[Turtle]

Hasanuddin, on 15 July 2011 - 01:20 AM, said:

Very Funny new features to this website: the ability to "vote" about scientific discourse but not back up their opinions!

Since when did Science become of opinion and not fact?????


In the last posting I laid out evidence that verifiably matches a direct prediction of the Dominium Model in the worst case situation for the repercussions had LHC “succeeds” in producing man’s first (last) sample of black-hole material. Cool. Wild assertions? Yes, but they are backed up by strong statistical evidence.


The response?? Somebody “voted down” the entry. Huh? An anonymous opinion w/out any backing? Dude (or Dudette), sorry but science ain’t no popularity contest… well, I guess the banquets, luncheons, prizes, and other sycophantic assns are… but ACTUAL scientific assertions/opinion should never be based on emotions alone.

Perhaps they were voting down that I brought up the idea of Death, or was it the notion of God… We’ll never know because whoever voted is not willing to back up their vote with any justifications.

Explain.

i don't know how to view the rep-voters while logged in, but while you're logged out you need only click on the green, or in your case red, box and a window appears showing who voted and how.

that you continue here with this as you do is evidence enough that your ability to reason out things is seriously restricted. let me spell it out for you. not only is your model unsupported word-salad, it is unwelcome here.

[Hasanuddin]

Dear CraigD (long time … Asalam alai’kum)

First I apologize for the overused and misused quotation marks—natural fluctuations—should have been italics.

There is a very vague paragraph that you quote. Actually, the news organization, IrishWeather, should never have clumped those words with the rest of the article at all

Quote

Seismologists argue that an increase in detected earthquakes does not necessarily represent an increase in actual earthquakes. The USGS, for example, says improved global communication and enhancements in detection technology have both contributed to higher earthquake numbers being recorded over time.

The problem here is that this paragraph is a stand alone issue unrelated to the article itself. It is IrishWeather that is guilty of this Fallacy of Composition. In this case the issue is time. Very true, as seismologists have steadily increased their monitoring and assessment capabilities they have been able to fine tune, i.e., count most near 100% of that which occurs. Therefore over time, because of the technological learning curve, counting became more accurate and totals increased closer to what was actual. The debate over what to do with all of the painstakingly taken, yet grossly undercounted data from the time of the New Deal through the ‘70s and ‘80s… but eventually one reaches a point where accuracy has improved so much that data collection is precise. Such times are now. We have been at that level for roughly twelve years (hence the reason why the article can’t/isn’t saying anything about times before 2000 because those numbers are not accurate. No-one is debating about the reliability of readings since 2000.

*Therefore the statistical spike is real, and cannot be dismissed by measuring error. We are also talking about an overnight doubling, and approaching tripling, of discrete events.


Speaking of analysis of Statistics, I need further explanation of your own opinion of whether a more than doubling of occurrence over a 6-month time represents something of statistical significance or not.

Quote

Statistics about a phenomena are not the phenomena! As explained above, these statistics don’t show an increase in the rate of earthquakes. <> Even if these data did indicate an actual increased earthquake rate, they increase beginning in 2003, and peaking in power in 2007.

Actually, I agree. The data at hand is what we have, so it should be what we analyze. The debate whether we can/can’t use 1999 or before data is irrelevant. What is relevant is the spike in the data. I disagree with your assertions that the data that there were ever a nonsteady-state beginning in 2003. Rather, all of the data, through 2010 seems relatively constant. It’s 2011 that’s the anomaly and if they repeat in the 2nd half of the year would produce an unprecedented spike in statically measured earthquakes.

At this point the question of LHC potency/impotence is irrelevant. Right now we are debating whether an unprecedented spike in the number of earthquakes ranging from 5.0 to 7.9 is credible data … (!) … Who cares about LHC any more? If we have reached the stage of increasing earthquakes … that means the point-of-no-return has been passed… who cares when? However, the question of when this could have happened is relevant to some degree. According to your Wikipedia report, they didn’t reach 7 TeV until early 2010. Creating a mini-black-hole would take a whole lot of initial input energy, therefore I’d guess that it they were to be *successful* it would have occurred closer to Mar 2010. But does that really matter any more?

Remember: Creation of an MBH (or several) at that time could be deduced to escape, feed, and in the process destabilize the internal structure of the planet. As that occurs the rates of volcanic and seismic activities will increase as the Earth, slowly at first, but even continuously ever changes shape as its internal volume is reduced by the feeding MBH. The physical and measurable indication of this will be an ever increasing occurrence of volcanic and earthquake activity. The article presented shows a doubling spike as measured over the first half of 2011.

