please see my prediction of 7+ earthquake on 12th June 2010 and actual quakes
1)7.5 Nicobar-12 June 2010 -1926 Hrs UTC
2)6.1 East coast of Japan -13th June 2010 -0302 Hrs UTC
I earnestly requaest all to work on the topic and pin point even places. In principle I hope to do so
in future
Amit
21 comments:
Amid, again congratulations on prediction #14 from your 2010 forecast, posted 6 months ago. Your forecast was for activity on the 12th and the 13th was included also, and we have corresponding major EQ activity, M7.5 & M6.1 respectively. A very good hit, from so long ago.
And, if I may, I would also like to share in the glory, as i have also forecast activity on these dates as well, although not as specifically as Amid, nor as far in advance. This distiction of an active date, plus the description is an important factor in any probabiltiy model, a point I should like to ask Roger about next.
As to your private email to me Amid requesting information on my method, I must respectively decline specific information. I got onto these EQ's quite by accident. I have been doing hurricane research for many years now, and have developed a model with which to conduct observations. It's the product of years of labor, and I simply cannot post my research work so informally on the internet.
On a whim, I typed in some EQ data onto my hurricane model and noticed a pattern of activity, which seems to be holding up, better than luck, I believe, but I am only just beginning to learn about probability statistics.
In one of your posts Amid, you took some criticism for noting a cyclone on one of your forecast dates. I must agree that events that occur simultaenously do have common causes.
Steve DeLapp
Roger,
Regarding your email to me, I am more interested in a 1 day window.
In other words, I am interested in identifying days of the month that will be significantly more active than others. In this regard, a correct forecast of no qualifying activity is a successful outcome, just the same as "hit" would be. I am not certain that your model takes this into account. Also, your method seems to assume an even distribution of events over the course of time, or '3 day windows'. Clearly this is not the case, as actual activity can often cluster, greatly skewing the distribution.
I seem to recall in an earlier post that you were working with a program of sorts to calculate the odds. Did I understand this correctly. If so, what probability model are you using, and can you compute correlation ratios for forecast / results.
And lastly, would you happen to know anything about the Poission Distribution, and would it be an appropiate analysis tool for these data?
Steve;
That's correct IF you predict it (no quake) but the probability is much higher so the value is much less and the penalty for missing is much higher.
No I do not assume a uniform distribution. The observed probability method counts how many windows had quakes in the past and minimizes the effect of clustering thereby. A one day window tends to decrease the effectiveness in that regard.
Yes, Poisson can be used but it does assume a normal distribution.
Roger
Hello again, I am not sure what is the right distribution of occurrence of earthquakes. Someone may have tried to find out I do not know. I am hoping that earthquakes are deterministic. I am not an Astronomer so I am not an expert on plate theories however the method here is very easy to predict and SOME results are impressive. Comparing the results against pure chance I think is fair.
sdelap.............In one of your posts Amid, you took some criticism for noting a cyclone on one of your forecast dates. I must agree that events that occur simultaenously do have common causes......
Well sdelap, I really do not think one shuld count cyclones as a hit when you expect an earthquake. If you expect an earthquake OR a cyclone than you must count not only the quakes but also the cyclones in your 2009 datat set. I do not think Amit did this. The same way as we draw levels for quakes one must also draw levels for bad weather and then count the events as a whole. It is basic stuff...
P(quake OR cyclone)= P(quake)+P(cyclone)-P(common occurrence)
The distribution of the size of earthquakes follows the Gutenberg–Richter law that states that the number of earthquakes with magnitude M greater than m is given by
log10 N(M>m) proportional to -bm
where b ≈ 1. Introducing a variable S = 10 to the power of m N(S>s) proportional to s to the power of -b.
The short time temporal correlation between earthquakes is given by the Omori Law, which states that immediately after an earthquake, the frequency of a sequence of aftershocks decays with time T as approx 1/T
The fault systems and the spatial distribution of epicenters of earthquakes are fractal.
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/suppl.1/2509.full
16 Earthquakes in 2009 of >7R
13 Earthquakes in 2008 of >7R
18 Earthquakes in 2007 of >7R
11 Earthquakes in 2006 of >7R
11 Earthquakes in 2005 of >7R
9 Earthquakes in 2004 of >7R
Average 13 quakes over 7R per year
I would ask Amit to look at ALL earthquakes in 2004 over 7R which occur ONLY on November and December and give us a good account of them, and an explanation as to the reasons for this.
