ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
"But if anyone, even an angel from heaven,
were to preach any other gospel than that of
Jesus the Christ, crucified, buried, and
raised from the dead by God the Father,
to deliver us from this present evil world,
let that false preacher be accursed.' (Gal 1:1-4,8-9)
2010 Sep 03: - 7.0 strong quake - New Zealand 2010 Oct 25: - 7.7 strong quake - Indonesia
2011 Mar 11: - 9.0 Megaquake Japan - Axis shift: 4-10 inches.
2011 Sep 15: - 7.3 strong quake Fiji
2012 Mar 20: - 7.6 strong quake Mexico - Axis shift? or prequake?
I'm tending to think now that the Mexico quake is just a precursor, not the real one.
"But if anyone, even an angel from heaven,
were to preach any other gospel than that of
Jesus the Christ, crucified, buried, and
raised from the dead by God the Father,
to deliver us from this present evil world,
let that false preacher be accursed.' (Gal 1:1-4,8-9)
I'd say 8.0 is a good ballpark number, because they are also rare (yearly),
and obviously a different event than weekly or monthly smaller quakes.
They are also of more interest, since they can potentially do much more damage,
with loss of life too.
But plainly, real life is always a bit messier than exact figures, be it magnitudes or dates.
"But if anyone, even an angel from heaven,
were to preach any other gospel than that of
Jesus the Christ, crucified, buried, and
raised from the dead by God the Father,
to deliver us from this present evil world,
let that false preacher be accursed.' (Gal 1:1-4,8-9)
Slogan/motto:
Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way.
Reputation:
March 20th, 2012, 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazaroo
I'd say 8.0 is a good ballpark number, because they are also rare (yearly),
and obviously a different event than weekly or monthly smaller quakes.
They are also of more interest, since they can potentially do much more damage,
with loss of life too.
But plainly, real life is always a bit messier than exact figures, be it magnitudes or dates.
Ok lets work with 8.0 and above.
2000-11-16 Papua New Guinea 8.0 (967 days since last major)
2001-06-23 Peru 8.4 (219 days since last major)
2003-09-25 Japan 8.3 (824 days since last major)
2004-12-23 Macquarie Island 8.1 (455 days since last major)
2004-12-26 Sumatra-Andaman Island 9.1 (3 days since last major)
2005-03-28 Indonesia 8.6 (92 days since last major)
2006-05-03 Tonga 8.0 (401 days since last major)
2006-11-15 Kuril Islands 8.3 (196 days since last major)
2007-01-13 Kuril Islands 8.1 (59 days since last major)
2007-04-01 Solomon Islands 8.1 (78 days since last major)
2007-08-15 Peru 8.0 (136 days since last major)
2007-09-12 Indonesia 8.5 (28 days since last major)
2009-09-29 Samoa Islands 8.1 (748 days since last major)
2010-02-27 Chile 8.8 (151 days since last major)
2011-03-11 Japan 9.0 (377 days since last major)
I took the liberty to calculate the days between events. The pattern we get is
2000-11-16 Papua New Guinea 8.0 (967 days since last major)
2001-06-23 Peru 8.4 (219 days since last major)
2003-09-25 Japan 8.3 (824 days since last major)
2004-12-23 Macquarie Island 8.1 (455 days since last major)
2004-12-26 Sumatra-Andaman Island 9.1 (3 days since last major)
2005-03-28 Indonesia 8.6 (92 days since last major)
2006-05-03 Tonga 8.0 (401 days since last major)
2006-11-15 Kuril Islands 8.3 (196 days since last major)
2007-01-13 Kuril Islands 8.1 (59 days since last major)
2007-04-01 Solomon Islands 8.1 (78 days since last major)
2007-08-15 Peru 8.0 (136 days since last major)
2007-09-12 Indonesia 8.5 (28 days since last major)
2009-09-29 Samoa Islands 8.1 (748 days since last major)
2010-02-27 Chile 8.8 (151 days since last major)
2011-03-11 Japan 9.0 (377 days since last major)
I took the liberty to calculate the days between events. The pattern we get is
You seem to display a complete lack of any intuitive method or even idea about patterns.
