Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
02-08-2017, 05:59 PM
I thought I would review the test again, that I recently carried out between 16th January and 28th January, the day of new moon. It was a simple set up, you choose a period of time to run the test, you select 24 locations, and then see how many times the locations are linked to times of events.
My method was to use a large flat screen TV connected to my laptop. I represented my locations with crosses on the screen, and I used a 2D online map program from http://www.timeanddate.com to best intemperate global terminator positions. When one of the terminator thresholds was in contact with a cross, at the time a 5+ event occurred, I googled the location of the cross down to a specific feature on the google map. I then found this same feature on http://www.suncalc.net, which utilises the same google system. It allows you to select features or locations, and one click provides you with the necessary terminator information. At the end of each day (my time), I would post any contact results on the forum so that any individuals wishing to monitor this, would either come to the same conclusion, or determine any discrepancies.
The only agenda with this test was to determine if the signal providing the location data, had any significance with respect to earthquakes. I did not do this to prove association, nor am I claiming this to be any kind of trigger (though I am exploring this possibility). The fact is, I have come across a strange phenomena that does not seem to have a definite answer, but there are a couple of points to consider about this test.
I ran the test in real-time ... which means just like everybody else watching its progress, I would have no idea of the eventual outcome. My only advantage was that I had done this before ... so my definition of "chance" with this test is, I took a big one posting it here. The mere fact that Roger had trouble understanding this, and computer programs were not readily available to verify the results as it happened, indicates that this phenomena has not been tested before ... or at least not on Earthwaves. Then there is the point of weather this test actually showed anything of relevance. It is sunrise on an oasis in the middle of the African desert, and a 5+ quake occurs in the Kermadec Islands. It is dusk on an atoll in the Pacific, and a 5+ quake occurs in Central Italy. It is dusk or sunrise all over the world at any given time, but can it be as simple as chance, that dusk or sunrise could be in the middle of a randomly selected cross on a screen when these quakes occurred ! People have been debating the possibility of a sun or moon trigger for decades, my interpretation based on these results suggests ... they have been looking in the wrong place !
The results of this test could not be clearer. Each event that I determined had correlation with a selected cross, was reported with which terminator threshold was involved, the time and co-ordinates of the event, and an indication to which line of data in the table this event was associated with. There were some discrepancies which I addressed after the test. When one is trying to keep pace with seismic activity, format the relevant data for posting, and try to converse its meaning all through the test period ... discrepancies will happen.
It has always been my understanding (since joining Earthwaves), if a scientist comes forth with a credible hypothesis, that for what ever reason fits a particular picture, it is only right that it be tested by other scientists in the same manner. If there testing produces similar results, then the hypothesis can be dismissed because it has not stood up to scrutiny. If their results fall short of the original test, it can then be considered a working theory. I'm not a scientist, but I ran an experiment in plain sight, over a period of ELEVEN days. I chose this period because my previous attempts had indicated the source was indicative of a cycle, which repeats at specific times. This is still speculation because I need to amass more data during the coming months.
With respect to Roger, I have clearly stated that I know nothing of computer programs. I have no idea what the results mean, I don't know the dates or times chosen , which terminator thresholds made contact where, what period this refers too, and most of all, I am expected to have full confidence in computer results obtained behind closed doors, and calculated from data that was not fully understood 5 days previously. The only real way of testing this phenomena is to repeat the test as many times as is necessary, to get a true picture as to weather this is significant or not.
I have to admit, that I have taken the time to try and understand the meaning of the word "chance". The dictionary quotes chance as being " the incalculable element in existence that renders events unpredictable" so Rogers interpretation is correct in respect to predicting earthquakes. But it continues " an event without an observable cause ", does this second quote have any relevance to what occurred during the test ? I don't know the cause and that's why I am investigating it, but I observed what happened ... contact was made at point A, and an action occurred at point B at the same time !
Lastly ... I remember some time ago, enduring a two paragraph grammar lesson on the correct use of the word " Theory ". It came about in conversation as a " pet peeve " which was particularly annoying to the person I was corresponding with. I thought it trivial at the time because I believed stating theory or hypothesis basically meant the same thing in the eyes of others. But I was the new guy so I complied, and I hope the individual this refers too, has noted I still do ... but I have learned in science, everything has to be correct, or it can be miss-interpreted. So in hopes that I do not develop my own pet peeve, I would like to repeat the following; this test has "nothing" to do with 30 day windows, I did not use this test for prediction purposes, so the test itself can only be analysed in the period stated, in past 11 day periods before new moon (using the same data), or in future 11 day periods before new moon. I have been coached to adopt an honest scientific approach with my project. I could not be more honest with this than do it in real-time ... I ran a fair test, it deserves a fair analysis !
It is not my intention to cause any offence here, the 15th Jan data lines got 9 hits out of the 28 recorded terminator contacts, and 6 of the 15 sun / moon contacts ... statistical analysis could explain the total as chance, but how would it explain this ?
