Posts: 727
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2015
The following are the results from the 11 day test, relating to correlations with 5+ earthquakes. Abbreviations; SR, SS, DT, NT signify sunrise / sunset, day / night terminator. Centre of sun/ moon are the same as used in the test CS, CM, and relate to the longitude of the posted bearing. The parameters used were +/- 0 margin for the times stated, and +/- 1' margin for central sun/moon position. I have dispensed with additional formulas in these results, because they are unproven at the present time ... I concentrated on the "known" so to speak.
4th Jan 19:54 ut ... CS 117' 12' W - 22' 38' S ...... MT,SS,SR
CM 40' 19' W - 1' 23' S ...... SS
6th Jan 01:41 ut ... CS 156' 12' E - 22'29' S ........ SR
CM 112' 06' W - 4' 08' N ...... SR,CM
6th Jan 08:28 ut ... CS 54' 29' E - 22' 27' S ......... SS,NT
CM 149' 38' E - 5' 22' N ....... NT,SS
7th Jan 10:24 ut ... CS 25' 36' E - 22' 19' S ......... CS
CM 134' 20' E - 9' 55' N ........ NT,NT,NT
10th Jan 15:26 ut . CS 49' 35' W - 21' 52' S .......................
CM 103' 22' E - 18' 34' N ...... DT,CM,CS
12th Jan 13:14 ut . CS 16' 23' W - 21' 33' S ....... DT
CM 163' 59' E - 18' 06' N ...... CS,CS
15th Jan 00:26 ut . CS 175' 50' E - 21' 07' S ....... SR
CM 28' 53' E - 11' 39' N ....... SR,CM,CS,CS,CS
15th Jan 17:19 ut . CS 77' 21' W - 20' 59' S ....... NT,NT,DT,DT,CM
CM 144' 11' E - 9' 04' N ....... SR,SR,NT,CS
18th Jan 18:54 ut . CS 100' 51' W - 20' 23' S ...... CM
CM 154' 29' E - 3' 10' S ....... CS
18th Jan 23:38 ut . CS 171' 50' W - 20' 20' S .........................
CM 85' 34' E - 3' 55' S ........ NT,CS
24th Jan 13:52 ut . CS 24' 57' W - 19' 04' S .........................
CM 66' 48' W - 18' 32' S .........................
25th Jan 09:01 ut . CS 47' 50' E - 18' 52' S ..........................
CM 15' 25' E - 18' 54' S .........................
Number of bearings posted in the table; 24
Number of 5+ earthquakes over 11 days; 46
Number of terminator zone contacts; 25
Number of sun and moon contacts; 15
I don't know if these results have any kind of scientific value, but as a non scientist, you have to put yourself in my shoes. If you randomly chose 24 points on a map, and it was sunrise / sunset, or the sun / moon was on one of these points at the same time a 5+ quake occurs ... what does it suggest ?. Is it possible that this can happen in 11 days ? what are the odd's of getting 1 random selection right in the same period ? I don't think anyone can dispute, that the data provided wasn't authentic. I posted before the events, and I continued to do so during the events. I started this with a speculative suggestion, that this could somehow be related to time of event, or at least incorporated in a model to try and determine correlation. My level of computer knowledge does not go much beyond conversing on this forum, or shopping on Ebay. A shameful thing to admit in this day and age, but it doesn't mean I can't see the possibilities with the right people.
Another question that comes to mind based on the results is; if this is random selection resulting in 40 varying contacts, why would 15 of them be related to the 15th Jan data ? Was there anything different with the sun or moon, compared to any of the other days ? Does this day have any significance related to Seismic activity ? ... yes it does !. 15th Jan is the only day, out of the 31 days in this month, that a magnitude 5 or greater did not occur ! (EMSC Records). I don't want to speculate on why this should be, because the object of this exercise was to determine significance of signal ... "first".
I mentioned more than once, that the chosen bearings would loose influence after the time of new moon had passed. I continued to monitor activity up to 72 hours later, and no contacts were forthcoming. all previous days from the 16th Jan received multiple hits .. bar the 20th. Again, if this is random selection, how could I lay claim to something that actually happened, unless I had already tested this hypothesis myself !.
I thank and appreciate Roger's efforts and enthusiasm in trying to help me find an answer to these questions, even though we seem to get a few things back to front, or upside down (and we regularly ride tall horses !). But it would be appreciated if anyone could help him with his program question, or give your views on any of the above. Understandably, my character has been questionable in the past, and I have had my days ... but in the end, is it not the science that counts ?
