Poo-Poo this Woo-Woo: Astrotometry

s4zando

Graduate Poster
s4zando
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
1,155
JREF Forumites,

I have stumbled across the following chunk of woo, and a search of the forum indicates it has not previously been discussed. I am submitting it for a general discussion aimed at enlightening me, and all others who may be interested, in how a critical thinker goes about deconstructing claims. Especially for those (like me) who know pseudoscience when they see it, but are not so well versed in real science as to be able to give it a proper debunking.

I chose this bundle of woo, as it seems to have all the hallmarks of woo: logical fallacies, junk science, trademarked concepts, etc. as well as the truly rare status of not having taken a few laps on our forum yet. (Or so it seems). As it represents some 'low-hanging fruit', perhaps it could best be seen as an excercise in teaching noobs like me the processes by which such claims are deserving of the label 'pseudoscience.'

As stated above, although I can tell when he is using logical fallacies, I simply cannot put my finger on exactly where his science is off, and my intent with this thread is to assume I am not alone, and some of us could use some skills passed down to us by some of our veterans to strengthen our forum as a whole. Or just me, thats fine too. I promise to use any powers and abilities bestowed upon my by the E in JREF to further our mission statement.

My first attempt at links, so apologies in advance.

http://www.astrotometry.com/html/introduction.html
From the link:
Astrotometry is based on a set of principles and theories derived from rigorous rational scrutiny of the relationships among matter, energy, space, time, movement, and the forces of nature. The principles of Astrotometry provide breakthrough understandings of the physical world and reveal exciting new directions for scientific exploration.
Click to expand...


Lots of sciency bits follow...
http://www.astrotometry.com/html/basic_cosmological_directions.html
From the link:
The perception of the Earth as spherical is an illusion created by the curvature of space-time
Click to expand...


...and continue.
http://www.astrotometry.com/html/general_theoretical_directions.html
From the link:
In Astrotometry the Cosmos is considered with "Chronocentric" models which account for perceived movement through space as a consequence of the translation of matter through time-space
Click to expand...


Sharpshooting in Texas:
http://www.astrotometry.com/html/applications.html
From the link:
I've also used it to forecast cyclonic storms and breaking new scientific ground in the field of weather pattern modeling. There are several other practical applications for Astrotometry, and I'll skip these for now since earthquake forecasting is more vital
Click to expand...

Also a video, but his stuff moves pretty slowly. Chose this video among many, simply for its title which indicates it a bit of a basic intro to his work. Moves slowly. Skip to 1:04 to get at least one minute of your life back, should you click below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDMLRrrlLw4

Open discussion. I know he is wrong. I just don't know why.

tl;dr: Check out THIS guy!
 
From the website:

In Astrotometry the Cosmos is considered with "Chronocentric" models which account for perceived movement through space as a consequence of the translation of matter through time-space.
Click to expand...


So the perception of movement is caused by ... movement. Brilliant!

From what I saw, most of the arguments were silly semantics such as the above. The only thing really worth tackling is his predictions, which were generally inaccurate, considering he was predicting lots of earthquakes in areas that are prone to lots of earthquakes. It looked like he was doing the standard "pick lots of dates and locations in areas known to have earthquakes, and some of them are bound to be correct".

He even admits that his predictions are unreliable and should not be used to for any public emergency measures.
 
Hokulele said:
The only thing really worth tackling is his predictions, which were generally inaccurate, considering he was predicting lots of earthquakes in areas that are prone to lots of earthquakes. It looked like he was doing the standard "pick lots of dates and locations in areas known to have earthquakes, and some of them are bound to be correct".
Click to expand...

Indeed. I stumbled across his site and claims while researching "earthquake lights" (which I am now satisfied are actually sundogs, and contain no predictive qualities in regards to seismic activities).

The following link to video outlines a gem: (need to click the "follow-up" video to get the full effect) paraphrasing: "Today is Feb 2nd, 2011. I see there is a solar disturbance shaped like Saudi Arabia. That indicates the Arabian plate is ripe for seismic activity in the next few days. Or Italy. Or Iran. Or California. Or the Philippines. Or the border of China-India-Myanmar. I see also that there are sunspots here, and here, which could mean they register as 7.5's."
http://http://www.thetruthbehindthescenes.org/2011/02/04/astrotometry-major-earthquake-event-expected-within-the-next-couple-of-days/

Lolwut?

