Super Moon and Japan/NZ

Originally posted by Kostenuik
Name the size of the quakes and the time periods they are refering to. Otherwise you are just waving around wild accusations.

Do you have a reputable source that agrees with your claims?

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.

I didn't run 500,000,000 trials but 15 of the largest quakes capable of causing the most single-handed dmg to the earth's crust and adding to the previous dmg. Go smaller and it will be prone to more and more liability.

Originally posted by Kostenuik
I didn't run 500,000,000 trials but 15 of the largest quakes capable of causing the most single-handed dmg to the earth's crust and adding to the previous dmg. Go smaller and it will be prone to more and more liability.

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 at least one 100 year interval of time?

If so, why wouldn't that trend have continued (such that we have a world capable of supporting humans who measure quakes now)?
If not, why not?

Originally posted by Kostenuik
He is putting his makeup on. 🙂.

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

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
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.

Yes, this is why I resorted to asking for a source. Dialogue is impossible.

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 h that we have a world capable of supporting humans who measure quakes now)?
If not, why not?

I am saying that trend has continued through the majority of history where if we had the technology to record quakes in our past it would show the same trends over decades of time. The plates build up pressure but do not release until one big one goes and it's all downhill from there until we get back to calm.

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, this is why I resorted to asking for a source. Dialogue is impossible.

How can I have a source for a hypothesis that I invented?

Originally posted by Kostenuik
How can I have a source for a hypothesis that I invented?

LOL! I see. So you're right because you glanced at the data and the world's seismologists are wrong?

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

Truth is buddy that I was showing concern before the Japan earthquake and sure enough it ended up happening shortly afterwards.

Originally posted by Palynka
LOL! I see. So you're right because you glanced at the data and the world's seismologists are wrong?

Time and size. You parrot on the same repatative arguments but you are not willing to specify what is meant by the links that you give.

Originally posted by Kostenuik
Time and size. You parrot on the same repatative arguments but you are not willing to specify what is meant by the links that you give.

So you're right because you glanced at the data and the world's seismologists are wrong?

If you believe your personally invented hypothesis the answer to that question must be yes. Is it?

Originally posted by Palynka
So you're right because you glanced at the data and the world's seismologists are wrong?

If you believe your personally invented hypothesis the answer to that question must be yes. Is it?

monkeys and apes.

Originally posted by Kostenuik
monkeys and apes.

Just admit you're trolling, it's pretty obvious by now.

Originally posted by Palynka
Just admit you're trolling, it's pretty obvious by now.

Time and size. You posted the link so stop making assumptions before you get your facts correct.

Originally posted by Palynka
Just admit you're trolling, it's pretty obvious by now.

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.