|
Re: Let's get back to earthquakes |
I'm with you -- let's get back to earthquakes. The high melodrama, perceived injustices and blowing things out of proportion -- by one person -- are staggering beyond belief. As for your analysis, I don't understand why you are only counting 9 cases in the 5-day window around the full or new moon. Why not 15 (9+5+1)? Why not 15/23 = 65% instead of 9/23 = 39%? I am not a fan or proponent of Jim Berkland or his methods so I am not speaking in his defense, but why are you only counting the earthquakes that fall outside the 3-day window, but inside the 5-day window? If you are going to count that way, then you should adjust the chance of success formula to ((5-3)*16)/224 = 14%. What am I missing, Roger? Barbara
Follow Ups: ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Roger Hunter 09:12:43 - 6/18/2006 (38446) (3) ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - marc / berkeley 13:59:20 - 6/18/2006 (38466) (1) ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Roger Hunter 14:21:55 - 6/18/2006 (38470) (1) ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - marc / berkeley 14:34:32 - 6/18/2006 (38472) (1) ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Roger Hunter 14:51:27 - 6/18/2006 (38473) (1) ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - marc / berkeley 11:36:33 - 6/19/2006 (38520) (1) ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Roger Hunter 12:31:50 - 6/19/2006 (38524) (0) ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Barbara 10:41:09 - 6/18/2006 (38452) (1) ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Roger Hunter 14:24:14 - 6/18/2006 (38471) (0) ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Russell 10:20:24 - 6/18/2006 (38450) (1) ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Roger Hunter 10:39:44 - 6/18/2006 (38451) (1) ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Russell 11:04:55 - 6/18/2006 (38455) (0) |
|