Electromagnetic detection of pre-seismic locations

[Eddie B]

Hello people... I am a new addition to this forum, which may become plainly obvious from the predicted mistakes I will make during my first few posts  .  I should first state that I do not posses any scientific qualifications. But I have been a passionate armature astronomer for the past 13 years, and do retain a "little" scientific knowledge from attending upon several OU modules in past years.

I am here because several years ago, I formulated a correlation hypothesis related to the detection of pre-seismic locations, which in many cases led to determination being made up to 30 days prior to seismic occurrence. I have been testing my hypothesis on several US prediction websites during the last 5 years, with "moderate" success. But due to the complexities involved in formulating a seismic forecast, I have not been able to secure a positive percentage result greater than chance would allow. Each determination using this method is likened to playing noughts and crosses (tic-tac-toe) with sixty squares, and the calculation requires a lot more time than most people are able to commit. 

The basis for my hypothesis relates to interactions between solar / lunar  terminator contacts relative to earth, or another description would be Earth's line of sight limb contact relative to the sun and moon... plainly speaking, I use sunlight to find precursor signals related to earthquakes. I am mindful that this theory goes against current beliefs related to tectonic stress etc, and may also be the reason why I have been unsuccessful in gaining the attention of mainstream science... another reason possibly relates to my opening statement ! 

I shall close at this point and hope I have provided some food for thought. If anybody is intrigued enough by this topic, then by all means please engage... but be mindful that I highlighted "little" in relation to scientific knowledge  .

 

Thank you

E B

 

 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Eddie B said:

Hello people... I am a new addition to this forum, which may become plainly obvious from the predicted mistakes I will make during my first few posts  .  I should first state that I do not posses any scientific qualifications. But I have been a passionate armature astronomer for the past 13 years,

Can I claim kudos for spotting your first such mistake?

 

Welcome anyway.

 

2 hours ago, Eddie B said:

The basis for my hypothesis relates to interactions between solar / lunar  terminator contacts relative to earth, or another description would be Earth's line of sight limb contact relative to the sun and moon... plainly speaking, I use sunlight to find precursor signals related to earthquakes. I am mindful that this theory goes against current beliefs related to tectonic stress etc, and may also be the reason why I have been unsuccessful in gaining the attention of mainstream science... another reason possibly relates to my opening statement ! 

Surely your method simply relates to geometry, not electromagnetism, or is this something to do with you being an armature astronomer?

Please explain.

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Welcome to the forum. I have moved this to the Speculations forum because, as you admit, it is not mainstream science. Please read the specific rules for this section f the forum: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

 

[Bufofrog]

4 hours ago, Eddie B said:

The basis for my hypothesis relates to interactions between solar / lunar  terminator contacts relative to earth, or another description would be Earth's line of sight limb contact relative to the sun and moon... plainly speaking, I use sunlight to find precursor signals related to earthquakes.

I do not follow, surely you do not think sunlight causes earthquakes.  Are you implying that the orientation of the earth, moon and/or Sun cause earthquakes?

[Eddie B]

I believe you have earned double Kudos on this occasion, related to my poor grammar and wrongful categorisation of topic... your discrete humour is appreciated .

 

This hypothesis is reliant on contact between the solar / lunar terminator thresholds being located on  pre-seismic locations at a specific time. In order for this to be achieved, the sun or moon have to be in the right position relative to earth, so yes there is an element of geometry involved... but the key element here is possibly related to physics !

 

If I was to use an honest scientific approach to respond to a possible trigger scenario involving sunlight, I would have to say that this scenario is not beyond the limits of this hypothesis. However at this stage, my topic is focused on detection. To quote an analogy; it would be ill advised of me to show you the UFO parked in my back yard, until I had used other means possible to convince you that they existed in the first place !

 

I believe at this point I should include an example scenario related to recent seismic events. It may give a better interpretation of how the pieces of this hypothesis fit together.

