good correlation?
Posted by John Vidale on March 06, 2003 at 19:08:01:

EQF

Why not make some predictions and show they work?

That is much easier (if your predictions do work) than the machinations you attempting.

I know I am repeating myself, but STRESSES in the rock are related to earthquakes more directly than acceleration and impulse. And stresses are a SOLVED PROBLEM. And OCEAN RESPONSE is important, which cannot be ignored.

Maybe I need to use all capitals.

John

Follow Ups:
     ● Re: good correlation? - EQF  12:54:37 - 3/7/2003  (18207)  (1)
        ● Re: Research Results - Earthquakes Not Influenced By Tides - John Vidale  14:20:41 - 3/7/2003  (18210)  (1)
           ● Re: Research Results - Earthquakes Not Influenced By Tides - EQF  18:55:02 - 3/7/2003  (18213)  (1)
              ● Counting is a prerequisite for demonstrating - John Vidale  19:24:36 - 3/7/2003  (18216)  (1)
                 ● An earthquake triggering “expert” paradox - EQF  23:04:23 - 3/8/2003  (18231)  (0)
     ● Re: good correlation? - Don in Hollister  20:00:23 - 3/6/2003  (18203)  (2)
        ● Re: good correlation? - EQF  12:54:47 - 3/7/2003  (18208)  (1)
           ● Re: good correlation? - Don in Hollister  22:43:33 - 3/7/2003  (18220)  (1)
              ● Re: good correlation? - EQF  22:17:46 - 3/8/2003  (18230)  (1)
                 ● Triggers - Roger Hunter  14:57:52 - 3/11/2003  (18252)  (0)
        ● sounds right - John Vidale  20:40:50 - 3/6/2003  (18204)  (1)
           ● Re: sounds right - Petra Challus  23:41:30 - 3/6/2003  (18205)  (1)
              ● she must have meant on unknown fault - John Vidale  04:30:38 - 3/7/2003  (18206)  (3)
                 ● Re: she must have meant on unknown fault - chris in suburbia  20:33:25 - 3/7/2003  (18217)  (1)
                    ● offshore faults - John Vidale  07:41:39 - 3/8/2003  (18221)  (1)
                       ● Re: offshore faults - chris in suburbia  12:11:32 - 3/8/2003  (18225)  (1)
                          ● tsunami evidence - John Vidale  12:31:55 - 3/8/2003  (18226)  (2)
                             ● Re: tsunami evidence - chris in suburbia  06:47:56 - 3/9/2003  (18233)  (1)
                                ● thanks for the info - John Vidale  09:00:35 - 3/9/2003  (18234)  (0)
                             ● Re: tsunami evidence - Canie  12:42:57 - 3/8/2003  (18227)  (0)
                 ● not my specialty, but - John Vidale  19:10:46 - 3/7/2003  (18215)  (0)
                 ● Re: she must have meant on unknown fault - Petra Challus  18:14:05 - 3/7/2003  (18211)  (1)
                    ● Re: she must have meant on unknown fault - chris in suburbia  20:40:38 - 3/7/2003  (18218)  (0)