One of my paper in the review in which I used space-time magnitude and dept and predicted earthquake seismicity

Thank you for responding to my request. In some countries, unfortunately, the term "prediction" is considered too risky and they suggest to use "forecast".

Small animals and insects can sense the energy coming (below them) before we (humans) feel it, so a better word, "sensing" summarizes all three above.

"Sensing" is an excellent proposal to submit to the scientific community. A term that is usually replaced by "prophecy".

Certainly not a prophecy. Earthquakes are predictable. I successfully predicted the site, magnitude and the day of a small earthquake in the Adirondacks region of the State of New York in 1973 using changes in seismic-wave velocities. The challenge is to distinguish spurious changes from real precursory changes. The successful prediction resulted from the fact that I had observed similar changes in seismic velocities prior to several earthquakes in the same region before I attempted to predict one.

For some years I have been studying the variations of micro gravity before, during and after an earthquake. Some recurrences occur about half an hour before the main shock. If we admit that there is a relationship between the passage of seismic waves and the variation of micro gravity, it would be interesting to compare some of your data with mine. Thanks.

Hi Valentino. It will be difficult to compare changes in micro gravity just before earthquakes with changes in seismic wave velocities because the lead time of velocity changes increases with the magnitude of the earthquake, whereas your observations apparently manifest just before an earthquake. I am currently retired and not actively perusing research in earthquake prediction. I am currently doing research in Cosmology. So I will not be of much help to you.

Thanks Yash,

I will be happy to exchange some ideas on Cosmology with you.

Prophecy !

In spite there are some people pretending to do "forecast"/"prediction", I wonder why top scientific journals don't print papers related to "prediction" or "forecast".

The question you ask I have heard several times at international conferences from researchers, amazed by the fact that mainstream journals reject such papers. To be science, however, it must provide "predictability" and not reject it.

Exactly ! Science asks "Predictability" and such manuscripts are not able to provide it. Consequently, they are rejected.

I agree on the quality of scientific rigor to determine the choice of papers to be published. However I hope that some Editor's choices are not influenced by prejudices for often "frontier" topics.

As you know, the Editor choice is most based on Reviewers reports. If not satisfied with the decision of a certain journal, one may submitt the ms. to another one. The chance to retrieve 4-6 negative Reviews for a good manuscript are very small.

As several researchers have reported in conferences for some time now they are finally starting to see their works published, rejected only a few years ago. I think it is a good omen for the future.

Hi,

Here, on RG, simmilar questions exists so, one of those is "How do you see the Earthquakes". This topic on RG could help to cover big part of this question.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_You_see_the_Earthquakes-Prediction_Forecast_or_Random_events

All are welcome for share idea and questions.

Best regards,

Sandu I.

Dear Ilie Sandu,

thanks for the update and the link you sent me. I did not know this other question.

I will gladly read the post.

Regards,

Valentino

Dear Valentino,

If you go by the link I mentioned on RG, you have been participated in the discussion from June 2020 (comments on June 8, 20, August... 2020), even much earlier than 05. October 2020, when you open this topic. To say that didnt know about this discussion as open topic, already, looks different than written. I am just mentioned this fact, as it is.

I understood that main focus of you topic has been adapted to your view and need - as terminology, but meaning is same of the question, because is related to understanding, and the open question have a lot of answers already from researchers, which can be used. The answer - "I didnt know" it is trivial, and not the right one here.

Regards,

Sandu I.

Dear Ilie,

thanks a lot for your communication. The meaning of my question is based on an Italian linguistic disquisition because the English language is very precise and without too many nuances. In fact, the theme I have proposed overlaps in some ways with your question. But I repeat, the meaning of the question is to know if there are similar linguistic subtleties in other cultures and languages as well. Thanks again.

Regards,

Valentino

Dear Valentino,

Congratulations on your beautiful and interesting question… That is why I am admiring the Italians that they dare to dream up.

The difference between earthquake forecasting and earthquake prediction is well described at Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_prediction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_forecasting

In Hungarian we do not have linguistic differences, they are with the same meaning...

The prophecy meaning is very different from forecasting and prediction… It’s success is based on the luck or a good para phenomenal ability of the prophecy making person…

In my family my first wife’s aunt had such strong ability, never had luck to meet with such a person… I have such an ability, too, but it is very weak… That is creating problems in case of earthquakes forecasting, because in Romania I have got very good and strongly pragmatically teaching at Babes Bolyai University of Cluj Napoca…. That is why I will not accept my success in earthquake forecasting until I am not able to verify them conform with the reality!…

Actually my prophecy is that: Do not forget what I am writing in the next ‘prophecy’: The majorities of earthquakes can be predicted (forecasted) better than the weather!...