 

For modelling purposes I use several interactive online websites, which allow me to calculate positional data and time periods. The first data set relates to the positions of the sun and moon on 6th April. Between time periods 10:59:35 UTC - 11:04:54 UTC on this day, both the sun and moon resided on latitude 6'26'N (degrees, minutes). I derived this time period from www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth

 

 This daylight world map taken from www.timeanddate.com represents 11:01 UTC 6th April. It is displaying the lateral positions of the sun and moon relative to Earth at the time stated, which is within the alignment period. Focusing attention on the "last light" threshold located in the East Philippines, this threshold is actually located on co-ordinates 125'10E - 11'50'N in the Samar region. The co-ordinates relate to the pre-seismic M 6.4 epicentre which occurred here at 05:38 UTC 23rd April. I derive first / last light time periods from interactive website www.suncalc.net

 

This is the equivalent moonlight world map representing 11:01 UTC 6th April. Focus in this image is the location of moonset on co-ordinates 120'29'E - 14'55'N Luzon, Philippines. These co-ordinates relate to the pre-seismic M 6.1 epicentre, which occurred here 09:11 UTC 22nd April. The image is also showing that it was moonset at this time on co-ordinates 121'41'E - 23'58'N Hualian, Taiwan, which experienced an M 6.1 event 05:01 UTC 18th April at the co-ordinates stated. I derive the sun / moon rise and set times from interactive website www.sunrisesunsetmap.com . This site uses google formatting, and I make location comparisons using the interactive seismic maps provided by www.emsc-csem.org

 

In this scenario, the hypothesis poses the question of weather this lateral positioning of sun and moon, and the subsequent correlations of the thresholds on pre-seismic locations at this time... is coincidental, or a physics related phenomena ?. It also poses the questions, how often does this sun / moon alignment occur at these specific longitudes ?. Is it coincidental that three Magnitude 6+ events would occur within the short time window of when the alignment took place ?. To further answer these questions, the next step is to utilise other online data sources to try and secure credibility for the initial alignment scenario.

  

This is a 6 hour window image of magnetic field data, obtained from www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace-real-time-solar-wind . The date stamp shows that this image was captured on the same day the solar / lunar lateral alignment took place. This is an example of the kind of data I source to formulate a prediction forecast. For the uninitiated, this image is displaying a "significant" aspect change in the magnetic field traces at 20:20 UTC. The Theta, Bz, By traces have increased levels, and the Phi trace has dropped to the floor so to speak.

 

This daylight world map represents 20:20 UTC 6th April. Focus in this image is again on the East Philippines region, and specifically the co-ordinates stated earlier related to the M 6.4 Samar event. The image is depicting that first light occurred at this time, on this pre-seismic epicentre... this can also be verified using suncalc.net . I captured 18 hours of ACE data on this day, and the aspect change in the image above was the only one to occur in this class. So credible data from a satellite also seems to correspond with the alignment scenario !. It is also interesting to note that an M 6.3 event occurred on this day in East Timor on longitude 125'01'E, as stated above the M 6.4 Samar event occurred on longitude 125'10'E !.

 

This hypothesis only works if you make the assumption that unusual signatures and aspect changes in online data (as shown above) relate to  contacts being made by one of the solar / lunar thresholds on a potential seismic anomaly. Over a unspecified  period of time, these signatures can make repeated contacts with the same locations. In this case, I have made an "after the fact" determination that this particular aspect change related to the M 6.4 Samar epicentre. However, without the initial alignment scenario to give some kind of direction to region, the aspect change could also be determined as sunrise in Papua New Guinea and Japan, or  sunset in the Azores and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge region etc. Hence the complexities of trying to play noughts and crosses with sixty squares !

 

I shall finish at this point, and hope I have not crossed the line with any site regulations... my model only works by employing other interactive sources !

 

Thank you

E B

 

[studiot]

Have you heard the phrase correlation is not proof of causation?

How do you eliminate the former from your co-incidence?

[Bufofrog]

20 hours ago, Eddie B said:

I have not been able to secure a positive percentage result greater than chance would allow.

Based on the last post you made I am not surprised.  There does not appear there could or should be any cause and effect between the 2 phenomena

[Strange]

30 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Based on the last post you made I am not surprised.  There does not appear there could or should be any cause and effect between the 2 phenomena

it could be tidal effects, if we are looking at the alignment of the Sun and Moon. There has been research into whether there is any correlation between the tides and earthquakes. Because, one might imagine a fault line that is at a critical level of stress where it just takes a "butterfly's wing" to tip it over the edge. The last thing I read suggested there might be a correlation, but it is very weak effect if it exists at all. Certainly not enough to predict earthquakes.

[Eddie B]

Yes I have heard this phrase, in order to eliminate correlation from coincidence, the hypothesis would have to stand the test of corresponding with repeated scenarios more times than chance or coincidence would allow, related to past or future seismic events. 

