It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NathanNewZealand
reply to post by Phage
What a moron!
see an OP that's just presenting information
Originally posted by Jimjolnir
ooooh... the tension builds! you gonna make the Phage upset, and Phage just so you know, whenever I read a thread that's full of $#it I always wait for you or arpmap to come in and set things straight. So maybe help me out with this little theory I thought up while reading this thread... Maybe its really the pre-eclipse and post-eclipse that build up tension/pulling of the earths crust. when an eclipse is set to happen, the moon and sun are, for the most part, on the same side of the earth at different points in the sky, first getting closer to each other, eclipsing and then getting further away from eachother. If you compare the moon and the sun to different strength kids, each holding a piece of rope pulling in a straight line as they move around a balloon (the earth), it would warp the balloon differently on their path. If the strings were pulling on just the right (or wrong) fault lines/weak terrain, from a close proximity to eachother though not yet aligned, could it have adverse effects? I'm no geologist (or whatever vocation is necesary here) but surely this could explain why the earthquakes etc occur sometimes weeks/days before and after an eclipse/alignment. Also, this would be dependant on the location of the sun, moon and area which an eclipse takes place.
I'm probably wrong, it's just a thought
please don't flame me too hard, I wouldnt know where to start on getting any backup for this 'theory'
These earthquakes are occurring in the region where the solar eclipse was visible four days ago and tidal strains may have helped bring this swarm at this time. It is also located on the geomagnetic equator. The strongest geomagnetic storm in the past ten months occurred four days ago along with the solar eclipse. Strong seismicity is often seen along the geomagnetic equator 4-5 days after unusual or strong geomagnetic storms such as this one. The combination of these two triggering forces may have brought about this swarm at this time. We have been following these and other regional activity in regard to the geomagnetic storm and the solar eclipse over the past several days and readers are encouraged to review these archives. We had expected an earthquake with magnitude up to M 6.5 in the Andaman Islands at this time (forecasts 46993 and 47209) about 150 km south of the current swarm.
Whiteside has long studied correlations of earthquakes with solar activity, geomagnetic anomalies, "tectonic stress waves," and global normal modes ("ringing" of the Earth).
Results from these avenues of inquiry haven't appeared in peer-reviewed journals. Usually this means that the data isn't conclusive. Despite the ideals of scientific philosophy, no one publishes vague or negative results.
The things I'm pointing out might seem subtle, but people with PhD's can point them out without a moment's thought. As Kozuch and Whiteside both have doctorates, these flaws can only be deliberate choices to use substandard methods.
* They count random events as successful forecasts. Consider that in the regions they cover (California, Japan and Taiwan), earthquakes of all sizes occur constantly. Forecasting small quakes there is like forecasting waves at the beach. It is rare that a forecast will not include something they can call a complete success, and we know this because they proclaim an overall success rate of 83 percent!
* Their criterion for a successful location is flawed. Instead of measuring the distance from an earthquake directly, as the radius of a circle, they use a longitude-latitude box. This allows them to call a "hit" an event as much as 1.4 times farther than the radius. (See the illustration.)
* They assess latitude and longitude separately. That way they can declare an "A" quality success for matching an event's latitude, even if the longitude is completely wrong. This procedure is not justified by scientific practice—or even common sense.
* There is a big loophole in the magnitude criterion: an event larger than the forecast can be counted as a success. Considering that all of southern California should be carpeted with forecasts for small quakes (GeoForecaster's go down to M2), magnitude-5 events like the quake of 22 February 2003 will always score as successes, even if they weren't predicted. Thus Kozuch and Whiteside claim over 90 percent success for earthquakes larger than magnitude 6.5, yet they don't say they actually issued forecasts for events of that size.
* They commit the basic statistical distortion of turning a semiquantitative measure of success (their 16-point ABCD metric) into a quantitative "AccuCast" index (0 to 100%), introducing false precision. It's the same error as reading the length of a car trip from your dashboard gauge, then reporting it in centimeters.
Originally posted by nunya13
I'm pretty sure the OP's aim was to make a connection to solar eclipses
On 26/7/2005, the city was inundated after it received 944 mm rainfall in 24 hours and the tide was 4.48 metres then.