Hi
please note China quake of 6.9 on 14Th April 2010 ,0520 am (IST) against my predicted date.
Time and again it was proved correct. It is high time we should think of theories other than Plate tectonics. I do not know ,why we are so reluctant to look at anything other than plate tectonics
please......please look for and work for tidal force theory also..atleast observe the dates carefully and save some human lives .This has also proved 7.5 day theory for quake,which Roger to note.
I ,here by,request all learned man in general and USGS in perticular to watch my dates till December 2010 posted on the blog (including modified well in advance) and than decide further course of action
Regards
Amit
23 comments:
Also please note a cyclone at India Bangladesh boarder and a volcanic eruption a Iceland,today
This confirms the general theory of
natural disaster proposed by me (see this blog)
Amit;
The reason why nobody is testing your theory is that it has already been tested and found to be without merit.
Additionally, it has no theoretical merit since the forces involved are many orders of magnitude too small to have any such effect.
Roger
Amit;
The reason why nobody is testing your theory is that it has already been tested and found to be without merit.
Additionally, it has no theoretical merit since the forces involved are many orders of magnitude too small to have any such effect.
Roger
Roger
i have nothing more to argue.Let the dates speak.keep watching the dates.How many times would you say -
a matter of chance-
I have already offered every body to test their luck,if it is so, and give some dates
regards
Amit
Amit;
It's a simple matter to test IF all the details are fixed beforehand.
But you keep adding new parameters and changing limits.
First it was major planets changing directions during full moon. Then it was moon at a 90 degree multiple with a retrograde planet. Then it was a 3 day time window.
Now if you can state the particular circumstances for a quake and stick to them, I will test them against chance and post the results here.
Do you agree?
Roger
.amit.droger
Theory is already posted on the blog from time to time.
Amit;
But it keeps changing.
Also you keep adding new parameters. You have so many now that something will be active on any given day.
Roger
Roger
All parameters ,which you mentioned as changing every day, are already posted well in advance ,in earlier blogs.
If you still feel there are lot of variables ,best optioned left is to observe the dates till December 2010
regards
Amit
Roger,
Do me a favor and stop being such a detractor. Where is YOUR valuable input? Where is YOUR data that gives ANY prediction? Mmmm?
At least AMIT is offering theories and suggestions and compiling data to prove his theories. All you are doing is skepticizing to hear yourself talk. SOME hits are better than NO hits, and that dear Roger is better than YOU have offered. Yeah.
samual
thank you very much for your kind support.waht is the harm in keeping vigil on 35/40 odd days in ayear,(at prone places)if we can save some human lives?
Existing plate tectonic can not explain some of the issues,leave aside prediction.How and why we are still holding on to it? why are we not so stringent for plate tectonic ,which says- a quake tomorrow or 200 years later? -what do we do with this prediction?
some of the quaestion I have asked some questions on this blog to plate tectonics which are still not answered by anyone,who believes it to be true.
Any way,thanks again.
proabbale dates are poasted on 10th January 2010(on this blog)
regards
Amit
Amit;
I looked at your 2010 performance as far as the NEIC catalog allowed.
39 quakes, 7 date hits out of 9 predictions.
35 3-day windows, 28 contain quakes. Odds of a hit are 80%
You have 7 date hits out of 9 predictions.
80% of 9 is 7 expected hits.
Results are pure chance.
Roger
Roger
Thank you very nuch for the efforts you put in
regrads
Amit
Amit;
Since your predictions were not working for mag 6+ quakes I decided to see if it did any better with 7+ quakes.
It did not.
You got 1 hit out of 8 tries which is again, exactly what was expected since the odds on a hit are 0.15 for mag 7+ quakes.
Roger
Roger
I do not think I have given 8 dates for 7+ quakes from January 1st to 15 th April 2010.I guess you are talking of this years dates
Amit;
No, you didn't. I just wanted to see if your dates worked better with 7+ quakes.
They didn't.
Roger
Roger
Thank you very much
regards
Amit
I believe that positive critics are valid, but the negatives are a waste of time.
There are variants (and will be always)as we are talking movement here and is theory.
if Amit can and keep working on this, he may well unlock some wisdom for all mankind, lets try to give some positive help and feedback.
Step by step, I still think other masses at play here, we are attatch also to center of Galaxy are we not? and travel around it, in not perfect (constant same plane)orbit, but orbiting non the less.
Saludos!
Zyxzz;
Both are important.
Positive critics are encouraging and supportive, which is nice.
But negative critics are better in that they can strengthen your work by pointing out flaws. Or even more important, they can prevent you from wasting your time on false ideas.
Amit's problem is that he will not accept the truth but instead insists on pursuing demonstrably false ideas.
Roger
Roger;
orale!
Interesting point, I got you now.
You want to play the bad one in this movie, but you really love him.
I wont tell anybody... :)
but dont forget there are 3 versions of any truth.
On one side his truth, on the other yours, and posible true version on the middle, will be very interesting if you guys can meet in the middle.
no offence intended.
Thanks!
Roger
The problem ,I think ,with method is you are not counting the total quakes in window period
I will give one example
Suppose I predict only one date from 2006 to 2010 and if it is a hit my percentage will be 100%,which is not true.
I believe it should be like this
(no of hits/no of predicted dates)*(total no of quakes in window period/total quakes of the year)
regards
Amit
Amit;
What is needed is the probability that a 3 day window chosen at random will capture a quake.
You determine this by dividing your time period into 3 day windows and counting how many have quakes. Probability is then windows containing quakes divided by total number of windows.
So looking at a year we have 365/3 windows which is 122 (almost) windows. If 61 of them contain quakes the odds are 61/122 = 0.50 that a window chosen at random will contain a quake.
Now if you make 20 predictions, chance would say that you will get 10 hits. But this is not the only possible result. You could get any number of hits from 0 to 20 because each result has a different probability and they are normally distributed.
You can use the z-binomial test to tell how likely your results are.
Roger
hi
please see my web page for theory and dates -calender. or click a link at right hand side of tis blog -monthly prediction for 7+ quake-
http://earthquakeprediction.webs.com/
Amit
I constantly spent my half an hour to read this webpage's articles or reviews everyday along with a cup of coffee.
Post a Comment