Duffy
PS. I think it's my second anniversary on Earthwaves today. When I first joined, I was exchanging Star Trek jokes with Brian, intimidating Chris with my mother-in-law, and arguing 3 weeks straight with Roger over claim to a 6 in Mexico or somewhere. I miss those days because they seemed opportunistic .. 2 years on and I find I have to question why I should still be here !
Posts: 379
Threads: 18
Joined: Nov 2013
(01-31-2017, 04:29 PM)Duffy Wrote: The following are the results from the 11 day test, relating to correlations with 5+ earthquakes. Abbreviations; SR, SS, DT, NT signify sunrise / sunset, day / night terminator. Centre of sun/ moon are the same as used in the test CS, CM, and relate to the longitude of the posted bearing. The parameters used were +/- 0 margin for the times stated, and +/- 1' margin for central sun/moon position. I have dispensed with additional formulas in these results, because they are unproven at the present time ... I concentrated on the "known" so to speak.
4th Jan 19:54 ut ... CS 117' 12' W - 22' 38' S ...... MT,SS,SR
CM 40' 19' W - 1' 23' S ...... SS
6th Jan 01:41 ut ... CS 156' 12' E - 22'29' S ........ SR
CM 112' 06' W - 4' 08' N ...... SR,CM
6th Jan 08:28 ut ... CS 54' 29' E - 22' 27' S ......... SS,NT
CM 149' 38' E - 5' 22' N ....... NT,SS
7th Jan 10:24 ut ... CS 25' 36' E - 22' 19' S ......... CS
CM 134' 20' E - 9' 55' N ........ NT,NT,NT
10th Jan 15:26 ut . CS 49' 35' W - 21' 52' S .......................
CM 103' 22' E - 18' 34' N ...... DT,CM,CS
12th Jan 13:14 ut . CS 16' 23' W - 21' 33' S ....... DT
CM 163' 59' E - 18' 06' N ...... CS,CS
15th Jan 00:26 ut . CS 175' 50' E - 21' 07' S ....... SR
CM 28' 53' E - 11' 39' N ....... SR,CM,CS,CS,CS
15th Jan 17:19 ut . CS 77' 21' W - 20' 59' S ....... NT,NT,DT,DT,CM
CM 144' 11' E - 9' 04' N ....... SR,SR,NT,CS
18th Jan 18:54 ut . CS 100' 51' W - 20' 23' S ...... CM
CM 154' 29' E - 3' 10' S ....... CS
18th Jan 23:38 ut . CS 171' 50' W - 20' 20' S .........................
CM 85' 34' E - 3' 55' S ........ NT,CS
24th Jan 13:52 ut . CS 24' 57' W - 19' 04' S .........................
CM 66' 48' W - 18' 32' S .........................
25th Jan 09:01 ut . CS 47' 50' E - 18' 52' S ..........................
CM 15' 25' E - 18' 54' S .........................
Number of bearings posted in the table; 24
Number of 5+ earthquakes over 11 days; 46
Number of terminator zone contacts; 25
Number of sun and moon contacts; 15
I don't know if these results have any kind of scientific value, but as a non scientist, you have to put yourself in my shoes. If you randomly chose 24 points on a map, and it was sunrise / sunset, or the sun / moon was on one of these points at the same time a 5+ quake occurs ... what does it suggest ?. Is it possible that this can happen in 11 days ? what are the odd's of getting 1 random selection right in the same period ? I don't think anyone can dispute, that the data provided wasn't authentic. I posted before the events, and I continued to do so during the events. I started this with a speculative suggestion, that this could somehow be related to time of event, or at least incorporated in a model to try and determine correlation. My level of computer knowledge does not go much beyond conversing on this forum, or shopping on Ebay. A shameful thing to admit in this day and age, but it doesn't mean I can't see the possibilities with the right people.
Another question that comes to mind based on the results is; if this is random selection resulting in 40 varying contacts, why would 15 of them be related to the 15th Jan data ? Was there anything different with the sun or moon, compared to any of the other days ? Does this day have any significance related to Seismic activity ? ... yes it does !. 15th Jan is the only day, out of the 31 days in this month, that a magnitude 5 or greater did not occur ! (EMSC Records). I don't want to speculate on why this should be, because the object of this exercise was to determine significance of signal ... "first".
