I'm an old fashioned Seismologist which examined maybe hundreds of thousands of recordings. So, I'm quite sceptical about the so-called earthquake prediction / forecast. I visited your site and examined the content there. First of all, please put a caption for the colours on the global map. Secondly, as I can see for today, April 1st, you show some events in Nicobar/ India and one event in Philippines, with magnitudes around 5.1. OK, I can see this also at www.iris.edu, on Wilber3 page, for example, with many other earthquakes too for today.

It is not clear to me you predicted the above events or just extracted them from IRIS (or NEIC, directly). If you claim you can predict some earthquakes, please do that in advance. For example, on April 1st, indicate the next earthquakes from April 15th or so.

One more word, please, related to the analogy you make to Meteorology. In Meteorology there are long time series of high quality recordings. This is not the case with Seismology, magnitude concept, for example, has been introduced only in 1935. Large data amount are available only starting with 1990-1995, due to Internet. In Meteorology there are explicit equations to be solved with the help of super-computers, meteo stations and satellites recording and observing in real time. Even so, meteorological forecast sometimes is wrong even on a weekly base. All of the above are not available in Seismology.

If we knew all the variables that influence the occurrence of an earthquake and we had the data of these variables, of at least 300 years, surely we could predict them. But at the moment it is impossible to predict the exact location and intensity of an earthquake.

Dear Marcelo,

It seems you did not notice the link to the Quantectum site. Almost all moderate earthquakes are already being predicted on a daily basis. You can check the progress here:

https://quantectum-main.blogspot.com/

I do fully agree with Marcelo.

Is your opinion based on the theory of chaotic synchronisations, existence of geometric and periodic earthquake series, tectonic waves and formalism of seismic states?

If yes, then you are invited to explain your statement.

Dear Jure,

I wondering if this theory works well independently of the velocity of the fault. I mean, there is slow faults within intraplate areas where it is very difficult to estimate recurrence intervals or even to determine the length of the active segment. According to the synchronization in these segments, How we can estimate the long time span to determine synchronization?, Looking at the web site of quantectum, obviously, the main activity is located at plate boundaries. What about stable areas? Thank you

Dear Raul,

I am searching for good data for slow slip events, some kind of catalogue. I would like to test the theory for this type of events too. If you have any useful data, I would be grateful!

Regarding the interplate events... The tectonic waves most easily trigger earthquakes on the boundaries of tectonic plates. This is accounted in the program by using so called seismic potential, which has large value near the boundaries. So, when you see on our charts that seismic potential was acounted for, this means that tectonic waves in the tectonic plates interior were hidden. But there these waves also can produce earthquakes...

Best regards,

Jure

I'm an old fashioned Seismologist which examined maybe hundreds of thousands of recordings. So, I'm quite sceptical about the so-called earthquake prediction / forecast. I visited your site and examined the content there. First of all, please put a caption for the colours on the global map. Secondly, as I can see for today, April 1st, you show some events in Nicobar/ India and one event in Philippines, with magnitudes around 5.1. OK, I can see this also at www.iris.edu, on Wilber3 page, for example, with many other earthquakes too for today.

It is not clear to me you predicted the above events or just extracted them from IRIS (or NEIC, directly). If you claim you can predict some earthquakes, please do that in advance. For example, on April 1st, indicate the next earthquakes from April 15th or so.

One more word, please, related to the analogy you make to Meteorology. In Meteorology there are long time series of high quality recordings. This is not the case with Seismology, magnitude concept, for example, has been introduced only in 1935. Large data amount are available only starting with 1990-1995, due to Internet. In Meteorology there are explicit equations to be solved with the help of super-computers, meteo stations and satellites recording and observing in real time. Even so, meteorological forecast sometimes is wrong even on a weekly base. All of the above are not available in Seismology.

Dear Marian Ivan,

Thank you for extensive comment. I will try to explain some of your questions.

First, in Thursday, 04/04/2019, a press conference will be organised by Natural History Museum of Slovenia and National geographic society on a breakthrough in earthquake prediction:

https://quantectum-main.blogspot.com/

We decided that no future forecasts/predictions will no longer be available to general public to avoid panic! The future predictions will, however, be available to professionals, seismologists and decision making stuff.

The figure with those red clouds is on the page only as graphic material. It is no a prediction or forecast.

On the Quantectum site, we only publish the comparison between past earthquakes and calculated synchronisation fields, for example:

https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/2019/03/intensive-testing-of-quantectum.html

What regards the terminology related to forecast and prediction. Quantectum performs so called ensemble earthquake forecasting. We calculate many models, which give a spectrum of possible scenarios what can happen and where. For example:

https://quantectum-main.blogspot.com/p/forecasts.html

I also strongly recommend to read the Introduction to the Omega-theory. It is a new physics. The old classical seismology does not allow for reliable earthquake forecasting. The new physics does!

Dear Sir,

During the last decades, I have seen many attempts regarding the forecast/prediction of earthquakes. Non of them succeed, unfortunately.

Regarding the terminology, I suppose it is quite clear and analogue to Meteorology, remaining in the same field you like it. If you want your theory to be accepted by the Scientific Community, please perform, on the Base of New Physics, several real predictions / forecasts in advance, i. e. indicate the common characteristics of some earthquakes : origin time, geographical location of epicenter, depth and magnitude. There will be no panic if you select an area with sparse population. But be careful regarding the errors. For example, predicting during the following 6 months an earthquake with Mw around 6.0 in Fiji Islands area (-20 S, 180 ) at a depth around 600 km is not a prediction, but a common sense statement.

Dear Marian Ivan,

We did exactly what you suggested. You can check past post on Quantectum site. We can anytime describe possible scenarios what can happen and when, then wait, and at last compare forecasts to real situation. Some people are aware of these tests, some are not.

Of course, there were many attempts in history but all failed. That is because they were based on wrong physics. Now the theory of chaotic synchronisations, tectonic waves and seismic states is known, therefore, earthquake forecasting is becoming a reality.

There will be total disbelievers among seismologists, however, the omega theory is based on the work of numerous seismologists, who were not recognised until now. Many people are already recognising it as a valid description of seismic process. It would not have been published by Elsevier if it is wrong.

Best regards,

Jure

Dear all, I am uploading the Introduction to the Omega theory. See the attached files to this discussion.

Dear Jure Zalohar,

Your site is not very friendly, so I'm afraid is not clear to me how I will be able to check past post.

Please kindly perform NOW a valid prediction for a geographical area at your choice and post it here, on ResearchGate.

I have no intention to contest the New Physics, but printing by Elsevier is not a scientific proof. I can show you at a glance seismological papers printed in Science or Nature which, in time, proved to be completely wrong.

Sincerely,

Marian Ivan

Dear Marian,

Quantectum has decided not to allow the general public any access to future prediction to avoid misinterpretations and panic.

Here, however, are several links which show such tests:

CALIFORNIA

before:

https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/2019/01/moderate-to-strong-synchronisation-in.html

https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/2019/01/strong-earthquake-in-california-is.html

after:

https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/2019/01/successful-prediction-of-earthquakes-in.html

JAPAN

before:

https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/2019/01/64-days-earthquake-forecast-for-japan.html

after:

https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/2019/01/rotational-singularities-and-japan.html

There are many such tests... Note that the synchronisation fields are only calculated once per 64 days. So all tests on Quantectum site are such tests!

Perhaps we could create a closed Facebook group for seismologists only, where future predictions would be available. But for scientists only!

The question is how to know, who is a serious scientists and who is the so called "earthquake predictior"... Perhaps the members should send us their bibliography.

Best regards,

Jure

Dear Jure,

I examined the maps you indicated.

I'm afraid that the common understanding of earthquake prediction is as follows :

On April,15th, 2019, 12:44: 32 UT, an earthquake having the magnitude of 6.5 +/- error will be located at 20.5 degrees South and 178 degrees West (+/- error) in Fiji area, at a depth of 615 km +/- error. By "error" I mean values not very different from the figures routinely included in the bulletins.

Predicting earthquakes will be recorded in areas with frequent seismological activity is not too useful. So, I kindly suggest you to focus on major earthquakes, with magnitudes exceeding 6.5 and try to estimate the errors in each case, as in the above hypothetical example.

If possible, please post such a prediction just here. Myself, I wait with great interest.

Good luck!

Marian

Dear Marian,

This is exactly the plan. The problem is only that there will be MANY such earthquakes and that each earthquake requires a considerable amount of work... In few moths, hopefully, we will have several employed researchers.

It is already possible to give such estimations:

1. time window

2. Minimum magnitude of an earthquake

3. region or tectonic zone

Quantectum gives ensemble forecasting. That means that we calculate several models to get the spectrum of possible scenarios. Meteorologists in ECMWF calculate 51 ensemble members. Then they compare the models and see what is the most probable scenario, and what are the most extreme scenarios.

See their video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLhRUun2iso

This is exactly what should and will be done in seismology.

We are at the beginning of a path that meteorology is walking for decades. We cannot reach the same level in just few years. But it will be possible!

Dear all,

Today, the Omega-Theory was introduced in the Natural History Museum of Slovenia, where we organised the press conference. The first press report on it was published by RTV Slovenia 1 (in Slovenian language only):

https://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/dnevnik/174606671?jwsource=cl

Best reagrds,

Jure Žalohar

Dear Jure!

I am a postdoctoral researcher in Meteorology, working on different aspect of Numerical Weather Prediction, especially data assimilation and dynamics. You may remember or not, but I was also your student at Gimnazija Kranj.

I am following the Omega theory for quite long time now and naturally I am interested in it.

I have seen you are mentioning meteorology. Numerical weather prediction is advancing steadily, but quietly, the statistics show that we gain one day of prediction skill per decade. This advance owes to model improvements, improvements in the observation network, improvement in the algorithms, that include the observational information into the models (i.e. data assimilation) and of course to increasing computational resources. The ensemble is generated in the physical way, by:

1.) constructing physically meaningful perturbations to the initial state (for subsequent model forecast). With physically meaningful, I mean that the fields are perturbed according to the balances between the most dominant terms in the system of PDEs, that describe the atmospheric flow.

