tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post7705062579388322381..comments2024-03-28T08:01:12.901-07:00Comments on earthquake prediction: Evaluation of earthquake prediction theories(other than plate tectonics) by ScienceAMIThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11156510982882875208noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-21946835898954452252018-11-07T07:20:08.196-08:002018-11-07T07:20:08.196-08:00Hello there, just became aware of your blog throug...Hello there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and <br />found that it is really informative. I'm going <br />to watch out for brussels. I will appreciate if you continue this in future.<br />Numerous people will be benefited from your writing.<br />Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-56026537904413395742011-04-23T01:09:22.177-07:002011-04-23T01:09:22.177-07:00Hi Amit,
although Roger Hunter evaluated you pred...Hi Amit,<br /><br />although Roger Hunter evaluated you predictions correctly as almost random (11% vs 12-13% in total), you are right in your attempt to earthquake prediction. The gravitational pulls of Moon, Sun and planets realy trigger the earthquakes, but you mixed apples and pears together. <br /><br />You must analyse the specific areas separately. Than you can see that the EQ in Chile (Feb 27, 2010) was triggered in the same tidal phase as Tokohu EQ (Mar 9+11, 2011), but with oposite directions of the pull. In the case of Chile EQ the movement of upper layers was to the west and in the case of Japan EQ the movement wes to the east. <br /><br />If you will mixed both types of forces together, you obtain random results. If you will divide them according the area or focal mechanisms, you will obtain higher than random predictions. See the papers of Sachiko Tanaka when analysed only normal or reverse EQs in the subducted area.<br /><br />PavelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-48613413810724283512011-03-25T09:27:05.436-07:002011-03-25T09:27:05.436-07:00Roger
What I mean is such strong combination of i...Roger<br /> What I mean is such strong combination of indicators and aspects should be selected that yearly the dates should not exceed 30/32 odd<br /> Yearly 6 to 8 stationed planets occur,hence 8*4=32 dates approx<br /> AmitAMIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156510982882875208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-21895323569618137072011-03-25T09:26:21.861-07:002011-03-25T09:26:21.861-07:00Roger
What I mean is such strong combination of i...Roger<br /> What I mean is such strong combination of indicators and aspects should be selected that yearly the dates should not exceed 30/32 odd<br /> Yearly 6 to 8 stationed planets occur,hence 8*4=32 dates approx<br /> AmitAMIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156510982882875208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-35204389351837443742011-03-25T07:27:16.007-07:002011-03-25T07:27:16.007-07:00Amit;
Are you saying to always select 2 dates fro...Amit;<br /><br />Are you saying to always select 2 dates from either side?<br /><br />What about dates without other indicators? <br /><br />RogerRoger Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03159156315266044017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-78432092662150326432011-03-25T04:51:56.783-07:002011-03-25T04:51:56.783-07:00Roger
Only thing is
1)2 dates from either side o...Roger<br /> Only thing is <br />1)2 dates from either side of stationed planet (with strong combinations ) should be selected<br />2)126 total stationed ie 126*4=504 widows should be selected,approximately<br /> If we select weaker Moon combinations ,there will be lot of windows<br /> AmitAMIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156510982882875208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-76548436640358288022011-03-24T11:44:39.212-07:002011-03-24T11:44:39.212-07:00Amit;
Ok, I am looking at the moon each hour for ...Amit;<br /><br />Ok, I am looking at the moon each hour for the 31 days from +15 to -15 days. If it comes within 2 degrees either way from one of the 90 degree angles (4 of them) I accept that day and mark it as a match.<br /><br />Is this acceptable to you?<br /><br />Since the moon moves around 14 degrees per day there are a lot of matches.<br /><br />RogerRoger Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03159156315266044017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-5558709644413217922011-03-24T01:05:10.721-07:002011-03-24T01:05:10.721-07:00Roger
Yes. May be I could not explain properly
1)...Roger<br />Yes. May be I could not explain properly<br /> 1) Moon aspects are taken + or -6 degrees ie + or -12 Hrs<br />2)yes, Indicators are required within 3 day span. More closer they are stonger is the quake<br />AmitAMIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156510982882875208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-12571444214113161272011-03-23T19:54:30.573-07:002011-03-23T19:54:30.573-07:00Amit;
You say look for moon aspecting a planet st...Amit;<br /><br />You say look for moon aspecting a planet station at one of the 90 degree positions. <br /><br />How close? 1 degree 2 degrees, what? But don't say 30 degrees, that's unreasonable.<br /><br />RogerRoger Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03159156315266044017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-78393275244885914832011-03-23T19:16:39.391-07:002011-03-23T19:16:39.391-07:00Amit;
We have a communication problem.
