Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
03-04-2017, 07:45 PM
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
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