2.) perturbing also the model equations, e.g. their parameterized terms (due to forcings that cannot be resolved on the model grid of finite resolution).

Related to that, my questions are:

a) how do you prepare an ensemble? Increasing number of ensemble members does not add anything, as the long as the ensemble is not prepared in a physical way, except if the ensemble is of comparable size to the size of the state vector you are simulating. In NWP, that ratio is currently at 50 vs. 10^8.

b) what kind of prognostic equations are actually solved in time? Statistical, deterministic?

c) Can synchronisation be understand like a positive interference of certain seismic waves?

I really hope the same as for meteorology happens in the future with earthquake prediction. However, note that only the data will most likely not improve the prediction. In meteorology, for example, the basic Euler equations that stem from Navier-Stokes equations are known for long time. So it is not just data and the shear computational power, the model itself is vital. There have been several attempts to simulate weather with e.g. CNNs, but no result can yet even compare to the simulation with the physical model.

Best regards,

Žiga

According to my expertise in the field of earthquakes prediction I have some notes:

First, is the prediction that you speak of according to Omega theory only depends on the basis of timing, magnitude, and epicentre of past earthquakes in the region. if it is so, I believe that earthquakes data has more than one time-dependent variable. Each variable depends on its past values and also on other variables past values The complex systems formation of earthquakes is done by interacting several elements in a non-linear form cannot be interpreted by its elements analysis on an individual basis, but needs more comprehensive method to reveal concealed.

Second, for more accurate prediction there must be long term period of past Multivariate earthquakes data for analysis not only 50.

3rd, I think its time to build the dependable global Earthquakes prediction system

And To encourage all experiments, contributions and theories that prove their validity in this field. Hence, call upon all specialists in the field of earthquake forecasting to participate in the establishment of this global system for the benefit of mankind.

Dear Žiga,

Thank you for your extensive questions. These are good questions that can bring this discussion a step further.

First, the seismic systems are different than atmospheric systems, because the rocks do not flow like air. Nikolayevkiy and his colleagues were the first to assume that in order to describe migration of seismic activity we need to solve the sine-Gordon equation. This is not the ordinary wave equation, but has one additional term, which comes from the fact that the Earth'c crust can be described as the Cosserat continuum. There are many solutions of the sine-Gordon equation for the Earth system known in the literature (especially Russian literature), therefore we know that there exist so called strain or tectonic waves. These are not seismic waves. The existence of tectonic waves was extensively discussed by Nikolayevsky and Ramazanov (1985), later followed by many researchers. In the last two decades, Victor Bykov is doing extensive research on these waves.

In the Omega-theory, we discovered that tectonic waves propagate with the speed between 0 m/s up to 6000 m/s, and produce geometric and periodic cascades of earthquakes. We use these cascades, called Omega-sequences to calculate direction and velocity of tectonic waves.

The tectonic waves are not ordinary waves, but are solitary waves (solitons). There is no linear superposition principle for these waves. However, they produce occurrence of so called seismic states in the seismic systems. These seismic states are very much like quantum states, and we know superimposed, product, mixed and entangled seismic states. It is very complicated, but if you are interested, I strongly suggest to read Chapter 29 in the book for detailed definitions. What we do is to use two different sets of seismic states to produce 8 models based on different boundary conditions for the propagation of tectonic waves on a sphere and based on variations of other physical parameters. This gives the so called Model-ensemble. We then use two types of tectonic waves (there are several types), and three different physically possible effects that they produce on seismic zones (faults), so we get 6 Model-ensembles. This is so called Multi-ensemble. Currently we only calculate one Multi-ensemble, because of financial difficulties. But in the future, we will calculate at least 5 to 10 Multi-ensembles, which are so called Hyper-ensemble. Based on the Hyper -ensemble it is possible to perform various statistical tests as in ensemble forecasting in meteorology.

So, you see, the seismic systems are very much different compared to meteorological systems. Seismic systems are more like some sort of mechanical equivalent to quantum computing. Nevertheless, the idea is similar as in meteorology, to calculate different models (ensembles).

Best regards,

Jure

Dear Shahen Mohammed Alhirmizy,

Thank you for your question. I have explained some of the problems that you referred already in the answer to Žiga (see above).

In summary, there are so called tectonic waves that cause occurrence of periodic and geometric cascades of earthquakes in all scales. These are so called Omega-sequences, but you can also call them the Repeating Earthquake Sequences (RES). Based on simple geometrical relationship between timing and epicentres of past earthquakes within the Omega-sequences it is possible to calculate the direction and velocity of thousands of such waves in the earth's crust. These waves cause occurrence of synchronised seismic states within tectonic zones, that we can illustrate as red clouds. We need approximately 50 - 100 past earthquakes to give a satisfying description of the synchronisation field.

I strongly recommend to read the Chapters 29 and 30 in the book.

Best regards,

Jure

Dear Jure,

Your theory is based on the so-called "strain / tectonic waves" propagating (you say so) with velocities between 0 and 6 km/s. First of all, you need to provide a scientific proof for such waves and explain their propagation mechanism. Simple fact that two earthquakes at 600 km distance each other have a difference of 100 seconds between their origin times is not a scientific proof that some sort of unknown wave propagated between their epicenters with 6 km/s.

Two footprints very resemblent each other observed on a very crowded sea beach at 10 km each other is not a scientific proof that a giant man has been there.

You still compare the hypothetical earthquakes prediction to the Meteorological forecast. The equations in Meteorology are well established and verified, nobody contested them. Weather forecast works pretty well every day. There are no such equations in the hypothetical earthquakes prediction, i.e. the equations you mention are just some empirical relations not verified by reproductible experiments and not based on the Continuum Media Mechanics.

I still suggest you to focus your attempt of earthquake prediction on a narrow zone, like Fiji or South Sandwich Islands, where the epicenters are highly confined. You will deal in such a case only with origin time, magnitude and depth unknowns.

If you will start to provide reliable predictions on a routine base there, maybe the Scientific Community will begin to look at your results with interest. Otherwise, you have no chance, just waist your time.

Marian

Article Strain waves in the Earth: Theory, field data, and models

http://cseptesting.org/

CSEP is made to evaluate models and methods

Dear Vuan,

Yes that is one of the articles! There are many more!

Best regards,

Jure

Dear Marian,

The Omega-theory was published by Elsevier and was extensively reviewed by a team of best seismologists, physicists and mathematicians, who worked for months on the texts and proofs.

The omega theory does not need verification in the theoretical context, because, this theory verifies and confirms dozens of older research on the topics of the tectonic waves. For example, based on the sine-Gordon equation Gerchenson, Bykov and Bambakidis (2009) derived the same equation for the velocity of the tectonic waves as we have later derived from the Bath's law describing interaction between the parallel faults.

I strongly recommend to read articles by Victor Bykov, and other russian researchers on this topics. Bykov (2005) described an extensive review of almost all past literature. I think some of the articles are on ResearchGate. According to Bykov's opinion, the discovery of the tectonic (strain) waves is one of the most significant discovery in seismology in the last decades. This discovery has already changed how we see the seimogenic process. I assume there will be extremely rapid progress in the seismology and earthquake forecasting in the following 10 years (not just omega theory).

I really hope that this literature will become known among seismologists.

There are hundreds of additional proofs on tectonic waves in the book!

We are completely sure that these waves do exist! We also know a lot about them.

Best regards,

Jure

@Jure and Vuan

Please read my demand and suggestion about Fiji or Sandwich Islands earthquakes. If you like, you could also include Italy earthquakes. But be aware, some Italian Seismologists had serious troubles only few years ago regarding such prediction topics in relation to their Government.

In the History of Science, there have been many books or articles considered absolute truths at some time. Now, they are obviously wrong. I remaind you the Geocentric Theory only. Water level, electric potential or radon emission changes only show (sometimes) a change in the strain field. Crustal earthquakes have been explained in such a manner since Reid elastic rebound theory more than 100 years ago. Such phenomena do not show the existence of a "strain wave". Low frequency EM waves or ionospheric changes, or abnormal animal behaviour have been also reported before an earthquake (Loma Prieta one, if I remember properly, Greek VAN method also) and many many others. But they are made public AFTER the event. We know very well that non of the aboves have been validated by the Scientific Community and for many Seismologists earthquakes prediction / forecast is considered simply Non-Science. A "wave" travelling with a velocity between 0 and 6 km/s is a non-sense. According to your definition, sometimes such a "wave" will need an (almost) infinite time to propagate 1 km distance, so there is no propagation there. But if you provide a proof on the existence of the "strain wave" as based on Continuum Mechanics theory, it is OK because the P or S waves existence can be also proved so. It remains to build a proper sensor for recording it....

I do not say your attempt is Non-Science, I intended to remaind you what many people understand by earthquakes prediction (or at least myself one) and to suggest you to perform such a prediction ( origin time, magnitude, depth and epicentral location) for an area at your choice.

Till then, I have very serious doubts.

Reid Rebound theory was originally designed to take into account ONE fault in an infinite medium.

What about several faults? We know from geological observations, that many faults are sub-parallel...

See, that is the Cosserat extension of the Reid Rebound model! Chapter 7 in the book. The extended and improved Reid rebound model is based on the modern approach into the generalised continua. Cosserat continuum theory is within the generalised continua, which takes into account the rotation of tectonic blocks between the fault planes. The first significant result of this approach is explanation of the Bath's law (M. Bath, 1965). Parallel faults interact each other, because blocks between them rotate. This interaction then leads directly to the domino-type waves which are slow tectonic waves (Chapter 12).

Best regards,

Jure

Scientists using such models with springs, balls and so on should go in field and see how a real fault looks like. Such models had some popularity in the early '90s. They reproduced Omori law or Gutenberg-Richter law by proper adjustment of the model parameters, but what does it means ? They have been able to predict nothing and soon became History.

