Hi Roger,

As I don't have your e-mail address in the computer I'm using, let me
clarify something for you.

My computer has ALL of my prediction info in it, thus I don't have all
of my predictions avaiilable
to offer any form of a discussion. No computer equals only partial
infomration,..Also my hard copy
is in storage as well. ?Comprende Senior?

BTW, I haven't read the discussion below and I have to say I'm
surprised you are asking the majority
of people who *don't* predict earthquakes for their opinions. Why
don't you ask a scientist or ten and
try to gather some possibly learned opinions?

I've asked Alan and John already but are you of the opinion that no

I've asked Alan and John already but are you of the opinion that no
other scientists read these newsgroups?
Really, I was just thinking out loud, opening the topic for
discussion.

Roger

On Jan 26, 9:36 pm, rog...@lpbroadband.net wrote:

I've asked Alan and John already but are you of the opinion that no
other scientists read these newsgroups? Really, I was just thinking
out loud, opening the topic for discussion.

Well Roger,

I don't know how many scientists read this newgroup, but from what
I've seen most are not willing to declare they are scientists... so I
don't know. But if you are going to gather a learned consensus
perhaps asking scientists who are pro-earthquake prediction might be
a good idea. It seems to me that John is quite anti-prediction thus
not a good person to ask. I don't know Jones well enough to form an
opinion. Why not ask Musson or Wyss as an example. I'm sure you
could find their e-mail addy's.

In article
c6c53c5e-05bf-4c97-8dcf-ace9f2da7...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,



Petra <petras...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 9:36 pm, rog...@lpbroadband.net wrote:

I've asked Alan and John already but are you of the opinion that no
other scientists read these newsgroups? Really, I was just thinking
out loud, opening the topic for discussion.

Well Roger,

I don't know how many scientists read this newgroup, but from what
I've seen most are not willing to declare they are scientists... so I
don't know.  But if you are going to gather a learned consensus
perhaps asking scientists who are pro-earthquake prediction might be
a good idea.   It seems to me that John is quite anti-prediction thus
not a good person to ask.  I don't know Jones well enough to form an
opinion.  Why not ask Musson or Wyss as an example.  I'm sure you
could find their e-mail addy's.

You've just hit the nail on the head if you're looking to understand
why people who actually know science don't take you very seriously.

You are EXACTLY WRONG in saying that you should perhaps "ask scientists
who are pro-earthquake prediction." In order to gather a learned
consensus, you must face the most adversarial of your critics. You must
SEEK OUT the most SKEPTICAL observers. That is the core of science, and
you clearly just don't get it. When scientists are skeptical of your
work, they're not being personally hostile, they're just being true to
the principles of science.

Even beyond the null hypothesis, that we don't yet know how to reliably
predict earthquakes and may or may not ever be able to, there is reason
to speculate that it might be PROVABLY IMPOSSIBLE ever to predict
earthquakes, no matter what technology you ever develop, because of the
elements of mathematical chaos in the system. Take a thin rectangular
slab of spring steel. Hold it vertical, holding from the very bottom
edge. Will the top bow to the left or to the right? It is fundamentally
impossible to predict, no matter how precisely you specify the initial
conditions, because it is an intrinsically highly chaotic system. It's
not that wild an idea to think that earthquakes might be similarly
chaotic, only in far more dimensions.

--
Linc Madison  * San Francisco, Calif. *  News2007b at Linc Mad d0t c0m
Read my political blog, "The Third Path" <http://LincMad.blogspot.com
US, California, and Washington State laws apply to LINCMAD.COM e-mail.

On Jan 26, 9:36Ž pm, rog...@lpbroadband.net wrote:


I've asked Alan and John already but are you of the opinion that no
other scientists read these newsgroups?
Really, I was just thinking out loud, opening the topic for
discussion.

Roger

Well Roger,

I don't know how many scientists read this newgroup, but from what
I've seen most are not willing to declare they are scientists... so I
don't know.

(* Clear meaning time-space-magnitude windows
printed BEFORE the quakes occur.)

