PIN THIS - explanation of the correlation between SEISMS & ELENIN - WAIT FOR COMING BIG EARTHQUAKES

bump for hard cold math truth

My numbers are not a bit off. See.

Well, in fact, I didn’t take into account the EQ of New Zealand because 1) the 7+ EQ are no significant enough (too numerous), and 2) my theory implies that the comet must be in the shadow of the Earth to lag its extended magnetotail, which was not the case of SEPT 3rd, 2010 (NZ EQ), when Elenin was the other side of the sun. This is what you call a causal relationship!

In addition, we must take the exact numbers of days between the quake and the opposition (alignement), i.e. 1 day for the Chile EQ, and 3 days for the Japan EQ. I remind you that I created 33 diapos to show a possible physical explanation to understand such correlation. So, we have in one hand the stats, in the other the physical relation. Of course, our paid debunker remains deaf and blind to it, and we easily understand why. He refutes everything whatever the explanations provided, based on simple scientific laws and numerous clues. He made, and still continues, numerous mistakes and whishful thinkings.

But the facts are the facts.The physical causal relationship seems new for the standard models of comets and magnetotails, but understandable WITH CLUES so many times provided.

What matters for me, and my theory, is the physical relation I am suggesting (plasma discharge into the extended magnetotail) between Elenin and the Earth.

I took the exact values of the magnitudes of the quakes that happened in Chile and Japan because these values increase with the logarythmic scale. Between 9 and 9.2 there is a large difference of strength, so is it between 8.5 and 8.8. See:

[link to imageshack.us]

Of course, a statistical study is not a proof per se. But when such results are so high (no way to get them by chance) it is the way science declares evidence in so many cases and bases its communication of results to the public.

If it’s easy to understand the statistics of the quakes (Chile and Japan) based on the historic databases since 300 years (not 110 years) and the numbers of occurences in that period of time, I would like to decipher my third series of numbers regarding the correlation between distances and magnitudes.

1) ½ represents one of the two choices between the increasing and the decreasing curves.

2) 1/100 (2/2(100) is a mistake but the result is the same) represents the chance to have a 0.35 proportion between 6 and 2.1, i.e. two digits (hence 100).

3) the other 1/100 (2/2(100) is a mistake but the result is the same) represents the chance to have an approximate 0.35 proportion between 8.8 and 9.2 in terms of strength of EQ, i.e. two digits (hence 100).

So, we get the REAL probability of two occurrences of the EQs in Chile and Japan, respectively 1 day and 3 days from the opposition day (alignement), with the decreasing of distances at the same rate of the increasing of the magnitudes:

8.8+ quakes have occurred at the rate of 7 in the last 300 years (about one every 43 years), so the probability of someone guessing that a 8.8 quake would occur within a +/- 1 day period is 7(3)/365(300) = .000191

9.2+ quakes have occurred at the rate of 3 in the last 300 years (about one every 100 years), so the probability of someone guessing that a 9.2+ quake would occur within a +/- 3 day period is 3(7)/365(300) = .000191

The probability that two values of distances (6 AU and 2.1 AU) decrease at a rate of 2.1/6= .35 when the corresponding values of magnitude increase at the same proportion (9.2 is three times the strength of a 8.8 EQ) are grossly…1/2 x 1/100 x 1/100 = .5 x .01 x .01 = .00005

So the probability of someone correctly guessing two of these events +/- 1 day and +/- 3 days and having values of distances decreasing at the same pace of the increasing of the corresponding magnitude would be .000191 x .000191 x .00005 = .00000000000182, or about one chance in 550 billions.

That's an empirical proof by statistical proxy!

Now, IF we have a big EQ next NOV around the 22nd (+/- 3 days) about 9.8 strong, the odds will be much impossible to get it by chance. Since, NO EQ HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED THIS HIGH, the probability will be almost infinite (I take only a range of 1.000 years, even if no trace or record of such EQ has never been provided for the whole known history of human kind):

1/365(1000)= .00000273

1/100 = .01 (.6/2.1 = .29)

1/100 = .01 (“9.2”/”9.8” = around .29)

so: .00000273 x .01 x .01 = .000000000273

the result is: .00000000000182 x .000000000273 = .00000000000000000000049686

or about one chance in more than 200 billions of billions!