Interaction between blocks delimited (of course) by faults doesn't mean there is a "wave" propagating there. If a crustal earthquake is produced in Italy on a certain strike-slip fault

It doesn't means it is quite necessary due to the movement of the African plate, or related to earthquakes on African Horn, for example. Or that a strain wave propagated from African Horn to Italy. If some temporal connection is supposed to be between the two earthquakes, why such a "wave" is not producing earthquakes on the whole path ? Because the local condition are not fulfilled one could replay. ..

The whole discussion is useless if you don't find a device to show such a wave is really existing and propagating on the whole path between Africa and Italy. And showing the arrival of the "wave" is the reason for the earthquake in Italy. Otherwise, you just suppose there is some sort of connection between the African earthquake and the Italian one. In such a case there is no need to introduce the term of "wave".

The crustal movements in California are observed with a dense network. If possible, please indicate me some papers in the Western journals like BSSA, JGR, GJI, G3 and so on dealing with the concept of "tectonic waves".

Quantectum has just released maps of the current tectonic stress of the world: https://quantectum-stress-maps.blogspot.com/

There is also an old project on the same topic at GFZ Potsdam, including also data from well breakouts, focal mechanism of local earthquakes and so on:

http://www.world-stress-map.org/

Meanwhile, I examined in detail the paper in Russian Geol. & Geophys. January 2005. Despite there is a section there supposed to deal with the theory of the so called "strain waves", I see nothing like this there. Basically, the paper shows a Table with various hypothetical "strain waves". It is not clear at all how a such a "wave" could be recorded, or if it is a longitudinal or a transverse wave (for example). To be quite clear, I don't speak here about long or ultra-long Rayleigh or Love waves recorded by quarz-fussed (or invar) extensometers (strainmeters) and used, following the Great Chile Earthquake (1960) to show (toroidal) normal modes (free oscillations) of the Earth.

I wait to see with great interest a recording (amplitude vs. time), showing unambiguously such a "tectonic strain wave" on a device at your choice, located at your choice and due to an event at your choice.

Dear Marian,

There is another article by Bykov and Trofimenko (2016) published in Nonlienar Processes in Geophysics (EGU), which brings some theory (not all!) and observations.

Bykov, V., Trofimenko, S.V., 2016. Slow strain waves in blocky geological media from GPS and seismological observations on the Amurian plate. Nonlin. Processes. Geophys. 23, 467-475.

The importance of this paper is that it bring direct confirmation of one of the solution of the sine-Gordon equation, which is called a breather.

There are many other direct confirmations of the slow strain (tectonic waves). But the literature on this is so vas that I cannot upload it on the ResearcGate.

It is also possible to calculate the positions of the tectonic waves based on the distribution of past large earthquakes on earth. This is indirect observation, but it tells a lot about the distribution of these waves on the global level.

We are preparing the Quantectum site (at this moment it is closed) so that invited seismological centres will be able to subscribe on it and monitor our numerical tests on earthquake forecasts.

Best regards,

Jure

I"ll examine the above paper.

But I start having the feeling that we don't understand the same thing by the "wave" concept. A crustal movement detected by GPS is not a wave. A wave means a transport of energy WITHOUT a transport of mass. A wave /not light/ is an oscillation of the particles of the medium around an equilibrium position. Such an oscillation may be along the direction of the wave propagation, perpendicular on that direction, or more complex one, like in a Rayleygh wave. My opinion on equations derived for models involving springs, balls, bricks and so has been already mentioned. With your kind agreement, I will stop the discussion here, waiting for a clear recording /like an ordinary seismological one / of a "tectonic wave" and for a prediction of an earthquake /according to the well-known definition already mentioned/.

Good luck !

Dear All,

I am sharing a short video by RTV Slovenia from the press conference on the Omega-Theory and earthquake prediction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6wd7rBBGPM&t=26s

Best regards,

Jure Žalohar

Dear JURE Z.,

Hi. firstly I wan to express that I spent more than 30 years on Prediction Projects. I wan to express my sincere answer, my opinion that PREDICTION is possible. one day will come scientists will prove..on many examples. I myself have predicted.. several event..all has been proved ..EQ occurred on teh expected time interval. and location..I support you...

I am reafdy to collaborate with you, on this issues. best regards

Dr M Salih Bayraktutan

Dear Mehmet Salih Bayraktutan,

Thank you very much for support. This will be highly welcomed in the following years.

Here I am sharing the Special Report on the predictability of the Luzon earthquake (Philippines) on 22/04/2019:

http://www2.arnes.si/~jzaloh/Reports%202019/Special%20Report%201%20-%20Philippines.pdf

Best regards,

Jure Žalohar

Quantectum has just published the video from the press conference on the Omega-Theory and earthquake prediction with the English subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRB4lSvGRBs

Kindly invited to watch the video.

Jure Žalohar

Dear all,

We have just finished the Quantectum Global internet site: https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/

On the right side of the site you can also access the 64-days forecasts for May and June; Multi-Ensemble Model and Euler Model. There will be a lot of happening in June!

Best regards,

Jure Žalohar

Dear all,

I am happy to announce that ELSEVIER has published our post on the Omega-Theory and the Quantectum project.

http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/the-omega-theory-a-new-physics-of-earthquakes/

This in fact is one very important event!

Best regards,

Jure Žalohar

I am sharing the results of the preliminary analysis of the predictability of the Mw = 6.5 earthquake in Southern California on 04/07/2019:

https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/2019/07/strong-earthquakes-in-southern.html

Special Report on this event will be available in 14 days.

Jure Žalohar

Quantectum has published the special report on the Ridgecrest Mw = 7.1 earthquake in California on 06/07/2019:

https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/2019/07/special-report-on-ridgecrest-earthquake.html

Dear Jure Žalohar,

Take a look at my recent article translation:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334131717_The_phenomenon_of_subduction_is_incompatible_with_Earth's_surface_geometry_and_geomorphology

There the PT’s subduction is very simply mode refuted… So if a theory is wrong such way the prediction method built onto it same is not so good… If the predicting method works then you are not telling us the true real basics of predicting method…

Can do long term earthquakes predicting your method?

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Jure Žalohar,

I have taken a look onto the last post:

https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/2019/07/special-report-on-ridgecrest-earthquake.html

Can you eaxplain a bit better the mega cause the Earthquakes in California?... What process caused the 'strike-slip stress field' Can you tell me that exist other Eartquakes cell's in the nearby zone .. How many big Earthquakes' zones exist there?

Regards,

Laszlo

In few points:

1. Enlarged tectonic shear stress within the Little Lake tectonic zone

2. Perfect phase-synchronizations of earthquake sequences in all time-scales

3. One strong global tectonic wave with large characteristic length passed the region and provided the final destabilization.

This is what triggered the Ridgecrest earthquake. If someone would perform real time monitoring of the California region on a daily basis, the earthquake would be perfectly predictable within the time window of few days.

Dear Jure Žalohar,

Could you share your T-TECTO software with an input and output example ?

I would apply it to different parts of Himalayas as it is one of the most seismically active regions of the earth.

I would like to see it myself before making any comment on your work.

Earthquake Prediction, if practical can save enormous loss of life and will be a big service to humanity. I am saying this, as after an earthquake occurrence, a lot of bogus claims start emanating in media about its advance prediction.

Dear Sushil Gupta,

Unfortunately, I cannot share with you the PRO version of T-TECTO, because it is only used by Quantectum company. The software is very complex, you would need months of training on how to use it. It is not easy to forecast/predict earthquakes!

What I can share with you is the book on the Omega-Theory. I will send you separately the link to download it. There, you will be able to read and study some of the algorithms used by T-TECTO.

Quantectum is already monitoring the Himalaya region. If you want to evaluate our forecasts, then go to the following page:

https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/

https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/p/multi-ensemble.html

Here, the low-resolution GIF animations for the max N[2] seismic states and ensemble-mean are published for entire Earth. The yellow-red clouds indicate the increased probability for earthquakes in the region. If something happens there, we also publish separate posts, where we analyze the success or failure of the forecasts both for individual events and in the statistical sense for the global seismic activity. Statistical tests are described here:

https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/p/statistics.html

In few weeks, the GIS based graphics will be available for seismologists.

What regards so called "earthquake predictors", I fully agree that these guys are creating confusion and damage to the science itself. Most of them are obscure subjects, they are only making money.

Best regards,

Jure Žalohar

Dear All,

Quantectum global ensemble earthquake forecasts till the end of August are now available on the following links:

Multi-Ensemble Model: https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/p/multi-ensemble-models-me.html

Euler Model: https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/p/euler-model-euler.html

The most relevant is the ME max N[1] model.

Now, you can see for yourself, where to expect increased seismic activity in the following weeks. Of course, you can also monitor our statistical tests of prediction skills: https://quantectum-forecasts.blogspot.com/

Best regards,

Jure Žalohar

Draga Domnul Marian,

Am citit toate mesajele dat cu privire la teoria cu privire la prevedera a cutremurilor de pamint… Argumentarea dumneavoastra este buna, nu numai buna, ci foarte buna… Un lucru important cu ce nu sint de acord ca folositi termenul comunitatea științifică: fiidca ei acceptat foarte multe lucruri (modul de descoperirea undelor gravtatonale, de LIGO, fenomenul de subductie)

Scoala Romaneasca a fost foarte buna in anii 70-80-90). Un alt lucru

Si eu sint de acord ca se poate da o prognostizare a cutremurelor de pamint:

Eu credeam puternic puternic in prectibilitate cutremuri de pamint dar fara sa un principiul de baza, care se poate folosii cu sucess…(In conditii superficiala am facut o prezicere buna in sens larg in (emisfera Nordica a asiei am precizat latitudinea… a fost prezicere scurta ma gresit citeva ore!

