Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamBlue  You could set off a weapon underground that would cause an earth quake, but your hypothesis may be pointed in the wrong direction to begin with as I do not see 9/11 causing a big enough bump on the tectonic plates to effect it much, but I could be wrong. Another way to test to see if there is some correlation between a lot of people dieing and the flipping of electronic coins is to kill a lot of people, but ethically that would be suspect  . I have no idea what could cause something like this to occur, I could guess but many of these would be untestable at this time.
I disagree that it is not an experiment, the experiment is to see if there is some correlation between major human events and the electronic flipping of coins, whether it is a valid experiment is debatable. |
Heh, heh
, no I am not saying 9/11 caused a shift in tectonic plates. I am saying if my hypothesis is accurate then radiation coming from within the earth somehow changed in intensity which influenced global consciousness which caused the terrorists to make them commit the horrible crime, and this changed intensity was detected by the random number generators. Then, a shift in the tectonic plates was also detected by the random number generators, then an under-sea earthquake happened and caused the tsunami. Of course, my hypothesis might still be way off.
Another problem with the experiment is that a "significant event" in the world is a matter of opinion -- its subjective and not objective like scientific experimentation should be. We can certainly agree that its bad when lots of people die. But how about the Democrats winning both houses of congress? Was that also predicted by the random number generators as a shift in global consciousness? Was that event good or bad? The problem with this is, as soon as you see the random number generators becoming correlated (as soon as that real-time dot on the website turns red), all you have to do is read the news and pick something bad that happened, which happens every day in Iraq, Darfur, or the Gaza Strip. Once you have your "bad event", you can say the numbers predicted it. Or you could say that on a day when the dot was mostly green or blue, nothing bad happened as long as you ignore the news.
So they want to see how often the dot turns red, and whether or not this predicts a terrible thing happening or a shift in global consciousness. The problem is they haven't defined what a "significant event" is. So I am inclined to call this non-experimental. I would say as for the scientific method (the 5-step method), they are still on step 1: observing a natural phenomenon, and they haven't even defined a hypothesis (step 2) or an experiment (step 3) yet. Without an experiment, there is no data to analyze (step 4) and no conclusions to yield (step 5).