[Skywise]

(12-31-2015, 11:16 AM)Island Chris Wrote: Hi Duffy,

Solar and lunar triggering of quakes has been covered on this site at length. You seem to have lapsed into pseudo science, rather than good amateur science. And, a pet peeve: what you are writing is not a "theory": it is speculation. Yes, most scientists and the public mis-use "Theory": it should be reserved for well established things; like Plate Tectonics, or evolution. That CO2 makes it warmer is not a theory either; it is a fact.

It is too bad that Brian is only rarely able to post. You should consider following his guidance. He is a good amateur scientist who knows a lot about earthquakes.

Chris

My advice, since I can't interact more often, is to follow the scientific method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

1> make observation
2> formulate hypothesis
3> make predictions
4> test predictions/perform experiment
5> develop theory

Wash, rinse, repeat. It's a never ending process.

Duffy, you already have part of the method. You have observations, a hypothesis, and are making predictions. But there is a sort of unwritten step in between steps 4 and 5 - you have to analyze the data and make sure it's valid. This is the hard part. Roger has helped with his analysis of some of your posted ideas against the historical record. That his results do not support your ideas IS NOT a failure.  It just means you need to adjust your hypothesis to fit Roger's information into your hypothesis. A hypothesis (or even a theory) is not a static thing. It must change in the face of new data. Just be willing to go where the data leads you to, even if it's exactly the opposite of your original hypothesis.


I wish I could post more often to give more feedback on your ideas.

Don't give up, and please keep posting. Even if you find that you observations have nothing to do with earthquakes you will have learned much, and that is always a good reward.

Brian