In ultimi 10 luni am avut minimum 6 momente de viziune ’stiintifica’ (am pus in gilimele ca sint neverificat) prin acest cale de gindire am gasit citeva principii care se pari foarte buni… tirziu am gasit prezent in literatura stiintifica… dar sint principii care nu sint prezent…

Un lucru subliniezi cercetarea gelologica clasica a fost eliminata, cu gindere geologica… Stiinta de prezicerea cutremurilor de pamint inca nu este formulata in Stiinta acceptat am gasit o lucrare foarte buna scriis de un Japonez:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258429876_On_Earthquake_Prediction_in_Japan

Din lucrarea reiese ca Japonezi sint apropiat de prezicere…

In Romania este o zona seizmica activa unde dupa parerea mea am putea sa demonstram ca cutremuri de pamint (de ocamdeata unele) se poate prezice…

Am scris pentru biroul: INFP. Dar nu am primit raspuns! Asa se pare ca la Rominia deocamdata nu vrea se prezica cutremuri de Pamint...

Ramin cu drag.

Laszlo-Attila Horvath

Sper ca v-am atras atentia ca sint absolut sigur ca se poate face prezicere anumite tip de cutremuri mai bine decit Vremea… Nu am facut ceretare mai adinca a zonei Vrancea.. Lucrezi intr-un magazin de haine, sin u am timp si bani pentru aceasta treaba…

Dear Jure Žalohar,

The map has containing some important deficiency…

Regards,

Laszlo

@ Laszlo Attila Horvath

Thank you very much for your kind opinions. I tried to send you a message directly, but I was unable to do that.

I am quite interested if someone is performing a forecast related to Vrancea, the most seismic active Romanian zone. Irrespective the method is used.

Dear (Domnul) Marian!

Thank you very much for the gentle response and encouragement.

I tell you honestly that my heart is nearby neck caused by challenge difficult challenge… The chance is big that I will fail, but I (we) have to try for us and for others… I have small free time, daily, but if I have to get help from outside the forecasting  will be made (only this weekend can give) approximate data when will make forecasting (no prediction)… Actually, I am working onto forecasting in zone Lake Van (Turkish)… Only after a quick preliminary study first superficial forecasting: M: 4.1-4.3 (one or two) earthquake(s) in mentioned zone E of Nearby Van Lake (Turkish) from now- and 01.January 2020. The forecasting was made onto the base of geological data of Van lake zone, pre-existed earthworks’ happening times (between 2016-2019), and one principle got intuitionally (but this exist in scientific literature since 1990, and was accepted by Scientific Committee).

Regards,

Laszlo 

Dear Laszlo,

Do you have anything specific in mind?

Best regards,

Jure

Dear Jure Žalohar,

Yes, I will make some pictures and put later to an afternoon... (about Canada: Zone Lake Baker)... you do not have it in your map!

You have to study the history of big earthquakes of every country and verify if it is present on your map...

I will need the same help from you in case of prediction of Earthquakes in Zone Vrancea (Romania),

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Laszlo,

The Global forecast maps only contain the fault zones that have produced the M5.7+ earthquakes after the year 1950.

The active tectonic fault lines are the following: https://blogs.openquake.org/hazard/global-active-fault-viewer/

By no means the list of the active tectonic fault lines is not complete.

Global forecasts are therefore only valid for approximately M5.3+ earthquakes, although they approximately explain the occurrence of M4+ earthquakes.

For more resolution, detail regional and local forecast models will have to be developed in the future, but this will depend on the interest of different countries, nations etc...

In the following year we will first focus on California and Japan.

Best regards,

Jure

Dear Zolbar,

Apropos,

You have written:

‘In the following year we will first focus on California and Japan.’ In connection to it!

What do you think about ‘soon’ happening Nankai mega earthquake-with a strong tsunami? the super Japanese will make a successful short prediction… I know about two-three precursors which can help them?

What do you think which is the best place and time for it happens?

Rest take a look onto the next short writing:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334615402_THE_%272019_Nankai_earthquake%27

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Laszlo,

Saying that, fore example, a magnitude 6.75 earthquake will happen on 23 July 2025 in the Tonga Trench, represents a deterministic prediction. But what is a probability for such an event?

According to latest development in physics, deterministic predictions make no sense, because we do not know many physical parameters within seismic systems. What matters are probabilistic "predictions" or so called forecasts. These give you a possible magnitude range, the time window for the event and a possible region with certain amount of probability.

In the same manner as ECMWF (for weather), also Quantectum is calculating the ensemble earthquake forecasts. We run multiple models slightly varying parameters. Then we compare the outcomes of the models with real situation to get statistical estimates of the success of the forecasts. So, this is the scientific way of how to deal with earthquake prediction problem.

Currently, it is impossible to say what can happen in the Nankai region, because no one is performing the necessary tests. We should first analyze the tectonic stress fields, which would give us the regions with greatest probability for strong earthquakes. In the second step, we should analyze the time-synchronizations of earthquake sequences in the problematic seismic zones. During the synchronisation periods the seismic zones are susceptible to arrival of global tectonic waves. This was exactly the situation in the case of the Ridgecrest earthquake: http://www2.arnes.si/~jzaloh/Reports%202019/Special%20Report%202%20-%20California.pdf

However, we would need a special team to perform all necessary calculations for Japan, which would be expensive.

So far, we can only calculate forecasts based on global tectonic waves, and statistically estimate probabilities. We know that synchronization clouds produced by tectonic waves significantly increase the probabilities for moderate to strong earthquakes. See fore example the video animations for today's Taiwan and Afghanistan earthquakes. And, of course, these forecasts have been published before the events!

Best regards,

Jure

Dear Jure,

Thank you for the post… You are great! I am very happy to see such a works. You are ready and able to run a global earthquake prediction (forecasting) system (…). Congratulation!

Do you get outside-, (your country) financial, help?

Regards Laszlo

Dear Laszlo,

My responsibility in Quantectum is only related to scientific research, since I am a CRO there. However, I am not CEO, other guys are responsible for financial and economic part of the company.This discussion is, therefore, only intended to clarify scientific questions.

Best regards,

Jure

Dear Jure,

I have understood to you why you are here: ‘therefore, only intended to clarify scientific questions.’

See the attached file: there you see a booklet where exist some ‘deterministic principle’ for earthquake forecasting! should be good to mention about it to the guys, who ‘are responsible for financial and the economic part of the company.’…

‘if I were now a truly extrinsic scientist, I'd really like to know what's in that booklet ... Because there's another thoughts, too: (a good poker player knows well, when is the best time for looking into other cards)

This booklet has a very nice short story which happened last Sunday:

‘Today coming home with bicycle from church, my booklet with tittle earthquake 2019 (with earthquakes prediction principles got with inspiration) fell out of my pocket. A sweeper observed the event. He shouted: money had felt down. I answered did not, my own note on an original earthquake prediction method… He made the next remark: then it's worth a lot!'

Regards,

Laszlo

For some unknow reasons, I just remembered about a well-known song from WWII :

It's a Long Way to Tipperery !

:-)

Hi all,

We have just released the Quantectum corporate video (2019 version):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v2S_RLWQ3k

Best regards,

Jure Žalohar

The advertisement is beautiful and good… It has a problem with its basic: measliding .

The subduction theory used by it is wrong take a look, why:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334131717_The_phenomenon_of_subduction_is_incompatible_with_Earth's_surface_geometry_and_geomorphology.

Another problem that the theory only one feature is caught by theory…

Regards,

Laszlo

Still speaking about "tectonic / strain waves" with "velocity" value between zero and 6 km/s.

It means nothing but a blind alley.

All you can produce is to provide post factual explanations of SOME earthquakes properly selected to illustrate the claimed propagation of the hypothetical strain waves.

This is not Science but Advertising.

Earth's crust is not a simple set of identical domino pieces.

Dear Marian,

Why do you think that the strain waves are a blind alley? Also, why do you think that Earth's crust is a set of identical domino pieces? The Omega-Theory never said that.

Not all faults can interact each with other, but only those that have sizes according to the Bath's law. This is a natural consequence of elastomechanical properties of rocks and has two solutions. The first is interaction between equally sized faults. The second is interaction between geometric series of faults.

Earth's crust itself is a self-similar fractal network of fault planes and blocks that satisfies the GR relation, Omori's law, Felzer-Brodsky's law, and all these laws come from Bath's law.

Tectonic waves are not simple waves as seismic waves, but are solitary waves (solitons), solution of the sine-Gordon equation. For example, seismic waves are linked to stresses. Tectonic waves are linked to couple-stresses. We are not discussing their existence anymore. It is proven! We are now discussing the physical interpretation of these waves and their meaning in earthquake forecasting.

Best regards,

Jure

1) Science must be able to reproduce the same results under the same initial conditions. A hypothetical "strain" wave with velocity between zero and 6 km/s might be able to reproduce almost everything you want under the same (fixed) initial conditions.

2) The set of identical domino pieces is repeatedly used to illustrate The Omega "Theory" in your YouTube clip. The set of identical oscillators synchronisation is a base of your theoretical computations and a set of musical devices (vertical pendulums) is also presented in your advertising YouTube clip.

3) There is no proof for the existence of such strain waves. Show me a record of such waves, or tell me about an instrument able to record them.

Like I can show you a record of P waves, or Rayleigh waves and so on, by using a broadband seismograph. :-)

4) I already mentioned that such sets of masses coupled by strings have been in vogue at the beginning of '90s. By proper adjustment of the parameters (elastic constants, friction, numerical approximations of the differential equations and so on), they have been able to reproduce some empirical laws, like Omori law or Gutenberg - Richter one.

But if changing the parameters, they will show a behaviour NOT observed in real life.

Scientists soon realized that's all. They are now History.

Dear Marian,

1. Science must be able to reproduce the same results under the same initial conditions. A hypothetical "strain" wave with velocity between zero and 6 km/s might be able to reproduce almost everything you want under the same (fixed) initial conditions.