 

If I had to evaluate this hypothesis from this "one" example, I too would come to the same conclusion as the responses here !. And yes you are quite right with your statement, because I posted a forecast for Ferndale, Northern California on longitude 124'24'W, based on the fact that this was the longitude location of the sun when the 20:20 UTC aspect change occurred in the ACE data.

As a non scientist, may I also suggest that guidance in these matters is "also" appreciated.

[Eddie B]

Another example...

According to www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth , both the sun and moon resided on latitude 10'04'N for the duration of time periods 08:39:52 UTC - 08:44:43 UTC 16th April. You can appreciate that my calculations are only as accurate as the data afforded me on the individual sites described previously. Some do conflict, so I usually allow myself a 1 minute margin of error.

This daylight world map represents 08:44 UTC 16th April. To save miss-representation, the image is accurate to the time stated, the T & D website will not input the 43 seconds required for true representation... so the map time is within the alignment period. According to www.sunrisesunsetmap.com , it was sunrise on this day on co-ordinates 27'27'W - 56'20'S at 08:45 UTC (17 seconds later). These co-ordinates relate to the pre-seismic M 6.0 epicentre East of Vavodovski Island, South Sandwich Islands, which occurred 14:50 UTC 22nd April. Unlike the last example, this image depicts the sun and moon at nearly opposite sides of the Earth from each other. The only common reference here is that they shared the same latitude during the stated period !

 

Coincidence strike 2 perhaps !!

 

 

[Intrigued]

23 hours ago, Eddie B said:

I have been testing my hypothesis on several US prediction websites during the last 5 years, with "moderate" success. But due to the complexities involved in formulating a seismic forecast, I have not been able to secure a positive percentage result greater than chance would allow.

Hi Eddie, you have clearly devoted a lot of time to this. I appreciate the caution you have exercised in presenting the idea. Kudos for that.

I'm puzzled by the two sentence quote above. You state that you have not achieved any result "greater than chance would allow." That means that your five years of testing have demonstrated that there is no statisitically significant correlation. So on what basis do you say you have achieved "moderate" success?

[studiot]

1) It would be interesting if you have gathered any figures on how many instances (ie the total) of seismic activity that are not temporally related to positions of the Sun or Moon, compared to the totality those which appear to be, both measured over the same time period.

2)

3 hours ago, Eddie B said:

Yes I have heard this phrase, in order to eliminate correlation from coincidence, the hypothesis would have to stand the test of corresponding with repeated scenarios more times than chance or coincidence would allow, related to past or future seismic events. 

Correlation does not imply causation can mean a totally random coincidence or that both events spring from an unnamed third activity or agent.

For example could you third agent be gravity?

Seismic activity is caused by partial release of stress within the crust of the Earth.

Have you heard of Earth Tides?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=D6fEXNWQJN3RgweCyKvYDQ&q=Earth+tides&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Earth+tides&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l6j0i22i30l4.2304.6190..6368...0.0..0.178.966.10j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131j0i3.piUaiT7grro

[Eddie B]

Hello Intrigued... and thank you for the complement .

Current USGS prediction policy used to states that an earthquake prediction is only valid if a magnitude 6+ event occurs within a specific margin of error of your chosen location, within a 7 day period. Positive and negative results are incorporated on a spread sheet with each attempt, and positive results that exceed 40% are deemed to warrant further investigation. Not all sites adhere to this policy, but if you want to gain the attention of the mainstream science community, it is only by following these stipulations that you would have a chance of getting your foot in the door !. As you can see from my Philippines example posted above, if you used the alignment scenario to formulate a prediction for an event to occur in the Philippines, within the allotted 7 day period from when you first calculated the alignment. You would have gained a negative result for your efforts, because the first 6+ event occurred 16 days after alignment. I tried to adhere to this policy for 3 years, and in most cases the same scenario would happen as  explained before. Therefore I was not able to achieve the required percentage rate for validation. For the last two years, I have been predicting on less formal prediction websites, which in some cases allow the submission of 20 day forecasts, as a result my successful percentage rate has increased, but combined with my earlier attempts, I can only claim moderate success. The down side is that these are the kind of sites that focus on the entertainment factor, and therefore draw "very little" attention from the scientific community !

I formulated my hypothesis whilst engaged in radio astronomy projects, it was never my intention to start predicting earthquakes. But trying to promote this theory with scientists back in the day, was met with the same response you would expect as someone reporting a UFO landing in their back yard . I figured my only option was to test this in the public arena... but I cannot make it work in 7 days !

