Why was the Haiti Earthquake was not predictable?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 14 Jan 2010 10:18 "dlzc" <dlzc1(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:7367b2c9-496a-4f84-8e25-23a8d8d4e995(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... Hello Androcles: On Jan 13, 12:59 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > "dlzc" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote in message > news:68237eef-ff6a-47f4-a5f0-5bf0b70b7685(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 13, 11:29 am, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Why did you think this was suitable fare for > > > an astronomy newsgroup, or one related to > > > relativity? > > > Earthquake is caused due to collision of earth > > crusts. Since Its a Planet related topic, > > astronomy can say a bit about earth quakes and > > volcanos. > > No. > ========================================= > By royal proclamation of Smiffy: No observation of the Solar system allowed! Failure to comply with this directive will result in your telescope being confiscated and not being able to post to sci.physics,alt.philosophy,alt.astronomy or sci.physics.relativity. This is NOT astronomy: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080414.html Smiffy said so. ========================================= Thanks for the slap. ======================= You are welcome. Have a nice snip.
From: Scott Campbell on 14 Jan 2010 11:43 Sanny wrote: [...] > I once created a program that can predict the outcome of a complex > phenomena. > > It was some Horse racing / Lottery system. I was asked by the client > to design a system which predicts a number that will occur next. > > Then numbers looked very random. But I designed a system that was able > to predict the outcome with 80% accuracy. Way better than any human > can think of. [...] > I designed a prediction program fewyears back, that could predict the > outcome based on previous data. If it was so accurate picking the ponies/lottery, why not just pick winners until you had enough funding to do whatever you want? And why bother with the long odds? What's the juice on roulette? About 5%? Design a 56 - 57% system to accurately pick red or black - or odd or even - or high or low. You'll eventually own the casino and get free drinks along the way. -- Scott Campbell "If you could see the you that I see When I see you seeing me You'd see yourself so differently Believe Me!..." - Henry Rollins
From: Androcles on 14 Jan 2010 12:33 "Scott Campbell" <thundering_puddles(a)msn.com> wrote in message news:3ek749.hqr.19.1(a)news.alt.net... > Sanny wrote: > > [...] Wow! Imagine that! Can I write [...] too?
From: BradGuth on 14 Jan 2010 13:36 On Jan 14, 9:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 14, 10:59 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Your obfuscation and transference is noted. > > And what did I obfuscate? Pretty much anything of GW and earthquakes as having to do with our moon. > > > Try instead being constructive, or the least bit positive. > > I did. I gave you a pointer to how to do a self-check to see if your > idea is worth pursuing. This is called constructive criticism. In other words, we're never supposed to read and learn about anything old or new, so as to incorporate these mostly public funded research efforts as valid science along with our own investigative research. And we're supposed to ignore whatever those educated deductive conclusions of others, especially if it's also supported by those pesky regular laws of physics that any halfwit 5th grader could manage to replicate. It seems that you are the perpetual mainstream mindset that's forever topic/author stalking and subsequently excluding/obfuscating upon anything of our GW and earthquake prone environment, especially as having to do with our trusty moon(Selene). Is there some special faith-based or political agenda reasons as to why we're not supposed to figure out how to best deal with GW, or go about predicting those earthquakes? > > I see > no value in encouraging someone to pursue a pointless venture. If an > idea is pointless, it is helpful to try to help get you to understand > why it is pointless. Oddly, you're in good company because, that's exactly what those Rothschilds, Big Energy plus most every other ZNR on Earth has to say. Your policy of do nothing and learn to live with it, as such certainly doesn't rock any of those rich and powerful mainstream boats, does it. > > Being original is not a virtue in itself -- That's certainly good-news for you, because when was the last time you had anything original to offer? (how about never) > > homeless, park-bench mutterers are original too -- but being original > and RIGHT is another matter. But to be original and right, you have to > learn how to check whether your originality is right or wrong. > > PD This is where the well-to-do stick-in-the-mud folks like yourself and other brown-nosed clowns of the same old mainstream status quo are not helping one bit, not that you ever intended to in the first place. ~ BG
From: PD on 14 Jan 2010 13:43
On Jan 14, 12:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 14, 9:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 14, 10:59 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Your obfuscation and transference is noted. > > > And what did I obfuscate? > > Pretty much anything of GW and earthquakes as having to do with our > moon. > > > > > > Try instead being constructive, or the least bit positive. > > > I did. I gave you a pointer to how to do a self-check to see if your > > idea is worth pursuing. This is called constructive criticism. > > In other words, we're never supposed to read and learn about anything > old or new, so as to incorporate these mostly public funded research > efforts as valid science along with our own investigative research. > And we're supposed to ignore whatever those educated deductive > conclusions of others, especially if it's also supported by those > pesky regular laws of physics that any halfwit 5th grader could manage > to replicate. > > It seems that you are the perpetual mainstream mindset that's forever > topic/author stalking and subsequently excluding/obfuscating upon > anything of our GW and earthquake prone environment, especially as > having to do with our trusty moon(Selene). > > Is there some special faith-based or political agenda reasons as to > why we're not supposed to figure out how to best deal with GW, or go > about predicting those earthquakes? > > > > > I see > > no value in encouraging someone to pursue a pointless venture. If an > > idea is pointless, it is helpful to try to help get you to understand > > why it is pointless. > > Oddly, you're in good company because, that's exactly what those > Rothschilds, Big Energy plus most every other ZNR on Earth has to > say. Your policy of do nothing and learn to live with it, as such > certainly doesn't rock any of those rich and powerful mainstream > boats, does it. > > > > > Being original is not a virtue in itself -- > > That's certainly good-news for you, because when was the last time you > had anything original to offer? (how about never) > > > > > homeless, park-bench mutterers are original too -- but being original > > and RIGHT is another matter. But to be original and right, you have to > > learn how to check whether your originality is right or wrong. > > > PD > > This is where the well-to-do stick-in-the-mud folks like yourself and > other brown-nosed clowns of the same old mainstream status quo are not > helping one bit, not that you ever intended to in the first place. > > ~ BG Boondoggles, no matter how well intentioned, are not helpful. They distract attention from more carefully thought out attempts. You owe it to this effort to be more careful and prepared about your attempts before launching them out there, because as it is, you are just generating noise that does not help. PD |