SkipCaptcha
445
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1,039:
Line 1,039: − :::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context: − {{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}} − :::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)
Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth (view source)
Revision as of 06:37, December 21, 2011
, 06:37, December 21, 2011Undo revision 947090 by JustinD (talk) back to the other site, troll
::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
== Taking your logic from the opening paragraph and running with it... ==
== Taking your logic from the opening paragraph and running with it... ==
I can prove that gravity doesn't exist. Just because something hasn't been explained or there are contradictions doesn't mean that the theory is incorrect. For instance, problems with gravity include: a discrepancy between the models at a macro level and quantum level, Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern, and of course the fact that no one has discovered a graviton. In short, according to your logic, since all of these cast doubt on gravity, it doesn't exist. Yet I'm still being held to the ground aren't I? Perhaps you should rethink your logic. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 13:02, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
I can prove that gravity doesn't exist. Just because something hasn't been explained or there are contradictions doesn't mean that the theory is incorrect. For instance, problems with gravity include: a discrepancy between the models at a macro level and quantum level, Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern, and of course the fact that no one has discovered a graviton. In short, according to your logic, since all of these cast doubt on gravity, it doesn't exist. Yet I'm still being held to the ground aren't I? Perhaps you should rethink your logic. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 13:02, 24 October 2011 (EDT)