Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
12-05-2016, 04:26 PM
Roger,
There are two kinds of signals in the patterns, sunrise / sunset signals that occur in any VLF monitoring system, and structure in the noise band ... which does not !. Sunrise and set signals normally happen when the sun drops or rises on the horizon, local to the antenna being used. I am recording on average 20 such signals a day, 24/7 which by all accounts shouldn't be possible. The signals are global, I record them overnight which defies understanding of how VLF signals propagate. The structures in the noise band always start appearing 3 or 4 days after new moon ... "always". I have already shown you how I use these structures to find longitude. All I do then is match sunrise / sunset signal to a chosen longitude, and it gives true longitude and latitude. If sunrise occurs in a given location today at 09:00 ut, I can go back in my data to yesterday and find the same signal. If I go back several days, I can see if the signal has advanced or retarded, which gives indication of which hemisphere the signal originates from. If I go back far enough, I can find out when the signal first appeared. Stress does not instantly appear on a fault line ... it accumulates over a period of time, I believe this is the generally accepted reason. The signals I record are doing the same, they grow bigger, and more defined over time. However, in most cases they all look the same, because they are being governed by the ionosphere. This is why I am not able to determine magnitude with any degree of accuracy. Also, there is a limit to which my equipment will not go beyond ... brief example, I spent 12 months tracking satellites with a 2 metre and a 70 cm antenna, the 2 metre could pick up signals at 300 MHz, the 70 cm picked up signals at 600 MHz plus. But neither antenna could pick up both frequencies, same applies here, the energy output of a given anomaly can exceed what I am able to detect, only this will remain speculative until I get someone here !. It is strange that my predictions from J1 to J30 produced 26 passable numbers for the spreadsheet, two failed to reach magnitude, and one occurred 50+ hours after expiry. The only one that didn't produce anything was 174' E !
The key to finding the bigger quakes is the ACE satellite ... I can read the same signals in it's data, as I can in mine. I can spot significant changes in it's varied formats, because it is in orbit, and thus not being restricted by ionospheric levels. I have given several warnings (within " 3 " days) of imminent seismic activity, by determining it's differing structure. The signals on my monitors develop over weeks, the signals in the ACE data develops in days ... closest your ever going to get to determining time of event !
Simply due to chance ... I continue to try and give a good account of how I do this, and you always find a one liner to answer with, and expect me to understand that your words fully explain why this is " simply due to chance ". Twelve months ago, I was predicting quakes in Brazil, which actually when off in the Mariana Trench or somewhere like it. I knew the signs, but didn't know the place, my track record here shows this. I am now landing within 2 degree margins of event ... if this is simply due to chance, why was I not doing this 12 months ago ?.
A 90% chance only relates to the Kermadec region, for the reasons given, a 90% chance of getting Zambia right would be a ridicules claim to make !, I told you how you could test this, but you said it wouldn't work because you could find corridor's where no quakes ever happen. Personally, I don't see the logic in testing a hypothesis for the detection of earthquakes, where earthquakes never occur, that's a challenge ... not a test.
I can see on the EMSC site, a shallow 1km 4.7 event has been felt in Puerto rico. last event to reach close to this magnitude was a 4.6 on 2nd October, before that it was a 4.9 on 13th Aug 2014. The magnitude in this case is relivant, because of the timming. I placed a prediction for this location 3 days ago on the 2nd Dec with a 7 day window. I found sunset signals in my own data, but only after I found location in the satellite feed. I don't use 7 day windows with my own data, and I don't claim significance unless I have cause to do so. Ironically, I believe " simply due to chance " may soon be tested itself !
I found the following on the net, which may give an idea of the potential I keep mentioning; http://www.researchgate.net/ publication/ 240934689_unusual_sunset_behaviour_of_VLF_signals_at_17KHz_during_the_Earthquake
Whilst typing this, a 5.1 has occurred in Iran at 59' 11' E ... my hypothesis claims an opposite longitude reaction will occur on 120' W ........ Parkfield is on 120' W is it not ?
