|
EQF, here's the problem |
The situation is this; You, an unknown individual who claims multiple degrees, receive signals of an unknown nature which you believe are caused by earthquake fault activity. These signals are recorded on a device which you will not identify or describe. As a result, you are sending advisories to government agencies, warning them to be on the alert for possible seismic activity in their area. However, you cannot say if, when, or where this may happen. Finally, you attribute the lack of progress in predicting quakes to laziness or ignorance of the scientists in the field. Further, you want these governments to fund research into these signals and the programs you have created to display what you think are quake probabilities. Is that about it? Roger
Follow Ups: ● Re: EQF, here's the problem - PennyB 12:39:49 - 3/15/2011 (78366) (3) ● pseudo-scientists vs. amateur scientists - heartland chris 20:41:59 - 3/15/2011 (78369) (1) ● Re: pseudo-scientists vs. amateur scientists - Skywise 22:22:13 - 3/15/2011 (78371) (0) ● Re: EQF, here's the problem - Roger Hunter 18:00:17 - 3/15/2011 (78368) (0) ● well said - heartland chris 15:01:04 - 3/15/2011 (78367) (1) ● Re: well said - PennyB 23:02:26 - 3/15/2011 (78373) (0) ● Re: EQF, here's the problem - EQF 08:33:43 - 3/15/2011 (78356) (1) ● Re: EQF, here's the problem - Roger Hunter 08:48:21 - 3/15/2011 (78357) (0) ● Re: EQF, here's the problem - heartland chris 03:06:02 - 3/15/2011 (78351) (0) |
|