It is true that the science should reproduce the same results under the same initial conditions. But the second sentence is not true. First, the strain wave is not hypothetical. It is a true wave of shear deformation, but linked to couple stress that causes shear traction (not shear stress) on active tectonic faults. There are many such waves in the crust that have all possible velocities, which depends on the ratio between the stress drop and shear modulus. The "interference" pattern of these waves is what matters. Where these waves meet they can trigger earthquakes. It is similar in water. There too, waves have not the same velocity, which depends on a wavelength. Also the P and S seismic waves do not the same velocities! Different tectonic or strain waves also do not have the same velocities. But one single wave has one particular velocity.

2) The set of identical domino pieces is repeatedly used to illustrate The Omega "Theory" in your YouTube clip. The set of identical oscillators synchronisation is a base of your theoretical computations and a set of musical devices (vertical pendulums) is also presented in your advertising YouTube clip.

Yes that is true. We have to somehow introduce the basic concepts to people. The dominoes are "everyday's analogy". The true physical process in the Earth's crust is much more complex. Bath's law, fault interactions in various scales, fractals, time-development equations etc... We cannot present that in the simple video material. No one would understand.

Chaotic synchronizations are also illustrated by using metronomes. But this is only "musical analogy". Chaotic synchronizations is a large field of modern physics.

3) There is no proof for the existence of such strain waves. Show me a record of such waves, or tell me about an instrument able to record them.

There are tens of papers on this topics already published in the literature. Also, the T-TECTO provides proofs for these waves on a daily basis. We are monitoring these waves every day. It is also possible to monitor these waves by GPS (but no one really does that!). These waves have also been detected by tilt of long pendulums installed all over the caves in Europe (work by Pavel Kalenda). Etc... Bykov measured the uplift of the ground related to these waves by direct GPS measurements. You can also monitor them based on the distribution of migrating earthquakes...

4) I already mentioned that such sets of masses coupled by strings have been in vogue at the beginning of '90s. By proper adjustment of the parameters (elastic constants, friction, numerical approximations of the differential equations and so on), they have been able to reproduce some empirical laws, like Omori law or Gutenberg - Richter one.

Possibly, you have in mind models similar to Burridge-Knopoff model or stick-slip models or Reid rebound model. Those are all very old models based on old physics. Omega-theory is much more advanced. You can't really understand earthquakes based on the classical continuum theory. The Cosserat continuum is needed. It is the same problem as trying to understand atoms based on Newton's laws. It is impossible. The quantum mechanics is needed.

It is true that models used in 20th century are a history now. But there was so much progress in theoretical physics in the last 20-30 years! We now have extended Reid rebound models, incorporating fault networks, we have the theory of Repeating Earthquake Sequences (RES, work by Nadeau and others), we have the theory of seismic chaos synchronization (Chelidze), theory of ensemble forecasting, theory of strain waves (Nikolayevsky, Bykov etc.), theory of polarized plate tectonics (Doglioni, Panza) etc...

That is the future of modern seismology!

Best regards,

Jure

Jure,

Please return (once more) to the basic definition of a wave.

A wave must involve some oscillations of the material where it propagates and a transfer of energy WITHOUT mass transfer. GPS measurements do not show something like this, but some crustal deformation (if any).

What you claim to be "strain" waves (e.g. as the movements recorded by a long vertical pendulum, strain meters and so on) can be explained more simple by the classic surface waves.

You claim to be tens or more papers providing the evidence of such waves. Sorry, all of them are only suppositions and NONE of such manuscripts have been ever accepted for printing in the top ranking scientific journals.

Basically, such papers say that if an earthquake is produced today in Alaska at 12 a clock and another earthquake is recorded 6 hours later somewhere in Asia at 6000 kms distance from Alaska, there is a "strain" wave traveling with a velocity of 1000 km per second from Alaska to Asian place.

This is exactly you are doing here.

OK, if you find people to financial supporting you and have time for that, why not ?

Please don't forget to make a public announcement about the next major earthquake you will be able to predict with the "New" Physics.

Simply showing some nice animated pictures and telling us that they explain earthquakes AFTER they have been produced is not at all enough, in my opinion.

Of course, you will tell again that you need more computers, more money, more people.

I will tell you that even with more computers, people and money you will obtain nothing reliable.

Maybe some earthquakes could be predicted, but only on the base of instrumental recording or animal behaviour, or just by people having some paranormal capacities! :-))))

But not on the base of an elementary non-causal theory dealing with springs, masses and domino pieces.

I have cut a moment about subduction from your advertisement, I have attached a cutting of orange and now will quote from my article:

‘It is well known that the Earth has a spherical shape; according to the theory of plate tectonics, the initial forefront of "subduction" phenomena is present as thousands of kilometres long and very narrow, averaging 60-90 km wide ocean trenches near to convergent plate boundaries (continent west of Americas and island arcs). Therefore, they can be clearly seen on any geographic map. In order to prove in practice the fact that there is no subduction in these zones, there was a need for small earth models whose shape is similar to the outside of our planet and in them can be made easily cuts in many ways, along straight planes. Any soft shell and spherical fruit were perfect for this purpose [page 4.]. (…) ‘It is very clear: the process of cutting itself already provides a counter-argument, because the orange is permitted to be cut only in two ways to generate a similar miniature version of the Atacama trench. While the line of the Peruvian section of the trench is created with the cut to the orange surface at a 45° incline, the outline of the Chilean section can be realized with a cut perpendicular (90°) to the surface of the same fruit.’

(14) (PDF) The phenomenon of subduction is incompatible with Earth's surface geometry and geomorphology. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334131717_The_phenomenon_of_subduction_is_incompatible_with_Earth%27s_surface_geometry_and_geomorphology [accessed Aug 17 2019].

Jure and Mariann you are big scientist so I hope that you are able to explain me the situation from article:

Regards, Laszlo

P.s. With the omega theory can be made earthquakes prediction (if behind it is used another theory which count with reality)… The omega story is made for blinding the people, to do not be able to predict earthquakes… Example Marian to not be able to make prediction in zone of Vrancea… The zone Vrancea is very simple case (there is probleme only with precursors... but using the seismic signals like precurosrs with method of Vyachelav Nagorny, the situation can be resolved)… But actually the Romanian seismologist are not interested to resolve prediction in this zone!

Dear Marian,

I am very sorry for your negative opinion. It doesn't contribute to any further progress or development of better physical models. It seems you are already decided that the Omega-Theory is simply wrong, without even reading it. This is all too easy.

Your negative position will exclude you from any possibility of being involved in important discoveries that are on the horizon.

And you are simply wrong about many things.

1. A wave must involve some oscillations of the material where it propagates and a transfer of energy WITHOUT mass transfer. GPS measurements do not show something like this, but some crustal deformation (if any).

Yes, that is true also for tectonic waves, but these are not simple simple sinus waves, but there are more complex solutions of the sine-Gordon equation, such as kink, anti-kink or breathers. Based on the GPS measurements Bykov provided insights for breathers in the Earth's crust. Their research article was accepted in relevant SCI journal.

What you claim to be "strain" waves (e.g. as the movements recorded by a long vertical pendulum, strain meters and so on) can be explained more simple by the classic surface waves.

Not exactly! The velocity of such waves is too low. Classic surface waves travel several thousands meters per second. These tectonic waves can travel much slower, for example several hundreds meter per day. So, they canot be classic surface waves.

You claim to be tens or more papers providing the evidence of such waves. Sorry, all of them are only suppositions and NONE of such manuscripts have been ever accepted for printing in the top ranking scientific journals.

I can upload all these articles on a server if you want. Several articles were accepted into important journals. In some cases the ideas were too revolutionary. The time was not mature for those articles. Their recognition is thing of the future. It is also my responsibility to verify the development of the ideas and to name the laws discovered by all these researchers after them. For example, we now have new laws and equations, such as Felzer-Brodsky's law, Papazachos equation. Nadeau-Johnson equation, Beeler's equation, Bambakidis-Bykov-Gerchenson equation, Kobayashi's equation, Kuzmin's parametric excitation, Turbal's principle end so one. These are the true authors of the new ideas that have been recognized in the Omega-Theory as part of a new theory.

Basically, such papers say that if an earthquake is produced today in Alaska at 12 a clock and another earthquake is recorded 6 hours later somewhere in Asia at 6000 kms distance from Alaska, there is a "strain" wave traveling with a velocity of 1000 km per second from Alaska to Asian place.

This is exactly you are doing here.

Wrong! I would only agree with you if we would take two earthquakes and then calculate the velocity of some hypothetical wave by dividing the distance and time. But it is not what we are doing. There are chains of events, that have specific relationships between the magnitudes, time and distances according to Bath's law. The characteristic lengths of the earthquakes in the chains develop according to Kobayashi's equation, the time and distances are linearly proportional.The first to discover these relations were Japanese researchers Kobayashi et al. (2003) and Turbal et al. (2014). We therefore call this the Turbal's principle, and Kobayashi's equation. Read the Chapter 30 in my book very carefully.

It is not so trivial as you think. Behind our calculations is a vast physics!

Please don't forget to make a public announcement about the next major earthquake you will be able to predict with the "New" Physics.

Simply showing some nice animated pictures and telling us that they explain earthquakes AFTER they have been produced is not at all enough, in my opinion.

Again, it is not true, what you say. Our forecasts are calculated every two months for the time period of 64 days, and are then available on the Quantectum internet site. You can download them if you want. What we do next is to wait and to analyze the predictability of earthquakes in the statistical sense. Of course, there will be no public announcements in the future, because this could cause panic and fear. At the same time our calculations are not predictions but are forecasts. This means that we calculate oscillations of probability for something to happen. For example, if a strong wave arrives into some region, then probability for a moderate earthquake with magnitude 5 is almost 100 %, but probability for M6+ event is only about 30 %. Larger events, lower probability. But we have exact numbers!

Of course, you will tell again that you need more computers, more money, more people.

I will tell you that even with more computers, people and money you will obtain nothing reliable.

Ensemble forecasting is related to calculating several models. ECMWF is running 51 models to forecast weather. We are only running ONE multi-ensemble, but we should run at least 5-10 multi-ensembles. Yes, that means we will need more computers.

