Arken

Oh really?

I said:

And then you said:

In response.

That is calling me a liar.

Volker.Doormann

Please note the thread 'statements' in the ~elswere~ forum on personals.

Arken

No. If you can't admit your insult, I see no reason to discuss it with you.

Volker.Doormann

It seems, that some people don't can believe, that I can calculate planetary positions in the future, which have a relevance to earthquakes.
If I understand this correctly, then you fail to acknowledge, that planetary positions in the future are well known from astronomical algorithm, and that you fail to acknowledge, that the 'earth quake index' is significant. Yes, mostly correct. But I know people, who can perceive a possible relation of planetary angles and earthquakes without to link this to astrology. For example one can acknowledge a relation of the position of the sun to the local seasons. But - important - in your above logic you ignore the significant high number of angle distances. The number of such 'earthquake relevant angle distance while the Mw7.4 quake last May in Bingol, Turkey, on 2003.05.01 00:27 UTC, was 14,
===============================================
Sun 10°14' ta - Jupiter 9°10' le = 88°56' = 90° - 1°04'
Mars 5°23' aq - Moon 4°55' ta = 89°32' = 90° - 0°28'
Sun 10°14' ta - Venus 11°18' = 28°56' = 30° - 1°04'
Sun 10°14' ta - Moon 4°55' ta = 5°19' = 0° + 5°19'
Jupiter 9°10' le - Mars 5°23' aq = 176°23' = 180° - 3°37'
Jupiter 9°10' le - Neptun 13° 07' aq= 176° 03' = 180° - 3°56'
Moon 4°55' ta - Uranus 2°16' pi = 62°39' = 60° + 2°39'
Sun 10°14' ta - Saturn 26° 1' ge = 45°47' = 45° + 0°47'
Mars 5°23' aq - Pluto 19 34'sa = 45°57' = 45° + 0°57'
Jupiter 9°10' le Saturn 26° 1' ge = 43°09' = 45° - 1°51'
Sun 10°14' ta - Neptun 13°07' aq = 85°07' = 90° - 4°53'
Sun 10°14' ta - Mars 5°23' aq = 94°37' ' = 90° + 4°37
Jupiter 9°10' le - Moon 4°55' ta = 94°15' = 90° + 4°15'
===============================================
and as the upper graph shows, this results in an index value out of the algorithm, which is highest at 00:30 UTC on that day, and is therefore significant. I think this is not a valid analogy. It is a stupid analogy. Your analogy ignores the significance of the relation.

Because of silence I assume there are some crosschecks running.
If so, I'm thankful. If not, who cares. Silence has its own worth.

Volker

echidna

Volker, you have selected 10 celestial objects (8 planets, moon, sun). So at any point in time, these 10 objects form a total of 45 angles between them. Of these 45 possible angles, you have selected 13 which are “significant” to within 5 degrees (I’ll omit the sun-moon angle which is outside this by 19’, but no matter).

But taking a 5 degree window around 0, 30, 45, 60, 90 covers an envelope of 40 degrees out of 90, hardly statistically significant in itself, but maybe that’s not your point.

Based on probability, around 20 of these 45 angles might have appeared equally “significant” (within 5 degrees of 0, 30, 45, 60, 90), but you only list 13. What was the full list of 45 angles formed at the time of that event ? And how did you come to only arrive at this 13 ?

echidna

Two further questions :

Given that your probability index was based on an entire month, can you expand that graph for an entire month to acurately demonstrate that the spike marks a month-long high point.

You still haven't explained why, with the planets' orbits so well understood, this methodology is incapable of predicting future earthquakes instead of explaining past ones. It's an entirely logical expectation.

Volker.Doormann

Out of your argumentation, one can recognize, that you do think in classes of 5° valids. But that thinking is wrong. As you can check in the algorithm, there is absolutly no 5° class sorting.
But you can see from the algorithm, that a high precision and many of them enhance the index. From this it is properly a peak function or somthing like this, which is the nature of this.

The high index while the event of Kobe, Japan results also from the fact, that for example the time of full moon (sun 180° moon) was 20 minutes in time (!) next to the event. Two of the planetary angle distance were then:
Sun-Moon = 91.71°-(-88.126)=179.836° ! ~180°
Uranus-Moon = 91.85°-(-88.126)=179.976° ! ~180°

Your calulations suggest a rectangel function of 5° along all angle distances, but such function is not natural.

echidna

If you’ll bear with me, I’m trying to fathom your methodology. From your earlier post, I was under the impression that the outputs for those angles were … Where did your angles come from ... Actually I wasn’t trying to calculate or suggest anything, just trying to follow.

If I’m on the right track, then your post on the previous page was far from a complete explanation. For instance it didn’t include mention of the relevance of a full moon. What precise influence does that have on the calculations ?

Volker.Doormann

You have cited planetary angle distances of the Turkey quake. You have cited planetary angle distances of the Kobe quake. The two angle distances on the left are measured distances to the local meridian of Kobe, but there are also seven or nine other matching longitudes, so the Kobe longitude cannot not be calculated, as I have written here. A full moon has a relevance, because the geocentric angle distance between the sun and the moon is 180° then, and this is one of the relevant angles in the algorithm, because 4*sqr(cos(180°)) is an integer of 4.

1.) I have argued to your idea of sorting classes of angles.
2.) In this I have said, that the precision of an angle distance results in an index I, which is high.
3.) To explain this on an example, I have given an example to this from the Kobe Quake, Japan, because the index value operates with two angles, which deviate in the case of Sun/Moon 0.146° from 180.0 °, and in the case of Uranus/Moon 0.024° from 180.0°.
4.) Because in the algorithm these two deviations from the reference angel (here: 180.0°) is very small, the division over this ( 1 / y4 ) outputs a high value, from the grade of precision.
5.) This can be understood as an argument, that your statistical idea of 5° classes of angle distances < 5° is a mistaken of that, what in real is computed by the algorithm.
6. If this is understood, then your arguing on 5° classes is irrelevant to this algorithm.

The quake in Kobe, Japan was January 16th 1995 at 20:46:52.1 UTC -

and the algorithm we talk about outputs a maximum for the 16th at 20:45:00 UTC (5 minutes steps).

Volker

Volker.Doormann

It seems, that you believe in the existence of black swans only, if one can show you more then 99, because of statistical considerations.

I cannot climb mountains well, but i can other things well. Thats not the point. First we must negotiate on that, what is on the table. I have written to that.

I think it is helpful to argue precise, what is meant.

i.) Here it was (not from me) seriously expected to solve equations of nth grade (n>2), with only one value is known. Stupid. ii.) One must distinguish extrapolations of well known functions (as planetary motions), from other forms of information processing. Calculating planetary positions for future dates is not a 'prediction' it is an extrapolation of knowledge in the past. Same is with astrology. It is simple an extrapolation of the past or from knowledge from the past, using extrapolations of the known astronomical functions. iii.) I do not agree, that it is logical to expect the same knowledge from future processes as one can have from past processes, because of the given arguments about extrapolation. All weather calculations are extrapolations (!), and the results from that extrapolations are not much better, as if you expect the very same weather for the next day, as it the present day is. If you would be right, then this weather people could say some specific weather data to each day in the future month, year, century, because we have data knowledge about all locations and times since 200 years iv.) It is senseless to discuss about prediction, yes or not. I think it is necessary to discuss logical arguments and not fighting a senseless belief war. If one is not interested in possible phenomena, that’s OK, but the truth or the untruth of a phenomena is only to be found by study, not by putting labels on brain ‘The one and only God is Random Randi’ and I am his first Apostel'.

Volker