Still experimenting this new idea. It seems to work but I get the inversions in. I am working in soting this out and predicting when we get inversions. But still amazing to be able to predict INTRA-DAY probabilities. ;-)
I'm a retired seismologist interested in evaluating quake predictions. Can you describe the method you use? I've investigated almost every way to do it, especially astrology and have yet to find anyone reliable.
Hi Roger you are welcome. Yes I have heard about you. It will be good to see your work, Please post a link on your papers I will be happy to comment. Are you still working with USGS? My dates are here to be judged.
I was going to post a link to the Earthwaves Prediction site but my article link there seems to be missing.
I can send it to you by email but I don/t see it in here.
My main interest would be to replicate your method so I can create your predictions for the entire NEIC catalog (1973-2014) to get a better basis for statistical analysis.
It appears that you're still working on the method, so it may be premature to evaluate it now.
My email is
rogerh906@gmail.com
so if you email me I can send the Nabhan article that way.
Well my published methods are in here. Just loook it up in the links. I am certainly working on a few new ideas such as the intraday stuff but I have not published them it so I am doing testing slowly, I just post it for curiosity for some who follow my work. As far as testing my prediction dates as you can see I have posted the global events for October. I will do later for Greece. I can do for California if you like but I need data and it is a bit of a bother. If you like to test the method you have to replicate my calculations and my method is a bit more work than looking up retrograde planets and and position of them.
I am not using planetary alignment for predictions as I prefer the FDL method. I certainly have consideration and when both methods coincide it is better. I do think planetary alignment has value but since one needs to see the physics behind it and I am afraid I think one has to go to fundamental physics to see why planetary works not just gravity, I am not considering the reasoning behind, just the result.
Ok, after reading up on Fibonacci numbers I wrote a quick test program using numbers 11 thru 17.
First I found the first 220 mag 7+ quakes in the NEIC catalog to use as seed quakes, finding the 7 dates after each one for prediction windows. That gave me 1540 dates from 1976/4/12 to 1998/7/23.
Then I checked all the 6+ quakes for hits within 3 days of each prediction.
Out of 2783 quakes there were 862 hits.
Now the odds on a mag 6+ quake in a 6 day window during that time period are 0.808 so there should have been 2247 hits.
I conclude that the method is much worse than chance.
I see. It seems to me that you are quick to conclude. It suggest you read my work more carefully think about what tools you use to check things before you conclude. Enjoy your day.
Questions of probability are crucial in these studies. I'm trying to check the accuracy of your tables 1 and 2 against the ANSS catalog which goes back to 1900.
I need to know how you count window days. The tables have differences up to 3 days. Do you count to include the predicted day for a 6 day window or is it 3 days either side of the predicted day, giving a 7 day window?
Oh really? Then explain this; on table 1 for 27 Sep 1901 the quake was 30 Sep 1901, 3 days after. But on 8 Jun 1920 the quake was on 5 Jun 1920, 3 days before. So your window is really at least 6 days.
I understand stats just fine.
In order to test on old quakes I had to update the NEIC Centennial Catalog. Comparing that to the table 1 dates, I find only 46 matches The odds on a hit are 0.625 so chance would give you 62 hits but you only got 53.
We don't always agree on the quakes, probably due to different databases but it's the odds that are the main problem.
I use a method designed by Dr Alan Jones of Purdue University so I'm pretty sure of the answer.
Hi Anthony;
ReplyDeleteI'm a retired seismologist interested in evaluating quake predictions. Can you describe the method you use? I've investigated almost every way to do it, especially astrology and have yet to find anyone reliable.
Hi Roger you are welcome. Yes I have heard about you. It will be good to see your work, Please post a link on your papers I will be happy to comment. Are you still working with USGS? My dates are here to be judged.
ReplyDeleteHi Anthony;
DeleteNo, I'm retired.
I was going to post a link to the Earthwaves Prediction site but my article link there seems to be missing.
I can send it to you by email but I don/t see it in here.
My main interest would be to replicate your method so I can create your predictions for the entire NEIC catalog (1973-2014) to get a better basis for statistical analysis.