Duffy
There are two kinds of signals in the patterns, sunrise / sunset signals that occur in any VLF monitoring system, and structure in the noise band ... which does not !. Sunrise and set signals normally happen when the sun drops or rises on the horizon, local to the antenna being used. I am recording on average 20 such signals a day, 24/7 which by all accounts shouldn't be possible. The signals are global, I record them overnight which defies understanding of how VLF signals propagate. The structures in the noise band always start appearing 3 or 4 days after new moon ... "always". I have already shown you how I use these structures to find longitude. All I do then is match sunrise / sunset signal to a chosen longitude, and it gives true longitude and latitude. If sunrise occurs in a given location today at 09:00 ut, I can go back in my data to yesterday and find the same signal. If I go back several days, I can see if the signal has advanced or retarded, which gives indication of which hemisphere the signal originates from. If I go back far enough, I can find out when the signal first appeared. Stress does not instantly appear on a fault line ... it accumulates over a period of time, I believe this is the generally accepted reason. The signals I record are doing the same, they grow bigger, and more defined over time. However, in most cases they all look the same, because they are being governed by the ionosphere. This is why I am not able to determine magnitude with any degree of accuracy. Also, there is a limit to which my equipment will not go beyond ... brief example, I spent 12 months tracking satellites with a 2 metre and a 70 cm antenna, the 2 metre could pick up signals at 300 MHz, the 70 cm picked up signals at 600 MHz plus. But neither antenna could pick up both frequencies, same applies here, the energy output of a given anomaly can exceed what I am able to detect, only this will remain speculative until I get someone here !. It is strange that my predictions from J1 to J30 produced 26 passable numbers for the spreadsheet, two failed to reach magnitude, and one occurred 50+ hours after expiry. The only one that didn't produce anything was 174' E !
The key to finding the bigger quakes is the ACE satellite ... I can read the same signals in it's data, as I can in mine. I can spot significant changes in it's varied formats, because it is in orbit, and thus not being restricted by ionospheric levels. I have given several warnings (within " 3 " days) of imminent seismic activity, by determining it's differing structure. The signals on my monitors develop over weeks, the signals in the ACE data develops in days ... closest your ever going to get to determining time of event !
Simply due to chance ... I continue to try and give a good account of how I do this, and you always find a one liner to answer with, and expect me to understand that your words fully explain why this is " simply due to chance ". Twelve months ago, I was predicting quakes in Brazil, which actually when off in the Mariana Trench or somewhere like it. I knew the signs, but didn't know the place, my track record here shows this. I am now landing within 2 degree margins of event ... if this is simply due to chance, why was I not doing this 12 months ago ?.
A 90% chance only relates to the Kermadec region, for the reasons given, a 90% chance of getting Zambia right would be a ridicules claim to make !, I told you how you could test this, but you said it wouldn't work because you could find corridor's where no quakes ever happen. Personally, I don't see the logic in testing a hypothesis for the detection of earthquakes, where earthquakes never occur, that's a challenge ... not a test.
I can see on the EMSC site, a shallow 1km 4.7 event has been felt in Puerto rico. last event to reach close to this magnitude was a 4.6 on 2nd October, before that it was a 4.9 on 13th Aug 2014. The magnitude in this case is relivant, because of the timming. I placed a prediction for this location 3 days ago on the 2nd Dec with a 7 day window. I found sunset signals in my own data, but only after I found location in the satellite feed. I don't use 7 day windows with my own data, and I don't claim significance unless I have cause to do so. Ironically, I believe " simply due to chance " may soon be tested itself !
I found the following on the net, which may give an idea of the potential I keep mentioning; http://www.researchgate.net/ publication/ 240934689_unusual_sunset_behaviour_of_VLF_signals_at_17KHz_during_the_Earthquake
Whilst typing this, a 5.1 has occurred in Iran at 59' 11' E ... my hypothesis claims an opposite longitude reaction will occur on 120' W ........ Parkfield is on 120' W is it not ?
Duffy