Earth changes, and predictions.

[superball]

Greetings folks, this is an opportunity for you to include your observations, and possible outcomes for the near future.

 

Predictions should follow the geologic, and climate change effects.

 

Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, whatever. If you predict an earth quake include the magnitude it should be at least a 6.0 or better. Location will be difficult to predict.

 

If you predict a volcanic eruption, give the name of the volcano. this is not easy to do, you may say a major eruption will occur, and give a date or estimate.

 

Serious predictions is best, not Michel Jackson ghost will come back and haunt the globe theater, Pull a rabbit out of your hat for science.

 

 

White rabbit song.

 

The magician does not tell his secrets, but in this case science does. Add predictions, because science loves to be right.

Edited November 20, 2011 by superball

[superball]

11/20/11 Prediction for 6.7 or better, earthquake location ring of fire. estimated delay up to 9 days. 11/29/11

Edited November 21, 2011 by superball

[Ophiolite]

In the course of one year how many earthquakes of magnitude 6.7 or greater are there in any one ten day period?

[superball]

In the course of one year how many earthquakes of magnitude 6.7 or greater are there in any one ten day period?

 

This is difficult to determine if we used the year 2011.

 

If we go back to 2010, 6,7 or greater quakes are increasing in frequency.

 

If we go back to 2009 we have a somewhat stable environment.

 

When dealing with 2010, prediction was very intuitive, and there was found to be a cause.

 

In 2011, predictions may be determined on a time sensitive base if we look at 2010.

 

Earthquakes are generally not time sensitive. random quakes are a result of stress on plates that are in motion, assuming the earth is in a stable condition.

 

In 2011 the earth is quickly becoming destabilized, and an outcome for future predictions based on the time frame given for 2010 will lead to a higher degree of accuracy.

 

The progression of the destabilizing crustal shifts for 2011 will clearly show an increase of frequency, and more powerful quakes, leading to the next great earthquake expected within the next 4 months. closer to the end of march is my prediction, although it may be sooner December 2011 to February 2012.

 

January 2011 will have a high probability for 7.0 to 8.0 earthquakes.

 

If you had thought earthquake prediction is unlikely, then by looking at a graph of 2010, you may prove with accuracy time sensitive relations for 2011, and also 2012.

 

People claiming to be able to use astronomical charts in the past found it most difficult.

 

today we have reason to state otherwise.

 

Volcanic eruptions are no different for 2011, and 2012 many will be erupting by mid January, and continue for a few months there after. You may find a chart for 2010, and determine these eruptions most accurately for the next 2 to 3 years.

 

Nothing is left by chance in this case, so its time to be prepared.

 

The progression will accelerate more so after destabilization. So yea, its not looking good.

 

sorry I had no answer for your question on quantity of quakes in a 10 day period, but i hope your concern may lead to a better understanding of the process of torque induced precession.

 

It has been found to be a progression of axial shift. Over a 3 to 5 year period starting in early months of 2010.

 

The magician does not tell his secrets, but in this case science does. I am a scientist, not a magician.

 

respectfully superball cheers

Edited November 21, 2011 by superball

[superball]

11/20/11 Prediction for 6.7 or better, earthquake location ring of fire. estimated delay up to 9 days. 11/29/11

This post has been edited by superball: 21 November 2011 - 01:30 AM

 

first result..

 

MAP 6.6 2011/11/22 18:48:17 -15.359 -65.125 556.7 BENI, BOLIVIA

Edited November 23, 2011 by superball

[Ophiolite]

Until you can provide an answer to my question as to the number of earthquakes of the stipulated magnitude occuring in a ten day period (within the circum-Pacific belt) your prediction has zero value. If you do not understand why this is the case you really shouldn't be playing at science - you aren't equipped for it.

[superball]

Until you can provide an answer to my question as to the number of earthquakes of the stipulated magnitude occuring in a ten day period (within the circum-Pacific belt) your prediction has zero value. If you do not understand why this is the case you really shouldn't be playing at science - you aren't equipped for it.

 

It has been determined that Earthquakes are not time sensitive by modern science, therefore it is irrelevant to base your assumptions on averages.

 

Especially when dealing with a time sensitive progression. The progression of axial shift has already been determined, It is a progression of a given effect not related to plate tectonics.

 

Respectfully super-ball.

