|
Re: More amazingly accurate earthquake data |
Hi EQF. Your words. “Earthquakes occur when fault zones collect enough strain energy that their rock layers are about to shatter. At that point the constant, cyclic bending, stretching, and compression of the rock layers by forces related to the gravitational pulls of the sun and the moon can add a little extra strain to the fault zones and cause them to “go over the top” and fracture, resulting in earthquakes.” You have never explained how you know that enough strain has built up and is close to breaking? Every seismologist I have ever sat down with and talked with over a cup of coffee, or in some cases a bottle of beer all say without any exceptions that you are beating a dead horse. They want to see it work before the quake occurs. Not after. They are not going to waste there time on a program that they have never seen work or used for that matter. You never explained why you were going to send a warning to Italy because you saw something on 15°E. a longitude that is 12,450.4458 miles long. Why of all the places for a quake to occur on that longitude did you pick Italy? It’s only after the quake occurs that you make a statement about predicting it, or that you were getting ready to predict it. You say your data showed you where the quake was most likely to occur. However this is always after the quake occurs and not before. You made a statement about a quake about to occur in the West Pacific. This is in the area of Japan, China, and Indonesia as well as a number of other countries. Then you said something about the West Coast. They you claim a perfect match for the San Simeon quake and yet no where have you ever said there was going to be a quake in the San Simeon area. Your only reference is the “West Coast” which covers an area from the southern tip of South America to Alaska. I will admit that when someone says the West Coast I usually think of California, Oregon and Washington. Even then that is more then a 1000 miles. You want people to accept your claim of having an earthquake prediction program that works then prove it by making your predictions before the quakes occur. Take Care…Don in creepy town Follow Ups: ● Re: More amazingly accurate earthquake data - EQF 20:02:54 - 7/13/2004 (21914) (1) ● Re: More amazingly accurate earthquake data - Don in Hollister 20:40:52 - 7/13/2004 (21918) (1) ● Re: More amazingly accurate earthquake data - EQF 21:23:15 - 7/13/2004 (21921) (1) ● Re: More amazingly accurate earthquake data - Don in Hollister 21:51:15 - 7/13/2004 (21922) (0) ● quite so (nm) - John Vidale 06:54:38 - 7/13/2004 (21912) (1) ● Re: quite so (nm) - EQF 19:42:44 - 7/13/2004 (21913) (2) ● I suspect you're a prank - John Vidale 20:34:19 - 7/13/2004 (21917) (1) ● In your mind perhaps - EQF 21:22:57 - 7/13/2004 (21920) (3) ● I'm increasingly convinced you're a prank - John Vidale 22:01:13 - 7/13/2004 (21925) (2) ● Results speak for louder than words - EQF 00:30:01 - 7/14/2004 (21932) (1) ● Scientific results vs lines of code - John Vidale 06:58:37 - 7/14/2004 (21933) (1) ● Re: Scientific results vs lines of code - EQF 07:46:44 - 7/14/2004 (21934) (0) ● sorry about the triple posts - John Vidale 22:02:32 - 7/13/2004 (21926) (0) ● I'm increasingly convinced you're a prank - John Vidale 22:01:00 - 7/13/2004 (21924) (0) ● I'm increasingly convinced you're a prank - John Vidale 22:00:41 - 7/13/2004 (21923) (0) ● I suspect you're a prank - John Vidale 20:33:57 - 7/13/2004 (21915) (0) |
|