You need some mathematical training.
For instance, I could generate endless lists of seeming unrelated numbers,
only to show they are the products of elegant equations, and are plainly 'patterns',
in the sense that they are not 'random' series of numbers.
But crude techniques like you've attempted above don't really expose patterns,
they obscure them.
As an example, it is already known that the average frequence of 8.0+ quakes is yearly or bi-yearly,and most of your data above support this "pattern" (or expected frequency.):
So we see both a pattern, and an anomaly: It is the pattern which enables us to discover the exception.
As a scientist, I have no difficulty or hesitation in identifying with confidence both the pattern and the anomaly.
Since there seems to be the possibility of a LARGER pattern (starting with 2004),
the first thing I'd do is search for other similar anomalies.
I'd also naturally check other possible causes or sources for the anomaly(ies).
Two things immediately come to mind:
(1) Sunspot cycles (every 11 years).
(2) Major planetary alignments / along with the Moon's position.
I'd be looking for both an explanation for 2004, and also some predictive tool
to guess the next serious round of 'anomaly'.
Your lack of scientific skills and sense has prevented you from considering the obvious.
"But if anyone, even an angel from heaven,
were to preach any other gospel than that of
Jesus the Christ, crucified, buried, and
raised from the dead by God the Father,
to deliver us from this present evil world,
let that false preacher be accursed.' (Gal 1:1-4,8-9)
Slogan/motto:
Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way.
Reputation:
March 20th, 2012, 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazaroo
You seem to display a complete lack of any intuitive method or even idea about patterns.
You need some mathematical training.
I got plenty of training, it is you I'm worried about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazaroo
For instance, I could generate endless lists of seeming unrelated numbers,
only to show they are the products of elegant equations, and are plainly 'patterns',
in the sense that they are not 'random' series of numbers.
But crude techniques like you've attempted above don't really expose patterns,
they obscure them.
You cherry picked data points and used a population of 4 data points to to show a pattern. I've increased the population and included all data points we agreed upon. And you have the nerve to call my technique crude and and obscure. YOU MUST BE KIDDING.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazaroo
As an example, it is already known that the average frequence of 8.0+ quakes is yearly or bi-yearly,and most of your data above support this "pattern" (or expected frequency.):
And now you are changing the exercise. You are correct that there is on an average of 1 8.0+ quake a year, but the time between such mega quakes are random and most certainly not 276 as you claimed and I proved wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazaroo
As a scientist, I have no difficulty or hesitation in identifying with confidence both the pattern and the anomaly.
Slogan/motto:
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
Reputation:
March 21st, 2012, 06:42 AM
Humans are experts at seeing patterns where there are none, especially when on takes the liberty to be selective about the data. When one prediction fails, it is ad hoc time.
"By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." (Luke 1:78-79)
“There is no saint without a past, no sinner without a future.”
Whether or not patterns can be detected or confirmed in the occurances of quakes,
a general increase in earthquake and volcanic activity can be documented:
"But if anyone, even an angel from heaven,
were to preach any other gospel than that of
Jesus the Christ, crucified, buried, and
raised from the dead by God the Father,
to deliver us from this present evil world,
let that false preacher be accursed.' (Gal 1:1-4,8-9)
Whether or not patterns can be detected or confirmed in the occurances of quakes,
a general increase in earthquake and volcanic activity can be documented:
"Simply looking at historical records of earthquakes doesn't prove anything, because they count the number of earthquakes we detect. As we build better sensors, and put more sensors around the world, we detect more earthquakes, but that doesn't mean that more are happening."
"As more and more seismographs are installed in the world, more earthquakes can be and have been located. However, the number of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater) has stayed relatively constant."
The website of the Pacific Disaster Center states:
"There is no evidence that earthquakes are becoming more frequent, it is simply that more earthquakes are being recorded, especially small ones, as extensive world-wide monitoring networks continue to expand."
The USGS website states:
"According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 17 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year."
"According to the US Geological Survey, the number of large earthquakes has been roughly the same for a long time and shows no sign of increasing."