Duffy
My method was to use a large flat screen TV connected to my laptop. I represented my locations with crosses on the screen, and I used a 2D online map program from http://www.timeanddate.com to best intemperate global terminator positions. When one of the terminator thresholds was in contact with a cross, at the time a 5+ event occurred, I googled the location of the cross down to a specific feature on the google map. I then found this same feature on http://www.suncalc.net, which utilises the same google system. It allows you to select features or locations, and one click provides you with the necessary terminator information. At the end of each day (my time), I would post any contact results on the forum so that any individuals wishing to monitor this, would either come to the same conclusion, or determine any discrepancies.
The only agenda with this test was to determine if the signal providing the location data, had any significance with respect to earthquakes. I did not do this to prove association, nor am I claiming this to be any kind of trigger (though I am exploring this possibility). The fact is, I have come across a strange phenomena that does not seem to have a definite answer, but there are a couple of points to consider about this test.
I ran the test in real-time ... which means just like everybody else watching its progress, I would have no idea of the eventual outcome. My only advantage was that I had done this before ... so my definition of "chance" with this test is, I took a big one posting it here. The mere fact that Roger had trouble understanding this, and computer programs were not readily available to verify the results as it happened, indicates that this phenomena has not been tested before ... or at least not on Earthwaves. Then there is the point of weather this test actually showed anything of relevance. It is sunrise on an oasis in the middle of the African desert, and a 5+ quake occurs in the Kermadec Islands. It is dusk on an atoll in the Pacific, and a 5+ quake occurs in Central Italy. It is dusk or sunrise all over the world at any given time, but can it be as simple as chance, that dusk or sunrise could be in the middle of a randomly selected cross on a screen when these quakes occurred ! People have been debating the possibility of a sun or moon trigger for decades, my interpretation based on these results suggests ... they have been looking in the wrong place !
The results of this test could not be clearer. Each event that I determined had correlation with a selected cross, was reported with which terminator threshold was involved, the time and co-ordinates of the event, and an indication to which line of data in the table this event was associated with. There were some discrepancies which I addressed after the test. When one is trying to keep pace with seismic activity, format the relevant data for posting, and try to converse its meaning all through the test period ... discrepancies will happen.
It has always been my understanding (since joining Earthwaves), if a scientist comes forth with a credible hypothesis, that for what ever reason fits a particular picture, it is only right that it be tested by other scientists in the same manner. If there testing produces similar results, then the hypothesis can be dismissed because it has not stood up to scrutiny. If their results fall short of the original test, it can then be considered a working theory. I'm not a scientist, but I ran an experiment in plain sight, over a period of ELEVEN days. I chose this period because my previous attempts had indicated the source was indicative of a cycle, which repeats at specific times. This is still speculation because I need to amass more data during the coming months.
With respect to Roger, I have clearly stated that I know nothing of computer programs. I have no idea what the results mean, I don't know the dates or times chosen , which terminator thresholds made contact where, what period this refers too, and most of all, I am expected to have full confidence in computer results obtained behind closed doors, and calculated from data that was not fully understood 5 days previously. The only real way of testing this phenomena is to repeat the test as many times as is necessary, to get a true picture as to weather this is significant or not.
I have to admit, that I have taken the time to try and understand the meaning of the word "chance". The dictionary quotes chance as being " the incalculable element in existence that renders events unpredictable" so Rogers interpretation is correct in respect to predicting earthquakes. But it continues " an event without an observable cause ", does this second quote have any relevance to what occurred during the test ? I don't know the cause and that's why I am investigating it, but I observed what happened ... contact was made at point A, and an action occurred at point B at the same time !
Lastly ... I remember some time ago, enduring a two paragraph grammar lesson on the correct use of the word " Theory ". It came about in conversation as a " pet peeve " which was particularly annoying to the person I was corresponding with. I thought it trivial at the time because I believed stating theory or hypothesis basically meant the same thing in the eyes of others. But I was the new guy so I complied, and I hope the individual this refers too, has noted I still do ... but I have learned in science, everything has to be correct, or it can be miss-interpreted. So in hopes that I do not develop my own pet peeve, I would like to repeat the following; this test has "nothing" to do with 30 day windows, I did not use this test for prediction purposes, so the test itself can only be analysed in the period stated, in past 11 day periods before new moon (using the same data), or in future 11 day periods before new moon. I have been coached to adopt an honest scientific approach with my project. I could not be more honest with this than do it in real-time ... I ran a fair test, it deserves a fair analysis !
It is not my intention to cause any offence here, the 15th Jan data lines got 9 hits out of the 28 recorded terminator contacts, and 6 of the 15 sun / moon contacts ... statistical analysis could explain the total as chance, but how would it explain this ?
Duffy