 

You may assert your objections in the year 2020, whereby plate tectonics alone play a major roll.

 

Sincerely super-ball.

[JustinW]

Superball,

 

You still don't tell us how you have come to these predictions. Sure you give a list of probabilities(although without percentage) and possible causes for stress on the Earth's crust,

but you still haven't explained how you can put the two factors (or any factors) together to base a prediction off of.

 

6.6 2011/11/22 18:48:17 -15.359 -65.125 556.7 BENI, BOLIVIA

The amount of earthquakes that happen with that magnitude or greater in a ten day period does have relevance with the prediction. It would establish percentages to base predictions from.

Since you have not provided enough information to link between probability and cause it is quite difficult to understand the method in which you are using.

Even if you can somehow calculate the levels of stress that affect probability, you would have to reveal your secrets to get me to think that you didn't base your prediction from the percentage of ocurrance.

 

 

According to the USGS Earthquake maps there were 18 earthquakes with a magnitude of 4.98 to 6.6 since the 13th of Nov.

So percentages are on the side of the predictor who is predicting a mag.6 earthquake will hit within 10 days.

Edited November 23, 2011 by JustinW

[superball]

Superball,

 

You still don't tell us how you have come to these predictions. Sure you give a list of probabilities(although without percentage) and possible causes for stress on the Earth's crust,

but you still haven't explained how you can put the two factors (or any factors) together to base a prediction off of.

 

 

The amount of earthquakes that happen with that magnitude or greater in a ten day period does have relevance with the prediction. It would establish percentages to base predictions from.

Since you have not provided enough information to link between probability and cause it is quite difficult to understand the method in which you are using.

Even if you can somehow calculate the levels of stress that affect probability, you would have to reveal your secrets to get me to think that you didn't base your prediction from the percentage of occurrence.

 

 

According to the USGS Earthquake maps there were 18 earthquakes with a magnitude of 4.98 to 6.6 since the 13th of Nov.

So percentages are on the side of the predictor who is predicting a mag. 6.7 earthquake will hit within 9 days.

 

 

Ok, I am happy you looked for average quakes in a given time period. less then one month.

Based on the analogy of the data provided, if you want to get technical, and yes science does, you must provide data within the parameters, or scope determined to be highly unlikely to occur.

 

Go back to the top of the page. 6.0 or better is a given. The greater the magnitude of prediction, the less likely it is to occur.

I also stated you must go back to a somewhat stable platform 2009. When dealing with averages, the greater the imputable input factors, the greater the average relation over time.

 

I did not say a 6.0 earthquake would happen, I have set the bar much higher. you must go back to the year 2008-2009 and make your average entirely.

 

You must also do the same for the entire year of 2010 to the current date. Compare, see if a time sensitive progression has occurred as of Feb 27, 2010.

 

Then you must determine how an earthquake is related as a time sensitive factor, comparing the 4 years of total data.

 

To be on the safe side, 2 years before progression, 2 years of progression. Now you plot on two charts, each with 2 years of average data, and compare. The chart will tell the story all by itself. the chart must follow the time sensitive information provided. Meaning each month, and each quake plotted on the chart 6.0 or greater corresponds, or in relation with the date it had occurred.

 

By doing so, the data will reflect to a much higher degree of accuracy.

 

Sincerely super-ball.

Edited November 23, 2011 by superball

[Ophiolite]

Fine. So show us those plots.

 

It is your hypothesis. You have to do the leg work, not us. Otherwise it is just arm waving on your part.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Ophiolite

[superball]

Fine. So show us those plots.

 

It is your hypothesis. You have to do the leg work, not us. Otherwise it is just arm waving on your part.

 

You already have assumed I did not.

 

I gave you the scientific principle, Derive average relations, by use of input data over time.

 

The work I have done is not given freely, the process of determined factors is given as your tools.

 

I would be happy to give you information, if you pay for my time. I included a fundamental definition of averages. The input minimum data set required over time.

 

I don't need to give you the data inputs, you can do that all by yourself.

 

I say it is not magic. I say science provides the answer. I say ask the right questions. I say learn how to apply them. You can do this all by yourself if you are interested in the subject.

 

Speculation on your part, factually determined on mine.

 

cheers. Super-ball.

 

Science likes to be correct. The way you apply what is self evident is up to you.

