|
Science Forum Index » Geology - Earthquakes Forum » I Just Predicted Another Quake
Page 1 of 5 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Steve |
 Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
This is getting old.
I just nailed a 3.3 quake today. A perrrrfect prediction. Anything
much greater would have pushed the plot OVER the forecasted maxium
thus violating the forecast.
Check it out:
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/threee/earthquakes/ca.bmp
Good luck,
Steve
PS My open challenge to anyone who thinks they can predict quakes
better than me still stands. Please anyone out there come on! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Weatherlawyer |
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 8, 10:25 pm, "Steve" <philhend...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: This is getting old.
I just nailed a 3.3 quake today. A perrrrfect prediction. Anything
much greater would have pushed the plot OVER the forecasted maxium
thus violating the forecast.
Check it out:http://www.angelfire.com/planet/threee/earthquakes/ca.bmp
Good luck,
Steve
PS My open challenge to anyone who thinks they can predict quakes
better than me still stands. Please anyone out there come on!
What browser are you using? AOL's version of IE 6?
Firefox won't open it except as a very murky rag. AOL opens it in XP's
Paint. Granted it is legible in that. I'd get yourself a decent web
site if I were you. Or radically change the format. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve |
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 8, 2:37 pm, "Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: What browser are you using? AOL's version of IE 6?
Most recent IE not an AOL version.
Firefox won't open it except as a very murky rag. AOL opens it in XP's
Paint. Granted it is legible in that. I'd get yourself a decent web
site if I were you. Or radically change the format.
It's a giant MPG. That could be the problem. Website is irrelevant.
Format is near perfect, as good as possible.
The problem with JPGs are they create lossy files and I need the
template in near prestine form.
If Paint works, use it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve |
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
When I click on the link, up comes WINDOWS PIC & FAX VIEWER which is
fine. I'm guessing most windows users experience the same thing. I
wish it had a zoom feature tho. Bill Gates get with it.
Good luck,
Steve |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| rick++ |
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I dont see a ful prediction.
I assume the time window is one day.
There is no bounds on the area.
The minimum magnitude is 3.3.
About four of these occur each day in southern CA. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bob Eld |
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"rick++" <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170982135.942155.211740@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
I dont see a ful prediction.
I assume the time window is one day.
There is no bounds on the area.
The minimum magnitude is 3.3.
About four of these occur each day in southern CA.
Yeah, 3.3...they're common as hell. Predicting a 3.3 is like predicting that
the sun is going to come up. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
|
Quote: I dont see a ful prediction.
Someone can make a half prediction?
Quote: I assume the time window is one day.
Bars are in hours.
Quote: There is no bounds on the area.
What ?! Absolutely! Very very tight bounds. Within hours. In fact, the
tightest bounds in the history of mankind. In fact, if I had minute
and second seismic data, I could easily narrow the zone to minutes and
even seconds. About the only thing I have to worry about is whether or
not my projection is accurate. That's the key. Once I have it right,
it's elementary to pick off larger quakes. But I'm not bragging,
anyone can do this with minimal skill. I'm just the first.
Quote: The minimum magnitude is 3.3.
What? The largest hourly average is about 2.0 mag. 3.3 average is
unheard of anywhere in the world.
Quote: About four of these occur each day in southern CA.
Yeah, 3.3...they're common as hell. Predicting a 3.3 is like predicting that
the sun is going to come up.
Maybe back when the earth cooled, a 3.3 quake was common every hour.
3.3 or bigger occurs less than 1% of the time. Does 1% = 100% .. ie
your sun analogy ?
As far as size goes, magnitude has zero to do with timing a quake. A
person is just as accurate calling a 3.3 mag quake hourly as a person
predicting a 6.0 using yearly data.
Obviously you guys have a lot to learn in the seismic field. But hey I
was at your level waaay back when too.
And I'll keep educating you right here for your convenience.
Thanks for the views. Spread the word of my work.
Good luck,
Steve |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:56 pm |
|
|
|
|
In article <qDPyh.3705$4H1.1492@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>,
Bob Eld <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: Yeah, 3.3...they're common as hell. Predicting a 3.3 is like predicting that
the sun is going to come up.
And he missed the 4.3. Amazing. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Skywise |
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Steve" <philhendrie@aol.com> wrote in news:1170973533.784550.201790
@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:
Quote: PS My open challenge to anyone who thinks they can predict quakes
better than me still stands. Please anyone out there come on!
You lost before you even got started.
List Generated: 2007/ 2/ 9 7: 4:19.468
NEIC data: 2007/ 2/ 9 6:39:12.000
Magnitude range: 4.00 - 10.00
Distance range: 0 - 1000 kilometers
Predictions: 5126 (total number of predictions made so far)
Prediction Hits: 3490 (number of predictions with at least one hit)
Total candidates: 17469 (total number of quakes within the magnitude
range)
Total hits: 16100 (number of candidate quakes within range of a
prediction)
Candidates missed: 1369 (number of candidate quakes missed)
Hit/Candidate Ratio: 92.163%
Hit/Prediction Ratio: 68.084% (predictions with hits vs total predictions)
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? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve |
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Lying Bob wrote:
Quote: And he missed the 4.3. Amazing.
