[Duffy]

I have not completed all the results yet, because the time needed to guarantee accuracy is more than I originally envisioned.  I am still working on the B's but results for the R's are to follow.  I decided the best way to represent this was to relist the relevant events as they happened.  For the purpose of comparison, I have included my original test numbers to show any association where applicable ... after all, they do represent a kind of blueprint .  The selections are deemed as random, and though a margin of 0.75 degrees per terminator threshold has been used, it is still likely that some correlation between different selections will be inevitable ... or should it be so ! 

15th Feb M 5.2 Kepulauan Talaud, Indonesia ..................... 14:07:28 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 120' 54' W - 11' 36' S (R16) .... 14:08 ut
              Dusk on bearing 77' 55' E - 16' 03' N (R4) ............ 14:08 ut

15th Feb M 5.5 Northern Sumatra, Indonesia ...................... 19:47:06 ut
              Sunset on bearing 17' 55' W - 17' 52' S (R18) ....... 19:47 ut
              Sunset on bearing 16' 23' W - 21' 33' S (12th Jan).. 19:47 ut *
              Sunrise on bearing 154' 29' E - 3' 10' S (18th Jan).. 19:48 ut *

15th Feb M 5.1 Northern Sumatra, Indonesia ....................... 19:53:26 ut
              CS on bearing 114' 50' W (R23)
              Sunrise on bearing 154' 29' E - 3' 10' S (18th Jan).. 19:53 ut *

16th Feb M 5.2 Offshore Coquimbo, Chile ............................ 07:02:05 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 14' 0' W - 11' 48' S (R15) ......... 07:03 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 17' 55' W - 17' 52' S (R18) ....... 07:03 ut
              CS on bearing 78' 0' E (R4)
              Sunrise on bearing 16' 23' W - 21' 33' S (12th Jan).. 07:02 ut *
              Sunset on bearing 163' 59' E - 18' 06' N (12th Jan).. 07:03 ut *

16th Feb M 5.1 Fiji Region ................................................... 12:10:00 ut
               Dusk on bearing 112' 06' E - 9' 46' S (R19) ............ 12:10 ut
               Sunrise on bearing 88' 02' W - 12' 17' N (R10) ....... 12:11 ut

16th Feb M 5.1 Pagan Region, Northern Mariana Islands ........ 21:44:05 ut
              CM on bearing 103' 41' E (R2)

17th Feb M 5.2 Papua, Indonesia .......................................... 11:21:26 ut
              Dusk on bearing 126' 33' E - 14' 57' S (R5) .............. 11:22 ut
              Dawn on bearing 92' 26' W - 18' 47' N (R6) ............. 11:21 ut
              Dawn on bearing 100' 51' W - 20' 23' S (18th Jan) ... 11:21 ut * 

18th Feb M 6.3 Jujuy, Argentina .............................................12:10:14 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 88' 02' W - 12' 17' N (R10) ......... 12:11 ut
              Dusk on bearing 112' 06' E - 9' 46' S (R19) .............. 12:10 ut

19th Feb M 5.1 Sunda Strait, Indonesia .................................. 15:14:10 ut
              Sunset on bearing 48' 23' E - 17' 59' S (R22) ............ 15:15 ut
              Dusk on bearing 67' 48' E - 14' 54' S (R7) ................ 15:14 ut

20th Feb M 5.0 Santa Cruz Islands ......................................... 03:56:46 ut
              Sunset on bearing 148' 53' W - 18' 41' N (R8) .......... 03:56 ut

20th Feb M 5.3 Northern Peru ................................................ 07:45:11 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 27' 15' W - 15' 45' S (R3) ............ 07:45 ut
              CS on bearing 67' 08' E (R7)

20th Feb M 5.4 Fiji Region ..................................................... 23:55:48 ut
              Sunset on bearing 88' 02' W - 12' 17' N (R10) .......... 23:56 ut
              Sunset on bearing 82' 43' W - 12' 46' S (R11) .......... 23:56 ut