I mentioned more than once, that the chosen bearings would loose influence after the time of new moon had passed. I continued to monitor activity up to 72 hours later, and no contacts were forthcoming. all previous days from the 16th Jan received multiple hits .. bar the 20th. Again, if this is random selection, how could I lay claim to something that actually happened, unless I had already tested this hypothesis myself !.
I thank and appreciate Roger's efforts and enthusiasm in trying to help me find an answer to these questions, even though we seem to get a few things back to front, or upside down (and we regularly ride tall horses !). But it would be appreciated if anyone could help him with his program question, or give your views on any of the above. Understandably, my character has been questionable in the past, and I have had my days ... but in the end, is it not the science that counts ?
Duffy
PS. I think it's my second anniversary on Earthwaves today. When I first joined, I was exchanging Star Trek jokes with Brian, intimidating Chris with my mother-in-law, and arguing 3 weeks straight with Roger over claim to a 6 in Mexico or somewhere. I miss those days because they seemed opportunistic .. 2 years on and I find I have to question why I should still be here !
Duffy;
There were 147 mag 5+ quakes in January so your hits don't seem so important. I can't go any farther until someone answers my astronomy question.
I hope you don't give up before we get a definitive answer. I need the mental exercise.
Roger
Posts: 727
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2015
(01-31-2017, 06:57 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: (01-31-2017, 04:29 PM)Duffy Wrote: The following are the results from the 11 day test, relating to correlations with 5+ earthquakes. Abbreviations; SR, SS, DT, NT signify sunrise / sunset, day / night terminator. Centre of sun/ moon are the same as used in the test CS, CM, and relate to the longitude of the posted bearing. The parameters used were +/- 0 margin for the times stated, and +/- 1' margin for central sun/moon position. I have dispensed with additional formulas in these results, because they are unproven at the present time ... I concentrated on the "known" so to speak.
4th Jan 19:54 ut ... CS 117' 12' W - 22' 38' S ...... MT,SS,SR
CM 40' 19' W - 1' 23' S ...... SS
6th Jan 01:41 ut ... CS 156' 12' E - 22'29' S ........ SR
CM 112' 06' W - 4' 08' N ...... SR,CM
6th Jan 08:28 ut ... CS 54' 29' E - 22' 27' S ......... SS,NT
CM 149' 38' E - 5' 22' N ....... NT,SS
7th Jan 10:24 ut ... CS 25' 36' E - 22' 19' S ......... CS
CM 134' 20' E - 9' 55' N ........ NT,NT,NT
10th Jan 15:26 ut . CS 49' 35' W - 21' 52' S .......................
CM 103' 22' E - 18' 34' N ...... DT,CM,CS
12th Jan 13:14 ut . CS 16' 23' W - 21' 33' S ....... DT
CM 163' 59' E - 18' 06' N ...... CS,CS
15th Jan 00:26 ut . CS 175' 50' E - 21' 07' S ....... SR
CM 28' 53' E - 11' 39' N ....... SR,CM,CS,CS,CS
15th Jan 17:19 ut . CS 77' 21' W - 20' 59' S ....... NT,NT,DT,DT,CM
CM 144' 11' E - 9' 04' N ....... SR,SR,NT,CS
18th Jan 18:54 ut . CS 100' 51' W - 20' 23' S ...... CM
CM 154' 29' E - 3' 10' S ....... CS
18th Jan 23:38 ut . CS 171' 50' W - 20' 20' S .........................
CM 85' 34' E - 3' 55' S ........ NT,CS
24th Jan 13:52 ut . CS 24' 57' W - 19' 04' S .........................
CM 66' 48' W - 18' 32' S .........................
25th Jan 09:01 ut . CS 47' 50' E - 18' 52' S ..........................
CM 15' 25' E - 18' 54' S .........................
Number of bearings posted in the table; 24
Number of 5+ earthquakes over 11 days; 46
Number of terminator zone contacts; 25
Number of sun and moon contacts; 15
I don't know if these results have any kind of scientific value, but as a non scientist, you have to put yourself in my shoes. If you randomly chose 24 points on a map, and it was sunrise / sunset, or the sun / moon was on one of these points at the same time a 5+ quake occurs ... what does it suggest ?. Is it possible that this can happen in 11 days ? what are the odd's of getting 1 random selection right in the same period ? I don't think anyone can dispute, that the data provided wasn't authentic. I posted before the events, and I continued to do so during the events. I started this with a speculative suggestion, that this could somehow be related to time of event, or at least incorporated in a model to try and determine correlation. My level of computer knowledge does not go much beyond conversing on this forum, or shopping on Ebay. A shameful thing to admit in this day and age, but it doesn't mean I can't see the possibilities with the right people.
