Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 22:16:13 UTC No. 16554369

>>16554343
you can never have 100% certainty on anything and any result is valid. in this case you collapsed in the 2%. this reality is weird like that

Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:41:21 UTC No. 16554507

>>16554343
Why can't YOU predict earthquakes?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 00:11:04 UTC No. 16554546

>>16554343
Why don't you tell me how they're supposed to do that

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 00:30:30 UTC No. 16554564

>>16554343
>Scientists
[citation needed]

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 07:39:38 UTC No. 16554882

>>16554343
The earthquake did happen though. Hello?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 09:55:07 UTC No. 16554944

>>16554343
That site is run by an MBA from a for-profit college. He has no science training.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 10:24:47 UTC No. 16554963

>>16554343
The forces and resistance to forces in the Earth's crust as it crumbles and reshapes over time are chaotic. This means very small details can greatly effect where and when an earthquake actually occurs. Also, our ability to measure such details from the surface are very limited. The best we can do is make general statistical estimates that cover large spans of time on the order of decades. Any one trying to nail down predictions to hours or days is just being foolish.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 10:37:37 UTC No. 16554969

>>16554963
Retard

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 12:41:51 UTC No. 16555064

>>16554969
Then tell us how to predict earthquakes

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 02:02:25 UTC No. 16555858

>>16554963
>cover large spans of time on the order of decades
making predictions which cover such a long span of time that the people making the prediction will be dead or retired before the period of time expires does not fall under the umbrella of the scientific method. scientific theories are disprovable.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 Jan 2025 03:21:32 UTC No. 16556896

>>16555858
Pseudoscientists love that trick

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:17:26 UTC No. 16558170

>>16554343
Can you predict when will flan break?

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:41:47 UTC No. 16558187

I'd be happy if we could predict them even just 2 minutes before they happen
It's crazy that that can't be done either

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:58:12 UTC No. 16558198

>>16554343
Bro, there's apparently a hyper-dense ocean under the earth that we never knew about. I don't think these guys know what the fuck they're talking about.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 04:55:24 UTC No. 16558351

>>16554343
Scientists can and DO predict earth quakes.
You're just mad about their inability to be accurate about "when" to a window of time less than +/-100 years.

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 05:02:41 UTC No. 16558359

>>16558351
Making predictions about events which are so far distant in the future that they cannot be observed does not fall under the umbrella of the scientific method. Scientific theories are disprovable and predictions about events that will occur 100+ years hence are not disprovable

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:54:06 UTC No. 16558653

>>16558359
I don't need the scientific method to know that you will die a virgin.
But that will happen in your sleep tonight so maybe you're right

Anonymous at Tue, 21 Jan 2025 15:41:52 UTC No. 16558809

As long as they never predict 0% or 100% chance, they can literally never be wrong.

Anonymous at Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:04:02 UTC No. 16560247

>>16558198
nobody knows whats under the surface down to a significant distance, the deepest boreholes only go down a few miles. below that its too hot to drill

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 03:34:17 UTC No. 16560793

California is full of literal demons. I'm sure stopping an earthquake is nothing for them. Science can't account for the effects of secret goy children sacrifices to Satan or whatever. Not yet at least.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 04:40:08 UTC No. 16560848

>>16554343
You would think this is low hanging fruit for AI.
I jokingly predicted an earthquake in cali when they got a shit ton of rain a while ago. Simple heuristic was the weight of the water might cause things to shift.
I bet you can get something pretty good from seismic data paired with other weather data (including space weather).

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:26:50 UTC No. 16561767

>>16560247
Most earthquakes take place a depths which are not deeper than the deepest boreholes. Regardless this, earthquakes still cannot be predicted, its a clear case of failure on the part of the people who should be figuring this problem out. They aren't lacking in data, but ability.

Anonymous at Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:46:23 UTC No. 16561779

>>16554963
>chaotic
Chaos translates to "The math is too hard for everyone in our field"

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 18:42:22 UTC No. 16562693

>>16561779
lol

Anonymous at Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:58:40 UTC No. 16562798

Only if you are a prophet of God, sir.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 Jan 2025 03:32:25 UTC No. 16564508

>>16556896
They've found out the hard way too many times in the past how foolish they look when they make stupid predictions which fail to come true during their lifetimes

Anonymous at Mon, 27 Jan 2025 02:20:07 UTC No. 16565782

>>16554343
they can't predict volcanic eruptions either