 

 

 

[Eddie B]

Yes Studiot… I have heard of Earth Tides, and I still agree with the stress theory. Like everyone else, I must go with accepted beliefs until an alternative credible theory brings the subject to the fore of science again. I believe there is a third agent, but it is not gravity. It is also something I was not ready to broach upon at this stage of this topic, because I fear premature conclusions with be draw on one example again. However, although I am trying to focus on detection, I shall provide another example that "may or may not" relate to a third agent !

Between time periods 18:23:44 UTC - 18:28:04 UTC 21st March, the sun and moon resided on latitude 0'20'N for the duration of this period. You can see from the stated co-ordinate that this is a very equatorial latitude. Earth tide forces are predominant within these regions because for a significant percentage of the year,  this domain is covered by the sun and moon in lateral motion. Combine this with the fact that the radius of the Earth is wider at the equator than it is at the polar regions... it would be prudent to say gravitational influence would be stronger in these regions.

This daylight world map represents 18:28 UTC 21st March, it relates to the last time point of the solar / lunar alignment stated above. Today is the 27th April as I type this correspondent, which means this alignment is well past the 30 day mark, and has not produced a threshold correlation with any recent 6+ seismic events. One explanation for this is that correlation in this image may relate to higher latitudes or polar regions, which lie at greater distances from the equatorial region, and the process of alignment to manifestation may take longer. I have been logging threshold contacts for the past month on one such location in the Alaskan chain. This location is Attu Island, Near Islands, with reference to the map it is the small Island in the top right corner, which is transited by the sunrise threshold. However, this is still speculation and this scenario could just as easily relate to first light in Bougainville P.N.G. or sunrise in Cook Strait, New Zealand.

This daylight world map represents 14:50 UTC 22nd April. As stated in my second posted example, this map relates to time of occurrence of the M 6.0 South sandwich Islands event. If you factor out gravitational forces related to the sun and moon, could there be a third agent responsible for triggering this event ?

I did compile statistical data for some time, but regrettably disposed of most material after conceding defeat, and joining the entertainment scene rather than continue perusing real science.

 

 

[studiot]

26 minutes ago, Eddie B said:

I did compile statistical data for some time, but regrettably disposed of most material after conceding defeat, and joining the entertainment scene rather than continue perusing real science.

Oh dear.

[Eddie B]

I thank you for your sympathies, but it is really not necessary. I always try to give an honest response to questions, but I guess being too honest can sometimes kill the conversation !. Perhaps we can reconvene after Attu Island, Bougainville or New Zealand make an appearance on the seismic chart .

[studiot]

10 hours ago, Eddie B said:

I thank you for your sympathies, but it is really not necessary. I always try to give an honest response to questions, but I guess being too honest can sometimes kill the conversation !. Perhaps we can reconvene after Attu Island, Bougainville or New Zealand make an appearance on the seismic chart .

It was more than commiseration (another pun if you watch the adverts), there was a serious elemnt to it.

The difference between those predictions that work and those that don't is surely key.

Otherwise you are just seeking examples that fit your speculation, to the exclusion of those that don't.

[Eddie B]

Yes you are quite right, and this is a valid point. I have shown examples of solar / lunar lateral alignments that fit a particular picture, and one example that does not. So in essence, alignment is only credible if all examples correlate to post seismic locations. 

I missed your point because I was getting a little carried away yesterday ( "armatures" do that sometimes ) so any apologies due, and I appreciate your guidance.

[Eddie B]

A little help with clarification please...

This is a minor concern of mine that I mentioned previously, relating to conflicting data between websites. 

This is a "moon light world map" generated by www.timeanddate.com , it is an example of the kind of sources I use to determine positional calculations. This particular map represents 19:52 UTC 12th April. The focus of this map is the island of Mauritius in the West Indian Ocean (second Island to the East of Madagascar). If I load website www.sunrisesunsetmap.com , and place the cursor on co-ordinates 57'38'E - 20'14'S Mauritius, this gives the moonset time as 19:52 UTC on this day. But as you can see in the map, the moonset termination line does not transit Mauritius at this time.

This map represents 4 minutes later at 19:56 UTC. As you can see, the termination line now transits Mauritius. Am I correct in assuming that the 4 minute difference is representative of the afterglow or foreglow in the case of moonrise. And this map is representing a defined "moon light" boundary as its title suggests, and not the actual moon itself breaking or dropping below the horizon ??

