(02-02-2017, 04:21 PM)Duffy Wrote: Duffy

Quote:I cannot give verification on this, the necessary data is no longer on my screen because I am formulating a prediction, based on my own findings. I would also have to check each of the 147 events manually, which would be to time consuming.  But here are a few facts you should consider ...

Without including my formula, the moon only has a centre positional link on my bearings, at the time an event occurred.  It has no relevance with the terminator zones in this experiment, I omitted it from the results for this reason.

I'm not testing your test, I'm testing your method, the one we went over a bunch of times until I finally understood it.

Quote:The closest event, related to time of sunrise/ sunset on these bearings was only 4 degrees distance, the furthest was 112 degrees. So there is no relation to 90 degrees with any of these cases.  The time and location of these events have no 90 degree relation with the suns position e.g  16th Jan 15:06:36 ut .. M 5.4 Tamimbar, Indonesia ... Sunset on bearing 54' 29' E - 22' 27' S (6th Jan) occurred at 15:07 ut.  It was the middle of the night in Tanimbar at 15:07 ut, with approximately 7 hours to sunrise. So a 90 degree standard would not work, because each individual case is different.

But your thesis is that quakes happen when the sunrise/sunset line crosses the previous location of the sun or moon. That's what the 90 degree distance is supposed to indicate.

Quote:As I have described above, I believe this to be periodic and the reason I ran the test after the 15th, and not before. I don't know why you keep referring to 30 days ... because the test was carried out over 11 days.

It's the length of your window, has been all along.

Quote: I can "accumulate" up to 30 days worth of data before I place a prediction, but I don't know if or when the prediction will mature. But just as you can derive a forecast for a specific location timed in years, I do similar with my signals.  If I keep getting signal hits on a particular bearing, I can go back in my data and match similar hits. The mere fact that the signal is in my data suggests something may occur within a short period of detection, that's why I use 30 day windows.  But the data in the table is a different kind of signal to the ones I use for prediction. There have been no earthquakes on any of these bearings during the course of this test, in fact, there have been no earthquakes on these bearings at any time during January. So they appear to have no prediction value, except for the fact that they seem to have a sunrise / sunset relation to 5+ earthquakes.

And that's what I'm testing; DO they really or is it just chance.

Quote:A small example of what I learned from the last batch ...

 3rd Dec 22:57:02 ut ... 5.2 Pacific Antarctic Ridge .... DT
 8th Dec 20:49:28 ut ... 5.0 Solomon Islands ............ NT 
11th Dec 20:57:55 ut ... 5.3 South of Fiji .................. NT
19th Dec 21:18:33 ut ... 5.0 Guatemala .................... NT
20th Dec 01:57:44 ut ... 5.1 New Ireland Region ....... SR
23rd Dec 22:32:18 ut ... 5.0 New Britain Region ........ DT
27th Dec 22:38:06 ut ... 5.2 New Ireland Region ....... DT

The day and night terminator symbols shown here, have nothing to do with the listed locations, but they are related to the dates and times. They refer to Terminator zone times at bearing 31' 08' E - 48' 10' S ... on the Bain Fracture Zone, South of Africa, the same bearing I used in my D16 prediction.  The actual event occurred on 23rd Jan 07:13:40 ut at bearing 30' 58' E - 48' 54' S. You can see from this list, it is possible to source one kind of data up to 7 week prior to the event, using the same method we are currently trying to test now. Combining this with my own signals and space data, it is possible to determine a location.  If you want to look into this deeper, it was also sunrise on bearing 177' 30' W - 30' 18' S at 07:13 ut 23rd Jan on the epicentre of the 5.8 Kermadec Islands quake 6 days later ... the list goes on !

Please, I'm confused enough as it is!

