fluctuation convictions
Posted by John Vidale on May 08, 2003 at 09:38:53:

EQF,

In my reading, you're fluctuating wildly between simply asking for a wider focus of research and claiming your investigations are the most advanced and is already working, and that in fact you've predicted several deadly quakes. This post falls in the former category.

There are a near-infinite number of correlations we could investigate, and solar storm and "gravity force" factors are just two of the less likely ones. The scientific community tends to follow the leads in which there is a direct and strong physical connection between what is measured and tectonic earthquakes. Some of these projects are expensive, like drilling down into the San Andreas fault, but are much more likely to tell us about faulting than wilder theories, which require a modicum of common sense to interpret.

John


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: fluctuation convictions - EQF  20:00:36 - 5/9/2003  (18635)  (1)
        ● water well level - John Vidale  07:02:14 - 5/10/2003  (18641)  (1)
           ● Re: water well level - EQF  11:35:15 - 5/10/2003  (18646)  (1)
              ● points are being missed - John Vidale  12:58:33 - 5/10/2003  (18648)  (2)
                 ● Shan's method - Roger Hunter  12:52:24 - 5/11/2003  (18662)  (2)
                    ● a poor man's strainmeter? - John Vidale  08:58:04 - 5/12/2003  (18671)  (2)
                       ● Re: a poor man's strainmeter? - Roger Hunter  13:39:24 - 5/14/2003  (18701)  (0)
                       ● Re: a poor man's strainmeter? - EQF  16:46:14 - 5/12/2003  (18680)  (0)
                    ● Re: Shan's method - EQF  14:47:15 - 5/11/2003  (18665)  (0)
                 ● Re: points are being missed - EQF  14:11:24 - 5/10/2003  (18650)  (0)