It appears that you're still working on the method, so it may be premature to evaluate it now.
My email is
rogerh906@gmail.com
so if you email me I can send the Nabhan article that way.
Roger
Well my published methods are in here. Just loook it up in the links.
ReplyDeleteI am certainly working on a few new ideas such as the intraday stuff but I have not published them it so I am doing testing slowly, I just post it for curiosity for some who follow my work.
As far as testing my prediction dates as you can see I have posted the global events for October. I will do later for Greece. I can do for California if you like but I need data and it is a bit of a bother. If you like to test the method you have to replicate my calculations and my method is a bit more work than looking up retrograde planets and and position of them.
I assume you mean paper #1.
ReplyDeleteI'm currently trying to replicate the 2010 analysis. Once I'm sure it's working correctly I'll do the full catalog.
Hmmm
On rechecking, I'm working on M. Omerbashich's ideas which seem to be where you got your ideas.
I'll let you know what I come up with
Roger
I said read my papers. Especially paper 3.
ReplyDeleteSo you did.
DeletePaper #1 describes your graphic program for finding alignments but gives no link to it.
.
I'm doing it by calculation which is easier and faster.
Paper #3 uses FDL sequences with which I an not familiar - yet.
Roger
correct the alignment program was developed thats why there is no link to it.
ReplyDeleteMy mistake. I thought it was to be used by others online.
DeleteRoger
I am not using planetary alignment for predictions as I prefer the FDL method. I certainly have consideration and when both methods coincide it is better. I do think planetary alignment has value but since one needs to see the physics behind it and I am afraid I think one has to go to fundamental physics to see why planetary works not just gravity, I am not considering the reasoning behind, just the result.
ReplyDeleteI read yor paper for the Nabhan method and I do not agree with your results. But this is another discussion.
ReplyDeletePerhaps better conducted by email.
DeleteRoger
Ok, after reading up on Fibonacci numbers I wrote a quick test program using numbers 11 thru 17.
ReplyDeleteFirst I found the first 220 mag 7+ quakes in the NEIC catalog to use as seed quakes, finding the 7 dates after each one for prediction windows. That gave me 1540 dates from 1976/4/12 to 1998/7/23.
Then I checked all the 6+ quakes for hits within 3 days of each prediction.
Out of 2783 quakes there were 862 hits.
Now the odds on a mag 6+ quake in a 6 day window during that time period are 0.808 so there should have been 2247 hits.
I conclude that the method is much worse than chance.
Roger
Correction, that should be 1244 hits expected.
DeleteStill much worse than chance.
Roger
I see. It seems to me that you are quick to conclude. It suggest you read my work more carefully think about what tools you use to check things before you conclude. Enjoy your day.
ReplyDeleteAnswer me this; how did you determine the odds on getting a hit with a mag 6+ quake in a 6 day window?
ReplyDeleteYour paper says 16%
I find it to be over 80%
Roger
Questions of probability are crucial in these studies. I'm trying to check the accuracy of your tables 1 and 2 against the ANSS catalog which goes back to 1900.
ReplyDeleteI need to know how you count window days. The tables have differences up to 3 days. Do you count to include the predicted day for a 6 day window or is it 3 days either side of the predicted day, giving a 7 day window?
Roger
Exactly Roger thats stats for you. Do wnt me to explain stats? This is not the forum for it. My window is 3 day windows but not 6.
ReplyDeleteOh really? Then explain this; on table 1 for 27 Sep 1901 the quake was 30 Sep 1901, 3 days after. But on 8 Jun 1920 the quake was on 5 Jun 1920, 3 days before. So your window is really at least 6 days.
ReplyDeleteI understand stats just fine.
In order to test on old quakes I had to update the NEIC Centennial Catalog.
Comparing that to the table 1 dates, I find only 46 matches The odds on a hit are 0.625 so chance would give you 62 hits but you only got 53.
We don't always agree on the quakes, probably due to different databases but it's the odds that are the main problem.
I use a method designed by Dr Alan Jones of Purdue University so I'm pretty sure of the answer.
Roger
Ok Roger use chance. have a good day.
ReplyDelete