Thank you

E B

 

[Eddie B]

Studiot… I have made another observation related to the recent M 7.2 event Northwest of Bulolo, Eastern Papua new Guinea, which occurred on 6th May 21:19:35 UTC. It exhibits similarities to the 6th April Philippines scenario I posted on previously. It may still not imply correlation, but just like the Philippines scenario, this event also seems to have relations with 124'W longitude. 

Too recap… on 6th April between time periods 10:59:35 UTC - 11:04:54 UTC, the sun and moon shared the same lateral position of 6'26'N. At 11:01 UTC ( during this period) last light occurred on coordinates 125'10'E - 11'50'N Samar, Philippines... epicentre of the M 6.4 event that occurred here on 23rd April. This time also coincided with moonset on coordinates 120'29'E - 14'55'N Luzon, Philippines (M 6.1 22nd April), and coordinates 121'41'E - 23'58'N Hualian, Taiwan (M 6.1 18th April). At 20:20 UTC 6th April, a significant aspect change was recorded in the ACE satellite magnetic data display (posted above). This time coincided with first light on coordinates 125'10E - 11'50'N Samar, Philippines... and the sun was located on longitude 124'24'W at this time.

On 4th May between time periods 19:51:35 UTC - 19:54:34 UTC, the New Moon phase occurred. Approximately 20 minutes later at 20:15 UTC ( depicted in map) both rising solar / lunar thresholds were located on coordinates 146'26'E - 6'58'S, pre-seismic epicentre of the M 7.2 Eastern New Guinea event. Longitude of the sun and moon at this time was 124'33'W / 124'22'W respectively. 

As stated previously, this event occurred on 6th May, and interestingly another solar / lunar alignment occurred on this day. During time periods 04:05:56 UTC - 04:12:50 UTC, the sun and moon shared the same lateral position of 16'27'N. However,this does not correlate to the event in question, but may hold intrigue for occurring exactly one month later, on the same day as a magnitude 7.2 occurrence. It may also be interesting to note that both last light and moonset occurred on this 7.2 epicentre, at 09:17 UTC on this day, approx. 12 hours before the event occurred.

Whilst looking ahead, I noticed this interesting configuration. This map represents 02:41 UTC 12th May, positions of the sun and moon at this time will be 139'21'E - 18'02'N and "124'38'W" - 16'48'N respectively. Online websites including www.mooncalc.org and www.sunrisesunsetmap.com confirm that the sun and moon will be geocentric on their opposing thresholds. The interesting point here is that the rising lunar threshold will be located on the M 7.2 Eastern New Guinea epicentre !  I should add that at the time of this post, sunrisesunsetmap.com is currently displaying a "certificate error" warning... the site is still active, but view at one's own risk !.

Another aspect of my hypothesis I have been investigating, focuses on the possibility of relationships between pre and post seismic locations. This is primarily based on possible threshold correlations from one seismic location "on the day" of occurrence, too a second location prior to occurrence. For instance, the M 7.2 Eastern Papua New Guinea event occurred at 21:19:35 UTC on 6th May. At 22:03 UTC (43 minutes later) it was moonrise at this location, however, it was also moonrise at this time on coordinates 131'51'E - 31'46'N Kyushu, Japan. This location experienced a magnitude 6.1 event 3 days later at 23:48:41 UTC 9th May. Any possible solar correlations are usually only valid for 2 -3 days depending on lateral positions relative to Earth... lunar correlations are just one offs.

Does anybody believe that these scenarios are demonstrating a credible pattern of events here... or am I still chasing coincidence ?

Thank you

E B

 

 

[swansont]

What you have presented is cherry-picked. Anecdotal information. 

I can’t say I understand your terminology, either, as I’m out of my area of expertise, but e.g. the sun and moon being geocentric sounds nonsensical to me. I know what the words mean, but not the phrase. Your hypothesis is not clear. It sounds like you are claiming a correlation between sun and moon location with earthquakes, but don’t really explain what it is or how you arrive at your prediction of location, as opposed to some other location. 

[Eddie B]

My apologies... I meant to include the following in my last post.

 

As the date stamp shows, this ACE satellite magnetic data was captured on the same day as the M 7.2 event occurred in Eastern Papua New Guinea... the focal point of this image occurred at 09:23 UTC.

