Electromagnetic detection of pre-seismic locations

[studiot]

9 hours ago, Eddie B said:

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".

Yes, it's true, Scientists may start off with hunches to examine and test or may go in for blanket tests as in the search for new drugs, but they don't base their final conclusions on beliefs.

Backalong, you mentioned that it would be a mammoth task to incorporate all the seismic activity statistically, (Just like the blanket drug testing example) which is also true.
There is a simplified version that you could consider.

1) Calculate the % of time the Sun and Moon spend in these juxtapositions you find significant. Perhaps over a period of at least a lunar month, perhaps a solar year.

2) Calculate the % of occurrence of significant seismic events during this same period.

3) Compare the two.

4) Do this several times over different timeslots.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Eddie B said:

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.

But what is the hypothesis here? That this positioning would cause an earthquake? Did it cause an earthquake at that time?

Doesn't this positioning happen every day?

 

[Bufofrog]

11 hours ago, Eddie B said:

I hope I have given a clearer interpretation of my hypothesis, 

I for one cannot figure out what your hypothesis is.  Can't you just write what your hypotheses is in one of 2 sentences?

[Eddie B]

Thank you again for your questions gentlemen... I shall try to respond to these in the same order I received them.

Calculating percentage of these "Juxtapositions" would be possible over a solar year. However, an acceptable "margin of error" would have to be negotiated with whom ever was willing to take on the momentous task of verification. A margin of error would be required to account for the variables, namely differing data on different websites related to the "same" occurrence or position i.e.  On 1st February 16:14:12 UTC, a significant earthquake occurred in Chiapas Mexico. EMSC published this event as an M 6.6... USGS posted the same event as M 6.7.  EMSC further published the coordinates of this event as 92'12'W - 14'51'N... USGS coordinates were posted as 92'27'W - 14'40'N. There seems relatively little difference in the numbers, but on the ground so to speak, this difference equates to 34 km's, or a 2 minute difference in solar / lunar threshold times. I am calculating thresholds at minute precision,  and therefore reliant on what I source off the internet... so where did the actual earthquake occur ?

Then there is the problem of conflicting data on the "same" website. I shall apologies before hand here, because I shall have to bore you with yet more maps to demonstrate this issue. The maps may also help in contributing to further questions.

On 16th April between time periods 21:24:22 UTC - 22:50:45 UTC, the moon was at perigee (closest point in its orbit to Earth) at a distance of 357,829 km's. I determined this data using the online calculator at www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/earth . The time periods relate to the first second the moon reached this distance, and the last second before it started moving off again... according to the stated website !. However, the same website publishes perigee and apogee tables for a given year. In this case the table shows perigee occurred at 22:03 UTC 16th April at a distance of 364,208 km's. This map represents the latter time period of 22:50:45 UTC. Sunset occurred at 22:52 UTC on this day, on coordinates 75'06'W - 15'46'S pre-seismic location of the previously mentioned M 5.8 offshore Central Peru. A one minute +/- margin would secure this juxtaposition as a percentage hit... or I could "cherry-pick" between the differing coordinates, published by the aforementioned seismic websites related to this event, to balance percentage in my favour !

This map represents 19:08:01 UTC 19th March... its purpose is explained with the following map.

On 19th March between time periods 19:08:01 UTC - 20:24:58 UTC, the moon was at perigee at a distance of 353,000 km's... as I again stress, data results according to the aforementioned fourmilab website. In the first map at 19:08:01 UTC, first light was located on coordinates 146'26'E - 6'58'S, location of the pre-seismic M 7.2 Eastern Papua New Guinea epicentre. This second map representing 20:24:58 UTC, is void of any threshold correlations up to the end of April... but it does show that the sun was located on coordinates "124'18'W" - 0'25'S at this time !!

If the online results are correct, it would mean this configuration occurred 7 weeks before the actual related M7.2 Eastern New Guinea event took place. If this was submitted for percentage verification, what time scale would these juxtapositions have to conform to if one of the functions of this hypothesis was the determination of "pre"-seismic locations ?.