Nothing reliable... Hm... That is not exactly true. The results that we are demonstrating are a quantum leap further in earthquake predictions studies. We are already using them with great success. We are perhaps on the beginning of a path that meteorology is walking for decades. Who knows where it will bring us in 10 - 20 years? So...

Maybe some earthquakes could be predicted, but only on the base of instrumental recording or animal behaviour, or just by people having some paranormal capacities! :-))))

I don't share such opinion! There are several obscure subjects on the internet. Some claim that earthquakes are produced by Nikola Tesla, who discovered the cure for immortality. Now, he works underground, and earthquakes are produced by him when he does his experiments with electricity! Yes, people are capable of believing such stupidities!

But not on the base of an elementary non-causal theory dealing with springs, masses and domino pieces.

Provide mathematical proofs that the Omega-theory is wrong!

Best regards,

Jure

Dear Jure, Marian,

Again a real situation (see the attached picture)…

Can you tell me the source of tectonic waves, source of plates motion which produce subduction under North America and insular arc zone (East part of Asia)...

For a better understanding lessen the next:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN5Z28Dfl7o

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Laszlo,

I have read your articles. I understand your concerns about the plate tectonics theory. I strongly recommend to read the work by Carlo Doglioni and coauthors on the theory of polarized plate tectonics. You could find many interesting ideas in their work. The Omega-theory provides independent confirmation of their main thesis that it is the tidal push of the Moon that leads to the plate tectonics and not (just) mantle convection.

Since the tidal push of the Moon is the largest around the equator (the Earth is rotating), this causes differential shearing of the crust, and this shear deformation should constantly be released from the crust in the form of strain (tectonic) waves. So we now have work of several people that fits together.

You mention that the omega story is created to blind people and convince them that they cannot predict earthquakes. Yes that is exactly true, except that idea of blinding people. The Omega theory is the physics behind the earthquakes and plate tectonics. That is the truth of the Nature. Yes, people cannot predict earthquakes. Quantectum also cannot predict earthquakes. We are trying to forecast them! In some isolated cases we can speak of predictions. And of course, with time, forecasts will be better and better.

Best regards,

Jure

Jure,

Against your opinion, I examined the so-called Omega Theory.

I strongly suggest you to return to the fundamental "equation" like the sine-Gordon one and see how the above "equation" has been obtained.

The whole Physics is based on experiments which are reproductible ones. The corresponding equations are resulting from experiments or on the observation of Mother Nature and they are able to explain unequivocally the observations.

I will not comment on the large number of the so-called equations you name them in your answer. Most of them are in fact just some attempts to model time series of earthquakes. Which in fact can not be modeled because they do not obey some simple "equation" model.

So, let's return to the standard approach in Physics and please perform yourself a simple experiment one like the following:

Take a piece of sandstone, mudstone or other piece of rock at your choice and you name are only OPINIONS, they result from s

The site is evil and interrupted my letter.

So, take a piece of rock and generate (at your choice) a strain "wave" there, record (at your choice) the strain "wave", show the "wave" is propagating according to sine-Gordon "equation" or Papazachos one or so on (at your choice).

Evaluate the velocity of the strain "wave" and so on.

If you will be able to do that, I will reconsider my position about the so-called Omega Theory.

But I am sure that you will be not able to obtain none of the above "new findings" of the New Physics.

If not able to find them in laboratory, why the "new findings" will exist in real life ?

So, I'm afraid that The Omega Theory is just some sort of numerical game with no correspondence to real life.

Dear Mario and Laszlo.

The time will show!

It is impossible to convince those who are already convinced, as you are.

But Quantectum is going further, developing new models, testing them, trying to do the best!

Best regards,

Jure

Jure,

Honestly speaking, I see no difficulty for you to perform the experiment I suggested. I have no doubt that you will find in your country many researchers able to help you. You will also apply for financial support from the Academy of Science in your country.

But I'm also well convinced that such an experiment will be the end of the New Physics (with no glory) and a fair return to the classical Continuum Mechanics. The equations there are pretty well explaining the waves propagation and ALL the Seismological observations, at least for the moment.

Wish you Good Luck!

Dear Marian,

I have started to enjoy the conversation with you!

First, claiming that the classical continuum theory provides good description of geological processes opposes almost infinite amount of geological data. What is classical continuum? Well, this theory states that the deformation of rocks is described by translatory motions, leading to the concepts of symmetric stresses and strains. But we know from observations that blocks of rocks between the fault planes rotate, so there are also rotational levels of freedom. So, what is this? Well, it is the definition of the Cosserat continuum!

Also the basic postulates of the plate tectonics theory are equivalent to the definition of the Cosserat continuum. Tectonic plates travel around, and they also rotate! We have translatory as well as rotational motions. Who opposes that?

The classical continuum is a good approximation in certain boundary conditions. For example, description of the seismic waves, and the theory of focal mechanisms could be considered among the finest achievements of theoretical physics. It can be shown by mathematical means that the classical continuum equations can be derived from equations of the Cosserat theory (Omega theory) in certain stress strain boundary conditions, for example no gradients of Cosserat strain will lead to zero couple-stresses and zero torsion curvatures. The work by Toupin plays a significant role here.

But these conditions are fulfilled in short time scales on the level of seconds, minutes... In larger time scales other processes produce redistribution of stresses and strains. For example, there is a beautiful work by Marcello Viti on strain diffusion. He describes how stresses and strains diffuse through the Earth's crust. The physical phenomena that he and his coauthors (and many others) describe already fall into the domain of what we can call strain waves, tectonic waves, of diffusion waves... But there are several boundary conditions possible. Diffusion equation is possible in certain stress-strain boundary conditions. There are also other possible boundary conditions, for example such that give rise to tectonic waves that we use in earthquake forecasting theory.

Perhaps you know the work by Samuel Forest, leading expert in Cosserat theory. His work and also work by many others (de Borst, Toupin, Mindlin, Eringen, Lippman, Besdo, etc) represents the mathematical core of the Omega-theory. And all this work is well based on laboratory measurements, crystal plasticity, heterogeneous materials etc. For example, from these works we know so called Smid's law, which represents fundamentals for Cosserat generalization of the Amontons's law of friction, and Coulomb-Mohr criterion. Without fully understanding the physical meaning of the Smid's law, one really has no idea about the Omega-theory! Earthquake forecasting has everything to do with the Smid's law! In other words, it is the analysis of the Smid's law in the Earth's crust.

As far as I know, there are many observations of phenomena that are equivalent to tectonic waves, but in different stress strain boundary conditions. There are also several numerical modelling of deformation propagation in Cosserat continuum.

The experiment that you propose should therefore mimic the conditions in the Earth's crust. That means higher temperature, high confining pressure, slow deformation in the elastoviscoplastic regime. Only under such conditions something that we call the cataclastic flow of rocks occurs, that leads to formation of complex networks of micro and macrofractures! These fracturing then propagates through the continuum as deformation increases. See, that are strain waves! Strain waves are propagation of deformation in the conditions where the rocks behaves as Cosserat continuum.

There are plenty of options of how to analyze physical properties of such waves in laboratory. For example, installing highly sensitive microphones on the rock samples would allow for analysis of time-series of micro-fracturing. We already have such experiments performed in deep boreholes in the crust, where we can listen to deep microfracturing of rocks. Thanks to A. Belyakov! And the results confirm the Omega theory also on the microscale. There are also experiments already described in the literature that analyze stress-strain transfer among subparallel faults in the laboratory settings. This is exactly the mechanism that we call tectonic waves or strain waves in the Earth's crust.

I am sure that further experiments will be done in the future that will open a whole new field of research within the rock mechanics. That will be a triumph of the Omega Theory!

Best regards,

Jure

Dear Jure,

Take a little time and read again what I have written before:

I believe in the earthquakes predictability! But if we are creating such a predicting model like in the film:  ’San Andreas’ (I have had the luck to see it yesterday evening at RTL, immediately came in my mind similarity with your methods, and it can be easily disproved)…

If you are Earth sgeologist, even you are working with clothes selling, easily can observe those situations which contrary to erroneous explanation:

Today was an earthquake in Tonga… The next information is important:

Epicenter position: 16.09 S 175.02 W, and its hypocentre: 309 km… it’s a bit under subduction plane, but same the straight line of subduction zone (Tonga-Kermadec) it is contradiction…

My advice to you: first correct the theory behind your prediction method and after make its advertising.

If you can do good prediction that it is mean clear: that you for public show a method with a strongly erroneous scientifical basics, but your prediction is staying on another concealed theory! (But you have to know between a lot of independent researchers exist some who have the concealed theory).

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Laszlo,

I far as I see the earthquake that you have sent happened on 27/07/2019 and NOT today!

My advice to you: first correct the theory behind your prediction method and after make its advertising.

Why do you think that the theory should be corrected? Is it wrong? How do you know it is wrong? Did you study it?

Best regards,

Jure

Dear readers,

Please, contribute constructively to this discussion by limiting yourself exclusively to scientific questions. Avoid personal feelings and personal opinions that are not scientifically supported.

All nonconstructive and offensive comments will be blocked in the future.

Best regards,

Jure Žalohar

Jure,

Is any offense or destructive comment when I asked you to show the existence of the hypothetical (in my opinion) "strain" waves in laboratory ? Or showing a non-equivocal recording of such a "wave" ?

Please create a real model at your choice and show that. But NOT a numerical model with springs, masses or metronomes. There synchronization, for example, can be easily explained by the Classic Mechanics.

Your whole theory is based on the existence of such "waves", but all you can provide is just some questionable papers where there is no definite proof for the existence of such "waves". Just positive opinions about their existence.

Sorry, if you prefer only appreciative comments, I will stop posting here.

Don't forget to announce me when you are ready to do a prediction.

M

Dear Marian,

Why are you commenting the Omega-Theory, if you never opened a single page of my book!

You are speaking nonsense!

I will not comment you comments here any more.