21st Feb M 6.5 Chuquisaca, Bolivia ........................................ 14:09:04 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 120' 54' W - 11' 36' S (R16) ........ 14:09 ut
              Dusk on bearing 77' 55' E - 16' 03' N (R4) ................ 14:09 ut
              CS on bearing 28' 52' W (R14)

22nd Feb M 5.3 Scotia Sea ..................................................... 08:25:34 ut
               CS on bearing 56' 59' E (R17)

23rd Feb M 5.2 Pacific Antarctic Ridge .................................... 00:42:15 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 80' 0' E - 11' 53' S (R13) ............. 00:42 ut

23rd Feb M 5.6 Eastern New Guinea Region, P.N.G. ................ 15:11:05 ut 
              Sunset on bearing 48' 23' E - 17' 59' S (R22) ............ 15:12 ut
              Dusk on bearing 67' 48' E - 14' 54' S (R7) ................. 15:11 ut

23rd Feb M 5.0 North of Severnaya, Zemlya ............................ 20:13:40 ut
              Sunset on bearing 27' 15' W - 15' 45' S (R3) ............. 20:14 ut
              CS on bearing 120' 06' W (R16)
              Sunrise on bearing 149' 38' E - 5' 22' N (6th Jan) ...... 20:14 ut *
              Sunset on bearing 24' 57' W - 19' 04' S (24th Jan) .... 20:13 ut *
              Dawn on bearing 134' 20' E - 9' 55' N (7th Jan) ......... 20:13 ut *

24th Feb M 5.3 South Sandwich Islands ................................... 05:59:06 ut
              Dawn on bearing 17' 55' W - 17' 52' S (R18) .............. 05:59 ut
              Sunset on bearing 171' 50' W - 20' 20' S (18th Jan) .... 05:59 ut *

24th Feb M 5.0 Northern Sumatra, Indonesia ............................ 08:22:36 ut
               CS on bearing 57' 39' E (R17)
               Dusk on bearing 163' 59' E - 18' 06' N (12th Jan) ....... 08:22 ut *

25th Feb M 5.0 Kep. Tanimbar, Indonesia ................................. 01:11:38 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 77' 55' E - 16' 03 N (R4) ................ 01:11 ut
              Dusk on bearing 88' 02' W - 12' 17' N (R10) ................ 01:12 ut
              Dusk on bearing 82' 43' W - 12' 46' S (R11) ................ 01:11 ut
              Sunset on bearing 100' 51' W - 20' 23' S (18th Jan) ..... 01:11 ut *

25th Feb M 5.2 Tarapaca, Chile ................................................. 02:31:23 ut
              Sunset on bearing 120' 54' W - 11' 36' S (R16) ............. 02:31 ut
              CM on bearing 126' 53' E (R5)
              Dusk on bearing 100' 51' W - 20' 23' S (18th Jan) ......... 02:31 ut *

26th Feb M 5.5 Vanuatu ............................................................. 06:44:21 ut
              CM on bearing 78' 04' E (R4)
              Sunset on bearing 175' 50' E - 21' 07' S (15th Jan) ........ 06:45 ut *

26th Feb M 5.1 Atacama, Chile .................................................... 08:59:16 ut
              CS on bearing 48' 24' E (R22)
              CS on bearing 48' 24' E (25th Jan) *


Duration of test .................................... 11 days 2 hours 40 minutes
Number of quakes ................................ 45 

Centre Sun .......... 8
Centre Moon ........ 3
Sunrise ................ 9
Sunset ................. 8
Dawn ................... 2
Dusk .................... 9
                         .........
               Total    39 hits

Results after dis-association

Centre Sun ........... 3
Centre Moon ......... 1
Sunrise ................. 6
Sunset .................. 5
Dawn .................... 0
Dusk ..................... 6
                         .........
                Total    21 hits

Roger;

You are under no obligation to reveal how you acquired your random selection, but your results show there is good reason to investigate this further.  I have been doing this for many hours per day over the last six months, so I am familiar with how this kind of sequence can be put together. When I am predicting, I can generally find a good signal in a 10 degree corridor of longitude, because seismic activity from pole to pole is less frequent, making good radio resolution possible for independent detection.   In contrast, a 10 degree corridor in latitude is very hard to work, because in most cases detection of new anomalies is impeded by traces of residual energy left over from prior seismic events.  It inevitably gives a false reading, and that is why sometimes I use to re-adjust my predictions several days later to compensate. 