Another question that comes to mind based on the results is; if this is random selection resulting in 40 varying contacts, why would 15 of them be related to the 15th Jan data ? Was there anything different with the sun or moon, compared to any of the other days ? Does this day have any significance related to Seismic activity ? ... yes it does !. 15th Jan is the only day, out of the 31 days in this month, that a magnitude 5 or greater did not occur ! (EMSC Records). I don't want to speculate on why this should be, because the object of this exercise was to determine significance of signal ... "first".
I mentioned more than once, that the chosen bearings would loose influence after the time of new moon had passed. I continued to monitor activity up to 72 hours later, and no contacts were forthcoming. all previous days from the 16th Jan received multiple hits .. bar the 20th. Again, if this is random selection, how could I lay claim to something that actually happened, unless I had already tested this hypothesis myself !.
I thank and appreciate Roger's efforts and enthusiasm in trying to help me find an answer to these questions, even though we seem to get a few things back to front, or upside down (and we regularly ride tall horses !). But it would be appreciated if anyone could help him with his program question, or give your views on any of the above. Understandably, my character has been questionable in the past, and I have had my days ... but in the end, is it not the science that counts ?
Duffy
PS. I think it's my second anniversary on Earthwaves today. When I first joined, I was exchanging Star Trek jokes with Brian, intimidating Chris with my mother-in-law, and arguing 3 weeks straight with Roger over claim to a 6 in Mexico or somewhere. I miss those days because they seemed opportunistic .. 2 years on and I find I have to question why I should still be here !
Duffy;
There were 147 mag 5+ quakes in January so your hits don't seem so important. I can't go any farther until someone answers my astronomy question.
I hope you don't give up before we get a definitive answer. I need the mental exercise.
Roger
Roger:
PLEASE read my post again, and tell me why your last statement is contrary to my results !
Duffy
Posts: 379
Threads: 18
Joined: Nov 2013
(01-31-2017, 11:11 PM)Duffy Wrote: (01-31-2017, 06:57 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: (01-31-2017, 04:29 PM)Duffy Wrote: The following are the results from the 11 day test, relating to correlations with 5+ earthquakes. Abbreviations; SR, SS, DT, NT signify sunrise / sunset, day / night terminator. Centre of sun/ moon are the same as used in the test CS, CM, and relate to the longitude of the posted bearing. The parameters used were +/- 0 margin for the times stated, and +/- 1' margin for central sun/moon position. I have dispensed with additional formulas in these results, because they are unproven at the present time ... I concentrated on the "known" so to speak.
4th Jan 19:54 ut ... CS 117' 12' W - 22' 38' S ...... MT,SS,SR
CM 40' 19' W - 1' 23' S ...... SS
6th Jan 01:41 ut ... CS 156' 12' E - 22'29' S ........ SR
CM 112' 06' W - 4' 08' N ...... SR,CM
6th Jan 08:28 ut ... CS 54' 29' E - 22' 27' S ......... SS,NT
CM 149' 38' E - 5' 22' N ....... NT,SS
7th Jan 10:24 ut ... CS 25' 36' E - 22' 19' S ......... CS
CM 134' 20' E - 9' 55' N ........ NT,NT,NT
10th Jan 15:26 ut . CS 49' 35' W - 21' 52' S .......................
CM 103' 22' E - 18' 34' N ...... DT,CM,CS
12th Jan 13:14 ut . CS 16' 23' W - 21' 33' S ....... DT
CM 163' 59' E - 18' 06' N ...... CS,CS
15th Jan 00:26 ut . CS 175' 50' E - 21' 07' S ....... SR
CM 28' 53' E - 11' 39' N ....... SR,CM,CS,CS,CS
15th Jan 17:19 ut . CS 77' 21' W - 20' 59' S ....... NT,NT,DT,DT,CM
CM 144' 11' E - 9' 04' N ....... SR,SR,NT,CS
18th Jan 18:54 ut . CS 100' 51' W - 20' 23' S ...... CM
CM 154' 29' E - 3' 10' S ....... CS
18th Jan 23:38 ut . CS 171' 50' W - 20' 20' S .........................
CM 85' 34' E - 3' 55' S ........ NT,CS
24th Jan 13:52 ut . CS 24' 57' W - 19' 04' S .........................
CM 66' 48' W - 18' 32' S .........................
25th Jan 09:01 ut . CS 47' 50' E - 18' 52' S ..........................
