More amazingly accurate earthquake data
Posted by EQF on July 12, 2004 at 20:46:16:

On my latest Data.html Web page there is an earthquake entry at 15E longitude. And right below that there is one for a mildly destructive earthquake which just occurred in Slovenia at 14E longitude.

http://www.freewebz.com/eq-forecasting/Data.html

Checking my archives for that Web page I see that the 15E entry was there on the first version of that page which I posted to my Web site back on June 28, 2004. My interpretation of that is that some of the EM signals listed on that Web page were probably accurately pointing to that 15E - 14E area as being possibly seismically active since at least back around the middle of June. And earlier today I actually started working on getting an earthquake warning prepared to send to the government of Italy for that 15E longitude area.

In my opinion the data evaluation procedures which I am using are saying the following, among other things:

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.

What my procedures do is say that at the time when the EM signals listed on that Data.html Web page were detected the same sun and moon gravity related strain conditions existed as the ones present when the listed earthquakes occurred. So if their fault zones have once again collected enough strain energy to fracture then those gravity related strain conditions could once again push them over the top. That condition is met for only a relatively few fault zones around the world at any given point in time. And so for most of the fault zones listed in that table there is not enough stored energy for an earthquake to occur.

Governments could easily expand the computer programs that I have developed into ones which would run constantly and show where those high strain conditions existed at every moment in time. Then when earthquake forecasters thought that they detected some type of EM signal or a radon gas release etc. in a particular area they could check to see if the programs indicated that those high strain conditions existed there.

Are governments going to develop that type of computer program which would be extremely inexpensive considering the fact that I have already made the most important discoveries?

Well, what incentive would they have for doing that? They usually move in one direction or another with such projects when a group of their scientists state that it is necessary. At the moment I appear to be about the only scientist telling them to do that. And I really don’t have the free time which would be needed to publish dozens of technical papers on the subject.

Considering the amount of economic damage an unexpected earthquake can produce one would think that governments would be constantly checking to see what types of forecasting advances were being made around the world. However that is apparently not the case. As the saying goes, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” And not enough scientists around the world are insisting that their governments make those types of efforts.


Follow Ups:
     ● A Lot of Latitude - Petra  22:28:46 - 7/13/2004  (21927)  (2)
        ● A lack of gratitude - EQF  23:48:48 - 7/13/2004  (21929)  (1)
           ● Re: A lack of gratitude - Don in Hollister  17:54:12 - 7/14/2004  (21936)  (1)
              ● Successful approach - EQF  23:14:13 - 7/14/2004  (21940)  (2)
                 ● Re: Successful approach, Yep, That's Don - Petra  20:36:15 - 7/15/2004  (21951)  (0)
                 ● Re: Successful approach - Don in Hollister  23:23:06 - 7/14/2004  (21941)  (0)
        ● thanks for the kind words - John Vidale  22:39:59 - 7/13/2004  (21928)  (0)
     ● EM signals detected - EQF  21:01:09 - 7/13/2004  (21919)  (0)
     ● Re: More amazingly accurate earthquake data - Don in Hollister  21:50:25 - 7/12/2004  (21906)  (1)
        ● Re: More amazingly accurate earthquake data - EQF  23:16:04 - 7/12/2004  (21909)  (1)
           ● Re: More amazingly accurate earthquake data - Don in Hollister  01:48:21 - 7/13/2004  (21910)  (2)
              ● 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)