This final perigee example relates to 19th February between time periods 07:59:07 UTC - 10:02:13 UTC, the moon during this period remained at a distance of 350,386 km's. Compare this to the moons perigee in April, it equates to a close in distance of 7,443 km's, or approx 4.3 times the lunar radius closer to Earth. This map represents the latter period of 10:02:13 UTC, it too is void of solar related threshold correlations up to the end of March. However, according to www.suncalc.net , first light occurred at 10:05 UTC on coordinates 76'58'W - 2'07'S location of the pre-seismic M 7.5 Peru-Ecuador Border epicentre, which occurred 3 days later on 22nd Feb 10:17:22 UTC. A one minute +/- margin of error in this case would class this time difference as void, even thought this perigee is likely correlated to this location, due to the moons close proximity and the time period before occurrence. 

This is the equivalent moon map for 10:02:13 UTC 19th February. What is not very disenable in this image, is the fact that the solar / lunar thresholds converge Southwest of Tasmania  at this time. The lunar threshold was located on coordinates 139'27'E - 51'08'S, this is the location of pre-seismic  M 6.5 West Indian Antarctic Ridge event of 18th April. The map also shows sunset on coordinates 125'03'E - 6'51'S, location of the M 6.3 Banda Sea, Indonesia event of 4th April.  Again, the question of time scale of conformity is an issue !.

Studiot… I will take your suggestions under advisement, if stipulations can be agreed... and you are willing to verify my results .

This moon map represents 02:41 UTC 12th May, and believe this is the (forgive me) geocentric positional configuration Swansont is referring too. The configuration is representative of similar phenomena to what has been depicted in the perigee maps. A magnitude 7.2 has just occurred several days earlier at the point the lunar threshold transits Papua New Guinea. The moon was located on 124'38'W at this time. It is an unusual configuration that correlates to the Papua New Guinea scenario of 4th May. And as I have also shown above, it correlates to the moons perigee period of 19th March. It did not cause an earthquake, but if the hypothetical scenario continues as I believe it will,  it is possible that a future magnitude 6+ event will occur on one of these threshold lines in this map, within the next lunar cycle period !. 

This positioning does not happen every day, this particular Juxtaposition occurs once a month or approximately every 15 days if you reverse the threshold positions. The moon from the perspective of Earth moves at a greater rate in the sky compared to the sun, so it moves easterly  towards the sun for New Moon, and continues easterly until it is opposite the sun relative to Earth for Full Moon. I recall mention that this was not your forte, and I can relate to this. Some 20 years ago, I believed magnitude 6+ earthquakes were very rare events, and this is because I only took note of them when they appeared in the news bulletins on TV. Earthquakes of Mag 6+ occur on average once a week, 7+ once every 3 months, 8+ once a year and 9+ once every 3 - 5 years. The sad truth is, significant earthquakes only appear in the news if they incur fatalities. Without resorting too astronomy 101, may I suggest that you load www.timeanddate.com for the maps shown above. and use the time tabs at the bottom of the map to move forward or back in time... you will see simulations of what I have described above.

Okay, considering the nature of the data I have been posting, my hypothesis is aimed at the possibility that significant seismic events are pre destined to occur, through "natural" selection. And exhibit a self propagation process by means of near UV connection, related to the sun, and gravitational influences of the moon.   I believe this to be two sentences as requested... have I now secured myself a one way ticket to a padded room with a nice view ?.

Apologies for the late response, Sunday is "family time" and I had to morph myself back into the real world for a while !.

Thank you

E B

 

 

 

 

[Bufofrog]

10 minutes ago, Eddie B said:

Okay, considering the nature of the data I have been posting, my hypothesis is aimed at the possibility that significant seismic events are pre destined to occur, through "natural" selection. 

I have no idea what that is suppose to mean.

11 minutes ago, Eddie B said:

And exhibit a self propagation process by means of near UV connection,

So ultraviolet light is somehow involved in some sort of process that is self propagating?  How is that related to the discussion?