CM 15' 25' E - 18' 54' S .........................
Number of bearings posted in the table; 24
Number of 5+ earthquakes over 11 days; 46
Number of terminator zone contacts; 25
Number of sun and moon contacts; 15
I don't know if these results have any kind of scientific value, but as a non scientist, you have to put yourself in my shoes. If you randomly chose 24 points on a map, and it was sunrise / sunset, or the sun / moon was on one of these points at the same time a 5+ quake occurs ... what does it suggest ?. Is it possible that this can happen in 11 days ? what are the odd's of getting 1 random selection right in the same period ? I don't think anyone can dispute, that the data provided wasn't authentic. I posted before the events, and I continued to do so during the events. I started this with a speculative suggestion, that this could somehow be related to time of event, or at least incorporated in a model to try and determine correlation. My level of computer knowledge does not go much beyond conversing on this forum, or shopping on Ebay. A shameful thing to admit in this day and age, but it doesn't mean I can't see the possibilities with the right people.
Another question that comes to mind based on the results is; if this is random selection resulting in 40 varying contacts, why would 15 of them be related to the 15th Jan data ? Was there anything different with the sun or moon, compared to any of the other days ? Does this day have any significance related to Seismic activity ? ... yes it does !. 15th Jan is the only day, out of the 31 days in this month, that a magnitude 5 or greater did not occur ! (EMSC Records). I don't want to speculate on why this should be, because the object of this exercise was to determine significance of signal ... "first".
I mentioned more than once, that the chosen bearings would loose influence after the time of new moon had passed. I continued to monitor activity up to 72 hours later, and no contacts were forthcoming. all previous days from the 16th Jan received multiple hits .. bar the 20th. Again, if this is random selection, how could I lay claim to something that actually happened, unless I had already tested this hypothesis myself !.
I thank and appreciate Roger's efforts and enthusiasm in trying to help me find an answer to these questions, even though we seem to get a few things back to front, or upside down (and we regularly ride tall horses !). But it would be appreciated if anyone could help him with his program question, or give your views on any of the above. Understandably, my character has been questionable in the past, and I have had my days ... but in the end, is it not the science that counts ?
Duffy
PS. I think it's my second anniversary on Earthwaves today. When I first joined, I was exchanging Star Trek jokes with Brian, intimidating Chris with my mother-in-law, and arguing 3 weeks straight with Roger over claim to a 6 in Mexico or somewhere. I miss those days because they seemed opportunistic .. 2 years on and I find I have to question why I should still be here !
Duffy;
There were 147 mag 5+ quakes in January so your hits don't seem so important. I can't go any farther until someone answers my astronomy question.
I hope you don't give up before we get a definitive answer. I need the mental exercise.
Roger
Roger:
PLEASE read my post again, and tell me why your last statement is contrary to my results !
Duffy
Duffy;
I don't know what 11 days you're talking about. You have listings from the 4th to the 25th.
Roger
Posts: 727
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2015
Roger
My first post was on the 16th, and I stated the experiment had started with a 5.8 in Vanuatu on the day of that post,. And would conclude at new moon on the 28th, the duration actually being 11 days, 1 hour, 19 minutes and 5 seconds. I can see somewhere in this, it was my fault for assuming you understood the purpose of this exercise, and therefore understood why it started on the 16th. I again put my family second for something I thought may be of significance, when in fact you as the evaluator didn't understand it from the start. Don't trouble yourself with programs because I will not be repeating this again, there is too much time and effort involved. Given the surface area of the Earth, compared to a few points on a map, which resulted with indirect correlation with 5+ quakes, in a short period of time, seemed to be worthy of the experiment. I thought the odds against that being possible must be very high ... I was wrong !
Duffy
Posts: 379
Threads: 18
Joined: Nov 2013
(02-01-2017, 02:27 AM)Duffy Wrote: Roger
My first post was on the 16th, and I stated the experiment had started with a 5.8 in Vanuatu on the day of that post,. And would conclude at new moon on the 28th, the duration actually being 11 days, 1 hour, 19 minutes and 5 seconds. I can see somewhere in this, it was my fault for assuming you understood the purpose of this exercise, and therefore understood why it started on the 16th. I again put my family second for something I thought may be of significance, when in fact you as the evaluator didn't understand it from the start. Don't trouble yourself with programs because I will not be repeating this again, there is too much time and effort involved. Given the surface area of the Earth, compared to a few points on a map, which resulted with indirect correlation with 5+ quakes, in a short period of time, seemed to be worthy of the experiment. I thought the odds against that being possible must be very high ... I was wrong !
