echidna

Apologies for being otherwise preoccupied for a day or two. Yes, that was because my questions on the last page were obviously with respect to your immediately prior post regarding the Turkey quake.

My fault that I missed that you replied to my Turkey-quake questions with a Kobe-quake reply.

Can we stick with the Turkey quake because it’s substantially more recent, and can you please include a vertical scale on your graph. There doesn’t appear to be a full moon factor in the Turkey event. Are there any such adjustment factors for Turkey ? I don’t understand your reply to my earlier request for an expanded 30 day graph for the Turkey quake (with vertical axis scale of course). Can you produce such a graph ? Apparently you can for the 1995 Kobe quake ?

Of course I realise that these requests mean time for you, but I trust that you should understand that they’re pretty common sense requests to achieve understanding.

For the Turkey quake, can you please list

a) your inputs
b) the presumably 45 angular outputs
c) the 30 day graph with vertical scale

Hopefully that's not too much trouble.

echidna

Volker, can you please post your graph for that period, say a ten day window before and after 2003.08.27. Thanks.

If you haven't based the estimation on such a graph, can you please explain your reasoning. Cheers.

echidna

Again from the Turkey quake, I’m failing to understand the significance of these angles you’re posting. You post only 13 of 45 angles. I take it that your highlighting of 0, 30, 45, 60, 90 isn't meaningful ? If the 5 degree window isn’t relevant, then what is the relevance of these selected 13 angles. Statistically there is nothing at all special or significant about them per se.

Volker.Doormann

Its OK, echidna.
Echidna,

I do study this relations more than 12 years now. It is not as simple as the relations of voltage, current and resistance in a material having a lot of electrons. It is naiv to think, that planetary angle distances and earthquake's have a relation as assumed for the law of Mr. Ohm (ignoring, that in cases of lack of electrons his law fails because of nonlinearity).

I could tell you some volumes of books about this phenomen and it's character. It is simple inadequate to lecture here on this object, in this kind of inquiring. You are informed about the significant relations of verifiable data, and it should be a good scientific practice to verify the data in question. It is not important, what I tell you, because you cannot know about the correctness of any of it.

I have closed this discussion on how and if, and it is senseless to continuo this.

They are only listed for the records as proof of fulfilling the conditions to create high index values. If there would be 45 angles all of exclusive 40° distances, this would be result in the algorithm in very low index values.

I think, it is more helpful give you some thoughts on the background of this area.

If you make an analysis on harmonic modes of some elastic material, the deformation is always an integer number of such modes. It is well known from the sun, that such modes of integer number oscillating the hole sun. Because of an interaction of gravitational waves created by moved mass from this, it cannot be excluded, that such interactions are impossible to the celestial bodies, and moreover, that such interactions are sensitive to the geometry of the bodies.

On February 23rd 1956, in the beginning of the sun spot cycle, which has reached in October 1957 a maximum number of 250, there was the greatest ever recorded class 4 flare on the sun at 03:33 UT. To this time some planets has had heliocentric angle distances matching to some of the here discussed ones.

23.2.1956 03:33:00 UTC
Planet ecl. long.
Mercury 20 sc 57'19.5866"
Mars 20 sc 9'51.1322"
Jupiter 27 le 4' 3.7459"
Saturn 26 sc 49'58.4526"
Uranus 0 le 41'54.4496"
Neptune 28 li 43'10"
Pluto 27 le 24' 4.3791"

The angle distance of Jupiter and Pluto was 0.33° ('0°'), both of them have angle distances 90° +- 0.2° - 0.5° ('90°') to Saturn. The angle distance of Mercury and Mars was 0.07° ('0°'), Uranunus/Neptun was 90° - 1.98° ('90°') and have distance of 30° angles.



In this graphic using polar coordinates these configuration is shown. The radius is related to the distance Sun/planet in AU log scaled (+Sun's equator). Assuming a 'mode 12' one can find a matching of planetary positions and the maximum of a 12 mode function. The sun rotates on an axis pitched 7.25° to the ecliptic, and as it is known from Jack Eddy sun spots do not occur, if some planets have harmonic angle distances to the suns equator (for example in the 'Maunder Minimum' 1645 to 1715 CE) (I have seen yet that the position of the earth in the above graph is wrong).

