|
Re: Not Always So Negative |
Petra, if I have not made the following clear in the past then perhaps this attempt will work. The subject matter which I am discussing is in my opinion far too technically complex for you to pass judgment on. Even John who is a professional in this area and I are not yet even in agreement regarding what is being discussed. It is at time even too complex for me. For example, so far I myself have not been able to do those probability calculations that I discussed in another note. And I have not had time to go looking for a book that I have on the subject or visit any Web sites looking for equations. If you look at just that one Solid Earth Tide wave that I have in that chart you can see how complex this is. I have been actively discussing the data used in that wave for years with some of the top researchers in the world in order to understand their significance. For example, I used vertical displacement data in generating that wave. But I could have instead used acceleration, tilt, or strain data. For another example, an expert on this who lives in another country and I have been having a discussion regarding the meaning of the term “acceleration data” when it is used with a particular Solid Earth Tide data generation program. Does it mean “true gravity” at a particular location? Or does it refer to the upward and downward acceleration due to the lifting and lowering effect of the Solid Earth Tide? This effort has been straining the brains of some of the most knowledgeable scientists on Earth for a number of years. Fortunately, due to recent events things have now become much better organized. The direction in which to move in this particular area of science now appears to me to be fairly clear. Follow Ups: ● Re: Not Always So Negative - Petra Challus 20:47:15 - 4/16/2003 (18467) (1) ● Re: Not Always So Negative - EQF 02:38:54 - 4/17/2003 (18473) (0) |
|