Earthquakes?

Quote from: MrBoB on August 13, 2010, 07:42:48 AM

You can actually predict the chances of earthquakes striking in certain places over a certain time. For example, its just a matter of time that the san andreas thing (dont exactly know what its called, the long tectonic line in western america) will cause another earthquake.
Surely its hard if not impossible to say which potential earthquake will be the next one realising, however there are many studies to where, how often and with what intensity earthquakes may strike certain areas.

Irrelevant.

If REers model is "consistent with the data", how come you cannot predict where the next earthquake will actually strike?

Oh yeah, Im sorry, I forgot: evidence and explanation always is irrelevant.

Quote from: parsec on August 13, 2010, 08:30:39 AM

Quote from: MrBoB on August 13, 2010, 07:42:48 AM

You can actually predict the chances of earthquakes striking in certain places over a certain time. For example, its just a matter of time that the san andreas thing (dont exactly know what its called, the long tectonic line in western america) will cause another earthquake.
Surely its hard if not impossible to say which potential earthquake will be the next one realising, however there are many studies to where, how often and with what intensity earthquakes may strike certain areas.

Irrelevant.

Quote from: parsec on August 13, 2010, 07:03:26 AM

If REers model is "consistent with the data", how come you cannot predict where the next earthquake will actually strike?

Oh yeah, Im sorry, I forgot: evidence and explanation always is irrelevant.

Statistical analysis of previous recorded data has nothing to do with the predictive power of a theoretical model and certainly nothing to do with the true shape of the Earth.

If REers model is "consistent with the data", how come you cannot predict where the next earthquake will actually strike?

This is irrelevant Parsec because you can't with 100% accuracy predict stress and resistance levels, or predict exactly when something is going to suddenly move. This has nothing to do with this subject. They can however make a general prediction according to levels of activity or inactivity according to recorded history to which is highly dependent on geology, geography, and even what kind of material is involved. Your argument here is like demanding evidence to predict the weather with 100% accuracy while knowing Emergence of pattern from chaotic systems is largely unpredictable with 100% accuracy. Again Parsec, you need to read the information before you make baseless arguments.

So parsec, I want you to predict for me in either RE or FE train of thought as to when the exact time and place to which the *first* snowflake will make contact with the roof of my house. The best you could ever do is make a general prediction based on such an event, and the same concept applies here regardless if you think your planet is flat or not Parsec. Asking for unrealistic predictions is dishonest discourse, if not a poor attempt at trying to be deflective or sly.

Again, all you have here Parsec is circular arguments without providing anything to support your position. Predictability of when an Earthquake will occur does not effect the subject here what-so-ever.

Statistical analysis of previous recorded data has nothing to do with the predictive power of a theoretical model and certainly nothing to do with the true shape of the Earth.

This shows your failure to comprehend the information provided to you, or your magical ability to cast magic ignore. It has everything to do with the shape of the Earth. This because the shape, mass, area, density, and volume of the Earth has everything to due with how P-waves, and S-waves behave and travel. All of this completely effects the Dynamo, and the dynamics of the data recorded. It effects the time, speed, and distance, as well as the harmonics. It effects how these waves reflect, converge, diverge, deflect, or refract, and it also show's in both the mathematics and the real world data according to RE.. There is absolutely nothing in the data that shows an FE model to which you seemingly can't even establish Parsec.

Is your argument stating that the Shape of the Earth would have no influence on the data? Well if that is your argument here, I hate to break it to you, but it has everything to do with it!

All I want you to do parsec is to stop playing little circular games and either admit FE has no data, or provide your data. If you can't provide any data Parsec, you have no room here to be making arguments, circular or otherwise.

 

Quote from: Hortensius on August 13, 2010, 07:25:25 AM

Quote from: parsec on August 13, 2010, 07:03:26 AM

If REers model is "consistent with the data", how come you cannot predict where the next earthquake will actually strike?

"If you understand birds so well, how come you can't predict when the next bird is going to shit on your head?" Same kind of stupid question...

How is a bird like an earthquake 

Both are hard to predict.

Please explain where I have used those links as proof.

In pressing the keys on your keyboard and then clicking the "post" button marked on the visual display device currently in use. For more information I suggest you google "the internet"

Also: Feeding time is over.

Quote from: parsec on August 12, 2010, 05:43:45 PM

Please explain where I have used those links as proof.

In pressing the keys on your keyboard and then clicking the "post" button marked on the visual display device currently in use. For more information I suggest you google "the internet"

Also: Feeding time is over.

And yet we still await his evidence..