This coincidence of the geometry and celestial 'noise' on the sun and on earth can be found in many of planetary constellations while great earthquakes. From this it is not the question, whether there is a connection, but of what quality is the connection.

The physics of moving plates is well known to the scientists, but there is absolute no knowledge about the physics of the causes of triggering the stress forces at specified times.

If there is triggered a quake from the stress forces, then there is much knowledge about later chain effect etc., which make additional noise, and this noise must not be correlated to a initial trigger process. This means, that one must distinguish accurate initial trigger processes from later chain processes. From this thoughts it is obvious, that a linearity of all earthquakes and a planetary constellation is an illusion.

I have given some hints about this nonlinear correlation, and it is easy to show (much stuff on data) on many events of great earthquakes, that there is a significant geometry involved.

A word to the algorithm. There is to my knowledge no indicia about the mass of the celestial bodies, and about the real relations of the different angles. It seems, that some 60° geometry has a meaning as well as some 45° geometry. The listed algorithm is ignorant of all this possible depending functions, and runs idiotic it's angle distances without any weighting at all.

It is obvious, that each planetary constellation is unique. It is not repeatable. From this no one can do statistic on this. Nevertheless shows the algorithm, that the evident angle distances while big quakes, are able to output a significant index.

The history of this is, that I have studied the valid characteristics (angle distances and geometric configuration at the location of big quakes in history), and have implemented this characteristics in this algorithm. And as two different independent outputs of a month using the very same algorithm are showing, there is a coincidence of peak and event in time very precisely. No one here was interested, able and willing to verify on this.

It is clear to me, that no one of any skeptic is impressed by this thoughts. Nevermind. I only have written this as information of the background of this matter as my understanding it is in imperfection, and any one can make his own philosophy on it.

Sometimes I think, that anyone is verifying the given time of full moon while the Kobe quake, and is saying: 'Hey Volker, I did make a search on the exact time of full moon in January 1995, and it differ only 20 minutes form the quake. So it is true, that the angle distance of sun and moon is very precisely to 180.0°.'. But this has never happened. Silence. Not one concession. Not one. In an area of math.

Volker

Volker.Doormann

I have seen the news. I'm feeling sympathy with all the people having serious trouble from that collaps - and I'm feeling with the people in Greece having an EQ today Mw 6.2 . Volker

echidna

Volker, I take it you are using that as an example of your prediction. Are you aware that annually there are 18 quakes between 7.0 & 7.9 ? That’s one every three weeks, and the frequency increases of course as one goes down the magnitude scale. Now, going back, you indicated that earthquake likelihood peaked 28/07/03, with stress building from mid-August.

Volker, are you aware how many earthquakes occur daily ? These are simple things to check for and to predict a likelihood for earthquakes to occur over even a two week period is exactly as spectacular as managing to predict that the run will rise over that same period.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0103045936.htm How does your astrological prediction differ from what high school probability already tells us ? You need to be a whole lot more specific to claim the Greece quake.

Volker.Doormann

I have written:

"BTW. Around the date of 2003.08.27 there are some geometric
planetary geocentric configurations relating to energeticful crash's and earthquakes. "

"It is true, that the stress starts in mid of August, but it seems, that this is enhanced +- 2 days to the 'due date' "

"I have given him this hint, because it seems, that some special geometric configurations of the sky objects of the solar system, have coincidences with such events. This is based on some known significant correlation's to me, one can verify by science methods."

This means, that I do claim a natural relation. I have spoken from mid August and an energeticful crash + EQ, because that, what you ignore: planetary angle distances. You have ignored, that there was a crash of the energy in NY on the 15th of August in 2003.

If you can serve an adequte statistical evaluation on this, what you ignore permanently, we can talk on that.

Volker

echidna

Volker, was there an answer to my post somewhere in that ?

There are millions of earthquakes each year. How is predicting that there will be an earthquake over a two week period, at all significant ?

Above what magnitude do you consider to be astrologically significant ?

(BTW, I'm afraid I'll be away for the weekend so I won't be able to check this thread until Monday. Cheers.)

Secular Pinoy

Hey, Volker's not ignoring you anymore echidna! Congrats, or condolence.

Doctor X

What disappoints me the most has been learning that Volker is a Coward

An honorable poster would debate and not simply ignore anyone who contradicts him.

Maybe he does not need One Million Dollars. . . .

--J.D.