Can earthquakes be predicted?

Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Sunday, May 03, 2015

Roger you re evaluations of my theory, (which does not match with your first one)


 Roger
 Sorry, I am posting your e mail on this blog (without your permission)
 This is exactly what I meant by QA-QC and UAT, for the program you have developed so far
 for testing my predictions. Now ,look, the basic things ie number of aftershocks and its 
distribution do not match,with respect to your first findings Now the question is , how far one should believe,the programs and results you have announced so far,stating my method is wrong, and that I should quit?


Amit

-----    ------   -----   -----  ----  -------   ------    -----   -----   -----  -----  --
Hi Amit;
I found the problem(s); numerous programming errors.
I have the habit of assuming that when the answer looks correct, it is correct.
WRONG!
I found spelling errors and logic errors by actually printing out the main quakes and aftershocks.
These are included in the printout so you can check them yourself if you wish.
Now the results are more consistant with the exponential decrease in aftershocks over time.
The curve (if plotted) would be much smoother and your special times are not any higher than expected.
I apologise for the mistakes.
Roger




There were 215 main quakes (7.5+) and  210 aftershocks
in the 10x10 degree square centered on each main quake

23 13  4  7  3  5  7  4  2  5  4  4  3  2  2  5  3  2  1  3  1  1  2  4 
 4  2  0  3  2  2  0  2  0  0  0  0  0  0  2  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  0 
 0  2  0  0  1  1  0  0  0  1  0  1  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  2  0  1 
 1  1  1  1  1  0  1  0  2  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  1  1  2 
 2  2  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  0 
 0  0  2  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  2  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
 0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  2  0  1  1  0  0  0  0  1  1  0  0  0  0  0  1 
 1  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  1  0  0  1  0  0  0  1  0  0  2  0  1  2  0  0 
 0  0  2  1  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
 0  1  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  1 
 1  0  1  1  1  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
 0  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  1  0  1  0  0  0  0  0 
 0  0  0  1  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  1 
 1  0  1  0  0  0  0  1  2  0  0  1  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
 0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1 
 1  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 

1 comment:

Roger Hunter said...

Amit;

No problem. When I make a mistake I freely acknowledge it.

As it happens in this case, correcting my errors makes the case more strongly against your method.

The apparent peaks that seemed to support you in the first pass are no longer there and the remaining distribution does not support you at all.

Roger