I was sur...Amit;<br /><br />We have a communication problem.<br /><br />I was sure you said take a 3 day window 15 days before and after a planet station.<br /><br />Now you say look for 3 or more indicators in the 15 days before and after a station.<br /><br />How close together must the 3 indicators be? All within a 3 day span perhaps?<br /><br />RogerRoger Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03159156315266044017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-27415137967798488542011-03-23T09:40:19.471-07:002011-03-23T09:40:19.471-07:00Roger
It may be difficult for me to explain ,exac...Roger<br /> It may be difficult for me to explain ,exactly how I give dates.But I shall try<br />1) First find out period(+ or -15 days ) during which quake is possible(6+)<br />2)These are the dates ,when planet changes direction,not necessarily +or - 1day of stationed planet,any day between +or - 15 days<br />3)Once such + or - 15 days are selected ,then search for other three indicators,in those + or - 15 days.<br />4)From these + or - 15 days ,the dates is selected from Moon position,as Moon is the main trigger<br />5)Watch Moon,during these 15 days and select the date,with 3 or more inductors<br />6)Magnitude is decided depending on perigee of Moon,Planet distances,phases of Moon etc. More the indicators coinciding greater is the quake<br /> Closer the planets and stronger the aspects,greater is the quake<br /> Though this is very rough idea.There is lot of fine tuning required<br />AmitAMIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156510982882875208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-28859359878811985642011-03-23T09:26:34.380-07:002011-03-23T09:26:34.380-07:00Remi
You are right,it is not pure maths as we mig...Remi<br /> You are right,it is not pure maths as we might think.May be any one mathematical formula can not give probable dates.<br /> All that ,we can test is dates.It could be like fine art.<br /> AmitAMIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156510982882875208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-9856647511268068322011-03-23T07:56:45.291-07:002011-03-23T07:56:45.291-07:00As there is no clear theory to be tested, such as ...As there is no clear theory to be tested, such as Newtons Gravity, which applies to all things Predictably, here we test not so much indicators individual, as they mean nothing. An indicator on its own may not work well but in combination with other may do excellently. So we test DATES. We do not care how we got the dates. We correlate predicted dates with Quakes occured. That is the test. Trying to do individual indicators may well give below average hit rate. Together with other indicators may well allow us to predict high probability dates for quakes.<br />So the test should be DATES with Quake Dates.<br />RemiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-41759383465626569152011-03-23T07:37:30.348-07:002011-03-23T07:37:30.348-07:00Amit;
OK, when making a prediction you say day of...Amit;<br /><br />OK, when making a prediction you say day of station +-1 day if 3 other indicators are also present.<br /><br />I assume you mean within the 3 day window. Otherwise same day seldom happens.<br /><br />But then what are the windows 15 days either side for?<br /><br />RogerRoger Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03159156315266044017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-45840829762740061002011-03-23T06:40:09.841-07:002011-03-23T06:40:09.841-07:00Amit;
> We should take planets changing direct...Amit;<br /><br />> We should take planets changing direction as prime requirement and then any three out of rest of the indicators acting simultaneously<br />should be taken( ie 1 prime+ Any 3 indicators acting simultaneously-out of rest of 6)<br /><br />That's what is missing and was to be my next question!<br /><br />Remi; How he does it is important to me so that I can duplicate his predictions and then extend them to a larger interval. Small samples can give false results.<br /><br />RogerRoger Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03159156315266044017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-70642980107830077232011-03-22T20:43:07.588-07:002011-03-22T20:43:07.588-07:00Roger
That is why the process of selecting is mor...Roger<br /> That is why the process of selecting is more important ,rather than taking all indicators at a time.<br /> With all indicators I give only 25 odd dates ie 75 odd window period only. So more the inductors ,more the hits is not correct<br /> We should take planets changing direction as prime requirement and then any three out of rest of the indicators acting simultaneously<br />should be taken( ie 1 prime+ Any 3 indicators acting simultaneously-out of rest of 6)<br /> AmitAMIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156510982882875208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-48739008710160582532011-03-22T11:01:23.559-07:002011-03-22T11:01:23.559-07:00It does not matter if a single indicator or a whol...It does not matter if a single indicator or a whole number of indicators together. The prediction as to when there is or not an earthquake is what counts. You may use dog barkings. Who cares. Use stats to see if there is a correlation. The correlation is what MATERS. I think Amit should not tell us HOW he does it but THE RESULTING DATES. We agreed to do a test which should last for the WHOLE duration of the year. You cannot judge it the first month. Again I repeat one can use many indicators? In fact I dont care PROVIDED there is significant correlation between predicted dates AND earthquake dates. <br />Roger is off the mark. Sorry.<br />RemiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-90462986910076108752011-03-22T10:08:50.385-07:002011-03-22T10:08:50.385-07:00Amit;