Really. Look again Sherlock and you'll see that I indeed catch the 4.3
quake too.
In fact, it hit right in the DEEP RED zone. Touche.
Bob either you need glasses or need someone to show you how to read
the simplest of charts .. or was this just one of your blatent lies?
Steve |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve |
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 8, 7:56 pm, e...@no.spam () wrote:
Quote: And he missed the 4.3. Amazing.
Really. Look again Sherlock and you'll discover that I nailed the 4.3
quake bang on! It hit right smack in the DEEP RED zone. Hello!
Find someone on the planet able to nail two quakes within a 24 hour
period. You're looking one and the only.
Bob either you need glasses or need someone to show you how to read
the simplest of charts. These are HOUR bars as labeled in the BMP.
Steve
PS
And honestly, do you mean to tell me that you find it amazing for
someone to miss a quake here and there ?? What drugs are you taking?
Sane people would find it amazing if someone were able to be 50%
accurate even 20% accurate. He would be more famous than Nostradumbass
who has about a 10% accuracy rate or less. I've yet to see anyone pull
off even 20% accuracy .. other than myself of course. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve |
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 8, 7:56 pm, e...@no.spam () wrote:
Quote: And he missed the 4.3. Amazing.
Really. Look again Sherlock and you'll discover that I nailed the 4.3
quake bang on! It hit right smack in the DEEP RED zone. Hello!
Find someone on the planet able to nail two quakes within a 24 hour
period. You're looking one and the only.
Either you need glasses or need someone to show you how to read the
simplest of charts. These are HOUR bars as labeled in the BMP.
Steve
PS
And honestly, do you mean to tell me that you find it amazing for
someone to miss a quake here and there ?? What drugs are you taking?
Sane people would find it amazing if someone were able to be 50%
accurate even 20% accurate. He would be more famous than Nostradumbass
who has about a 10% accuracy rate or less. I've yet to see anyone pull
off even 20% accuracy .. other than myself of course. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve |
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 8, 11:04 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
Quote: You lost before you even got started.
Brian
LOL Brian's trying to tempt me, ok I'll bite, I'm desperate for
challengers anyway, I'll spot you ten points, let me know when you
want to start. First one to 100 wins.
The rules are simple. Three points for every quake nailed within six
bars otherwise 1 point is subtracted. You can chose any place in the
world you want with and with any time frame, but for your sake chose a
tight (hourly) time frame. Here's the key thing, the incident rate
over the last 500 bars must be BELOW 2%.
So for instance if you forecast California, you cannot make
predictions on quakes with magnitudes under 3.
And there's no cheating by looking at my charts.
Let me know if you up to the challenge.
Good luck,
Steve |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| rick++ |
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Starting to sound the cloud prediction guy whose
windows are so large that he always claims 100%
success.
A testable prediction window must have a space bounds,
and time bounds, and minimum magnitude.
The first test of prediction is to beat backround chance,
which is rather rare for a damaging quake.
SCEC publishes daily danger maps on the web
where the background chance of a serious quake
on a given day is about 0.01%. But foreshocks
can increase that.
The second test of prediction is the significance number
statically computed by combining the results of multiple
predictions and missed quakes. This isnt done that often
because there are only four people I know of consistantly
publishing testable predictions.
The test is psychological significance as defined by the national
disastor experience. If a predicted disaster doesnt have a 20%
chance of occuring, e.g. a tornato prediction, people will
ignore it. This is very hard to do in quakes, since little progress
has been mde beating the 0.01% level. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve |
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 9, 6:02 am, "rick++" <rick...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Starting to sound the cloud prediction guy whose
windows are so large that he always claims 100%
success.
Explain to the world how hour-wide windows is wide. A Russian
scientist who was even given tv time said there was a 50% chance of a
5.5 mag quake would shake southern california in 1999. If my hour time
frame is wide, what would a year time frame be?
Quote:
A testable prediction window must have a space bounds,
and time bounds, and minimum magnitude.
Did you even open the BMP to clear see all the above? Obviously not
because no one is this dumb not to understand the simplest of charts.
Quote: The first test of prediction is to beat backround chance,
which is rather rare for a damaging quake.
Decipher.
Quote:
SCEC publishes daily danger maps on the web
where the background chance of a serious quake
on a given day is about 0.01%. But foreshocks
can increase that.
Depends on the time frame used. You are showing how truly clueless you
are.
Quote:
The second test of prediction is the significance number
statically computed by combining the results of multiple
predictions and missed quakes. This isnt done that often
because there are only four people I know of consistantly
publishing testable predictions.
Second test? How about there's only one test, it's called a track
record.
Quote:
The test is psychological significance as defined by the national
disastor experience. If a predicted disaster doesnt have a 20%
chance of occuring, e.g. a tornato prediction, people will
ignore it. This is very hard to do in quakes, since little progress
has been mde beating the 0.01% level.
Again you make no sense. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