Best regards,

Jure

Sorry, Jure,

You avoid a definite answer about the so-called "strain waves" identification by laboratory experiments. This is quite interesting to me, I suppose you are in great difficulty in explaining why such an experiment could not be performed. Or maybe I am wrong ?

And you don't know I never opened (or not) a single page of your book. Your book is mainly based on papers printed by others and many of the above papers could be found on Net. Or at least the ones which you considered to be the most important ones.

Don't forget, yourself recommended several such papers in the beginning of our discussion. Be sure, I examined them in detail.

M

Dear Marian,

The exact definition and mathematical formalism of the strain waves can be found in Chapters 12, 13, 15, 20, 30, 34, and 35.

You will find all answers to your questions there.

Best regards,

Jure

Dear all,

Quantectum internet sites are temporarily closed due to a major system upgrade. We will be back soon.

Best regards,

The Quantectum team.

@Jure

I examined in detail your answers 3 days ago and 16 hours ago.

In respect to the first one (3 days ago):

Sorry, Continuum Mechanics (including failure criteria, of course, heterogeneity, anisotropy and so on) is not related to translations only. When speaking about Continuum Mechanics (CM) success in explaining natural phenomena I referred to the topic of our discussion : WAVES. The waves commonly recorded on a routine base are all of them quite well explained by CM. Radiation in hypocenter is also well explained and so on. Other processes like the noise produced in a borehole or the common microseismic noise are also well understood by the Classical Physics. To conclude, you mention various other processes but do not provide a clear explanation about why the so-called strain waves can not be identified in laboratory experiments. In fact, there is no definite evidence of the existence of such waves in real life too. Nobody operating a long vertical pendulum (like the one near Trieste, for example) or a strain meter (like the ones in Germany or USA) ever claimed to record such waves, but only classic waves well predicted by CM. It is important to mention the well known fact that the classic waves have well defined velocity propagation and the recordings with strain meters, vertical pendulums or various other devices illustrates that quite well.

In respect to the second answer (16 hours ago), please take into account that the equations and the mathematical formalism of the "strain waves" doesn't represent a proof for their existence in real life.

Mathematics is in fact fool of theories, concepts or equations and most of them doesn't pretend to be related in any way to real life. The only requirement for such theories is to be not self-contradictory ones.

In my opinion, a physical process assumed to propagate in Earth with a velocity somewhere between ZERO and a certain upper bound (like 6 km/s) is self-contradictory. Because assuming a zero velocity it simply means that process doesn't exist.

So, we return to the old approach of earthquakes "prediction". Somebody explain / post factual / that he (she) predicted an earthquake by certain mechanism of "prediction" (like strain waves propagation with 6 km/s). But when the same mechanism of "prediction" doesn't work in relation to another earthquake, he/she simply says that the mechanism did not worked, because the strain waves had ZERO velocity.

As I already mentioned, this is not Science, in my opinion.

Dear Marian,

The definition of Classical Cauchy continuum is based on translatory degrees of freedom. There are no rotational degrees of freedom of microelements of the continuum. This leads to symmetric stress tensor. The antisymmetric component of strain is related to macrorotation of the continuum itself.

The Cosserat continuum is defined based on translatory and rotational levels of freedom for the microelements of continuum. There are two distinct rotations: macrorotation (the same as in the Cauchy continuum), and microrotation (rotations of the individual elements of Cosserat continuum). The difference among both is called relative microrotation. In the crust, the microrotation corresponds to rotations of blocks of rocks between the fault planes.

To conclude, you mention various other processes but do not provide a clear explanation about why the so-called strain waves can not be identified in laboratory experiments.

I didn't say that it is impossible to detect strain waves in laboratory. Strain waves are propagation of faulting-related deformation in the rocks as Cosserat medium. So any laboratory experiment should mimic conditions in the crust; high temperature, high confining pressure, and slow steady deformation. In such environment the networks of fractures develop, and there is where to expect strain waves in the laboratory.

In fact, there is no definite evidence of the existence of such waves in real life too.

That is not entirely correct. First, read my book, there I have presented countless proofs for the existence of such waves. If the strain waves do exist, then earthquakes should follow some defined patterns. And we did find proofs for such patterns. This, of curse, is an indirect proof. The direct proof are GPS measurements presented by Bykov. Normally, in GPS analyses they filter out the signals that might be related to strain waves. I believe that in the future, scientist will try to analyze those signals that now they try to eliminate.

In my opinion, a physical process assumed to propagate in Earth with a velocity somewhere between ZERO and a certain upper bound (like 6 km/s) is self-contradictory. Because assuming a zero velocity it simply means that process doesn't exist.

The velocity of the strain waves is defined by the Gershenson-Bykov-Babmakidids formula: v = V0 x G / sigma. Here, V0 is velocity of tectonic plate(s), G is shear modulus, sigma is stress drop during slip along faults. Different velocities of strain waves correspond to different ratio G / sigma for different fractions and components in rock. However, it is not so simple. These strain waves have discrete component of propagation (from fault to fault), as well as pseudo-continuous component on smaller scales of observations. When these components synchronize, this leads to propagation and also to seismic events. At the same time, there are accelerated waves that satisfy the third conservation law. So, the physics of these waves is much more complex than the physics of seismic waves. A lot is still to be discovered in the future.

Zero velocity only means very slow waves that have velocity almost zero within human life time. In geological time, these waves also travel.

So, we return to the old approach of earthquakes "prediction". Somebody explain / post factual / that he (she) predicted an earthquake by certain mechanism of "prediction" (like strain waves propagation with 6 km/s). But when the same mechanism of "prediction" doesn't work in relation to another earthquake, he/she simply says that the mechanism did not worked, because the strain waves had ZERO velocity.

That makes no sense. Our calculations include thousands of waves worldwide. Of course, waves have different velocities (some are slow, some are fast), but the interference pattern of these waves is what defines the probability field for earthquake triggering. This is in simplified language. We are currently performing statistical tests. We have the field of these waves, we also know the current earthquakes. So, we compare these two fields/data and analyze what is the success. The results are very interesting. Some of them will be available on the internet site after the upgrade as part of instructions of how to interprete the strain waves and synchronization clouds. I am attaching two figures that show the probability for earthquake triggering based on Synchronization field (this is the "field of Smid's law"), S. These results show that in the current model, it is almost 100% certain that the synchronization field S = 1 (global maximum) will trigger M5+ earthquakes, but there is significantly smaller probability for M6+ or M7+ events. So everything is about probability. If synchronisation cloud comes into the seismically active region, then the probabilities will oscillate. These are forecasts! We will never say that 6+ event will happen on some particular day. But we can say that the probability for M6+ events will increase during some time interval.

Do not forget, that meteorology is developing such tools for decades. We are on the beginning. There is much to do in the future!

Best regards,

Jure

Dear Marian and all others,

In the following weeks, I will be very busy because of the system upgrade. I will not be able to answer further questions on this discussion.

I will be back after the upgrade.

Best regards,

Jure

Jure,

Very sorry to say you that the symmetry of the Cauchy stress tensor in Continuum Mechanics is just following from the conservation of the angular momentum. If some rotation of the crustal plates or crustal elements is observed, the angular momentum should also conserve itself at global scale in the absence of exterior forces to the Earth. The dynamic of the Earth is basically controlled by the internal processes inside Earth, like mantle convection and so on. So, basically, Earth is a closed system. The effect of the Moon and of the Sun is a quasi-periodic one, it averages to near zero on long time. And a definite correlation between the solid Earth Tides generated by Moon and Sun to the earthquakes is far from being proved. In fact, how a quasi-periodic force due to Moon / Sun could generate a process involving a double couple in the hypocenter of an earthquake is hard to imagine from a Mechanical point of view.

About your plots, sorry to say again. Every Seismologist will say you that the A PRIORI probability of an earthquake with Magnitude like 1 or 2 to be recorded in any region is much much greater than that of an earthquake with Magnitude exceeding 6 or 7.

Even so, earthquakes with Magnitudes exceeding 6 are recorded almost daily. So, their A POSTERIORI probability reaches the unit 😂😂😂

The seismic rate in a certain region, like Vrancea in Romania, is controlled by the LOCAL processes there (subduction, mantle delamination, tearing and so on). It has nothing to do with the propagation of hypothetical strain waves coming from Peru-Brazil or Fiji or Mid-Atlantic Ridge, irespective they are synchronised or not.

Once again, focus yourself on a certain geographycal region. You will see soon that, in fact, you are able to predict / forecast nothing but the common sense.

You will be only able to say, post factum, that a certain event happened because some "synchronisation". But you will see soon that in many areas with high "synchronisation" nothing happened.

And in other areas with low "synchronisation" a major, destructive earthquake have been just recorded.

In Science, a single counter example is quite enough to ruin a theory.

I think you already have a lot of such counter examples on your site, check for them. Put a clear caption about the colours on your maps available on the site and I am quite sure everybody will be able to identify such counter examples.😂😂😂😂

Dear Marian Ivan, it is high probably that a seismic nucleus is a LOCAL but in local conditions it is probably formed by global processes such as steady tectonic plate movements. The earthquake trigger maybe global too. Earth tides and rotational changes can probably be such triggers. But in any case "probably" is a key word :))

Dear Marian,

Your criticism is based on your false assumption that we in Quantectum are doing earthquake predictions! We are not predicting earthquakes! We are developing models to forecast them! We are also testing the earthquake predictability. If we speak of earthquake prediction, we have in mind the probabilistic predictions or forecasts.

There exist well defined equations that link the synchronization field to the probability. For example, if probability for the M6+ event in strong synchronization field S = 1 is 40 %, that means some synchronization clouds will do nothing, but some will trigger M6+ events. At lower synchronization fields the probability for M6+ events is much lower, but is higher than zero! This means that strong earthquakes can also happen is weak synchronization fields. But this are low probability events! The number of such events is low! In most cases strong earthquakes on earth do happen near strong synchronization clouds.

