EQF:

There is a persistence amongst astrologers to use planetary alignments (more then the sun/moon) for predicting earthquakes.

They can produce probably 100s of examples of "successful predictions" which appear to support their hypothesis. However, when one examines all available data (say > 1000 cases) we see that the cases presented by the astrologers are merely random alignments that coincide with earthquake events. Also, in other cases where there are "planetary alignments" there are no earthquakes. Also, a physicist can calculate gravitional forces and show that they are weak at the ranges found in the solar system. Using this information, "the scientists" conclude that the hypothesis of using planetary alignments to predict earthquakes is rejected.

Is there something going on with planetary alignments? There may still be however, the evidence coupled with current understanding of physics suggests otherwise.

You have presented examples of your method and results. The quantity of cases does not approach a high number (where statistical confidence may be higher as to the results). Also, how many cases do you have where your "quake conditions occur" yet no earthquake happens ? Do you know what this number is ? If not then you probably are not on a scinetific track to proving your case.

In addition, there are some solar frequencies which match lunar frequencies. How do you discriminate between whether a "cause and effect" exists between "quakes and the moon" and "quakes and the sun" (by varioous mechanisms some yet to be defined perhaps)?

You said: ==>"The next step is to check to see which earthquakes occurred in the past at the time when the moon was directly over that 45W longitude line. My data show that there is a good chance that the earthquake responsible for the ear tone will occur near where one of those previous earthquakes occurred."

Didn't you mean to say "And also when the same tone was also heard?" (i.e., the same condition as before happened when a quake happened).

You also used the phrase "there is a good chance".
==> Can you quantify that ? What percentage and how did you arrive at that number ? What statistical assumptions and procedures are you using ?

You said: ==> "The hope is that after that data comparison step is finished just one or only a few will be left."

If this has been done enough times in the past then you would be able to quantify how many times that this has happened. This will indicate how confident one should be in your prediction(s). Without this type of quantification, you are more or less making predictions off of a hypothesis which has not been rigorously quantified and has an Unknown probability of success.

This Unknown aspect of your procedure is what would make the average scientist disregard any warnings you would make. They may graciously accept your warnings (and humor you) which acknowledges your "good-will towards others intentions" but will not put their reputations and livlihoods on the line based on it. I hope that you understand this important aspect with regard to issuing warnings and will use it to make better use of your time. I say this in an effort to help you and not to criticize you.

I think it is possible that you are operating with a belief set which does not allow you to understand that you are being graciously humored by those who receive your warnings (given that some will still accept them at face value but will do less so over time as the false alarm rate goes up).

I hope these comments help you out and are seen as constructive. Understanding the statistical burden of proof methods are key to convincing others that what you are predicting is on target and that your hypothesis is accurate and correct (given everything else know about physics, etc.).

Just trying to help & ,

Just my .02 worth