This moon map represents 09:23 UTC 6th May. At this time, it was sunrise on coordinates 27'28'W - 56'18'S South Sandwich Islands (M 6.1 22nd April), and the moon was located on longitude 57'09'E. On 29th April, an M 6.2 event occurred on the Carlsberg ridge on coordinates 57'16'E - 10'51'N. The main focus of this map is the location of the lunar threshold in respect of the pre-seismic M 7.2 Eastern New Guinea epicentre, which occurred less than 12 hours later.

This sun map represents 08:07 UTC 6th May. This time is 1 hour 16 minutes prior to the aspect change recorded in the ACE image. It represents sunset on the pre-seismic M 7.2 Eastern Papua New Guinea epicentre. The sun was located on longitude 57'25'E, and therefore solar noon on the previously stated M 6.2 Carlsberg ridge epicentre.

Lastly, this sun map represents 18:45 UTC 11th May. During time periods 18:37:25 UTC - 18:44:45 UTC, the sun and moon shared the same lateral positions on 17'57'N. It was first light on coordinates 131'51'E - 31'46'N M 6.1 Kyushu, Japan at the represented later time !.

Apologies that aforementioned events are not disenable in the included maps, but times and locations can be verified using the websites previously posted on.

Thank you

E B 

[studiot]

None of this addresses my point which was, to establish any sort link you need to analyse most, if not all, the seismic events wihtin that timeslot and compare how many exhibited this characteristic and how many did not and then compare this distribution with a random variable.

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, Eddie B said:

My apologies... I meant to include the following in my last post

You are not the first person to think that tidal effects could trigger earth quakes, unfortunately the evidence is not there.  It seems quite plausible but it just doesn't pan out.  I guess when you realize that the tides occur 2 times each day and the highest tides occur every 14 days of so these are just not big unusual events that can trigger quakes. 

 

[Eddie B]

My apologies Swansont, I am non academic so you will have to forgive my miss use of scientific terminology. I have on two occasions made my willingness for guidance clear to this community, to better advance myself on this forum. This has already been taken up by a fellow member, regarding my grammar and selective postings... and my appreciation has been given. The term geocentric was afforded me in a correspondence from a professor at a local university, in relation to the sun or moons position to a specific point or circumstance relative to Earth... however, he also included the word "preposterous" in the same paragraph. The data we are referring to relates to 02:41 UTC 12th May, a simpler explanation to my miss interpreted terminology would be to say; at this time and date, the moon was located on coordinates 124'38'W - 16'48'N relative to Earth. At the same time at this location, it was sunset... so the central point of the moon was on these exact coordinates, as the last point of the sun disappeared below the horizon. This scenario was also played out from the suns position in relation to the rising lunar threshold at the same time.

If I sourced the coordinates of an earthquake from reliable seismic related websites like the USGS or EMSC, and I wanted to know what time sunrise or moonset had occurred at my chosen epicentre on a given day... how would I find the information I require ?. If I wanted to know when the sun and moon would next be sharing the same latitude relative to Earth, and for how long this period would last to the "second".  Would this be readily available online somewhere, or would I have to find a suitable online tool to preform my own calculations ?. I have posted information related to several websites I use to come to the conclusions in reference to the maps I have posted here. The information is also provided for those who wish to verify my findings... which I sincerely doubt anyone will because this is very labour intensive. The definition of "Anecdotal" is supplying information that is not based on facts or careful study... if I am getting moonrise times for Papua New Guinea off the internet like everyone else, how does this term apply here ?

In an earlier post, it was correctly pointed out to me by Studiot that I was submitting material that "may be" specifically chosen to help my cause in relation to advancing my hypothesis. This particular point was taken as indirect guidance towards future submissions of related information. The information I posted today relates to circumstances prior to a magnitude 7.2 occurring in Eastern Papua New Guinea, and how this relates to longitude 124'W. The first information I submitted on this forum also related to longitude 124'W, so as a point of correlating interest, I pointed out comparisons between the two scenarios. Between the Philippines scenario of 6th April and the Papua New Guinea scenario of 6th May, there had not been any further magnitude 6+ correlations with longitude 124'W. This too could be verified using the websites I have previously given guidance too... but again very labour intensive. This post was opened specifically to compare similarities with a previously posted scenario, and I made these intentions "clear" in my first paragraph... so forgive me because I do not understand how this can be categorised as "cherry-picking"?