Forecasting is about probabilities. No one here is talking about deterministic predictions! Our model, however, is calibrated to 5 to 5.5 events that actually can be forecasted with almost 100 % success. In this case we can speak of predictions!

So, why some synchronization clouds do nothing? The answer is related to the fact that synchronization clouds and tectonic waves are linked to couple stresses and these produce both, the normal and shear traction on the faults. This means that a strong synchronization cloud either triggers an earthquake along some fault or completely blocks it!

Observations show that earthquakes happen at the beginning and/or the end of synchronizations, when the rate of strains are highest. But when a strong synchronization clouds persists in some area, there is often (but not always) a seismic quiescence, because of the normal traction along the faults is increased as well.

The important factor is also LOCAL synchronization within seismic zones. For example, the Ridgecrest earthquake in California happened under moderate global synchronization field, but there were strong regional and local synchronizations in California. Global synchronization clouds will only trigger earthquakes in regionally and locally synchronized tectonic zones, which depends on regional and local tectonic settings. In the opposite case, the global tectonic waves will do nothing!

At least it is possible to study these effects. We will study them, we will improve our models, we will learn from Nature. So you can expect better and better models from us in the future!

Best regards,

Jure

Dear gentlemen,

Rare can be  found such good comments at RG together like here!… I cannot give such a comment but attach the next article which a bit will help the Jure’ statements:

Article Wave moment geodynamics

, but actually, he did not convince us with the original conception which leads to a good predicting model…

We have the tools to the earthquakes prediction (some states’ researchers – Russia, China, Japan, USA, India, ‘Slovenia’ , Nederland, Ukraine …) make good prediction… in Hungary and Romania, I do not know… Us ( me: I am not a skeptic but an outsider in seismology; Marian: skeptic but has an excelence knowledge of his profession) will have a chance in this field… Only Marian has to be a bit open and read the attached file…

You have written it in your good and argumentative comment:

‘The seismic rate in a certain region, like Vrancea in Romania is controlled by the LOCAL processes there (subduction, mantle delamination, tearing and so on). It has nothing to do with the propagation of hypothetical strain waves coming from Peru-Brazil or Fiji or The Mid-Atlantic Ridge, irrespective they are synchronized or not.’ – Yes is a local, one of the main problems that seismic source is located deep, no chance for any natural precursors apparition… exist only two precursors: one is seismic (have to focused to the transferal waves! You need to make good structural model of Vrancea subbasement and onto base you will able to get such a informations whitch can be accepted like good seismical precursors  … )…

In last day I have focused on the region of East nearby of Van Lake: I think my forecasting made before was made erroneous (I do not have elementary geophysical data), but onto base of earthquakes data analyze, I have gotten three important conclusions:

1. In the mentioned region seems well-observed decrease of seismicity, step by step…

1: Perhaps in the next mounths will happen 1-2 earthquakes with around Mb-4,0-4-3   (but this information only chaotic said!)

2: The important is that the region become step by step inactive or is a hidden active region…

3. In this case the probability of high magnitude earthquakes triggering is probable (that is late cause can be probable, because this area is surrounded with active areas!)

Dear Vladimir,

Yes you have right: but in case of Vrancea needs the determination of that moment when the mentioned processes by you will triggers earthquakes in Vrancea…

I think the resolution of earthquakes prediction of Vrancea is a key to the resolution of other similar structure but more complex seismic structure (East of Japan, Indonesia, Fiji Island, Tonga-Kermadec, South America)

The reolution of earthquakes prediction in Van lake zone is key to resolution of eartquakes prediction in West Turkey!

Regards,

Laszlo

P.S. I have others intuitional gotten resolutions, but they did not be verified, that is why need further examination…

I hope that this discussion will turn out to be constructive and not some sort of a battlefront!

I have a great respect toward Vikulin's work. Unfortunately, he died shortly before his work was validated by the Omega-Theory. He himself was not a supporter of the Omega-Theory. He claimed that the Earth's crust is the classical continuum and not the Cosserat continuum.

Nevertheless, his observations described in many his articles could have been derived from one single physical mechanism, which is the so called phase equation. The Cosserat equations for tectonic faults have two solutions. Either faults accommodate Cosserat rate-of-strain or velocity of tectonic plates directly. There are two phases and there, of course, is a phase transition between both. From the phase equation it was possible to derive two Vikulin's scaling equations described in the article that Laszlo attached, as well as Vikulin's conservation law. At the same time, the phase equation has one more solution, which explains a vast number of observations on Repeating Earthquake Sequences and scaling of the recurrence time on seismic moment of the form M^(1/6). This supports a large amount of work by Nadeau. So many phenomena related to a single physical mechanism!

I am attaching the Chapter 13, where all this is derived. It is very abstract!

Best regards,

Jure

@Vladimir Kaftan

Yes, it is a question of probability :

1) in my opinion, the probability of earthquake recurrence to be mainly controlled by the local conditions is VERY HIGH. In fact, almost everybody try to explain the earthquakes in a certain area by the local tectonic conditions there. When looking to a shallow earthquake, first to do is to identify the faults there and compare to the focal mechanism of the earthquake, to the differential crustal movements, if available and so on. For deep or intermediate events, it is more complicated, but local tectonic conditions are also necessary to be identified. There is a strong evidence for the above.

2) in my opinion too, the probability of earthquake recurrence to be triggered by solid tides or rotational waves or "strain waves" is VERY LOW. An earthquake involve a ruptural process and such a failure asks for a gradient. The forces involved by the Moon or Sun tides are continuous ones, showing a near zero spatial gradient.

3) of course the mechanical relaxation or loading of a certain tectonic plate in some areas of the plate could trigger earthquakes in a different zone of the same plate or in different plates. After all, the Earth surface is a system of plates interacting each other.

The problem is if such a complex process can be accurately understood. For example, it could be quite possible the above relaxation to be quite local, in the epicentral area only. Or to be so slow, by very long period processes, with no consequence for the remote parts of the plate. As I remember, accurate GPS observations show the relaxation is local, at least given the accuracy of the estimations.

So, we must return to the observations of Mother Nature and imagine a device able to record unambiguously the "strain waves" and their characteristics. At least for the so called rotational waves, nobody was able to do that.

So, the triggering of an earthquake due to (a) major earthquake(s) located far from the first one is hypothetical.

@Laszlo / Vikulin paper

Against some of the opinions in the attached paper or the ones expressed here, the Vikulin paper show NO definite rotation of the hypotetical crustal blocks, irrespective the Cosserat Continuum or the Classical Continuum are used to explain them.

Please look at Figure 1 in the paper. The GPS arrows show only a general South-North movement. The existence of rotational blocks is only a possible explanations for the fact that there are some differences in the magnitude of the movements (the length of the arrows) or the minor differences between the arrows orientation. Given the fact that there is only one arrow in each "rotational" block, someone will most likely interpret the above differences by the different horizontal movements induced by the topography. For example, if we assume the main North-South movement is due to a local mantle flow, such a flow will be disturbed by Moho topography or by the horizontal component of the mountain uplift movement or by many other reasons present especially in an area with high topography.

I have to mention too that there are no ellipses of errors presented in the above GPS results, as it is the common practice. So, there are many cases when GPS results are disturbed by the local conditions and the displacement of the uppermost crust is not mandatory identical to the movement of the whole crust assumed to be characterised by rotational or non-rotational blocks. That is also true when the GPS antenna is placed in a sedimentary area.

LOCAL-GLOBAL

Here, I will only give short comment related to the problem of the interaction between the local and global systems.

The answer is clear. Local tectonic setting defines the local tectonic fault lines, which are not composed of a single fault, but there a fractal networks of faults that follow GR distribution. The Reid rebound model was originally formulated only for a single fault. The Cosserat extension (described in Chapter 7) allows for more advanced models based on fault networks. It appears that fault interact each other according to Bath's law. All fault have their own rhythm, in a form of some kind of Characteristic fault model. They interact and form Repeating Earthquake Sequences (RES) and other similar sequences that we call the Omega-Sequences. These sequences also interact and tend to synchronize. These are local and regional phase synchronizations or T-synchronizations. During T-synchronizations the faults are in the unstable mode and the probability for earthquakes increases. There are three options what can happen:

1. slow slip events

2. weak to moderate events (swarms)

3. Large events.

The probability for large events increases when there are also global tectonic waves (clouds) present in that local tectonic fault zone.

That is why we do not see large earthquakes in every synchronization cloud! Simply, that cloud arrived into the zone, which was NOT phase synchronized.

The mechanism of LOCAL-GLOBAL systems interaction is fully described in the book, and also you can read two reports that we published this year on the Luzon earthquake (Philippines) and Ridgecrest earthquake (California).

http://www2.arnes.si/~jzaloh/Reports%202019/Special%20Report%201%20-%20Philippines.pdf

http://www2.arnes.si/~jzaloh/Reports%202019/Special%20Report%202%20-%20California.pdf

This, year California is highly phase synchronized. Global waves can easily trigger earthquakes, for example today (see the attached figure).

CALIFORNIA

Some more data on today's California earthquake can be seen on attached figures. There is a moderate synchronization cloud that caused a slight increase in the probability for M5+ events to 38 % based on the max N[1] model.

Dear Marian Ivan. My modest imagination is rather close to yours. But:" 2) in my opinion too, the probability of earthquake recurrence to be triggered by solid tides or rotational waves or "strain waves" is VERY LOW. An earthquake involve a ruptural process and such a failure asks for a gradient. The forces involved by the Moon or Sun tides are continuous ones, showing a near zero spatial gradient. "

I do not understand why the diurnal tidal bulge can not tripout a local stress in a local seismic source in a special moment.

Dear Jure, a hope you know one of the synchronization experimental researcher Alexey Lyubushin

Dear Vladimir,

No, I didn't know this researcher. Excellent! Thank you very much!

Best regards,

Jure

Dear Mariann,

Thank you for the response,

Your post always is well made. It and does not have a surface of critics…

Regards,

Laszlo