THAT WILL THE FINAL PROOF! AND MAYBE THE FINAL DAYS OF HUMANITY…

.

The recent developments with the probabilities led me to create a new diapo to sum up the strong correlation between Elenin alignements and EQs (Chile 2010 and Japan 2011) + the next one. Here is the new diapo:

[link to imageshack.us]

Impressive correlation, isn’t it?

.

Your stupidity bar is skyrocketing my friend. You are so afraid that I might be right. That's clear now. Pufff. Possible objects? Being coplanar? 4 kms large? long period orbit? small angle? narrow orbit? being electric? and so on...

Why do I have to multiply by the number of possible objects (12,000 to 550,000)? They first must meet the criteria. YOU, yourselves, found only ONE CASE (Bowell) that could possibly resembles Elenin. But your case failed! Your relative speeds don't match the most important problem of the lag power of the comets (angle + electric charge).

I have a cause and effect - with specific conditions - but you ignore them! So, that's YOUR problem, not mine, or ours. Ask you why no other reader do what you do (daily debunking since a whole month)? Ask the GOOD question. It's one thing to "hate junk science". It's another to debunk twice a day for only one thread, every day for a month. You said that you write in other threads. How do you spend your time? That's what I call a paid debunker.

My 8.5 limit was used to select the numbers of quakes in each category of magnitude to show how rare are the 8.8 and 9.2 EQs. I have not enough place on my drawing to put numbers above two digits (that's why I put "n/a" = "non available" in the graph), and the difference of strength between the 8+ and the 8.5+ is too high to just notice what is between 8 and 8.5. That's all. No secret behind it.


.

No it is not correct. The enitre analysis is bogus.

Nope. I know that you are wrong. I hate junk science and that is all you produce. You have nothing backing any of your statements but illogical arguments. You are a complte moron.

There are many compelling arguments that Elenin is something to be concerned about, but the bottom line is that the general public is not going to give a damn about them unless the next alignment also coincides with a major quake.

But if it does, watch out!

The next Sun-Earth-Elenin alignments are in late September, then in mid-November, and then in mid-June.

If the September alignment sees a major quake, expect panic to rule by the time the November alignment arrives. If the Sept alignment coincides with a major quake, the Elenin-quake pattern will receive huge media attention, and panic survivalism buying will appear.

They are off. You posted "9.0+ quakes have occurred at the rate of 4 in the last 300 years (about one every 75 years)", but in fact we have had six 9.0+ quakes since 1952:

Chile 1960 9.5
Alaska 1964 9.2
Aleutian Islands 1957 9.1
Japan 2011 9.0
Kamchatka 1952 9.0
Indonesia 2004 9.0

I think that the alignement in September won’t trigger any quake but disruptions in the electric devices, maybe helped by solar storms. So, if there is no EQ in September, it doesn’t mean that nothing will happen in late November. According to my theory, what matters is the opposition of Elenin in the extended magnetotail to discharge in it. The November case would be “perfect”: close to the earth; fully charged by the sun; relative speed with earth 17.5 - 29.5 = 12 km/s. So, better than Feb 27th, 2011 (23 km/s), and Mar 11th, 2011 (around 20 km/s).

The last alignement that could provide the last EQs strong enough to finalize the destruction is on DEC 21st, 2012:

[link to imageshack.us]

ELENIN WILL BE AT 5.2 AU, i.e. between Chile 8.8 EQ (6 AU) and Japan 9.2 EQ (2.1 AU). At that time, I think that the probability estimates will be the least of our problems to solve. DEC 21st, 2012. Mmmmm….

In this the FINAL VERSION of the 34 diapos of the theory I added the last one (probabilities):

[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]
[link to imageshack.us]


.