Guess what: 2 days later, a 6.2 in Myanmar. http://http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/significant/sig_2011.php

Thankfully I don't see any follow-up bragging about how "right" he was.
He even admits to enjoying a 25-33% fail-rate.

Which has me wondering..is that expected for seismic prediction? Are there any more reliable earthquake "predictors" that are more than 75% accurate? (if there is such a thing.
 
s4zando said:
Are there any more reliable earthquake "predictors" that are more than 75% accurate?
Click to expand...

Yes; if he made his predictions even more vague, he would be much more accurate when something somewhere happened sometime. For instance, if he had merely predicted an earthquake would happen in a place containing a consonant in its name, on a day named after a god, with a strength related to the square root of the local population, he would greatly increase his odds of being right.
 
Oh dear god this is so stupid: about astrowhatsitcrap

In Astrotometry the Sun is understood to be a one-year harmonic composite of Earth-day node-pattern interference at the fundamental hydrogen-helium frequencies. The disturbances we see in those frequencies, ie the light we see, is understood to be the consequence of the translation of material standing node-patterns across time-space folds within a common carrier. The celestial spheres, according to the theory, are the places where Earth’s component forms cross themselves in space as Earth is translated through time. The stars are theorized to be the crossings of the other solar years.

To prove this consider the length of a sidereal day:

23.93447 hours – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal…

Now consider the difference between the length of a solar day and the length of a sidereal day:

24 hours – 23.93447 hours = 0.06553 hours

Keeping in mind that TIME differentials are what is being calculated, consider the difference in the length of a sidereal day over the
course of a year:

0.06553 x 365 = 23.91845 hours

Almost exactly 24 solar hours in a year of sidereal time difference.

Now add the difference for one additional sidereal day. (The first of the next year.)

23.91845 + 0.06553 =

23.98398 hours

Aproximately 1 minute away from exactly 24 hours.

This demonstrates the relationship between the two phenomena, the distant stars, and the Sun with respect to the Earth’s (hyper)time translation.
Click to expand...
What it ACTUALLY demonstrates is math.

Imagine if there are two people standing side by side. Both begin timing their year at noon on the same day. One person measures time by the sidereal day (23.9344699 hours); the other measures time by the standard 24 hour day. Each wants the sun to be directly overhead at noon according to his own day. This means the first person (Sidereal Day person) will need to move eastward around the Earth by approximately 1° (or 0.985°, to be slightly more accurate) every "day" or his noon would be around four minutes too late. The second person (Mean Solar Day person) won't need to move at all.

One year later, the first person will have moved around the world almost completely. For him, the Sun will have risen 365 times; for the second person, the Sun will have risen 364 times.

The Sidereal Day person will have gained a day the same way everyone who travels across the International Date Line gains or loses a day! It is not a coincidence that 366 of his days are as long as 365 of the Mean Solar Day person's!
 
Last edited:
Keep that site handy tho, it could present you with lots of Stundie nominations!!!

it's a bunch of babble designed to lure in the not so bright.
 
Baffled said:
Yes; if he made his predictions even more vague, he would be much more accurate when something somewhere happened sometime. For instance, if he had merely predicted an earthquake would happen in a place containing a consonant in its name, on a day named after a god, with a strength related to the square root of the local population, he would greatly increase his odds of being right.
Click to expand...

aggle-rithm said:
Should have called it "Tautolemetry". Even more sciency-sounding!
Click to expand...

aggle-rithm said:
"WARNING: Any accurate predictions are purely coincidental."
Click to expand...
Lulz!

Baffled, thank you for that analysis, (the real one). That's exactly the type of math I am incapable of, that demonstrates some of his errors.
 
"The perception of the Earth as spherical is an illusion created by the curvature of space-time"

I'd like to see this elaborated on, This definitely needs an explanation.
 
Moon-Spinner said:
"The perception of the Earth as spherical is an illusion created by the curvature of space-time"

I'd like to see this elaborated on, This definitely needs an explanation.
Click to expand...

Well here you go, then. Hope it contains the vital missing pieces necessary to fill the gaps in your understanding. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOE1xR_49Io

Skip to 1:55 for the relevant part. Good luck with the rest. :boggled:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom