Posted: Apr 19, 2012 7:04 pm
Dinox wrote:lucek wrote:Dinox wrote::doh: So you've never read pages 132 to 135 of Maxlow's Terra Non Firma Earth then? The book where he outlines the evidence in detail and reproduces the charts that indicate large periodic adjustments of the data. One chart near Canberra shows an arbitrary adjustment of 71 mm during 1993 to 1994. This would have resulted in a severe earthquake if it was real. Similar severe adjustments are also noted in a selection of other charts.
Problem is Maxlow is misleading you. It wasn't "an arbitrary adjustment of 71 mm during 1993 to 1994", it was an adjustment between 2 types of measurment. IE one used single paticles and the other used mutiple particles and that created a discrepency between the 2. Howyever all single particle measurments match all other single particle measurments and vise versa, even ones taken before and after respectavly the mid 90's. I will also not that 71mm is a manufactured number. The discrepancy was 26mm not 71mm. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=774712&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D774712
Now do you really want to start calling people out for ignoring youre posts when you in this post ignored mine? This isn't the first time I've posted this. I had a long debate (bashing repeatedly over the head and hoping something stuck) with mr adams a few months back about this exact thing.
So your argument is that there is a “correction factor” of 26 mm between different types of measurement. And this is what we are seeing in these graphs. Is that correct?
I don’t see your argument here. If there is a 26 mm error between different types of measurement then it must be impossible to publish expansion figures of less than a mm. Can you explain your thoughts more please?
Actual no. If we have a constant and well understood error in our equipment then we only need account for it in the data. In this case we do has such an error. And for note this methodology is no different then using different atomic clocks. Multiple data points giving an answer more precise then any single one.
However if you think there is such a problem the raw data is open to the public and so is the methodology of the study. If you do the calculations again with only one type or the other and a pattern of expansion appears then you have a case. If you feel you're not qualified there are plenty of people out there who are ask one if you know one. In such a case however, why would you feel qualified to judge the accuracy of such a model without even doing the math.