I have found using the "time and date" map makes it easy to calculate scenarios. To save on a lot of calculations whilst testing random numbers, I found it easier to input a time on the map, put a couple of dots on the terminator thresholds, and then just move the sun under the dots to get the bearings.  Its one of the very few programs I have found that can give a pretty good representation of the terminator. The only drawback is it doesn't seem to accept odd numbers in the minute box, and nothing at all in the seconds ... that might be just my system though!

If your random selection still shows association with the original numbers, then these are "good" results.

Sorry to keep you waiting


Duffy

[Roger Hunter]

(03-03-2017, 05:49 PM)Duffy Wrote: I have not completed all the results yet, because the time needed to guarantee accuracy is more than I originally envisioned.  I am still working on the B's but results for the R's are to follow.  I decided the best way to represent this was to relist the relevant events as they happened.  For the purpose of comparison, I have included my original test numbers to show any association where applicable ... after all, they do represent a kind of blueprint .  The selections are deemed as random, and though a margin of 0.75 degrees per terminator threshold has been used, it is still likely that some correlation between different selections will be inevitable ... or should it be so ! 

15th Feb M 5.2 Kepulauan Talaud, Indonesia ..................... 14:07:28 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 120' 54' W - 11' 36' S (R16) .... 14:08 ut
              Dusk on bearing 77' 55' E - 16' 03' N (R4) ............ 14:08 ut

15th Feb M 5.5 Northern Sumatra, Indonesia ...................... 19:47:06 ut
              Sunset on bearing 17' 55' W - 17' 52' S (R18) ....... 19:47 ut
              Sunset on bearing 16' 23' W - 21' 33' S (12th Jan).. 19:47 ut *
              Sunrise on bearing 154' 29' E - 3' 10' S (18th Jan).. 19:48 ut *

15th Feb M 5.1 Northern Sumatra, Indonesia ....................... 19:53:26 ut
              CS on bearing 114' 50' W (R23)
              Sunrise on bearing 154' 29' E - 3' 10' S (18th Jan).. 19:53 ut *

16th Feb M 5.2 Offshore Coquimbo, Chile ............................ 07:02:05 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 14' 0' W - 11' 48' S (R15) ......... 07:03 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 17' 55' W - 17' 52' S (R18) ....... 07:03 ut
              CS on bearing 78' 0' E (R4)
              Sunrise on bearing 16' 23' W - 21' 33' S (12th Jan).. 07:02 ut *
              Sunset on bearing 163' 59' E - 18' 06' N (12th Jan).. 07:03 ut *

16th Feb M 5.1 Fiji Region ................................................... 12:10:00 ut
               Dusk on bearing 112' 06' E - 9' 46' S (R19) ............ 12:10 ut
               Sunrise on bearing 88' 02' W - 12' 17' N (R10) ....... 12:11 ut

16th Feb M 5.1 Pagan Region, Northern Mariana Islands ........ 21:44:05 ut
              CM on bearing 103' 41' E (R2)

17th Feb M 5.2 Papua, Indonesia .......................................... 11:21:26 ut
              Dusk on bearing 126' 33' E - 14' 57' S (R5) .............. 11:22 ut
              Dawn on bearing 92' 26' W - 18' 47' N (R6) ............. 11:21 ut
              Dawn on bearing 100' 51' W - 20' 23' S (18th Jan) ... 11:21 ut * 

18th Feb M 6.3 Jujuy, Argentina .............................................12:10:14 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 88' 02' W - 12' 17' N (R10) ......... 12:11 ut
              Dusk on bearing 112' 06' E - 9' 46' S (R19) .............. 12:10 ut

