[Roger Hunter]

(02-05-2017, 04:45 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 04:07 PM)Duffy Wrote: Duffy;

Quote:You were right about the 90 degree distance between longitude of the sun, and the selected bearings at sunrise/sunset ... I couldn't see it for looking, so apologies again.   As you stated in your question, the Earth is not a perfect sphere, and it is orbiting the sun at 67,000 mph, so the angle of the terminator is constantly changing.  I think you are right that you cannot move on this until your question has been answered.  Now that I have had the time to analyse this test, I have to report the following

No problem. It took me some time to visualize the situation. I think the maps showing the sunrise line confused me.  

Quote:I had to remove a sunset contact from the results because I apparently checked it against a different feature 1 degree away.  However, I found a further 4 terminator contacts that had previously been over looked.

That's why computer simulation is important.

Quote:My equipment is susceptible to changes due to interference, so a true account on results can only be established once the test is completed.  The ratio now stands at 28/46 ...

Close to coin toss odds. Not encouraging.

Quote:I also have to report my hypothesis of no contact with the bearings after new moon was flawed.  Again, said interference may be responsible for giving a false reading ... I found 8 contacts, out of the 14 quakes that occurred, 72 hours  after new moon.   This was not the case in my two independent tests, a short period after new moon there were no contacts. The data for these was accumulated before the sun reached its furthest Southerly latitude ... maybe this makes a difference !.   All the same, I am being honest here because nothing will be gained unless all the facts are disclosed.   From 1st February to the present ( last event on my screen; 5.2 Turkmenistan), there have only been 2 contacts in 9 events 2/9 ... I'll continue monitoring events independently until next new moon, to see if the results show anything more !

There should be some way to run this backward, checking where the trigger point would be if mag 5+ quakes were on the sunrise line. Just a thought.

Quote:The results show these bearings may have some un-tested significance. If the test was to be repeated, my data shows it could be around mid May before this could be done.  Now that the facts are here, do you wish to proceed with investigating this further ?  if you do, I thought I would run a comparable test before next new moon ... and you provide the data.   I need a comparison for a base line, and the best way to get it, is to repeat the test under the same conditions. It would be bias of me to select random days and times, because I am the one claiming detection.  Next new moon is on 26th Feb at 14:39:45 ut, and I believe it will produce an eclipse in the South Atlantic.   I could start this on the 15th at 12:00 ut, but I would need 9 dates and 12 times to do it ... would you be willing to provide them ?

Sure. 9 dates within what range? But it is quicker for me to run the whole thing. I've already done that in fact so all I need to do is revise the program to work exactly as you have described and see what happens.

Roger

Duffy;

Here's the sort of preliminary report that gets me in trouble.

I modified my previous program as follows .

The quake file contains all mag 5+ quakes from 2016/1/1 to 2017/1/31, a total of 1833 quakes.

I selected the 6+ quakes as random times, determined the lat-lon location for sun and moon and then checked quakes within 30 days of each of them to find any 90 degrees away.

There were 153 6+ cases. From those, 125 had 5+ quakes 90 degrees away (+/- 1 degree)

Now does this mean that the chance odds are high (125/153) or does it mean the 6+ quakes were causing the hits somehow?

What's your guess?

Roger