Edited November 25, 2011 by superball

[superball]

My linkhttp://earthquake.usgs.

 

 

MAP 5.0 2011/11/24 23:18:46 -2.428 140.036 37.5 NEAR THE NORTH COAST OF PAPUA, INDONESIA MAP 5.1 2011/11/24 21:13:19 13.353 -87.898 73.6 EL SALVADOR MAP 6.2 2011/11/24 10:25:35 41.877 142.710 42.3 HOKKAIDO, JAPAN REGION MAP 5.1 2011/11/24 10:23:50 -21.802 -178.981 622.8 FIJI REGION MAP 5.0 2011/11/24 03:55:36 -8.789 109.774 95.3 JAVA, INDONESIA MAP 6.1 2011/11/23 19:24:32 37.373 141.387 33.3 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN MAP 5.0 2011/11/23 12:42:34 -41.260 -84.077 10.0 WEST CHILE RISE MAP 5.3 2011/11/23 12:17:52 34.321 25.056 9.7 CRETE, GREECE MAP 5.4 2011/11/23 01:43:47 -22.829 -68.011 141.2 ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE MAP 5.0 2011/11/22 23:09:48 -42.594 -83.410 10.3 WEST CHILE RISE MAP 6.6 2011/11/22 18:48:17 -15.359 -65.125 556.7 BENI, BOLIVIA MAP 5.2 2011/11/22 16:54:05 -2.320 99.382 23.0 KEPULAUAN MENTAWAI REGION, INDONESIA MAP 5.2 2011/11/22 16:45:18 -2.275 99.400 17.1 KEPULAUAN MENTAWAI REGION, INDONESIA MAP 5.4 2011/11/22 07:41:32 -34.866 -71.614 38.3 LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE MAP 5.1 2011/11/21 19:38:29 -37.584 179.113 2.5 OFF EAST COAST OF THE NORTH ISLAND, N.Z. MAP 5.2 2011/11/21 03:48:41 -3.591 150.371 37.2 NEW IRELAND REGION, PAPUA NEW GUINEA MAP 5.9 2011/11/21 03:15:43 24.947 95.226 121.0 MYANMAR MAP 5.0 2011/11/21 01:39:07 -22.982 -178.388 404.8 SOUTH OF THE FIJI ISLANDS

 

6.3 2011/11/14 04:05:12 -0.954 126.864 19.4 MOLUCCA SEA

6.9 2011/11/08 02:59:07  27.291 125.868 209.5 NORTHEAST OF TAIWAN

 

Fact Jan 8 and Nov 2 2010 Huge Montserrat Volcano Eruption on January 8, 2010 . Time frame, recurring in January 2011 volcanic eruption predicted in the Atlantic, mid ,Baja California

 

Al factors, are determined factors.

 

With a binary system, like the binary system we all see. 2011 will mirror once again 2010, 2011, 2012.

Here is your average, of earthquakes, start here.

1<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Edited November 26, 2011 by superball

[Klaynos]

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php

 

~150 mag 6 or above quakes per year. I'd say the probability of one of them falling in a high earthquake zone in any 10day period is rather high. And if we take the "ring of fire" then around 90% of the earths earthquakes fall there according to wp, so that's 135 on average every year, your prediction is statistically meaningless.

[superball]

http://earthquake.us...ear/eqstats.php

 

 

That is not verified stop speculating.

~150 mag 6 or above quakes per year. I'd say the probability of one of them falling in a high earthquake zone in any 10day period is rather high. And if we take the "ring of fire" then around 90% of the earths earthquakes fall there according to wp, so that's 135 on average every year, your prediction is statistically meaningless.

 

Scientist gives, predictable out comes. There is nothing wrong here with that?

Still waiting on predicted out come for a 6.7 earthquake. In a 9 day period. to verify science.

 

It is highly unlikely when you compare data, over time.

Edited November 26, 2011 by superball

[Ophiolite]

You already have assumed I did not.

This was in reference to my point that you had to do the legwork to prove your case, not I or any other member, or reader. I made no assumption.

 

You have made a claim. I have pointed to information that must accompany that claim in order for it to have any value. I have asked you for that information.

 

This is your response:

The work I have done is not given freely, the process of determined factors is given as your tools.