Quote:I can not foresee how your 90 degree method is going to work in this case, but I will give some thought to other options you can test. I am currently working on a possible anomaly in the Sea of Marmara, Western Turkey.  My track record on multiple predictions has not been good lately, I get a few hits, and a 7.9 in NZ shuts the rest down. I get a few hits on the next batch, and a 7.9 in P.N.G. shuts the rest down again.  I had 5 hits in the current batch, until the 7.3 in the Celebes Sea occurred on the 10th.  No events had any connection with my bearings for a period after New moon, does this not show some kind of "aspect change" is affecting the relationships ... just like on the 15th Jan !  There are exceptions to this, which I am still investigating, but D16 South of Africa and D24 Western Xizang, recorded more Day / night terminator contacts than sunrise/sunset contacts ... does this have any meaning ?

No, it looks more like chance fluctuations to me.

Quote:Finally, may I suggest you continue testing this tomorrow, because I believe it is "groundhog Day" in the US ... is it not ?.  You are for all intense and purpose testing shadows, and I fear another 6 weeks of this will finish me off.   Or if I was to address how things are portrayed in the "Bill Murray" film of the same name, you will find my bearings will get thousands of hits and write them off as meaningless   . 

No but if you keep changing the situation around this way I'll have to give up out of simple frustration.

Roger

(02-02-2017, 06:17 PM)Duffy Wrote: Roger;

I have no idea if my descriptions are not to standard, because nobody else is getting involved to tell me different. I ran a test in real-time, meaning I know what I did, and everybody else saw what was happening as it happened. I saw what you saw, only difference is I know the source and the rest is speculation on my part.  I suggest we take a break and review this test again independently ... you might be here for mental exercise, but I'm not.



10 hours of minimal disruption in the green, then an aspect change at 17:02 ut.  The night terminator is on 27' 54' E - 40' 52' N at the West end of the Mamara Trough at 17:02 ut. Is this just a random fluctuation, a coincidence because I mentioned Sea of Marmara in an earlier post, or am I putting in the time to join the dots ? 


Duffy

(02-02-2017, 09:51 PM)Duffy Wrote: Roger;

I'm probably doing something dumb here, so let me figure it out.  You can appreciate I have been dealing with a lot of numbers lately, so its obviously taking a toll.

Granted, you come across a lot of coincidences when you are trying to source data, but in this case I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree.  I'm sorry you didn't understand the rest, it was foolish to include it at this point. I was mealy trying to demonstrate the need for 30 days.

I'll get back to you

Duffy

(02-05-2017, 04:07 PM)Duffy Wrote: Duffy;

Quote:You were right about the 90 degree distance between longitude of the sun, and the selected bearings at sunrise/sunset ... I couldn't see it for looking, so apologies again.   As you stated in your question, the Earth is not a perfect sphere, and it is orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, so the angle of the terminator is constantly changing.  I think you are right that you cannot move on this until your question has been answered.  Now that I have had the time to analyse this test, I have to report the following

No problem. It took me some time to visualize the situation. I think the maps showing the sunrise line confused me.  

Quote:I had to remove a sunset contact from the results because I apparently checked it against a different feature 1 degree away.  However, I found a further 4 terminator contacts that had previously been over looked.

That's why computer simulation is important.

Quote:My equipment is susceptible to changes due to interference, so a true account on results can only be established once the test is completed.  The ratio now stands at 28/46 ...

Close to coin toss odds. Not encouraging.

Quote:I also have to report my hypothesis of no contact with the bearings after new moon was flawed.  Again, said interference may be responsible for giving a false reading ... I found 8 contacts, out of the 14 quakes that occurred, 72 hours  after new moon.   This was not the case in my two independent tests, a short period after new moon there were no contacts. The data for these was accumulated before the sun reached its furthest Southerly latitude ... maybe this makes a difference !.   All the same, I am being honest here because nothing will be gained unless all the facts are disclosed.   From 1st February to the present ( last event on my screen; 5.2 Turkmenistan), there have only been 2 contacts in 9 events 2/9 ... I'll continue monitoring events independently until next new moon, to see if the results show anything more !

There should be some way to run this backward, checking where the trigger point would be if mag 5+ quakes were on the sunrise line. Just a thought.