19th Feb M 5.1 Sunda Strait, Indonesia .................................. 15:14:10 ut
              Sunset on bearing 48' 23' E - 17' 59' S (R22) ............ 15:15 ut
              Dusk on bearing 67' 48' E - 14' 54' S (R7) ................ 15:14 ut

20th Feb M 5.0 Santa Cruz Islands ......................................... 03:56:46 ut
              Sunset on bearing 148' 53' W - 18' 41' N (R8) .......... 03:56 ut

20th Feb M 5.3 Northern Peru ................................................ 07:45:11 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 27' 15' W - 15' 45' S (R3) ............ 07:45 ut
              CS on bearing 67' 08' E (R7)

20th Feb M 5.4 Fiji Region ..................................................... 23:55:48 ut
              Sunset on bearing 88' 02' W - 12' 17' N (R10) .......... 23:56 ut
              Sunset on bearing 82' 43' W - 12' 46' S (R11) .......... 23:56 ut

21st Feb M 6.5 Chuquisaca, Bolivia ........................................ 14:09:04 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 120' 54' W - 11' 36' S (R16) ........ 14:09 ut
              Dusk on bearing 77' 55' E - 16' 03' N (R4) ................ 14:09 ut
              CS on bearing 28' 52' W (R14)

22nd Feb M 5.3 Scotia Sea ..................................................... 08:25:34 ut
               CS on bearing 56' 59' E (R17)

23rd Feb M 5.2 Pacific Antarctic Ridge .................................... 00:42:15 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 80' 0' E - 11' 53' S (R13) ............. 00:42 ut

23rd Feb M 5.6 Eastern New Guinea Region, P.N.G. ................ 15:11:05 ut 
              Sunset on bearing 48' 23' E - 17' 59' S (R22) ............ 15:12 ut
              Dusk on bearing 67' 48' E - 14' 54' S (R7) ................. 15:11 ut

23rd Feb M 5.0 North of Severnaya, Zemlya ............................ 20:13:40 ut
              Sunset on bearing 27' 15' W - 15' 45' S (R3) ............. 20:14 ut
              CS on bearing 120' 06' W (R16)
              Sunrise on bearing 149' 38' E - 5' 22' N (6th Jan) ...... 20:14 ut *
              Sunset on bearing 24' 57' W - 19' 04' S (24th Jan) .... 20:13 ut *
              Dawn on bearing 134' 20' E - 9' 55' N (7th Jan) ......... 20:13 ut *

24th Feb M 5.3 South Sandwich Islands ................................... 05:59:06 ut
              Dawn on bearing 17' 55' W - 17' 52' S (R18) .............. 05:59 ut
              Sunset on bearing 171' 50' W - 20' 20' S (18th Jan) .... 05:59 ut *

24th Feb M 5.0 Northern Sumatra, Indonesia ............................ 08:22:36 ut
               CS on bearing 57' 39' E (R17)
               Dusk on bearing 163' 59' E - 18' 06' N (12th Jan) ....... 08:22 ut *

25th Feb M 5.0 Kep. Tanimbar, Indonesia ................................. 01:11:38 ut
              Sunrise on bearing 77' 55' E - 16' 03 N (R4) ................ 01:11 ut
              Dusk on bearing 88' 02' W - 12' 17' N (R10) ................ 01:12 ut
              Dusk on bearing 82' 43' W - 12' 46' S (R11) ................ 01:11 ut
              Sunset on bearing 100' 51' W - 20' 23' S (18th Jan) ..... 01:11 ut *

25th Feb M 5.2 Tarapaca, Chile ................................................. 02:31:23 ut
              Sunset on bearing 120' 54' W - 11' 36' S (R16) ............. 02:31 ut
              CM on bearing 126' 53' E (R5)
              Dusk on bearing 100' 51' W - 20' 23' S (18th Jan) ......... 02:31 ut *

26th Feb M 5.5 Vanuatu ............................................................. 06:44:21 ut
              CM on bearing 78' 04' E (R4)
              Sunset on bearing 175' 50' E - 21' 07' S (15th Jan) ........ 06:45 ut *