Trust me, I don't want this to be true more than the next guy. But if it is, that means we all need to be extra Good to each other; we need to be extra careful with our interpersonal actions; and even careful with one's own eyes, tongue, and word. It appears that prophesies are coming to fruition, so then a necessary and final step is Reckoning ... to which we will be judged completely discretely.

[Hasanuddin]

Turtle … you just told me to shut-up, go away, and take the theory that annoys you with me. However, other than your personal visceral dislike of words/logic, you give no reason why the Dominium Model is not correct or worth considering.

Quote

let me spell it out for you. not only is your model unsupported word-salad, it is unwelcome here.

Let me remind you that your emotional ad-Hominum response echoes many sentiments of the past: ptolomites vs Galileo, or the reception given Maxwell or even to Einstein. Until you supply evidence/reasoning your reaction puts me in very fine company... thanx, I guess.

Please set aside the ancillary barbs and please address the model itself. Science is based on fact and observation. Opinions are worthless without those two prerequisites. Which brings me back to my original point: this upgrade of having a voting button where folks can anonymously vote/cheer/boo how they feel about a post (without supplying any evidence or reasoning) is the antithesis of real scientific methodology

PS: Please refrain from inserting your cutsy turtle icons, or any other for that matter. Aside from being offensive, they detract from evidence or points that you are trying to make.

Please get back to the real discussion on this thread. Do you, or do you not, accept the statistical analysis completed by IrishWeather.com indicating that 2011 is on its way to having more earthquakes than ever before? Can you admit, or do you deny that also, that in March this thread made the prediction of increased earthquakes?

As far as the Dominium Model is concerned... please address the evidence that you find not supporting it on an appropriate thread, say http://scienceforums...m-model-part-2/

****Inserted edit: One's gotta laugh to see that Turtle's "response" was to "vote down" this post.

[Hasanuddin]

A picture speaks 1000 words, let's try 21 pictures. The linked article discusses and documents 25 sinkholes http://truthfrequencynews.com/?p=4665

Only four of these occurred before the start-up of LHC… while 21 occurred in the short two years since start-up.

Although I never specifically spelled out sinkholes as being a result of the worst-case scenario, i.e., where the Dominium Model is correct; LHC does succeed in generating man’s first (and last) black-hole specimen; and the Earth is subsequently compacted down to annihilation—this reported phenomenon is 100% in-line with the predictions of this thread.

Not only that, but I would also posit that if the point-of-no-return has been crossed by the reckless cocksure tinkerers at CERN, then the number of sinkholes will most definitely grow in both frequency and severity, probably in an exponential fashion.

Oh well, if the worst-case scenario is correct then … fasten your seatbelts folks, it’s gunna be a bumpy ride.

Personally, I am preparing spiritually. As I see it, that’s a win-win no matter what the case. Regardless of CERN or models, there’s always benefit in a little self-purification. If the worst-case condition has been breached, then I strongly advise any/all to reconnect with the-One-God while there is still time. (Be aware also that scriptures specifically foretell that God will neglect all attempts at repentance after a certain point in time during the manifestation of the End of Days, i.e., no time like the present to go to church, mosque, temple, etc.) I am also saying this because Sunday, 7/31, will be the last time I look at this website until Ramadan is over and I return from umrah in Mecca. No offense or result of anyone, but Ramadan is all about purifying and directing one’s thoughts to God and only to God.

[JMJones0424]

Ramadan is almost over, and in anticipation of further claims of doom and gloom, I wish to offer a site I found recently that accurately records whether or not the LHC has brought upon the end times. I'm not sure what sensors these people use to make their measurements, but since their track record thus far is flawless, I think the results speak for themselves.

http://hasthelargeha...heworldyet.com/

Feel free to refresh your browser as needed for the latest results, and may His Noodly Appendage be upon you.

[CraigD]

JMJones0424, on 24 August 2011 - 10:43 PM, said:

http://hasthelargeha...heworldyet.com/

Funny! Especially when you view source and see the “full refund” email-in refund guarantee for if it’s wrong

I’ve been bracing for a new deluge of warning that “mini black holes from the LHC are eating the Earth” alarms after the localized 5.3 M quake in Trinity Colorado was followed about 12 hours later by a 5.8 felt throughout nearly the whole US mid-Atlantic. Though they were to be unrelated (the Colorado quake was most likely due to abandoned mines colling) after witnessing the impressive building-shaking of the 5.8 M quake on Tuesday, and checking the news to discover the Colorado quake the day before, my thoughts immediately sprang to "uh-uh! maybe Hasanuddin was right!"

The "LHC will destroy the Earth" crowd seem puzzlingly silent this week, though.