13 minutes ago, Eddie B said:

related to the sun, and gravitational influences of the moon.

What is the gravitational relationship?

It almost seems like you are trying to be obtuse.

 

I think you are simply saying when the moon is at perigee the moon's gravity triggers earth quakes.  If it is something else couldn't you just simply state it like that?

[studiot]

11 hours ago, Eddie B said:

Studiot… I will take your suggestions under advisement, if stipulations can be agreed... and you are willing to verify my results

I am sorry if all the work you are doing collecting data is the result of my request for a 'back of an envelope' estimation to see if there could be anything in your proposal.
The idea is to test if it might be worth proceeding to the mamoth data analysis you envisage.

This is based on the idea that the Sun and Moon must be transiting somewhere over the globe every second/minute/hour of ever day/week/month/year.

During those time periods either the transit (or other point of the trajectory if you prefer) will either be or not be geographically connected to a (major) sesimic event.

How many of these occur in a day/week/month/year, compared to those that don't?

[swansont]

 

12 hours ago, Eddie B said:

This positioning does not happen every day, this particular Juxtaposition occurs once a month or approximately every 15 days if you reverse the threshold positions.

Your maps show a half-dozen different relative positionings, and from what I can discern. Perhaps you could include an explanation of what this juxtaposition is supposed to be, as part of the clarification of your hypothesis that you still have not provided.

12 hours ago, Eddie B said:

The moon from the perspective of Earth moves at a greater rate in the sky compared to the sun, so it moves easterly  towards the sun for New Moon, and continues easterly until it is opposite the sun relative to Earth for Full Moon. I recall mention that this was not your forte 

No, but I can look at pictures and see that the sun and the moon do not have a consistent relative position in them. I can read your posts and note that you have not clearly presented any sort of hypothesis about what is allegedly going on.

[Eddie B]

From the time I passed my driving test until the year 2015, I considered myself to be a moderately good considerate driver. I was no Reginald like the guy in the safety TV ad's of the 70's, nor was I a Lewis Hamilton. In September 2015 whilst driving through a small North England village near my home. I negotiated a sharp bend in the road next to a T junction. whilst executing this manoeuvre, I inadvertently activated my horn by crossing my arm on the wheel. Five minutes later and further down the road, I noted a large 4x4 following me and trying to get my attention with his lights. Thinking my vehicle was sporting an unseen problem I pulled over. The guy with the 4x4 had been waiting at the T junction, and took it that my horn activation was my displeasure that he was slightly over the stop line. What ensued was a 45 minute road rage engagement where I was physically assaulted… and this was worrying and embarrassing for me because my family was also in my vehicle. The point of this particular episode, is that peoples perception of actions or in this case "words" can be taken in different ways, to what the original action or words were meant to signify... weather it be unintentional or meaningful. 

The little background info I have posted here, gives an indication that I am familiar with the prediction circuit, both official programs and the entertainment scene. I have demonstrated that I do take advice, and I have taken advice from past associations.. always use an "honest scientific approach" etc. Official programs au castrated by universities or USGS affiliated programs, require strict guidelines in relation to the formulation of a forecast. All results are entered on a spreadsheet for statistical analysis. Simply put, you could secure a successful prediction for an M 6.5 with published EMSC listing, but as I pointed out previously, the same event published as M 6.4 by USGS, resulted with a negative mark on the spreadsheet, because everything centres around the USGS. If this occurred 20 fold over the course of a solar year, the percentage rate is not going to very impressive, and the results will warrant no further investigation. This also applied if the event occurred outside the posted margin of error... even by a few kilometres. My Perigee examples above were a reflection of this combination of trying to be honest and including stipulations that had undoubtedly slowed my progress through statistical analysis. I am under no illusion that we are going to undertake anything official here and "truly" appreciate any advice given. I was getting the impression that you were a numbers guy, a fellow countryman and up to this point, an ally. This meant to me that you would have an appreciation of the mathematical task I am undertaking. So I was making light of the fact that statistical analysis is my "bug bearer" but I would concede to again follow your advice... I am a little old fashioned, but I perceived the addition of a "smiley" to represent humour. My regrets if this is of no further concern, but I was up until the early hours configuring "spreadsheets" to encompass the different solar / lunar combinations.