26th Feb M 5.1 Atacama, Chile .................................................... 08:59:16 ut
              CS on bearing 48' 24' E (R22)
              CS on bearing 48' 24' E (25th Jan) *


Duration of test .................................... 11 days 2 hours 40 minutes
Number of quakes ................................ 45 

Centre Sun .......... 8
Centre Moon ........ 3
Sunrise ................ 9
Sunset ................. 8
Dawn ................... 2
Dusk .................... 9
                         .........
               Total    39 hits

Results after dis-association

Centre Sun ........... 3
Centre Moon ......... 1
Sunrise ................. 6
Sunset .................. 5
Dawn .................... 0
Dusk ..................... 6
                         .........
                Total    21 hits

Roger;

You are under no obligation to reveal how you acquired your random selection, but your results show there is good reason to investigate this further.  I have been doing this for many hours per day over the last six months, so I am familiar with how this kind of sequence can be put together. When I am predicting, I can generally find a good signal in a 10 degree corridor of longitude, because seismic activity from pole to pole is less frequent, making good radio resolution possible for independent detection.   In contrast, a 10 degree corridor in latitude is very hard to work, because in most cases detection of new anomalies is impeded by traces of residual energy left over from prior seismic events.  It inevitably gives a false reading, and that is why sometimes I use to re-adjust my predictions several days later to compensate. 

I have found using the "time and date" map makes it easy to calculate scenarios. To save on a lot of calculations whilst testing random numbers, I found it easier to input a time on the map, put a couple of dots on the terminator thresholds, and then just move the sun under the dots to get the bearings.  Its one of the very few programs I have found that can give a pretty good representation of the terminator. The only drawback is it doesn't seem to accept odd numbers in the minute box, and nothing at all in the seconds ... that might be just my system though!

If your random selection still shows association with the original numbers, then these are "good" results.

Sorry to keep you waiting


Duffy

Duffy;

You're missing the point.

If one can get good results with random selections that proves your method is false.

This happens when the probability is so high that any date can give a hit.

You're making it worse by adding extra indicators, thus increasing the number of hits.

Meanwhile I'm going nuts trying to get this program to work. I thought I had it for a while but it didn't last.

But I seldom give up.

Roger

[Duffy]

Roger;

I'm not very good at cutting to the chase ... I noticed three of my prediction locations in your selection, so It didn't take much to figure out rest were connected to post seismic events.  The words at the end of the result table, was my attempt at being respectfully subtle about your random selection.  I ran your numbers against the last test data, and you got one dawn and one dusk (said events hadn't gone off yet) ... Brian got 28, with a total of 54 hits out of 46 quakes. You guy's are scientists, so I figured you were trialling my original data ... I now see I figured wrong!

My scientific vocabulary is as you know some what limited, it doesn't mean my intelligence has to be regarded in the same manner.  I am not using tone here because I have to compensate for your short term memory problem, last week you claimed I had something worth investigating, this week it is a false method ... to much work has gone into this to be summed up with contradiction.   


Duffy

[Roger Hunter]

(03-04-2017, 05:46 PM)Duffy Wrote: Roger;

I'm not very good at cutting to the chase ... I noticed three of my prediction locations in your selection, so It didn't take much to figure out rest were connected to post seismic events.  The words at the end of the result table, was my attempt at being respectfully subtle about your random selection.  I ran your numbers against the last test data, and you got one dawn and one dusk (said events hadn't gone off yet) ... Brian got 28, with a total of 54 hits out of 46 quakes. You guy's are scientists, so I figured you were trialling my original data ... I now see I figured wrong!

My scientific vocabulary is as you know some what limited, it doesn't mean my intelligence has to be regarded in the same manner.  I am not using tone here because I have to compensate for your short term memory problem, last week you claimed I had something worth investigating, this week it is a false method ... to much work has gone into this to be summed up with contradiction.   


Duffy

Duffy;

No, my assumption was that we were talking about the random selections.

I thought you had something worth investigating so that's what we were doing with the random dates.

It turned out that the random dates gave as many hits as your signal-based dates, thus showing your results were just chance.

If I'm wrong in any of this please point it out.

