Volker.Doormann

Yes. Demonstration of coincidence of planetary angle distances and earthquake/sun flares. There was a moderator, who has ask for some demonstrations about the relevance of astrological angles.
I do not know what appears to you. I speak about provable accurate astronomical positions of planets and it's possible signifcant relation to quakes on earth and sun. If you are not able to understand and to verify the presented astronomical data, please ignore this thread.

Volker

Shadowy Man

So, when is the next major earthquake going to be?

Volker.Doormann

Sorry, you are wrong here. I do science.

Volker

ps418

Shadowy's not wrong. He can't be, because he simply asked an obvious question. If there is an association between 'angles' and quakes, why can't astrologers demonstrate an ability to predict earthquakes? The answer is obvious: there is no association, just after-the-fact numerology.





Priceless! You crack me up Volker! Gosh, with all them angles and planets, it must be science!

You also stated that you think that theology is science, so its pretty obvious that your definition of science is about 180 degrees deviated from the one used by the rest of the world. On the definition used by most of the rest of the world, astrology is no more scientific than is reading tea-leaves or goat entrails.

Oh, and by the way:

That makes it six times. Still refusing to answer?


Patrick

Volker.Doormann

I do this research on this matter since there were two quakes in in January in two following years. One was in California in Northridge on th 17th Januray 1994 and the second was in Kobe, Japan on 17th January 1995, with similar planetary constellations.

There is also an other examination on this matter http://cura.free.fr/xv/13brianj.html

OK. It's just an impression about my research on this matter. This is the end. I'm off in this forum.

Thank you.

Volker

AdamWho

three points does make angle

Mageth

The answer is obvious: there is no association, just after-the-fact numerology.

That's exactly correct. Earthquakes happen all the time, and major ones with statistical frequency (really bad ones about once a year), though they are not predictable. It's trivial to connect virtually any regularly-occurring event with major earthquakes using post hoc analysis.

BTW, those two January quakes also roughly correspond to the dates of the AFC and NFC championship games in those years!

Here ya go, Volker. Tell me the astrological connection to all these major earthquakes of 2001.

echidna

It’s a bit tricky to fathom Volker’s gibberish, but from what I can gather it about the relative angles of the moon, sun & 8 other planets, making 45 possible angles if I’m not mistaken. Of those possible angles, Volker sifts out 13 angles which can be loosely grouped as being close to 0, 30, 45, 60, 90 degrees. The angular errors are then discarded, oh that my life were so easy.

Now, even after grouping into these 0, 30, 45, 60, 90 increments, there are STILL errors of more than 5 degrees. Volker, is this actually meant to impress anyone ? Half difference of 0 / 30 is 15, half difference of 30 / 45 is 7.5, half difference of 45 / 60 is 7.5, half difference of 60 / 90 is 15. High school probability says there’s a pretty good chance many of these angles will come close (within 5 degrees) to these incremental groupings. Volker, with this astounding lack of accuracy, I suddenly understand why no seismologist has ever taken astrology seriously.

echidna

Mageth, I would fully expect that armed with a fertile imagination & a lot of free time to try endless permutations of algorithms, one should eventually be able to come up with coincidences for each event. In fact, present 10 random sets of non-event coordinates & just as likely there will be “strange” planetary conjunctions present.

Possibly Volker’s software actually automates the retrospective process, so that by feeding the coordinates & times of an event back, the various planetary angles can be found, checked & reconfigured until a “significant” coincidence can be found. Spoo…ooky stuff.

Input : There was an event at x,y,z at h:m:s d/m/y
Output : planets, celestial objects 1…n, were at angles alpha_1 … alpha_n, and these positions further gave rise to calculated angles beta_1 … beta_infinity

In short, something happened, the planets formed angles, therefore astrology works, razzle dazzle.

