| Revision as of 14:07, 24 August 2005 editRl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers11,135 edits →Cut from article← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:46, 9 December 2005 edit undoZeizmic (talk | contribs)1,742 editsm minor commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| :Please, visit for more explanations and examples the site Earthquake Prediction Using Reliable Earthquake Precursors- http://theo.inrne.bas.bg/~mavrodi/. | :Please, visit for more explanations and examples the site Earthquake Prediction Using Reliable Earthquake Precursors- http://theo.inrne.bas.bg/~mavrodi/. | ||
| ] 14:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC) | ] 14:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ==Good State== | |||
| I just reviewed this article and think it is a state ready for the printer. :) | |||
| --] 21:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:46, 9 December 2005
I'll put the external links in later. This is a controversial topic and there are sooo many! Zeizmic 14:18 21 May 2003 (UTC)
History of Earthquake Prediction
I made some MAJOR edits to this page to clean it up and simply it for the average reader. This is an encyclopedia afterall, not a classroom text. I also felt a lot of the stock market information did not contribute much to this article. If one would like it put back in, I suggest a massive rewrite to clarify it.
I think a new section entitled "The History of Earthquake Prediction" would be pretty nice to have. Detailing ancient Chinese observations on how animals acted (and how they met with both success and failure at using this method) and onward to modern predictions (Japan/Taiwan, Parkfield, Dr. K-B, modeling they are doing at UC Davis). RockBandit 07:51, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
Controversy in trying to predict earthquakes.
I removed the following:
For example the loss of Space Shuttle Challenger during a cold weather launch would not be the sort of scientific experiment that one would want to "repeat" as many times as necessary to be "sure" before taking action or drawing conclusions. In such a case, a single data point is more than sufficient to draw conclusions thereby.
I think it really has nothing to do with this article and the way it is written is especially confusing. It is my opinion that we should leave it out, especially since it really doesn't contribute to the article in a meaningful way.
I also think the ending of this section should be rewritten somehow when talking about controversy in trying to predict earthquakes. RockBandit 07:21, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Earthquake Prediction: Chinese
according to this article and the "Early warnings" section of the article "Tangshan earthquake", predictions saved thousands of Chinese. This article described how did they issue warnings.--Skyfiler 15:37, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Cut from article
I cut this from the article (by 195.96.232.207 dated 24 August 2005):
- It is not true that the earthquakes are random geologic events without cycles or patterns. All in the NATURE is determined and only our limited knowledge is a reson to state about earthquakes unpredictables. Let us remember the Black Body problem, Plank formulae and Quantum Mechanics of Hidrogen Atom. Let us remember that many people stated that it is not possible to fly in the atmosphere, to fly in a space, to visit a Moon.
- Please, visit for more explanations and examples the site Earthquake Prediction Using Reliable Earthquake Precursors- http://theo.inrne.bas.bg/~mavrodi/.
Rl 14:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Good State
I just reviewed this article and think it is a state ready for the printer. :) --Zeizmic 21:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)