Roger

[Duffy]

Roger;

With respect, it would ordinarily make no difference where you sourced your selection from, personally a few numbers off a calendar would have sufficed.  But if you have indeed chosen post seismic locations for your dates, it not only contradicts the idea of the test, it also enforces my hypothesis of quake to quake propagation.  Firstly, I have on several occasions postulated the idea of energy transfer between quake locations. If you analyse these very results, you will see that during multiple events, the terminator threshold's were in the proximity of recently active earthquakes, whilst a present quake was occurring ... and you got a hit!   We spoke of this at some length 18 months ago, I'll try and source the thread so you can refer to it again. I don't generally speak of these things anymore because I didn't do me any favours back then, nor I believe will it do me any favours in the future ... unless of course I am able to predict earthquakes.  Secondly, I am testing a signal source that I am trying to determine if there is correlation with earthquakes.  If my first point is anything to go by, then it stands to reason your selection will undoubtedly score high. If my source does have correlation with recent events, and you chose resent events, then your crosses are going to connect with mine.  This is the point I was trying to make by showing association, the margin used was 0.75 degrees per threshold, giving a total band of 3 degrees on a global scale.   It is inevitable that some association will occur (you and I hit sunrise at the same time etc), but this happened with 50% of your results.  Without further tests, we can only speculate that this is a possibility every time.  However, as mentioned I have run multiple simulations ... it did not happen to this extent on these occasions, but there is only my word for this. 

I have no problem with you giving your opinion or conclusion with the results at hand.  It gives indication of one's standing with respect to the project, but you always seem to give a final, definitive, no point going on answer which is very hard to get use too.  You cannot test this like I can, you haven't got your program running, and we seem to have a new definition of "random" on Earthwaves ... which I can live with.  It would be nice to try some numbers off a calendar next time, maybe then you will see the difference.

I think I should point out, I am assuming that I maintain the right to scrutinise yours and Brian's results, just as you have the right to scrutinise mine.  I mention this because I don't want to be seen as being offensive when in fact I am defending my hypothesis ... I don't want to take on the boss and his foreman, if it means I'm going to lose my job at the end of it!  


Duffy

[Roger Hunter]

(03-04-2017, 07:45 PM)Duffy Wrote: Duffy;

Quote:With respect, it would ordinarily make no difference where you sourced your selection from, personally a few numbers off a calendar would have sufficed.  But if you have indeed chosen post seismic locations for your dates, it not only contradicts the idea of the test, it also enforces my hypothesis of quake to quake propagation.

No, I picked those date out of the air. If they coincided with yours it was only coincidence.

Quote: Firstly, I have on several occasions postulated the idea of energy transfer between quake locations. If you analyse these very results, you will see that during multiple events, the terminator threshold's were in the proximity of recently active earthquakes, whilst a present quake was occurring ... and you got a hit!   We spoke of this at some length 18 months ago, I'll try and source the thread so you can refer to it again. I don't generally speak of these things anymore because I didn't do me any favours back then, nor I believe will it do me any favours in the future ... unless of course I am able to predict earthquakes.

Exactly; no credit until success is proven.

Quote: Secondly, I am testing a signal source that I am trying to determine if there is correlation with earthquakes.  If my first point is anything to go by, then it stands to reason your selection will undoubtedly score high. If my source does have correlation with recent events, and you chose resent events, then your crosses are going to connect with mine.  This is the point I was trying to make by showing association, the margin used was 0.75 degrees per threshold, giving a total band of 3 degrees on a global scale.   It is inevitable that some association will occur (you and I hit sunrise at the same time etc), but this happened with 50% of your results.  Without further tests, we can only speculate that this is a possibility every time.  However, as mentioned I have run multiple simulations ... it did not happen to this extent on these occasions, but there is only my word for this.

I think it's just the short duration of the test. I gave no attention to your list but there are only so many days to choose from.
 

Quote:I have no problem with you giving your opinion or conclusion with the results at hand.  It gives indication of one's standing with respect to the project, but you always seem to give a final, definitive, no point going on answer which is very hard to get use too.