It is now 2019, I drive a BIGGER 4x4, I am working on being the next Lewis Hamilton, and I shout profanities at other drivers through my window. What I have learned from my experience, is the sad fact that you can do this and nobody blinks an eye... because everybody accepts it as being the norm !. This science forum is very informative regarding topics you have never considered looking into. Only two weeks ago, I picked up some great tips related to "kitchen counter tops", as I am currently renovating my own kitchen (a thank you to those concerned). So I guess another tip I have acquired during my time here is "no inclusion of humour during topical scientific debate"... and my apologies if I gave miss representation. 

Oh! to be obtuse... yes I can see how you would come to this conclusion. If someone was to hypothesis a formula to combat the flu virus within 24 hours, would this pose a threat to medical science if it was proven to be credible ?. Or a formula for dissolving plastic in the oceans, which would not harm marine life, would this be deemed a threat to anyone ?. I don't think they would because they would be seen as advances in improving our quality of life, and the well being of our planet. But in my case, my hypothesis is challenging decades of conventional belief related to the process of seismic activity... a doctrine that is already well established within the seismic community. It is a hypothesis that if proved credible, would ultimately save lives. And therefore be accepted in the same manner as the two previous hypothetical examples. The hypothesis relates to earthquakes, so from the point of view as a non academic, the obvious direction to take would be to approach the seismic community, and explain what your own findings have reviled. However, do you think 30 - 40 year seasoned veteran seismologists, who have spent their whole careers following the accepted belief of stress related occurrence, are going to give you the time of day. Well no they are NOT, and I have had to find this out the hard way on several occasions. This one reason why I commented to fellow member "Intrigued", that I am faced with a situation similar to the analogy of finding a "genuine" UFO parked in my back yard. Being a rational human being and knowing how the world works, how would you report this and to whom ?. You could not just blurt it out to anyone because this would be a sure way of receiving your one way ticket to a padded room with a nice view. So you would have to determine methodology for a longer time period, to give people a chance to absorb the information you provide them, and in doing so soften the blow so to speak, to the reality that a genuine UFO is parked in the back yard. Therefore I am mindful that I may have something that contradicts accepted belief. I don't know you or any other members I have been corresponding with since I joined this forum. However, monitoring you guys prior to joining, determined my decision not to "Blurt", so that I may get the chance to lay the foundations of my hypothesis. I think the decision to "blurt" would have been my demise after two post !.

So to my hypothesis... "Significant seismic events are pre destined to occur through natural selection, and exhibit a self propagation process by means of near UV connection, related to the sun, and gravitational influences of the moon. I tried to title this in a manner befitting scientific terminology, because I believed this was expected after previous "correctional" correspondents. But I guess not, because nobody seems to be able to understand this terminology either. Due to the process of specific sun, moon, Earth combinations or alignments. The prime focus of these combinations / alignments are influencing magnetic field lines in regions on the Earths surface where the solar / lunar thresholds reside at the prime focus time. Simply put, these combinations are leaving a footprint in Earths magnetic field, and this can occur up to 3 months prior to any accossiated seismic activity being detected. This pre destined location is then further infused with more pre seismic energy as future events occur. This happens at the same time the solar / lunar thresholds are located on the original footprint. It is then within a short period before occurrence that post seismic influences contribute to an impending earthquake taking place. The severity or magnitude of the earthquake is determined by the significance of the original solar / lunar combination. Once occurrence has taken place, the affected location then becomes part of the post seismic grid, and will ultimately connect to another pre seismic location in the near future... and the process will begin again.

