Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
01-01-2016, 06:52 PM
Hi Chris, Firstly, I'd like to wish you and everyone else my best for the new year, ..... I've been reviewing your comments, and decided I like and respect you because your not afraid to speak your mind. Likewise, I'm not afraid to address any issues others may have with me, so I'll start with apologising for the miss use of "Theory", I now have a note taped on my laptop to remind me in future correspondents.
I had already assumed (correctly) that Solar and Lunar triggering had been covered extensively during the sites history, in fact, I would imagine every aspect of Earthquake science has been scrutinised here more than once. So, like myself, why would new members or existing members want to join in discussions on topics were we've already been there, or done that! ... the change comes when there is a significant scientific development, or a different approach with new science. Now, if I haven't misinterpreted past postings, I believe I have introduced a new science here, be it armature at the moment ... it is still a different approach, and if it leads me to a conclusion that requires covering old ground, then that's what I have to do to test it. It's true that I don't know enough about Earthquakes, but I am trying to make an effort ... I'm no expert with radio, but I observe these gibberish lines more than the average person watches TV, and the data on the screens conflicts with the accepted reason for tectonic movement.
Also, your right, it does sound like pseudo science ... but I ask that you be a little open minded here, and put yourself in my position ... lets say you've discovered a new method for quake detection, which far exceeds anything before, you spend the next three years developing it yourself because nobody believes you, then just when you have it as efficient as your limits will allow, who would you approach?. This is the stage that I'm at now !!, Nobody know's me, I don't have professional colleagues to turn to, I have no qualifications so no credibility in the scientific community, and no like minded friends to help guide me with what I have !!. I would say my options are rather limited, so I have to try predicting Earthquakes, better than I have been in order to get noticed (Apparently, it has worked with you for the wrong reason
). This is still new to me, but the more I work the data, the more I understand it. Two days ago, I reported recording a strong signal on my monitor ... at the time I could have simply predicted a 6+ quake in the next 48 hours, as it happens .. a mag 6.3 occurred this morning on the Antarctic ridge, aprox 45 degrees East of signal position (which" isn't" associated with the data I'm working on) I was told here, that the art to prediction is to evaluate and determine weather coincidence or skill is the deciding factor with any posted prediction. Thus, I am trying to portray skill by including coordinates and actual positions, as I am "still" on my own with this, only I can determine where and when this prediction will be by how much I have understood the data !. In the real world, this is pseudo science, but in my world, the data shows the quakes are not in a steady state below the surface, that's why I have been adjusting my predictions.
This is a prediction site, one of many online, I can't see how any prediction of mine would be taken seriously to cause panic anywhere !!, it's not likely that anyone will actually predict an Earthquake when and where it actually happens, but it sounds like my method of detailed prediction is making some people uncomfortable ! .. I came on here today to give a final up date, and came across your posts, so today, I'll simply say " big signal on the magnet monitor ( only responds close to an event), signal finished at 10:17 UT, I've come to regard this as Solar noon time in the event area !!!
I don't mind any questions Chris, and don't mind debating any relevant subjects ... But, this month I will have been here one year, in that time I have found nobody asks questions ... nobody debates anything ... and nobody does a follow up evaluation on any predictions I've placed, I tried to speculate on some of mine, but in true science it's for others to speculate, not me!, the opportunity has been there but once you have cried wolf a few times, nobody is interested, apart from Roger, who at least is getting some mental exercise from me !. I flipped out a few weeks ago because the significance of what I think I have, made me act that way, I've come to terms with the fact that I'm going to be on my own with this a lot longer than I expected, so I was hoping this past year I would be at least credited with attempting prediction, rather than crying wolf and scaring off the town folk
As I said, I like you because your the genuine article, and look forward to us both being on the same frequency, and shaking hands some day
.
Hope you enjoy the rest of the holidays,
Duffy
I had already assumed (correctly) that Solar and Lunar triggering had been covered extensively during the sites history, in fact, I would imagine every aspect of Earthquake science has been scrutinised here more than once. So, like myself, why would new members or existing members want to join in discussions on topics were we've already been there, or done that! ... the change comes when there is a significant scientific development, or a different approach with new science. Now, if I haven't misinterpreted past postings, I believe I have introduced a new science here, be it armature at the moment ... it is still a different approach, and if it leads me to a conclusion that requires covering old ground, then that's what I have to do to test it. It's true that I don't know enough about Earthquakes, but I am trying to make an effort ... I'm no expert with radio, but I observe these gibberish lines more than the average person watches TV, and the data on the screens conflicts with the accepted reason for tectonic movement.
Also, your right, it does sound like pseudo science ... but I ask that you be a little open minded here, and put yourself in my position ... lets say you've discovered a new method for quake detection, which far exceeds anything before, you spend the next three years developing it yourself because nobody believes you, then just when you have it as efficient as your limits will allow, who would you approach?. This is the stage that I'm at now !!, Nobody know's me, I don't have professional colleagues to turn to, I have no qualifications so no credibility in the scientific community, and no like minded friends to help guide me with what I have !!. I would say my options are rather limited, so I have to try predicting Earthquakes, better than I have been in order to get noticed (Apparently, it has worked with you for the wrong reason
). This is still new to me, but the more I work the data, the more I understand it. Two days ago, I reported recording a strong signal on my monitor ... at the time I could have simply predicted a 6+ quake in the next 48 hours, as it happens .. a mag 6.3 occurred this morning on the Antarctic ridge, aprox 45 degrees East of signal position (which" isn't" associated with the data I'm working on) I was told here, that the art to prediction is to evaluate and determine weather coincidence or skill is the deciding factor with any posted prediction. Thus, I am trying to portray skill by including coordinates and actual positions, as I am "still" on my own with this, only I can determine where and when this prediction will be by how much I have understood the data !. In the real world, this is pseudo science, but in my world, the data shows the quakes are not in a steady state below the surface, that's why I have been adjusting my predictions. This is a prediction site, one of many online, I can't see how any prediction of mine would be taken seriously to cause panic anywhere !!, it's not likely that anyone will actually predict an Earthquake when and where it actually happens, but it sounds like my method of detailed prediction is making some people uncomfortable ! .. I came on here today to give a final up date, and came across your posts, so today, I'll simply say " big signal on the magnet monitor ( only responds close to an event), signal finished at 10:17 UT, I've come to regard this as Solar noon time in the event area !!!
I don't mind any questions Chris, and don't mind debating any relevant subjects ... But, this month I will have been here one year, in that time I have found nobody asks questions ... nobody debates anything ... and nobody does a follow up evaluation on any predictions I've placed, I tried to speculate on some of mine, but in true science it's for others to speculate, not me!, the opportunity has been there but once you have cried wolf a few times, nobody is interested, apart from Roger, who at least is getting some mental exercise from me !. I flipped out a few weeks ago because the significance of what I think I have, made me act that way, I've come to terms with the fact that I'm going to be on my own with this a lot longer than I expected, so I was hoping this past year I would be at least credited with attempting prediction, rather than crying wolf and scaring off the town folk
As I said, I like you because your the genuine article, and look forward to us both being on the same frequency, and shaking hands some day
.Hope you enjoy the rest of the holidays,
Duffy