> Expected hits 245.6 is total number of...Amit;<br /><br />> Expected hits 245.6 is total number of windows multiplied by odds.In that case 245.6 has nothing to do with number of inductors.<br /><br />Total number of indicators multiplied by odds on a hit.<br /><br />> Where as 247 (total hits )depends on number of indicators.<br /><br />Yes. The more often you try, the more hits you will get. With enough indicators you'll get them all.<br /><br />> In that case, how can we compare both? and say- Exactly as expected-<br />Roger I am confused.Something is missing.<br /><br />No, it's all there.<br /><br />RogerRoger Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03159156315266044017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-17070206881669105282011-03-22T09:32:40.313-07:002011-03-22T09:32:40.313-07:00Roger
Expected hits 245.6 is total number of wind...Roger<br /> Expected hits 245.6 is total number of windows multiplied by odds.In that case 245.6 has nothing to do with number of inductors.<br /> Where as 247 (total hits )depends on number of indicators.<br /> In that case, how can we compare both? and say- Exactly as expected-<br /> Roger I am confused.Something is missing.AMIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156510982882875208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-60216334183113125522011-03-22T08:17:33.530-07:002011-03-22T08:17:33.530-07:00Amit;
The main reason for the high number of hits...Amit;<br /><br />The main reason for the high number of hits is the high number of indicators, especially the declinations. The time from highest to lowest is only about 2 weeks so 3 day windows take up about half of the time.<br /><br />The otthers fill in so about 71% of the days are covered.<br /><br />RogerRoger Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03159156315266044017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-28059941881262109542011-03-22T07:24:47.364-07:002011-03-22T07:24:47.364-07:00Amit;
I see the problem.
I said that you had 247...Amit;<br /><br />I see the problem.<br /><br />I said that you had 247 hits out of the 302 quakes which is about 82%. But that was because I was testing all your indicators individually and summing the results.<br /><br />This means that one quake might be hit by several indicators. You can't compare hits to quakes, you compare hits to indicators and by that measure you got no more than expected.<br /><br />RogerRoger Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03159156315266044017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-11166656691771074072011-03-22T03:14:49.735-07:002011-03-22T03:14:49.735-07:00hi
A strong quake jolts japan to day
http://chan...hi<br /> A strong quake jolts japan to day<br /><br />http://channel6newsonline.com/2011/03/strong-quake-strikes-off-japan-no-tsunami-warnings-issued/<br /><br />amitAMIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156510982882875208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-15382198471832008062011-03-21T23:05:52.218-07:002011-03-21T23:05:52.218-07:00hi
Unlike Plate tectonics ,the theory does not di...hi<br /> Unlike Plate tectonics ,the theory does not differentiate between Earthquakes and Volcanic Eruptions.This was mentioned several times on this blog. Thus , a date for earthquakes is also prone to Eruptions<br /> <br />http://www.sify.com/news/600-evacuated-as-Indonesian-volcano-erupts-news-ldtrEfdebhf.html?ref=content_widget_news<br /><br />When eruption occurs quake maggnitude decreases<br /> AmitAMIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156510982882875208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-9219474612384499792011-03-21T22:49:50.013-07:002011-03-21T22:49:50.013-07:00Remi
My simple question is what is mathematically...Remi<br /> My simple question is what is mathematically wrong in the staement given by me earlier (aa an outcome of Rogers analysis)?ie<br /><br />During a study of 7+ quakes of last 20 years it is found that,28% days were used as window period of the theory and 82% of 7+ quakes occured in these window period<br /><br />regards <br /> AmitAMIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11156510982882875208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33253361.post-26477897696890268392011-03-21T12:51:46.033-07:002011-03-21T12:51:46.033-07:00Although neither flat constant distribution nor Po...Although neither flat constant distribution nor Poisson distribution are perfect for stats work, certainly Rogers analysis is not as accurate as the Poisson/Binomial analysis I offered in previous messages and I stick to Poisson.<br />RemiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com