Petra <petras...@hotmail.com> writes:
On Jan 26, 9:36Ž pm, rog...@lpbroadband.net wrote:

I've asked Alan and John already but are you of the opinion that no
other scientists read these newsgroups?
Really, I was just thinking out loud, opening the topic for
discussion.

Roger

Well Roger,

I don't know how many scientists read this newgroup, but from what
I've seen most are not willing to declare they are scientists... so I
don't know.

How odd.  I find that it is generally fairly easy to tell the scientists
from the non-scientists based on what they write, and especially on the
sorts of questions they ask and issues that they address.

This does not necessarily mean that they have particular academic
credentials, but rather that they are able to think and approach issues
using the scientific method.  This applies to both professional
scientists and amateur scientists.  The key is to be concerned about the
integrity of the process and methodology.

In fact, a discussion of methods for a proper evaluation is quite a nice
discussion to be having here.  It shows, to me at least, that Roger is
concerned with coming up with an objectively defensible methodology for
evaluation of the statistical significance of the predictions.

Do you have any particular thoughts on that issue?

--
Thomas A. Russ,  USC/Information Sciences Institute

Skywise's remark below about posting predictions on newsgroups I find
inappropriate as well because it brings on the same old haranage which
I was subject to for years.

But please know I will not be ignoring you, but will
be doing something meaningful for a change.... LOL

Petra <petras...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:0c82ed3b-0d08-46b9-8738-
f0e26e303...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

Skywise's remark below about posting predictions on newsgroups I find
inappropriate as well because it brings on the same old haranage which
I was subject to for years.

Can't stand the heat, eh?

OK. So if you're unwilling to post your predictions here, or
anywhere else but your own website, are you willing to post
our evaluations of your predictions there?

But please know I will not be ignoring you, but will
be doing something meaningful for a change.... LOL

OH!!!! The comments I could make, but out of "respect", I shan't.

Brian

It's up to the public or interested readers to read the predictions we
post on our web page and if they don't it's their problem, not ours.

There is no cohesive way to issue predictions on a newsgroup and keep
them and the results posted where they are easy to read

and I do
prefer professional quality above newgroup postings

and our audience
is primarily not the usual news groupposters.

As they say "to each his own" and I have my way of doing things as do
you.

Petra <petras...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ef10925e-4812-40fd-afc7-
6820d7176...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

It's up to the public or interested readers to read the predictions we
post on our web page and if they don't it's their problem, not ours.

True, you can't force a person to read your website. The same can
be said for usenet, too.

There is no cohesive way to issue predictions on a newsgroup and keep
them and the results posted where they are easy to read

Yes there is. Have you tried?

Each prediction is the start of a new thread. Results are posted
as a reply to that prediction. Thus all discussion relevant to
that prediction is all in the same thread.

Or is it the idea that you don't have control over what the
replies are? You've griped in the past about what people say
online, both on usenet and on privately hosted forums, to the
point of seriously suggesting there should be laws written
to control it.

Perhaps you should move to China. There's lots of laws there
regarding use of the internet.

and I do
prefer professional quality above newgroup postings

Did you walk to work or bring your lunch?

and our audience
is primarily not the usual news groupposters.

Then why post here?

As they say "to each his own" and I have my way of doing things as do
you.

If you don't like these newsgroups so much, why are you here?

Brian
--http://www.skywise711.com- Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ:http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions":http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Discussion on newsgroups about some "thing" perhaps is a good thing,
but not over two hundred single predictions. For that I'd be accused
of taking over someone's web site.... LOL

Anyway, I'm now relocated near Berkeley in Albany and I'm delighted to
be in the East Bay so I can get our little instrument installation
underway as well as other projects. I'm sorry you aren't here to
enjoy the launch of this project. This is something I've wanted to do
for four years and at long last, it's a happening thing.

I see Lac Kivu took a leap, so where do you suppose the next really
unusual earthquake event is going to take place? It's not the size
that counts, just the where....