For example the following dates did not give us a 7R quake but why not?
7th Jan 2004 mercury station
24 mar Pluto station
5th May 2004 Jupiter station
10th June Uranus station
30 August Pluto Station
24 Oct Neptune station
2 Sept Mercury station
TONY
I will explain how cyclones and tornado (not forest fire is also a part of tidal force theory
Tidal force acts on all layers
a)Lava
b)ocean water
C)Earth crust
d)Atmosphere
If at a given time if high tide forces are acting on x-x axis,low tide will be observed at y-y axis (90 (degrees)
At x-x axis there will be chance of quakes or eruption depending upon crust,as there is internal pressure
At y-y axis ,there will be low pressure created de to low tidal acting on it. The moment ,place moves away from low tide force ,high pressure air rushes to fill the partial vacuum,which in turn create tornado.If the air rush through ocean at 26 to 28 degree temprature,it gathers momenum and creates cyclones
Thus on given date which is prone either major quake or cyclone or volcanic eruption can occur.These three are the result of same tidal force
Regarding question of November 20004 quakestion I will reply soon
regards A
mit
Tony
1) In 2004 there were 16 7+ quakes and not 9 as you mentioned
2) I do not consider Uranus Neptune and Pluto because they are far away and tidal pull decreases as inverse ratio of square of the distance
3)On 7Th January 2004 when MErcury changes direction Jupiter was also changing the direction on 5th. Hence ,there were 23quakes of 6+ during
22.12.03.to 22.12.04.
4)on 2.09.2004Mercury changing direction.There was one 7+ quake ,which you did not mentioned (5th Sept 04)
Tony
correction
sr no 3) last line 22.12.2003 to 22.01.2004
Hi Amit,
From http://www.emsc-csem.org
I get only 9 quakes in 2004 >7R
Hi Amit,
I suggest in 2004 simply because we have only few >7R can you list your predictions and the reason, concluding if this is a hit or miss.
Thanks for your help.
Hi Amit, I am asking too many questions, but 2004 is a test I am using for now. A question is why is it we did not see a 7+ during or after 5th May 2004 when we had Jupiter station. Also how do we explain hence understand based on your theory that we got so many 7+ in November/December with only Saturn and Mercury station but nothing when Jupiter stationed? Thanks
You see apart from the stats which are poor I would be happy if this theory predicts well a smaller set of the complete earthquakes consistently. The stats dont add up as I have shown as well as Roger. The theory is also not reliable to me as one MUST MUST explain when to expect ALL 7+ at least reliably, (cases such as Jupiter station not giving 7+ is an issue which contradicts your OWN thory!) including exceptions. At the moment the theory predicts a small subset of the whole quite precisely BUT has some really bad misses which contradict the same theory. Let me know your thoughts and better explanations. Thanks.
Under what conditions Mercury gives 7+ and under what conditions <7R? In 2004 we have such a problem. We have Sept 2nd 2004 Mercury did not fire >7 but in 29th Nov 2004 Mercury gave a >7R. Also, the strongest of 9.3R of the 26th Dec 2004 what is the reason since we have no Saturn station nor Jupiter either.
Thanks
Tony
please see NEIC records for quakes
http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=HH&SYEAR=2004&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=2004&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7.0&UMAG=9.5&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0.0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
Amit
Tony
The basic date around which a major quake can occur is first decided.The magnitude depends on several other factors like
1) Distance of planet changing direction from earth
2) Distance of Moon from Earth
3) Distance of sun to Earth
4) Full Moon or New Moon gives major quakes .26.12.2004 was a full Moon day,Distances were (on 26.12.2004)
sun to Earth---.98 AU
Saturn to Earth---8.1AU(potent)
and Moon at extreme North Declination
Moreover,it also depends on the Earth crust at that time and at the place where the resultant tidal pull is effective
Thus when all other factors favors Mercury can give 7+
Amit
Well Gentlemen... been very quiet here. I was wondering if anyone had looked at my EQ forecast at AstroWeather.com lately. I'm experiencing an 83% success on a dauly basis for this month. Any comments?
Well Gentlemen... been very quiet here. I was wondering if anyone had looked at my EQ forecast at AstroWeather.com lately. I'm experiencing an 83% success on a dauly basis for this month. Any comments?
Post a Comment