… Last night, maybe I was crazy, when I made the earthquakes forecasting, actually seems successful and the next days will happen same, can be said that I achieved the desired first strong step to realise earthquake forecasting… and needs the next step as you said yesterday:’ ‘Predicting multiple earthquakes is difficult, but it won't be impossible. The limit, with the knowledge now acquired, is of a technological nature.’(https://www.researchgate.net/post/Exists_the_next_situation_when_an_outsider_researcher_who_has_achieved_a_very_encouraging_result_in_earthquake_forecasting_is_not_supported )

Dear Marian! Why do you not arrange for us (Me, Valentino, Vyacheslav Nagorny) to make observations in the zone of Vrancea?

Regards,

Laszlo

Thank you very much for the comment, Laszlo. In Italy, as I believe in other nations, linguistic subtlety is very important. In 2013, as you will recall, on the occasion of the L'Aquila earthquake, some experts ended up on trial, then acquitted. While in many cases the terms are synonymous, in some languages they have very different meanings. It is a type of consideration to take into account when exhibiting at international conferences so as not to be misunderstood. If the Vrancea project can go ahead I will be happy to be part of the team.

It doesn't matter to me whether the forecast is called a prediction. In my opinion, these are synonyms. Russian joke: Call it a pot, but don't put it in the stove. One American reviewer did not like the phrase "earthquake preparation" in the text of my manuscript. He believed that this expression refers to the preparation of the population and infrastructure for an earthquake. He was probably right. And I was not accurate. )))

Linguistic precision is undoubtedly important and sometimes fundamental, but I think it is equally important to contextualize concepts in the context of a discourse and not stop at a simple linguistic disquisition. I did not know the Russian popular saying and I found it very informative, as well as funny. Thank you.

Dear Valentino, thank you for the interest to Russian idioms.

There some other international:

"People would get rid of half of their troubles if they could agree on the meaning of words." René Descartes

"In the beginning was the Word ..." Gospel of John.

I do not argue for your fro your opinion. )

Dear Vladimir and Valentino,

I have two small philosophical essays in Hungarian (my book: Az Eszme: 1995, Hajduszoboszló: private edition) in connection to this discussion... They will appear soon here in ResearchGate, soon... If somebody offers voluntary help of English grammar correction they will be translated in English by me...

Do not forget: If we pour clear water in the same clear glass, easily we can easily

see through it.

The famous Hungarian poet wrote the next:'(...) dolgozni csak pontosan, szépen, ahogy a csillag megy az égen,

úgy érdemes.' (József Attila, Ne légy szeles, Szöveggyűjtemény, 1935-1937:http://magyar-irodalom.elte.hu/sulinet/igyjo/setup/portrek/jozsefa/nelegysz.htm

Here on the right the text translation:

https://www.visegradliterature.net/works/hu/J%C3%B3zsef_Attila/(Ne_l%C3%A9gy_szeles%E2%80%A6)/en/28398-(Don_t_be_hasty...)?interfaceLang=hu)

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for your opinion. I could add a thought by Poincarè, about objectivity, which is reached through dialogue and sharing, essential elements for scientific debate.

Thanks Laszlo for this new contribution.

Dear Valentino,

Exactly now recovered the next comment of Jure... connecting very well to your question:

' Deleted profile added an answer

August 8, 2019

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

Recommended

Share'

Regards,

Laszlo

Thanks again.

Dear Valentino,

today I have found the next at the Jure post:

'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!'

Source:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Discussion_closed-it_makes_no_sense

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Laszlo, probabilistic prediction itself implies the possibility of errors, while we are trying to develop deterministic predictions based on instrumental measurements. Each earthquake is different from the other, but particular precursor signals manifest themselves within certain time windows. And it is these signals that are being studied.

Regards,

Valentino

Dear Valentino,

It seems well where you are going, that is why I am sending the discussion, to give ‘minimum’ help for your success… The discussion is very interesting to those who are somewhat not seismologists because they there explaining well such terms which are not explained clearly in the international publications (meaning is somewhat hidden)…

Regards,

Laszlo

Thanks for your appreciation, Laszlo.

Dear Valentino,

Merry Christmas!

Laszlo

Dear Laszlo,

Thanks again.

Merry Christmas.

Valentino