Duffy
Duffy;
The problem here is that we don't know the probability. It seems to be very low but may or may not be.
I'll continue with the program and I'll use the larger sample (larger is always better!). The advantage is speed.
For example, to compute the sunrise/set, moonrise/set for your 12 cases takes less than a second.
But I need the answer to my astronomy question. It seems to me it should be approximately correct at the very least but that's not good enough for this purpose.
So hang in there. I'll continue either way but it's better with you than without.
Rogert
Posts: 727
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2015
Roger
Okay I'll stick with it ... I had a quick canter round the corral, but I'm back now.
You don't fully understand what I am doing, and I don't know about computer programs.
Should be interesting !
Duffy
Posts: 379
Threads: 18
Joined: Nov 2013
(02-01-2017, 12:13 PM)Duffy Wrote: Roger
Okay I'll stick with it ... I had a quick canter round the corral, but I'm back now.
You don't fully understand what I am doing, and I don't know about computer programs.
Should be interesting !
Duffy
Duffy;
Ok, once more;
1) You have a time of interest
2) You find where sun and moon are overhead at that time.
3) when a 5+ quake happens within 30 days you look to see if the sunrise/sunset line of the quake hits the sun or moon location.
(Isn't the reverse also true? The quake is on the sun or moon's rise/set line?)
Now isn't that 90 degrees either way? Not quite because the earth isn't a sphere, but close.
Programming is fun. You tell the computer what you want in a language it understands. It does what you said and tells you the result.
The catch is that it does EXACTLY what you tell it, not what you mean. Spelling errors are devastating and very hard to find.
Now the odds on a hit can be determined by a large number of such calculations using random times for the signal, counting hits and misses. That's why we need the program; you can't do thousands of trials by hand but the computer can, easily.
Roger
Posts: 379
Threads: 18
Joined: Nov 2013
(02-01-2017, 02:34 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: (02-01-2017, 12:13 PM)Duffy Wrote: Roger
Okay I'll stick with it ... I had a quick canter round the corral, but I'm back now.
You don't fully understand what I am doing, and I don't know about computer programs.
Should be interesting !
Duffy
Duffy;
Ok, once more;
1) You have a time of interest
2) You find where sun and moon are overhead at that time.
3) when a 5+ quake happens within 30 days you look to see if the sunrise/sunset line of the quake hits the sun or moon location.
(Isn't the reverse also true? The quake is on the sun or moon's rise/set line?)
Now isn't that 90 degrees either way? Not quite because the earth isn't a sphere, but close.
Programming is fun. You tell the computer what you want in a language it understands. It does what you said and tells you the result.
The catch is that it does EXACTLY what you tell it, not what you mean. Spelling errors are devastating and very hard to find.
Now the odds on a hit can be determined by a large number of such calculations using random times for the signal, counting hits and misses. That's why we need the program; you can't do thousands of trials by hand but the computer can, easily.
Roger
Duffy;
Preliminary results.
I took your 12 signal times for January and determined the location of the sun and moon for each one.
Then I found all the 5+ quakes for that month, finding 147 of them in the NEIC catalog.
Then I found the sun and moon locations for the quakes.
Next I found the distance between each signal sun and moon and each quake sun and moon within the 30 day limit.
Finally I counted each instance of distances within 1 degree (+/-) of 90 degrees.
There were 5 moon cases and 12 sun cases for the 147 quakes.
Could or would you check these results for me so I have independent verification before I try running a thousand or so random samples to get a better idea of the probability of success?
Roger
Posts: 727
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2015
Roger
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 ran a comparison test on all 5+ quakes between 1st - 14th Jan, to determine if these bearings had any correlation with events prior to the test. Of the 88 events that occurred in this period, the terminator zones matched 23, I used a +/- 1 minute margin to check these events ... I used no margin in the test !
The 15th Jan date is relevant in this test, because both my data and the space data recorded an aspect change, and no events occurred on this day. The ratio before the aspect change was 23/88 ... the ratio after was 25/46. It implies signals related to these bearings are periodic and not constant, otherwise I would be receiving the same signals all the time. Signals I have received previously have always been linked to different co-ordinates, to the ones I used in the test, thus they don't seem to repeat on the same locations. However, I will have to gather more data on this before I can conclude this is always so ...
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.
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. 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.
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 !
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 ?
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  .
Duffy
|
Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
