Super Moon and Japan/NZ

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Like I said, looks more like he's paranoid and/or delusional to me. A troll wouldn't put so much effort in a clearly flawed attempt at proving something.

It must suck doing a masters degree in physics and finding out the truth you were nothing but an ignorant the entire time.

Originally posted by Kostenuik
It must suck doing a masters degree in physics and finding out the truth you were nothing but an ignorant the entire time.

Do you agree now KZ?

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you agree now KZ?

Maybe I have to complete that PhD first.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Nevertheless, stop the astroturfing already, chuck.

And guys, please stop trying to argue with the astroturfer. It'll never admit to the truth no matter how much you try to feed it facts. Facts do not exist unless they conform to the pet theory. Reality does not exist. Real science is futile. Just don't bother.

Richard

Why would an astroturfer end up here, though? Why bother?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why would an astroturfer end up here, though? Why bother?

Kibo'ing its favourite subject, then butt in with false evidence to shill their theory. Note that it wasn't the astroturfer who started this thread.

Richard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake

Earthquake clusters

Most earthquakes form part of a sequence, related to each other in terms of location and time.[15] Most earthquake clusters consist of small tremors that cause little to no damage, but there is a theory that earthquakes can recur in a regular pattern.[16]

Earthquake swarms

Earthquake swarms are sequences of earthquakes striking in a specific area within a short period of time. They are different from earthquakes followed by a series of aftershocks by the fact that no single earthquake in the sequence is obviously the main shock, therefore none have notable higher magnitudes than the other. An example of an earthquake swarm is the 2004 activity at Yellowstone National Park.[17]

Earthquake storms

Sometimes a series of earthquakes occur in a sort of earthquake storm, where the earthquakes strike a fault in clusters, each triggered by the shaking or stress redistribution of the previous earthquakes. Similar to aftershocks but on adjacent segments of fault, these storms occur over the course of years, and with some of the later earthquakes as damaging as the early ones. Such a pattern was observed in the sequence of about a dozen earthquakes that struck the North Anatolian Fault in Turkey in the 20th century and has been inferred for older anomalous clusters of large earthquakes in the Middle East

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Kibo'ing its favourite subject, then butt in with false evidence to shill their theory. Note that it wasn't the astroturfer who started this thread.

Richard

What false evidence did I give? "It" isn't a crime to study data from the earth.

Originally posted by Agerg
Let's put it another way, suppose I fire up code::blocks and get it to run 500,000,000 trials of 10 coin flips and I treat each flip as having been performed each year.

If I extracted 11 contiguous trials where the data had the same relationship which supports your hypothesis should I then conclude there is a particular trend overall? Because that's what you seem to be asking of us with your earthquake hypothesis.

You omited these ones.

1897 6 12 11 6 Tsu * INDIA: ASSAM 26.000 91.000 33 8.7 *******
1897 9 20 19 6 * PHILIPPINES: NW MINDANAO: DAPITAN 6.000 122.000 33 8.6 ******
1897 9 21 5 12 Tsu * PHILIPPINES: MINDANAO, ZAMBOANGA, SULU, ISABELA 6.000 122.000 33 8.7 *******
1898 6 5 0 12 * JAPAN: OFF EAST COAST HONSHU 38.000 143.000 60 8.7 *******

Yet more evidence that the largest earthquakes occur in runs.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well the earth has been playing the earthquake game for a *long* time; indeed given the current estimate of the earth's age being ~4.6 billion years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth), and looking only as far back as say, a billion years, does it not seem even mildly plausible to you that a similar run could have happened during [b]at l ...[text shortened]... h that we have a world capable of supporting humans who measure quakes now)?
If not, why not?

Statistically speaking how many hundreds of years of repitition till the statistics would become viable?

Originally posted by Kostenuik
Statistically speaking how many hundreds of years of repitition till the statistics would become viable?

Why don't you study some statistics and find out?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Why don't you study some statistics and find out?

