posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:16 PM
reply to post by consciousgod
You don't show your calculations.
I did not show my calculations. You are correct, but my values were determined using stochastic methods.
It's not random. There is a cause and effect.
You are wrong or more likely you understood nothing of what I wrote and are therefore trying to cover up your lack of understanding. So let's see if
we can educate you. I believe you can figure this out.
Earthquakes on a worldwide scale appear to be independent events, and also appear to random in nature. In this case the randomness is uniform with
respect to time, and intensity. Over long periods of time records show a relatively constant number of quakes of various intensities. This is often
given as a rate of 1 8 or greater quake a year. This is a statement of the distribution of those quakes over time although the interval between those
quakes varies.
If Elenin is not the cause of the EQs, there is still a cause. Plate tectonics, volcanism. meteorite impact, or some other cause.
Volcanoes cause very few quakes. Meteor impacts do not cause quakes. The cause of quakes is slippage along fault planes usually associated with plate
boundaries. The only correlation between quakes and other celestial bodies is a few rare/uncommon quakes that are of low intensity and are correlated
with the Moon. The correlations are determined by showing that these events are not random in nature as other quakes appear to be.
To put a 8.8 and 9.0 off as random shows your ignorance.
Your ignorance is glaring, but is repairable. To show that a quake is related to Elenin or the Moon or the Sun is to show that there is a difference
between what happened and would be expected to happen were the events random.
Just because you do not understand the correlation, you choose to call it random rather than admit something is going on that you do not
understand. Using your logic, everything that happens in the world is random.
It turns out that one of the more difficult issues to understand is the meaning of random. PAP Moran showed how 3 different definitions to a simple
problem led to 3 distinct answers each based on the 3 definitions of random he used. I can only suppose that you do not understand what random means.
Clearly you are trying to misrepresent what I said unless the more likely explanation is that you do not understand what I wrote.
Is the weather random? Using your logic, it is; but we all know there is a cause and effect for weather unless you believe in miracles,
fantasies, or the occult. You may as well say GW Bush causes everything.
Your little rant gives us the answer - you have no idea what you are talking about.
There is a 38% chance of picking a date within 5 days of a 7 or larger quake using random selection. For a window of 8 days the chance is
52%.
Now if we drop the quake level down to the 6.3 of Christ's Church the odds are much better. The odds just to an 80% chance of picking within a window
of 2 days of an event of that size. That is just random chance.
If you are so smart show me that these values are wrong. You can't because you do not have the background to determine these probabilities. Go ask
your high school math teacher how to construct a stochastic model and they can do the work for you.
Cheers
edit on 26-9-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)