may be? His comments so far, do not impress me, so don't hold your breath. On the other thread, I have already pointed to some references that discuss Cycles of Earthquakes, and they are consistent with my findings and timing ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's great to see that this debate is still going strong however I feel that JD has an unfair advantage - an understanding of statistical analysis.

 

I've just finished listening to the audio book version of this book and found it very interesting so I'm recommending it:

The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives

 

It explores how random events shape the world and how human intuition tries to fight it. Our brains naturally want to see patterns and order where none exist and consequently we draw many incorrect conclusions. This would be of particular benefit to DR Bubb but I think you may also find it interesting JD.

 

Cheers WB, although to be fair, it's mainly statistical mechanics that I use nowadays. However, without giving too much away, random walk effects (including drunkard's, i.e time & space) are prevalent in many of our groups research, as you would expect ;) .

 

I’ll try and listen to the link.

 

PS the debate continues over on the volcanoes thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you look at the data on the other thread, which clearly supports the existing theory of a 37 year Earthquake cycle. The only fine-tuning that I am suggesting is that we could see a mid-cycle peak in 2015-16 or so - these mid-cycle periods have often brought some major quakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes.

 

IF there was a cycle to earthquakes what would it prove? Certainly not that some amazing "Earth Changes" are upon us. Surely it would just be a normal cycle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you look at the data on the other thread, which clearly supports the existing theory of a 37 year Earthquake cycle. The only fine-tuning that I am suggesting is that we could see a mid-cycle peak in 2015-16 or so - these mid-cycle periods have often brought some major quakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes.

 

I have a degree from Harvard with a minor in economics (having started out as a math major with excellent grades in coursework in that field.) My partner has a Phd in psychology (Dr XXXX) from Oxford, and did plenty of statistical work in writing her thesis. She thinks there might be something in the summary work I have done so far. I invite JD to mention his credentials, and I wonder how impressive they may be? His comments so far, do not impress me, so don't hold your breath. On the other thread, I have already pointed to some references that discuss Cycles of Earthquakes, and they are consistent with my findings and timing ideas.

 

Dear Dr, my qualifications are not in question here, it is you that is trying to promote new theories based upon a few dots on a line and "seeing a pattern".

 

Even my (Russel group) undergrads could point out the flaws in your theory. (There's another hint BTW ;) )

 

Your partner will have told you this also, but I assume you kept banging on and on about it so that now she probably just can’t be bothered to argue with you any more, and is telling you what you want to hear (with the BIG BIG caveat that more data is required, so at least she keeps her professional integrity), as it is very clear that you are incapable of having your “theories” scrutinised and/or, dare I say, criticised.

 

Your partner, if honest, would also have told you that, strictly speaking, without a full data set, the standard deviation approach is flawed. I.e with earthquakes numbers per year, you do not have an absolute deviation, and you don't even know if all have been recorded. You would have to, at the very least, use s sample STD approach.

 

Moreover, because the data covers such a wide range, and many of the points aren’t even near the mean, the standard deviation is, by definition, large, which indicates you should expect wild swings in the data. (see for example the drop in quakes to the 2nd std).

 

By the way, statistically, 95% of all the years quakes will fit within two standard deviations of the average, which according to the USGS, is 18 per year. (Yes the data is up to 2010, but with a couple more per year since then, but that would only move the average slightly, and would mean all your data is still well within the std devs).

 

But heh, don’t take my word for it, write it up and submit a paper to a respected journal as I suggested. (and yes, a good paper might take a few days hard work, but if you are so sure, it would be worth it, would it not?)

 

OK?

 

Oh and I see you are now changing your theory from "major earth changes" and a "breakthrough in human thinking" based on 30 years data, to earthquake cycles over 37 years, just like some of the experts (who you were recently rubbishing) have hypothesised :rolleyes: .

 

Did you realise you were out of your depth and decided to change your tune perhaps?

 

Well it's a start I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry drB but the set of data is so small there is no way you cold come to any conclusion no matter what it showed. you need hundreds if not thousands of years of data to make the sort of conclusions you are stating, data we don't have.

you can zoom into any set of random data and find the sort of trends you are seeing but it doesn't mean anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF there was a cycle to earthquakes what would it prove? Certainly not that some amazing "Earth Changes" are upon us. Surely it would just be a normal cycle?

That is exactly why I am reviewing this material - So we can spot what is "normal",

and what is unusual. So far, we have moved beyond the "normal" of 1980-2009.

But this could be only a normal cycle, which might peak in 2015-16.

. . .

 

But if the number of Earthquakes (of 7.0-8.9) moves far beyond 22-24, then we may be seeing something abnormal. Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry drB but the set of data is so small there is no way you cold come to any conclusion no matter what it showed. you need hundreds if not thousands of years of data to make the sort of conclusions you are stating, data we don't have.

you can zoom into any set of random data and find the sort of trends you are seeing but it doesn't mean anything.

It is the TIMING of the big quakes, and that so many can be fit into 37 year cycle patterns, that I find so compelling. That, and the usefulness of an apparent half-cycle.

 

I wish I had more data, but the data we do have is compelling, suggesting that the number of Earthquakes is rising towards the mid-cycle high (expecting in 2015-16)

 

A BREAKOUT IN EARTHQUAKE OCCURANCES ! Here's the data:

Here's a chart

earthquakes.gif

 

And here's a Table giving a statistical summary:

 

Period==== =Deaths :6.-6.9 :7.-7.9 :8-9.9 ::7.-9.9

Ave:'80-11 030,947 : 129.2 : 13.21 : 0.79 :: 13.99 : Mean, 21 years

STD:'80-11 067,644 : 30.21 : 03.86 : 0.89 :: 04.01 : Standard Dev.

+1 x StDev 098,591 : 159.4 : 17.07 : 1.68 :: 18.00

+2 x StDev 166,235 : 189.6 : 20.92 : 2.58 :: 22.01

=== ===

Year: 2010 320,129 : 150.0 : 22.00 : 1.00 :: 23.00

Yr.:2011E* 025,636 : 198.0 : 21.60 : 1.20 :: 22.80

 

*2011E= (The Estimate for 2011, is 10 months x 12/10 )

 

"By the way, statistically, 95% of all the years quakes will fit within two standard deviations of the average, which according to the USGS, is 18 per year."

 

If you look at the way the chart line moves year to year, it should be completely obvious that the year-to-year numbers are not simply random, but that that data contains trends, and that it ebbs and flows. This is what made me think it could be cyclical. Check out the TIMING data:

 

Post #63 : http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=14951&st=60

 

It didn't discover the 37 year Earthquake Cycle, but I do think you can observe such a pattern in the data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

REALISATIONS ARE DAWNING - The Joy of Smaller Living

 

JMG : "It's a problem woven into the stories we tell."

 

 

For Americans:

"It is worth remembering that Europe runs itself on 1/3 as much oil as the US... and they have a better standard of living, and better health care."

 

=== ===

How about accepting a new narrative: Shrinking smart is better than growing dumb.

 

Then we can embrace the reality that we need to live our lives while consuming: less energy, less resources, and borrowing less money. But that does not necessarily involve a lower overall quality of life. Here's the challenge: how can we live better while wasting less of everything that is becoming in short supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...