I mean what cracks me up, is that we gave Volker so much opportunity to dazzle us with useful information which could be provided by astrology. Request unable to be performed of course, but lo 2 days later the Turkish earthquake & quick as a flash, ooh look at this !!! I wonder how many astrologers died in the Kobe earthquake …

Volker.Doormann

Some people do talk endless permutations of bullshit. The given algorithm is simple adding values of relevant angles. The more accurate the relevant single angle, the more results a greater value of I. Nothing else. There is not permutation as you will make believe to the gallery. If there is a great value of I, this does mean only that the number of relevant angles are i.) high and ii.) mostly accurate. You can use each other stupid algorithm, which do this job in the same manner. I have written: " one can find a max. value of I in the month of January 1995 on the 16th at 20:47 UT. Using this same algorithm to compute the value of I for the month January 2001, one can find again a max. value on the 26Th at 03:17 UT. The interesting point on this is, that on 16. January 1995 at 20:47 UT there was a big earthquake in Kobe, Japan doormann.tripod.com/19950116.gif and on 26. January 2001 at 03.17 UT a big earthquake in India doormann.tripod.com/260101.gif" I think this information is so clear, that there is no need to desinform about 'endless permutation', except to discredit the person, who have stated provable an other meaning.

Bullshit. You did read the 'software'. There is nothing more, as the here presented algorithm and the astronomical calculation of the planetary lenght position in ecliptic coordinates for each time step of 5 minutes. These positions are known to all astronomers. There is no feeding of coordinates. There is only the algorithm and this generates values of I. As you may have seen, this values are plotted for each 5 minutes in a month. Nothing else.

Wrong. There is only an input of d/m/y and a time span of a month. No location. No event.

No. Bullshit. There are well known planetary positions from solved astronomical formulas, and it is each body of 10 checked to each other body about the angle distance. This process is not infinity as the double loop of i, k shows.

This short is arrogant bullshit of desinformation about astrology, but not science about the relation of planets and earthquakes. There is a question mark in the subject of this thread. This means, that it is a question. This is a scientific discussion board, and I think if one is telling such bullshit he disqualifies him self from science. To read such bullshit is the reason, for that I have finished the discussion here in this forum.
Quack, quack. You can view two pics of a plot showing values of I evaluated with the very same algorithm, as it is evaluated the plot in January 1995 and January 2001. These plots show the value of I for each 5 minutes around 1st May 2003.

Exact an half hour after GMT midnight (00h00 GMT = 03h00 in Bingol, Turkey) at 00h30 GMT the value of I rises to a maximum value of 1959.4 from some 600 other 5 minutes time intervals prior or after that time interval. At 00h27 GMT was the earthquake event. The high value of 1959.4 results from the great number of relevant angles distances and from the great accuracy (mostly near ~1°) to the relevant angles I have presented here in this thread.

Here are the plots of I for the days around 1st May 2003: doormann.tripod.com/bingol1.jpg and doormann.tripod.com/bingol3.jpg.

This means simple, that the very exact time of this earthquake has taken place as the planets, Sun and Moon have astronomical positions, which have a most harmonic (integer numbers of divisors) angular relation to each other.

The question is why? If you don't know, OK. If you have no interest, OK. But then please do not post discrediting blah, blah in a science group.

I have lectured this here for three events. I have some more examples in file with similar significance. But I guess in this forum is no one, who is able and willing to verify the astronomical data, and from what I have read here of skeptic bullshit full of superstition, but no single scientific argument, it is senseless to argue here further. One can ask question, if one do not understand something. But this does not happen. Still personal discrediting without any prove of competence in this matter.

I have learned, that it is a good practice first to verify the presented results, before judge the results for wrong. A five minute interval of a maximum value out of some thousand five minute intervals with minor values, which do coincide with an earthquake shows a significance. If this significance can be demonstrated three times independent with the very same math you can multiply the significance value. But my impression is, that significance is not of any reason in this science forum. No one of the replyer has replyed on a base of science.

There is no claim in this thread, except the significance. It is still math, without any claim. I have ask for to prove the signifcance of the verified data wrong, but this has not happen.

Volker

(any possible comments please as cc to my email address, Thank you.)