|
Re: Physics-based earthquake research need not be expensive |
EQF, see my response to Shan below that I just posted where I state that I do not predict earthquakes. And, we mutually don't have time; I don't have time or interest to go to your site (and I also tend not to go to private sites because of potential for viruses/SPAM). See also my response to Shan why I, and others, challenge claims that we think are unsupported. If you post a link to the part of your site where you describe what EM methods you use and how they are collected, I might break my rule and follow the link, since I am a little curious, and apparently I was incorrect thinking it was only eartones. Your posts on Earthwaves on this have been too vague to be useful, unless I missed something or read something and forgot (which happens more and more as I get older). Yes, Lowell Whiteside worked at NOAA and he probably knew more about global earthquake occurrence than just about anyone. I suspect certain other ideas in his thesis are correct or partly correct, but it seems unlikely that we will know this because they will not be published and tested by others. Chris Follow Ups: ● Re: Physics-based earthquake research need not be expensive - EQF 04:45:08 - 11/5/2010 (77725) (1) ● Re: Physics-based earthquake research need not be expensive - heartland chris 09:20:45 - 11/7/2010 (77749) (1) ● Re: Physics-based earthquake research need not be expensive - Skywise 13:29:36 - 11/7/2010 (77751) (0) |
|