My hypothesis is based on observation, and you are quite correct that I am not giving it a  clear definition, This is because I am having trouble myself understanding how these alleged  correlations are occurring within short periods of earthquakes occurring. Let me give an example;  I have pointed out that an M 6.1 event occurred in Kyushu, Japan on 9th May on coordinates 131'51'E - 31'46'N. If you checked the various solar / lunar thresholds (sunrise, sunset, moonrise moonset etc) related to this location, on the day it occurred... would any of these thresholds make contact with any other post seismic locations. In this particular case, I discovered when sunrise occurred at this location on this day at 09:58 UTC, it was also first light on coordinates 75'06'W - 15'46'S Offshore Central Peru. This Peruvian location experienced an M 5.8 event on the 8th May (the day before). Therefore there is correlation of two seismic locations via the solar thresholds, at the exact same time. Depending on latitude, this time correlation only exists for a short period of 2 - 3 days, because the suns northward or southward travel alters the threshold angles. This correlation would not occur again for approximately 6 months... but it did occur within 24 hours of these notable  seismic events on different sides of the world. So for the sake of a  better explanation, I observed a coincidental occurrence that does not happen every week or month, but only twice a year. If I expand on this further, I have already mentioned that a similar threshold check was carried out on the M 7.2 Eastern Papua New Guinea epicentre. And this reviled that moonrise at this location on the day of its occurrence was at 22:03 UTC, which also coincided with moonrise on the M 6.1 Kyushu, Japan epicentre... 3 days before this one occurred. The question is how often does moonrise occur exactly on these two seismic locations at the same time ?. 

Here is a final example that brings us full circle and hopefully shed some light on how these correlations fit together. When the stated M 5.8 Peruvian event occurred on 8th May at 13:47:19 UTC, the last light threshold was located on coordinates 94'34'E - 22'28'N Arunchal Pradesh, India. This location experienced an M 5.9 event on 23rd April at 20:15:50 UTC. If you check this time and date using one of the aforementioned websites I have noted, you will see that it was sunrise on the pre-seismic M 7.2 Eastern Papua New Guinea epicentre, and the sun was located on longitude 124'22'W !!. An analogy I would quote is that the correlations I observe, are behaving similarly to a circuit board. Energy or information is transferred from A to B via the tracks, and at certain points these tracks will interconnect with each other... just like a circuit board!. However, I am not implying some kind of  pre - post seismic energy is transferring between two points at this time. The correlations in all examples relate to the appearance or termination of solar / lunar contact (sunlight, moonlight), so as a non scientist I have made the assumption that long wavelength frequencies in the visible spectrum may be focusing short bursts of energy on stressed points within the lithosphere. As a child, I experimented with scorching a hole in a piece of paper, using a magnifying glass and light from the sun... like I am sure many here have done. So my analogy would be; if it took approx 90 seconds to scorch a hole in a piece of paper, what would the effects be if you only focused the sun light  on the same spot for 15 seconds every 3 days !. Would the result eventually be the same as the short period, and if so, with each 15 second burst would the paper slowly lose its structural integrate. Would a final burst breach the paper in less than the 15 seconds allocated. If I applied this analogy to the Earth, I would need a rather large magnifying glass. 

On the 9th May at 04:02:57 UTC, the moon will reach its highest northern latitude for this month relative to Earth at 22'15'N. It will remain at this latitude until 07:30:06 UTC, it will continue to move laterally from our perspective on Earth, but it will not start moving South from this latitude position until the last second stated.  Kind of like holding a magnifying glass on the same line for 3.5 hours , or in the cases of apogee and perigee an average of 1.5 hours at the same distance! I once read an article about Einstein rings, and how gravity from a foreground galaxy could bend light, and therefore reveal galaxies that would normal been obstructed (but don't quote me on this literally). So another non scientist assumption would be that gravity may influence light closer to home !

I do not think my hypothesis can be quantified through statistical analysis, because each occurrence is different due to the suns North / South time frame. Just as I have tried to explain in the examples above, I analyse each event closely and when I find interconnecting thresholds (like the circuit board) I predict on the coordinates where they meet. 

I hope I have given a clearer interpretation of my hypothesis,  and I can accept my casual assumptions will be wrong because "I am not a scientist". I believe this will be a hard sell without independent verification... or a 6+ event occurring in Ferndale, California on 124'W..:)  I am of course speculating and appreciate your responses, and the inclusion of "tidal effects" which have only been mentioned by Mod "Strange" after my first post related to this topic... but without a definitive direction, should not be ruled out.

Thank you

E B