Quote:The results show these bearings may have some un-tested significance. If the test was to be repeated, my data shows it could be around mid May before this could be done.  Now that the facts are here, do you wish to proceed with investigating this further ?  if you do, I thought I would run a comparable test before next new moon ... and you provide the data.   I need a comparison for a base line, and the best way to get it, is to repeat the test under the same conditions. It would be bias of me to select random days and times, because I am the one claiming detection.  Next new moon is on 26th Feb at 14:39:45 ut, and I believe it will produce an eclipse in the South Atlantic.   I could start this on the 15th at 12:00 ut, but I would need 9 dates and 12 times to do it ... would you be willing to provide them ?

Sure. 9 dates within what range? But it is quicker for me to run the whole thing. I've already done that in fact so all I need to do is revise the program to work exactly as you have described and see what happens.

Roger

(02-05-2017, 04:45 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 04:07 PM)Duffy Wrote: Duffy;

Quote:You were right about the 90 degree distance between longitude of the sun, and the selected bearings at sunrise/sunset ... I couldn't see it for looking, so apologies again.   As you stated in your question, the Earth is not a perfect sphere, and it is orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, so the angle of the terminator is constantly changing.  I think you are right that you cannot move on this until your question has been answered.  Now that I have had the time to analyse this test, I have to report the following

No problem. It took me some time to visualize the situation. I think the maps showing the sunrise line confused me.  

Quote:I had to remove a sunset contact from the results because I apparently checked it against a different feature 1 degree away.  However, I found a further 4 terminator contacts that had previously been over looked.

That's why computer simulation is important.

Quote:My equipment is susceptible to changes due to interference, so a true account on results can only be established once the test is completed.  The ratio now stands at 28/46 ...

Close to coin toss odds. Not encouraging.

Quote:I also have to report my hypothesis of no contact with the bearings after new moon was flawed.  Again, said interference may be responsible for giving a false reading ... I found 8 contacts, out of the 14 quakes that occurred, 72 hours  after new moon.   This was not the case in my two independent tests, a short period after new moon there were no contacts. The data for these was accumulated before the sun reached its furthest Southerly latitude ... maybe this makes a difference !.   All the same, I am being honest here because nothing will be gained unless all the facts are disclosed.   From 1st February to the present ( last event on my screen; 5.2 Turkmenistan), there have only been 2 contacts in 9 events 2/9 ... I'll continue monitoring events independently until next new moon, to see if the results show anything more !

There should be some way to run this backward, checking where the trigger point would be if mag 5+ quakes were on the sunrise line. Just a thought.

Quote:The results show these bearings may have some un-tested significance. If the test was to be repeated, my data shows it could be around mid May before this could be done.  Now that the facts are here, do you wish to proceed with investigating this further ?  if you do, I thought I would run a comparable test before next new moon ... and you provide the data.   I need a comparison for a base line, and the best way to get it, is to repeat the test under the same conditions. It would be bias of me to select random days and times, because I am the one claiming detection.  Next new moon is on 26th Feb at 14:39:45 ut, and I believe it will produce an eclipse in the South Atlantic.   I could start this on the 15th at 12:00 ut, but I would need 9 dates and 12 times to do it ... would you be willing to provide them ?

Sure. 9 dates within what range? But it is quicker for me to run the whole thing. I've already done that in fact so all I need to do is revise the program to work exactly as you have described and see what happens.

Roger

(02-05-2017, 10:15 PM)Duffy Wrote: Roger;

You are right about computer simulation being necessary, I have to admit that I considered multiple hits on these bearings would be detrimental to my test. But it has also occurred to me that these bearings may be here all the time, my source indicates that they have meaning. That's why running another test should show if this is coin tossing or not.

Glad your participating in another attempt, I think you'd agree that it is an interesting idea, if only for the curiosity factor.  If you select 6 days and 8 times between 1st - 14th Feb ... and select 3 days and 4 times between 17th - 23rd Feb, the latter will approximate the extra data I added during my test.