Perhaps I'm just being too brief in my responses. No offence is intended.

Quote: You cannot test this like I can, you haven't got your program running, and we seem to have a new definition of "random" on Earthwaves ... which I can live with.  It would be nice to try some numbers off a calendar next time, maybe then you will see the difference.

You lost me there. Dates are dates, calendar or not. And once I get the bloody program running correctly, I'll be able to test a huge number of cases and give a definitive answer.

Quote:I think I should point out, I am assuming that I maintain the right to scrutinize yours and Brian's results, just as you have the right to scrutinize mine.  I mention this because I don't want to be seen as being offensive when in fact I am defending my hypothesis ... I don't want to take on the boss and his foreman, if it means I'm going to lose my job at the end of it!  

Not to worry, there are no authorities here. (Except Brian; he can throw us both off if he chooses!)

Roger

[Duffy]

That's a good answer Roger ... I would have been very disappointed had you said differently!



Duffy

[Skywise]

For the record, my dates and times were determined using the random number function from the spreadsheet in Apache Open Office.

Duffy, the point of random trials in any statistical analysis is to see if randomly chosen data gives statistically similar results to the test data. You have a set of a data that seems to correlate to earthquakes. So Roger and I chose random data for you to test. The random data gave similar results. The implication is that your method does no better than random data, therefore is not statistically significant.

But as Roger astutely pointed out, the total data is quite small and this leads to a larger margin of error.

There's a saying, "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics." Statistical analysis can be a very tricky thing and many a scientist has been tripped up by subtle mistakes. Roger understands this and this is why he is so critical in his efforts to understand exactly what you are doing and to make sure his software is working right.

Brian

[Duffy]

(03-05-2017, 05:39 AM)Skywise Wrote: For the record, my dates and times were determined using the random number function from the spreadsheet in Apache Open Office.

>> The association between our data sets was far greater than the association with Roger's.  Admittedly, first assumption seemed to indicate you had rode shotgun on my numbers, but this assumption is based only on this test.  There is insufficient data to determine a true conclusion, just as there is insufficient data to determine significance.  As Roger pointed out, something positive has to occur with any hypothesis before it can be credited.  Speaking of Roger, I feel I inadvertently put him on the spot yesterday, it was genuine scrutiny of the data, "not" accusation ... out of the air and Apache Open Office is good enough for me !   

Duffy, the point of random trials in any statistical analysis is to see if randomly chosen data gives statistically similar results to the test data. You have a set of a data that seems to correlate to earthquakes. So Roger and I chose random data for you to test. The random data gave similar results. The implication is that your method does no better than random data, therefore is not statistically significant.

>> As mentioned, the sample is to small to determine a definitive answer, but if I was to give judgement on the available data, I would have to agree statistics do not show significance. 

But as Roger astutely pointed out, the total data is quite small and this leads to a larger margin of error.

>> Records from last year shows my signal source averages between 4 - 6 data lines per month, except December/ January and June/July when that number reached 12 -14. The period indicates correlation with the sun's most Northerly and Southerly position. I miss-interpreted their meaning at first, and used them as longitude indicators for prediction, thus I ended up at Lawrence Island, Alaska and the Siberian Sea etc.  I even enquired here about historic activity for a location in the South Pacific, far from any tectonic borders.  I recently used this source to predict events on several correct locations ... that's why I took the step of testing it here. I cannot prove the source as credible in said predictions because it would be "after the fact". I made this mistake with Hawaii because it is easy enough to get a few dates and times after the event has occurred.  My next best shot is June/ July if you and Roger are game for a rematch ? 

There's a saying, "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics." Statistical analysis can be a very tricky thing and many a scientist has been tripped up by subtle mistakes. Roger understands this and this is why he is so critical in his efforts to understand exactly what you are doing and to make sure his software is working right.

>> My father-in-law was director of electronics at a large manufacturing company, he use to write his own software to assist with production. Sometimes we would check with him before visiting, because problems with his software did not make for a pleasant stay ... I know nothing of programs, but I do know how Roger must sometimes feel.


Duffy