If you are unwilling to provided the basic statistical information to validate your claim then your claim can safely be ignored. The work involved is hardly substantial. Either you want to have your ideas given serious consideration, or you don't. Refusing to provide non-confidential information, readily extractable from public sources, that you claim to have already prepared, well such a refusal is ridiculous and suggests you have no idea how the scientific process works.

 

I don't need to give you the data inputs, you can do that all by yourself.

You do not need to give me data inputs. You just need to give me the statistical information derived from those data inputs. That is how science is conducted.

 

I say it is not magic. I say science provides the answer. I say ask the right questions. I say learn how to apply them. You can do this all by yourself if you are interested in the subject.

Here's the deal superball. Your ideas as presented so far in this thread lack clarity and conviction. I'm investing my time to help you develop and promote your hypotheses. I don't have to do a damn thing. If you want your ideas to be considered then you should provide the legwork.

 

In a later post you say:

Still waiting on predicted out come for a 6.7 earthquake. In a 9 day period. to verify science.

 

Once again you quite miss the point. It is your responsibility to provide these data, not ours. You are the one making the claims, you need to provide the relevant statisitical data. If you do not then what you have is not a scientific hypothesis, but inconsequential arm waving and word salad.

[Ophiolite]

OK, here is some simple information. In the twenty years between 1988 and 2007, inclusive, there were 681 earthquakes of magnitude 6.6 or greater. (I have used 6.6 rather than 6.7, since you changed the goalposts from your original prediction of 6.7 by posting a 6.6 event in Bolivia as a hit. If it had been 6.5 would you have included that as well?) This equates to an average of 34 earthquakes each year, or one every 10.7 days. You had a ten day window on yours. Approximately 75% or more of earthquakes are in the ring of fire, which is roughly one > 6.5 every 14 days. But whatever way you cut it your prediction is not much different from claiming precognition skills because you bet on red at roulette and it came up.

 

You need to offer something that produces results that are better than chance before anyone will take you seriously. I mean, what good is a prediction tool that doesn't actually predict?

 

Here are my predictions*:

A magnitude 5.8 to 6.2 in the Phillipines between December 11th and December 18th.

Two more Latin American quakes exceeding 6.5 before year end.

A Japanese quake off Hokkaido, magnitude 6.0 - 6.4 before the 14th of January.

 

*These predictions are offered to highlight the fallacy of superball's approach and as a form of black humour. Do not alter your travel plans in the light of these predictions.

[Ophiolite]

With reference to my first prediction, this earthquake came a little early, but the magnitude was smack in the middle of my predicted range and the location was spot on:

 

Magnitude 6.0

Date-Time Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 00:27:08 UTC

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 08:27:08 AM at epicenter

Location 15.467°N, 119.031°E

Depth 14.6 km (9.1 miles)

Region LUZON, PHILIPPINES

Distances 152 km (94 miles) WNW of Olongapo, Luzon, Philippines

154 km (95 miles) WSW of Dagupan, Luzon, Philippines

171 km (106 miles) WNW of Angeles, Luzon, Philippines

230 km (142 miles) WNW of MANILA, Philippines

 

 

Notice also more than half a dozen quakes, magnitudes from 4.8 to 5.3, over the last week offshore Honshu: stress relief in an area that will impose more stress on the Hokaido region, increasing the probability of a 6.0 to 6.4 before mid January, as predicted.

[Ophiolite]

With reference to prediction number two, here is the first of two predicted 6.5 or greater quakes in Latin America.

 

Magnitude 6.5

Date-Time Sunday, December 11, 2011 at 01:47:26 UTC

Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 07:47:26 PM at epicenter

Location 18.038°N, 99.796°W

Depth 64.9 km (40.3 miles)

Region GUERRERO, MEXICO

Distances 42 km (26 miles) SW of Iguala, Guerrero, Mexico

56 km (34 miles) ESE of Arcelia, Guerrero, Mexico

62 km (38 miles) NNW of Chilpancingo, Guerrero, Mexico

166 km (103 miles) SSW of MEXICO CITY, D.F., Mexico

 

I notice superball has gone very quiet.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Ophiolite

[Klaynos]

I notice superball has gone very quiet.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/page__view__findpost__p__642118

 

[Ophiolite]

Thank you. That's a shame. I was looking forward to demonstrating a better prediction rate than he was capable of with his supposedly brilliant theory.