I have come up with an interesting Idea about a trigger point, or to be more specific a possible way to find "day" of event. But there is one small problem with it ... you would need to know where the quake was going to occur first !.  I was curious why I could post a new bearing 47' 50' E - 18' 52' S at 15:50 ut on 25th Jan, and a 5.2 in Crete, 3 hours later, could share the same sunset time as the bearing !. I have been postulating about opposite longitude reactions, so I checked the opposite time longitude.  Put simply, if sunset in Crete was at 15:30 ut on 21st, then it must be sunrise at 03:30 ut on the opposite longitude. But as we have stated, the Earth is not perfectly round, and the angle of the terminator has to be taken into account.  Therefore the 5.2 in Crete occurred at 26' 24' E - 35' 18' N, but its opposite sunrise time longitude is on the Pukapuka ridge, South Pacific at 134' 23' W - 15' 31' S, approximately 700 miles North of Pitcairn Island.  

I noticed that the 2 minute sunrise band at Pukapuka Ridge on the 12th Jan was 03:34 - 03:36 ut, it remained this same time every day until the 17th.  It then changed to a 3 minute band between 03:34 - 03:37 ut, and remained as sunrise time until 25th, when it changed back to a 2 minute band between 03:34 - 03:36 ut again.

However, sunset on the 5.2 epicentre in Crete,was not constant during this period, it was altering 1 minute per day up to event time.  It shared the same sunset band of 15:30 - 15:33 ut as 47' 50' E, on the 22nd.  From this date the countdown is ; 23rd 15:31 - 15:34 ut ... 24th 15:32 - 15:35 ut ... 25th 15:33 - 15:36 ut.  I have probably lost you by now, but the point here is, sunset time in Crete equalled sunrise time in the South Pacific, on the same day the Pukapuka Ridge band went back to 03:36 ut, on the 25th Jan ... day of the quake.

Here is a table, representing a hypothetical scenario for an event in the "Sea of Marmara" that relies on hypothetically knowing where the quake will occur.  Again, the opposite time longitude is in the North Pacific at bearing 152' 06' W - 34' 18' N.  The hypothetical quake is at bearing 27' 54' E - 40' 52' N, it is an exact opposite longitude because dawn and dusk both play a part in this one ... abbreviated as DN dawn ... DK dusk


............. Pacific ............ Marmara
15th    DK 15:30 ut     DN 03:31 ut
          DN 05:17 ut     DK 17:15 ut

16th    DK 15:29 ut     DN 03:30 ut
          DN 05:18 ut     DK 17:16 ut

17th    DK 15:28 ut     DN 03:29 ut
          DN 05:19 ut     DK 17:18 ut

18th    DK 15:27 ut     DN 03:28 ut
          DN 05:20 ut     DK 17:19 ut

19th    DK 15:26 ut     DN 03:27 ut
          DN 05:20 ut     DK 17:20 ut

20th    DK 15:25 ut     DN 03:25 ut
          DN 05:21 ut     DK 17:21 ut

21st    DK 15:24 ut     DN 03:24 ut
          DN 05:22 ut     DK 17:22 ut

22nd   DK 15:22 ut     DN 03:23 ut
          DN 05:23 ut     DK 17:23 ut

23rd    DK 15:21 ut     DN 03:21 ut
          DN 05:24 ut     DK 17:24 ut

24th    DK 15:20 ut     DN 03:20 ut
          DN 05:25 ut     DK 17:25 ut

25th    DK 15:19 ut     DN 03:18 ut
          DN 05:25 ut     DK 17:26 ut


On the 19th Feb, you can see that both locations share the same dawn/dusk time longitude of 05:20 ut - 17:20 ut exactly 12 hours apart. On the 20th and 21st they share all 4 bands equally.   But on the 22nd, dusk in the Pacific changes by 2 minutes, and dawn in Marmara by 1 minute, which equates to a 1 minute difference between locations.  Then on the 23rd and 24th, all 4 bands are equal again ... and finally on the 25th no band matches any of the others.

My idea is that a sudden change in "time" contact on the 22nd, or re-establishing the bands on the 23rd may instigate an action, resulting in a hypothetical earthquake !.  These are still early thoughts, and I have to test this on other events yet.   But if over 50% of the quakes in my test had correlation with terminator zones at the time they occurred, then the terminator might be a good place to start looking for a trigger point ! 

I changed "transition" to dawn / dusk in hopes you can understand this better, because I'm not doing this for my health  .


Duffy