The inclusion of UV connection and gravitational influences are speculative, not within my field of expertise and therefore could not support such inclusions at this point. However, I have tried to hint at my beliefs with inclusions of analogies in previous posts. I have observed these scenarios for many years as described above, but I have come to no final conclusion of which elements are responsible for the procurement and final outcome of said scenarios.

I shall post a final theoretical example within a couple of hours of this post time, so please save any responses until said example can be sufficiently analysed.

Thank you

E B

 

 

 

[studiot]

30 minutes ago, Eddie B said:

Significant seismic events are pre destined to occur through natural selection,

Just one point please.

You have mentioned Natural Selection several times now.

But I am in the dark (pun intended) as to how it might operate in this case, or for that matter with any quake.

So please enlighten me.

[Eddie B]

As we have mentioned previously, the moon averages one apogee every month (furthest point from Earth), and one perigee every month (closest point to Earth). Also on a monthly basis, it reaches its furthest North and South latitudes which it incurs remaining for long periods on said latitudes relative to Earth. We also have first and last quarter phases which result in the disputed geocentric positions. And a couple of other positions that may confuse the issue further at this point should they be disclosed. These juxtapositions that "you" originally included in this debate, occur every month as previously mentioned. If I am making the point that significant earthquakes are being pre selected through "natural" selection i.e. a positional combination like perigee for instance. Then the positional combinations which occur every month, are  "natural" events connected to the sun, moon and Earths orbital rhythm... and this process is likened to an "Earth clock".  

Thanks for getting back to me... meaning sincerely.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Eddie B said:

From the time I passed my driving test until the year 2015, I considered myself to be a moderately good considerate driver. I was no Reginald like the guy in the safety TV ad's of the 70's, nor was I a Lewis Hamilton. In September 2015 whilst driving through a small North England village near my home. I negotiated a sharp bend in the road next to a T junction. whilst executing this manoeuvre, I inadvertently activated my horn by crossing my arm on the wheel. Five minutes later and further down the road, I noted a large 4x4 following me and trying to get my attention with his lights. Thinking my vehicle was sporting an unseen problem I pulled over. The guy with the 4x4 had been waiting at the T junction, and took it that my horn activation was my displeasure that he was slightly over the stop line. What ensued was a 45 minute road rage engagement where I was physically assaulted… and this was worrying and embarrassing for me because my family was also in my vehicle. The point of this particular episode, is that peoples perception of actions or in this case "words" can be taken in different ways, to what the original action or words were meant to signify... weather it be unintentional or meaningful. 

Which is one reason we try and use precise terminology in science, and is something you aren't doing.

1 hour ago, Eddie B said:

 The hypothesis relates to earthquakes, so from the point of view as a non academic, the obvious direction to take would be to approach the seismic community, and explain what your own findings have reviled. However, do you think 30 - 40 year seasoned veteran seismologists, who have spent their whole careers following the accepted belief of stress related occurrence, are going to give you the time of day. Well no they are NOT, and I have had to find this out the hard way on several occasions. This one reason why I commented to fellow member "Intrigued", that I am faced with a situation similar to the analogy of finding a "genuine" UFO parked in my back yard. Being a rational human being and knowing how the world works, how would you report this and to whom ?.

You might choose a better example than one which has no credible evidence.

You are stating with certainty that you have found something, but have not clearly stated what it is you have found, and have not shown any statistical evidence to support your assertion.

 

1 hour ago, Eddie B said:

 So to my hypothesis... "Significant seismic events are pre destined to occur through natural selection, and exhibit a self propagation process by means of near UV connection, related to the sun, and gravitational influences of the moon. I tried to title this in a manner befitting scientific terminology, because I believed this was expected after previous "correctional" correspondents.

It's already been pointed out that your terminology (e.g. natural selection) has meaning that is inconsistent with how you are using it here, which makes this sound like word salad. How a non-scientist thinks scientists communicate.

1 hour ago, Eddie B said:

But I guess not, because nobody seems to be able to understand this terminology either. Due to the process of specific sun, moon, Earth combinations or alignments. The prime focus of these combinations / alignments are influencing magnetic field lines in regions on the Earths surface where the solar / lunar thresholds reside at the prime focus time.

