"edgrsprj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Hank Oredson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> "edgrsprj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > "edgrsprj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> PROPOSED EARTHQUAKE FORECASTING >> >> COMPUTER PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT EFFORT > >> What observational data are used? >> What are the sources of that observational data? >> How are those sources accessed? >> Is there a database to hold historical plus current data? >> If so, is it centralized or distributed? >> >> The project might be of interest if the data sources are >> rich enough, complete enough, and current enough. >> > > July 12, 2005 > > Thanks for the response and questions. > > The following are my personal opinions on this. > > Briefly, the amount of data available for this type of effort is > virtually limitless. And more of those data than most people could even > deal with can be obtained for free.
I guess my question was not specific enough. What I wanted was the exact sources, so I could access the data. The exact data sets you used. > You don't have to build a new laboratory filled with expensive equipment. > > A reasonably powerful computer, > Access to the Internet, > At least some knowledge of science > Some computer programming ability > And a little imagination I'm a retired physicist with a great deal of experience in data transformation, verification and analysis. Also plenty of computers. Fast internet connection. > Are all that are required. I have all those things. > Researchers have been attempting to do this type of work for > probably > as far back as we have historical records. The reason that previous > efforts > that I am aware of have not been successful is because two key discoveries > needed to be made. They are referred to on my 90-05.html Web page as the > "Gravity Point" and "Earthquake Triggering Symmetry." Now that those > discoveries have been made the door should be open to tremendously rapid > advances in our understanding of how and why earthquakes occur and how to > forecast them. References please, I found some simple description, but no mathematics or references to the data sets used or the equations you used to do your analysis. Point me to that stuff. > Much of this research could be easily done by computer programmers. > You don't need to be a geophysicist. If the data you are generating look > statistically significant then they are probably important whether or not > you actually understand the geophysical theories behind them. No problem understanding the physics (geo or otherwise). No problem writing software to do the analyses. Might even be fun. > To actually forecast earthquakes using the procedure I have > developed > you need both warning signal data and earthquake data along with some > ocean > tide and Solid Earth Tide data. But one of the really great parts of this > particular research project is the fact that many of the basic discoveries > can be made by simply comparing earthquakes with one another. You don't > need any warning signal data at all. And there is certainly no shortage > of > earthquake data! Yes, I understand all that. Where are the data sets? Where is the description of the "procedure"? URLs would be nice, journal article references are ok. > At my Web site there is a discussion of a concept called "Earthquake > Pairs." They are two or more earthquakes which were apparently triggered > in > the same manner. My data indicate that the two highly destructive 1998 > earthquakes in Afghanistan would represent an Earthquake Pair. And the > two > highly destructive 1999 earthquakes in Turkey would represent another > pair. > Important discoveries can be made by determining what the similarities are > between the two or more earthquakes in an Earthquake Pair and how they > differ from other earthquakes. And since the group of earthquake warning > signals that I am presently working with is being controlled by the same > forces that are responsible for earthquake triggering, significant > discoveries regarding earthquake triggering processes could be immediately > applied to forecasting efforts. I would rather do my own data analysis, but for me to do that there must be published data sets, that I can use. Doing the various coorelations, power spectra, convolutions is easy. So what is needed is the data sets, and the specific things you think make prediction possible. Then I can test those things, along with others that I might find interesting. > One of the reasons that geologists have not yet taken an interest in > this particular effort could be because it is heavily reliant on celestial > mechanics. And most geology researchers appear to me to prefer to focus > on > measuring forces within the ground. I presently suspect that astronomers > would be a more likely group to take an interest in this science at first. > And I am planning to contact some of them about that. So point me to the equations then. Doing some analysis sounds like fun. Celestial mechanics is no problem, easy stuff. There is a copy of Bowditch on the shelf over there. I know a good astrologer. Also several astronomers. But which exact data sets did you use? -- ... Hank http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