Is it part of your delusions to address posts not addressed to you or are you just an ignorant.? If someone claims my statistics are no good based on the "false" evidence that they give then it is allright for me to ask what is acceptable to them.

Clearly we can see that earthquakes can trigger/disintigrate new neighbouring earthquakes. The question is can this same effect be caused onto new earthquakes some distance away when dealing with far superior energy releases.

Also you can notice the transfers of energy. In the 1890's it is biased to the left of the ring of fire. Having used it's energies of the shifting plates in these areas it transfers to the right in the sixties and then back to the left in the 2000's.

Originally posted by Kostenuik
Also you can notice the transfers of energy. In the 1890's it is biased to the left of the ring of fire. Having used it's energies of the shifting plates in these areas it transfers to the right in the sixties and then back to the left in the 2000's.

lol

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
lol

11 Significant Earthquakes where (Year <= 1930 and Year >= 1890) and (Primary Magnitude <= 9.0 and Primary Magnitude >= 8.5)

1897 6 12 11 6 Tsu * INDIA: ASSAM 26.000 91.000 33 8.7 10 1542 4 4 4 4
1897 9 20 19 6 * PHILIPPINES: NW MINDANAO: DAPITAN 6.000 122.000 33 8.6 7 1
1897 9 21 5 12 Tsu * PHILIPPINES: MINDANAO, ZAMBOANGA, SULU, ISABELA 6.000 122.000 33 8.7 9 3 2
1898 6 5 0 12 * JAPAN: OFF EAST COAST HONSHU 38.000 143.000 60 8.7
1902 8 22 3 * CHINA: XINJIANG, TURKESTAN 39.880 76.200 30 8.6 10 2500 4 4 4 4
1906 1 31 15 35 51.0 Tsu * ECUADOR: OFF COAST 1.000 -81.500 25 8.8 9 1000 3 2 3
1907 11 16 10 10 * PERU -8.010 -76.790 150 8.7
1910 6 16 6 30 42.0 * VANUATU ISLANDS -19.000 169.500 100 8.6
1911 6 15 14 26 Tsu * JAPAN: RYUKYU ISLANDS 29.000 129.000 160 8.7 12 1 3 422 3
1914 11 24 11 53 30.0 * JAPAN: VOLCANO ISLANDS 22.000 143.000 110 8.7
1922 11 11 4 32 36.0 Tsu * CHILE: ATACAMA -28.500 -70.000 25 8.5

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/results?bt_0=1890&st_0=1930&type_17=EXACT&query_17=None+Selected&op_12=eq&v_12=&type_12=Or&query_14=None+Selected&type_3=Like&query_3=&st_1=&bt_2=&st_2=&bt_1=&bt_4=8.5&st_4=9.0&bt_5=&st_5=&bt_6=&st_6=&bt_7=&st_7=&bt_8=&st_8=&bt_9=&st_9=&bt_10=&st_10=&type_11=Exact&query_11=&type_16=Exact&query_16=&display_look=1&t=101650&s=1&submit_all=Search+Database

Here is my "little thought" predictions, no watch list, if I am capable of doing that without crying wolf over the next 7-8'ish years and people getting their periods.

Japan (7.0-8.0) Aftershocks/ delayed earthquakes to be watched over the next few years. We have seen delayed large quakes happen in Indonesian
and NZ is a good example of how aftershocks even smaller can be just as devastating if not more to weakened infrastructure.

Then 1 of next 4 over 7-8ish years (around 9.0)

1) India/China region(This is my main area I will be watching),
2) Philippines(Japan may alter things but one would think if it was going to go it would've already
and in the area the earth seems to have used up a lot of energy and may be running out)
3) Equador/Peru (It's on the right but both were exceptions to the turn of the century and also Chile had a decent earthquake last year
which could affect change in the region)
4) I guess I should add Vanuatu as well

Also I will be watching Alaska as a result of their large quake in the 60's... not for a largest quake but around the same as Chile experienced 8.7.

lol@edits😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