Explain what you mean by a lunar or solar threshold. What you mean by prime focus time.

1 hour ago, Eddie B said:

Simply put, these combinations are leaving a footprint in Earths magnetic field, and this can occur up to 3 months prior to any accossiated seismic activity being detected. This pre destined location is then further infused with more pre seismic energy as future events occur.

You previously stated that magnitude 6 earthquakes are fairly common, and that the specific juxtaposition in your conjecture happens every month. Yet your predictions have a 3 month window. How would you be able to falsify your idea?

1 hour ago, Eddie B said:

 The inclusion of UV connection and gravitational influences are speculative, not within my field of expertise and therefore could not support such inclusions at this point.

Explain what a UV connection is.

 

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, Eddie B said:

The prime focus of these combinations / alignments are influencing magnetic field lines in regions on the Earths surface where the solar / lunar thresholds reside at the prime focus time. Simply put, these combinations are leaving a footprint in Earths magnetic field, and this can occur up to 3 months prior to any accossiated seismic activity being detected. This pre destined location is then further infused with more pre seismic energy as future events occur. This happens at the same time the solar / lunar thresholds are located on the original footprint. It is then within a short period before occurrence that post seismic influences contribute to an impending earthquake taking place. The severity or magnitude of the earthquake is determined by the significance of the original solar / lunar combination. Once occurrence has taken place, the affected location then becomes part of the post seismic grid, and will ultimately connect to another pre seismic location in the near future... and the process will begin again

The typical purpose of writing is to communicate, your purpose in writing seems to have some other goal.

 I do note that magnetism seems to be a major part of your hypothesis and I do not recall that being mentioned until this post.  Are you making this up as you go along?

I will attempt to state your hypothesis is a manner that is understandable:

When the sun and the moon are in the right alignment the earths magnetic field energy can be concentrated in the area of a fault and trigger an earth quake.

Is that what you are trying to say?

By the way, Natural Event does not mean Natural Selection.  

Edited May 13, 2019 by Bufofrog

[Eddie B]

You are again correct, I am not competent with precise terminology in science... do you have a solution ?. I was having a conversation with a fellow member in the public arena. My words were by way of an apology, and I did not expect third party intervention, as the subject matter was not related to my Hypothesis. If my wording was wrong, yet said member was still able to ascertain its meaning... then wrongful use of words in this case still achieved the same result.

If I actually had a UFO in my back yard, in your opinion what would constitute "credible evidence" to the extent that you would make the effort to view it for yourself ?. I agree with your comment that the use of the word "analogy" in reference to unproven UFO existence is wrong. But the object of the statement was to signify disbelief of statement from an uneducated non academic individual with little experience in using correct scientific terminology in online correspondents... a hypothesis related statement using the wrong context, but did it still give understandable meaning to my statement ?

I have not clearly stated what I have found until today. There is no "statistical evidence" to support my assertion, only observational data that relates to descriptions posted previously. More significant date was going to be forthcoming to support my disclosure and findings, shortly after disclosure of my hypothesis. But requested non intervention of fellow members before data and analysis could be uploaded and explained was ignored due to receiving multiple questions. So my evidence will not be forthcoming until appropriate time is available to upload the data.

Natural was in reference to repeating sequence of events related to the orbital motions of the sun, moon and Earth. We experience a Full Moon phase every month, is this a naturally occurring event or an orbital phenomena ?. Selection is by due process of combination or alignment of said celestial bodies and related consequences described in the hypothesis description. Natural selection is a common phrase used by academia and non academia alike. I made a poor attempt at conforming to repeated remarks regarding my miss use of correct scientific terminology.   My attempts are not appreciated, so this brings me back to the first sentence of this post !.