In fact, my mistake is about 5 instead of 4. But I changed the numbers to select only the 9.2+ EQ (3). Some of the third EQ you are talking about starts below.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

The EQ of 1957 is said to be 8.6:

March 9, 1957 Andreanof Islands, Alaska, USA 1957 Andreanof Islands earthquake 8.6

So, my numbers are NOT off.

.

You posted "9.0+ quakes have occurred at the rate of 4 in the last 300 years (about one every 75 years) [...] In fact, my mistake is about 5 instead of 4. But I changed the numbers to select only the 9.2+ EQ (3). So, my numbers are NOT off."

One every 75 years? Even if you were *really* talking about 9.2+ quakes, we still had three of those in the last 50 years alone:

1960 Chile 9.5
1964 Alaska 9.2
2004 Indonesia 9.1–9.3

One every 75 years? Even if you were *really* talking about 9.2+ quakes, we still had three of those in the last 50 years alone:

1960 Chile 9.5
1964 Alaska 9.2
2004 Indonesia 9.1–9.3


OP is a nitwit.

Can't tell difference between "one every 75 years" and "one every 16 years".

Nope. Try three in the last 50 years alone.
About one every 18 years.

You fail.

One every 75 years? Even if you were *really* talking about 9.2+ quakes, we still had three of those in the last 50 years alone:

1960 Chile 9.5
1964 Alaska 9.2
2004 Indonesia 9.1–9.3


When an EQ is noted 9.1 - 9.3, I only count 9.1. So, the Indonesian quake is NOT in the count of the 9.2+ EQ. The least moment is supposed to be sure, not the 9.3!

It is not because 3 major 9+ EQs occured in the last 50 years that every 50 years there are 3 9+ EQ! The total recorded 9+ EQ in 300 years is 5. If there were 3 in 50 years it's just a coincidence. And I speak about 9.2+ EQs. Only 3 occured in 300 years. So, the average is still one every century!

Keep your insults for you.


.

You fail to understand what is an average number! There were 3 9.2 EQs in 300 years. One every century! It happens that the 3 occured in the last 50 years. Maybe there is a pattern. Maybe not. Maybe just a coincidence.

But an average is an average. As far as you don't know what triggers those exceptionnal EQs, the probabilities are still valid.

.


.

Ah, I see.

Why did you change from 9.0+ quakes to 9.2+ quakes?

I explained it above. The difference of moments between 9 and 9.2 EQs is big enough not to mix the two. About 35 to 40% stronger.

[link to imageshack.us]

.

But why 9.2 and not 9.1 or 9.3?

Because we study the probability of the occurences of the Japan 9.2 EQ which is believed to be related to the Elenin alignement (opposition).


.

Ah, I see.

Well, the USGS has that quake listed as a 9.0 magnitude, so according to their records, there have been FIVE quakes of that size or larger since 1952.

see [link to earthquake.usgs.gov]

Wrong again. The magnitude scale is a logarihtmic scale. A 9.2 is twice as strong (more energy released) as a 9.0. A 9.0 is 32 times stronger than an 8.0. But more importantly you have no justification to select 9.2 as a cutoff magnitude. That is an arbitary number showing selection bias. Similarly, the 300 years is arbitrary and there is no justification for picking that number. Of course, your entire argument is a post hoc fallacy.

There have been five quakes of that size in this century, and our reliable records of quakes do not go back any further than that, so the only data we have to go on is the last century, so we must assume that these quakes routinely occur at this rate - about five per century.

Yes, I see! USGS is US (American = USA). In France, the Japan EQ has always been depicted as being a 9.2 EQ.


.

No! These quakes don't routinely occur at this rate. That's a whisful thinking. You assume way too much. The link I gave shows data until 300 years ago:

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Here is the list of EQs before the year 1900. I suspect that such EQs are so strong that all the nations recorded them in these recent modern last 300 years. The science was developped enough for scientists to record them, even if it wasn't accurate enough, just by the effects they could have measured. We can understand that most of the EQs weren't recorded. But here, we speak about the largest ones, the most noticeable one, not the "usual" 6 or 7+.

November 25, 1833 Sumatra, Indonesia 1833 Sumatra earthquake 8.8–9.2 (est.)