"Simply looking at historical records of earthquakes doesn't prove anything, because they count the number of earthquakes we detect. As we build better sensors, and put more sensors around the world, we detect more earthquakes, but that doesn't mean that more are happening."
As someone actually involved in the development of transistors in the 60s,
I happen to know personally that this claim is pure B.S.
Not a single earthquake greater than 4.0 has gone undetected since 1970.
This I can guarantee. Our seismic monitoring stations have been able detect tremors as low as 2.0 worldwide for decades. There is no area on land that is not extensively covered by detection devices, and large budgets have been spent on this research at every major university since the 60s.
"As more and more seismographs are installed in the world, more earthquakes can be and have been located. However, the number of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater) has stayed relatively constant."
More carefully crafted propaganda (B.S.) from the self-appointed 'panic-controllers'.
Note the careful wording at the end:
"...the number of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and greater) has stayed relatively constant."
This carefully sidesteps the fact that the bulk of earthquakes, which are between 2.0 and 6.0, have increased dramatically, as the chart shows.
Mining for large (4.0 and greater) earthquakes is not like mining for gold or diamonds. They simply cannot be hidden. Any nonsensical claims about "discovering more" with more sensitive equipment is a red-herring and diversion away from the real problem.
The website of the Pacific Disaster Center states:
"There is no evidence that earthquakes are becoming more frequent, it is simply that more earthquakes are being recorded, especially small ones, as extensive world-wide monitoring networks continue to expand."
More reassuring crap from a propaganda network.
Monitoring networks are not "continuing to expand" in any significant way. We have plenty.
Quote:
The USGS website states:
"According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 17 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year."
"According to the US Geological Survey, the number of large earthquakes has been roughly the same for a long time and shows no sign of increasing."
Finally, the more credible source (the only one you've quoted so far) of the cleverly worded statements.
They are discussing only 7.0 and greater quakes, and they are discussing a period of over 100 years!
Think about it!
If records are reasonably reliable extending back 100 years,
then there is certainly nothing inaccurate about my chart only spanning 1973 and forward!
If we were so inaccurate at detecting quakes for the last 30 years, what about the last 100?
But the original source is quite reasonable and accurate:
They are only making claims about quakes larger than 7.0, which are quite noticable,
and very unlikely to go undetected even without sophisticated devices. The USGS doesn't make phoney claims about other earthquake frequencies of lesser magnitude.
In fact, most scientists willingly acknowledge a significant increase
in earthquake activity of the more common kind (2.0 to 7.0 magnitude).
Anyone who denies this, also denies both the data and the reliability
of all current measurements and active observational nets.
Bottom line: There ARE more earthquakes happening,
and the trend shows no signs of decreasing.
The prognosis is even more mid-size quakes (2.0 to 6.9 magnitude).
The increase shown in so short a span of time (30 years) ought to make any thinking person pause.
Effects have causes.
"But if anyone, even an angel from heaven,
were to preach any other gospel than that of
Jesus the Christ, crucified, buried, and
raised from the dead by God the Father,
to deliver us from this present evil world,
let that false preacher be accursed.' (Gal 1:1-4,8-9)
Location: A spacious corner office overlooking the River Phlegethon
Rep Power: 50221
Atheist
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"Do what thou wilt" shall be the hole in the floor.
Reputation:
March 22nd, 2012, 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nazaroo
Bottom line: There ARE more earthquakes happening, [/b][/color]
and the trend shows no signs of decreasing.
The prognosis is even more mid-size quakes (2.0 to 6.9 magnitude).
The increase shown in so short a span of time (30 years) ought to make any thinking person pause.
Effects have causes.
Perhaps the Titan Typhon is finally breaking free of his underground prison...
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization."
Slogan/motto:
I know a lot of fancy dancers
People who can glide you on a floor
They move so smooth but have no answers
When you ask "Why'd you come here for?"
~ Cat Stevens
Reputation:
March 22nd, 2012, 02:08 PM
"Well, todays the day," as J. F. Rutherford would say.
Linear Mode
