[Roger Hunter]

(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