EQF;

> Once again you are talking about something different than the subject matter that is being discussed.

No I'm not.

> There wasn’t anything in that earthquake triggering section of my posting about forecasting earthquakes.

You're talking about triggers. I'm pointing out whether the gun is loaded.

> That particular type of work would be done after an earthquake occurs.

> The goal would be to put together a comprehensive picture regarding how earthquakes are being triggered in various fault zones around the world. And eventually, that information should be quite valuable to people who are attempting to forecast earthquakes including myself. My own forecasting program uses the same set of equations largely for every earthquake and every fault zone. The equations need to be more specialized.

Triggering is relatively inconsequential. The quake will happen when it is ready, trigger or not. And the trigger will not work until then. A gun will not fire until it's loaded no matter how often you pull the trigger.

> For example, it might be discovered that in general, triggering forces for earthquakes in fault zones that are pressing against one another, with one of them slipping beneath the other, are dramatically different than the triggering forces for earthquakes in fault zones that are attempting to slip sideways past one another.

We already know that. But the difference is very small and only works if the fault is ready to go anyway.

> Right now, no one that I am aware of knows if that might or might not be the case. Researchers including me have simply not run the necessary tests with the necessary type of detail. And, most researchers would not be able to do that anyway because they are still not recognizing certain facts about how earthquakes are being triggered that have been discussed in detail for years at my Web sites.

On the contrary; John Vidale has demonstrated the lunar trigger for low angle thrust faults. It's very small and happens at low tide so you've been promoting the wrong theory all these years.

> Use the wrong equations and you get no meaningful results. Or, garbage in, garbage out!

Very true.

Roger