January 26, 1700 Pacific Ocean, USA and Canada 1700 Cascadia earthquake 8.7–9.2

July 8, 1730 Valparaiso, Chile 1730 Valparaiso earthquake 8.7–9.0

November 1, 1755 Atlantic Ocean, Lisbon, Portugal 1755 Lisbon earthquake 8.7 (est.)

July 9, 869 Pacific Ocean, Tōhoku region, Japan 869 Sanriku earthquake 8.6 (est.)

October 28, 1707 Pacific Ocean, Shikoku region, Japan 1707 Hōei earthquake 8.6 (est.)

August 13, 1868 Arica, Chile (then Peru) 1868 Arica earthquake 8.5–9.0

December 16, 1575 Valdivia, Chile (Kingdom of Chile) 1575 Valdivia earthquake 8.5 (est.)

October 20, 1687 Lima, Peru (Viceroyalty of Peru) 1687 Peru earthquake 8.5 (est.)

May 24, 1751 Concepción, Chile (Kingdom of Chile) 1751 Concepción earthquake 8.5 (est.)

November 1, 1755 Lisbon, Portugal 1755 Lisbon earthquake 8.5–9.0 (est.)

This list shows 11 EQs before 1900 of a list of the largest 27 EQs ever recorded in history.

In the USGS list, there are 16 largest EQs. We see that 27-11=16.

I used the wikipedia list where we see that more than 40% of the whole list is about EQs before the 20th century! The oldest recorded EQ in the list occured in 869. I didn't take all the EQ before the 1700, i.e. 3 EQs. So, that's why I took 300 years for my graph and the probabilities because WE HAVE RECORDS!

It's a wishful thinking to believe that 5 to 6 9+ EQ happen every century. These EQs were fully noticed (the list above), but not all 6, 7, or 8+ EQs because the logarythmic scale shows that they are way too weak, compared to the 8.5+, and therefore 9+, to get records without instruments, like it was the case before the years 1900.

So, I do believe that my numbers are still valid.



.

According to the USGS, there have only been seven quakes of 9.0+ in the last thousand years, and FIVE of those seven have happened in the last 60 years.

You are right about this and I was mistaken.

But the numbers of 9.0+ quakes seem to currently be changing dramatically compared to previous centuries, so it may not be reasonable to give any estimates at all of the "likely" frequency of 9.0+ quakes.

9.2 is twice as strong as a 9.0!? But I always speak in terms of moment, not energy. So, we both are right. But you are wrong when you say I am wrong. It's a matter of unit. You speak about energy, I speak about moment.

I can read on wikipedia:

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

-----------------------------

In all cases, the magnitude is a base-10 logarithmic scale obtained by calculating the logarithm of the amplitude of waves measured by a seismograph. An earthquake that measures 5.0 on the Richter scale has a shaking amplitude 10 times larger than one that measures 4.0.

-----------------------------

In addition:

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

-----------------------------

The moment magnitude is the most common scale on which earthquakes larger than approximately 5 are reported for the entire globe.

-----------------------------

Like you can see, you speak and insult others way too fast.

It's true that my graph isn't accurate enough (I said 35% / 40%).

So, anyway, you give me the reason for which I did select the 9.2+ EQ, only, to compute the probailities of a real event (Japan 9.2 EQ) in correlation with the Elenin Mar 11th 2011 alignement (opposition). Despite this, you ask why. Don't you understand your own words?


.

Thanks for your post.

I, myself, didn't give any 9+ EQ frequency. I just counted the real and noticed largest EQs, and compute the stats from there. Real facts are the best data ever.


.

Probably because they use different scales. The USGS uses moment magnitude mw (Based on the moment of the earthquake, which is equal to the rigidity of the earth times the average amount of slip on the fault times the amount of fault area that slipped). There is also mb (Based on the amplitude of P body-waves. This scale is most appropriate for deep-focus earthquakes).

The CESM classifies the Virgina earthquake as 4.6 mb while the USGS says 5.8 mw.

There is also ml, md, ms, me, mi, and more. They all will have slightly different solutions.