Earthquake Forecasting Program July 11, 2005

[Hank Oredson]

"edgrsprj" <edgrsprj at ix.netcom.com> wrote in message 
news:pmXAe.9096$aY6.3897 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Hank Oredson" <horedson at earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7%UAe.4148$BK1.174 at newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "edgrsprj" <edgrsprj at ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:upBAe.1915$oZ.930 at newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> > "edgrsprj" <edgrsprj at ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> > news:D7qAe.21003$eM6.9503 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> >> 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