Lunar or solar threshold is a term I coined myself to describe boundaries in the maps I have been posting. I will have to refer to other sources to find the correct terminology before continuing description. I have not been able to get past my wrong context UFO analogy to get the correct terminology from the scientific community. I was hoping to address this issue in a previous post here, requesting help with clarity of threshold contacts in respect of time... but the request did not receive any replies. Prime focus time is again a self coin term to describe lunar positioning, I shall again have to consult other sources to find the correct terminology before continuing description.

I would not be able to falsify my idea... the data I am or have been suppling is available online for anyone wishing to verify my claims. I have posted the same maps you would find yourself online, so in my opinion I cannot see how the readily available magnitudes, coordinates and times could be falsified. The object of the hypothesis is to show how solar / lunar combinations relate to post seismic locations. And the methodology employed to relate to the past, must also be able to relate to the future. Why would you want to falsify the data if the end result was to locate potentially lethal pre-seismic events ?.

UV connection... I have already responded to this query in an earlier post !. 

Writing related to alternative goal... I do not understand the thought process behind this comment. As far as I am aware, I have answered every question posed to me. I have posted examples of my hypothesis with descriptions that do not  appear to be eligible. And I have tried to be pleasant, polite, witty and apologetic where necessary. Could you please point out which abstracts gives you the impression there is another agenda... and preferable any abstracts that do not include scientific terminology ?.

Magnetism a major part... In all the maps I have posted, I have described how sunrise / sunset etc (thresholds !) relate to a specific pre-seismic location during orbital combination or alignments. I have further described how pre and post seismic locations correlate to each other via the thresholds at the same time, within a short period of seismic occurrence at site A or site B. The "major" part of my hypothesis to this point in time has been focused on these correlations. By your own admission, you claim not to have understood the processes I have been describing. Yet you have come to your own conclusion that "magnetism" is a prime element in this hypothesis. The "magnetic field lines have no correlating aspects in respect of connecting one seismic location to another. They have nothing to do with orbital combinations or alignments. They are only included as the end result of the said combinations or alignments. If I am claiming that the end result of these combinations are leaving a footprint in Earths magnetic field, it means for the pre destined location to retain influence long after the combination has passed, magnetic integrity must have been altered in order to attract further seismic correlations... similar to how we perceive the formation of a sun spot on the solar surface. Footprint is also likely to be the wrong scientific terminology, so please don't envision this as something the size of Manhattan Island with five smaller islands of its Northern shore !.

When the sun and the moon are in the right " orbital combination or alignment"... "Solar influences" via the thresholds (first light, last light, moonrise / set etc) proceed to mark a pre destined location on Earth, which may take as long as 3 months  before an earthquake occurs at this spot. It does not cause an immediate earthquake. Non of the combinations or alignments cause an immediate earthquake. Let me correct this factually, I know of one M 6.7 event in the Jan Mayen region of September last year North of Iceland, that occurred  at the exact moment of alignment

On 16th April between time periods 21:24:22 UTC - 22:50:45 UTC, the moon was at perigee. If the moon reached perigee every month as it does do, would this not be deemed a naturally occurring event ?. If the first time of 21:24:22 UTC was the point in time that related to marking a pre destined location on Earth in relation to this hypothesis, would this then not be considered as natural selection, which only works during naturally occurring events ?.

Thank you for your questions, please note that I have "also" asked questions. If my communication skills are in question rather than my hypothesis, then it seems only right and proper for me to be afforded a response before further communication can continue !.

Thank you

E B

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Eddie B said:

You are again correct, I am not competent with precise terminology in science... do you have a solution ?

Don't use terminology you don't understand, and don't make up new terminology or at least don't make up new terminology without defining it.

9 hours ago, Eddie B said:

There is no "statistical evidence" to support my assertion, only observational data that relates to descriptions posted previously.

 

9 hours ago, Eddie B said:

 I would not be able to falsify my idea...  

And these are two of the reasons why this does not meet our requirements for speculations discussions. Observational data is the starting point to applying a rigorous analysis, rather than being an end point where you draw a conclusion.

 

You have gotten some suggestions on how to proceed, and you should incorporate those suggestions, but this thread does not meet our requirements to remain open.