倍可親

呂氏臨震預報精選(CHOICES OF LU』S ARTICLES ABOUT EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION)

作者:前兆  於 2017-11-11 23:00 發表於 最熱鬧的華人社交網路--貝殼村

通用分類:網路文摘|已有32評論

關鍵詞:地震預報, 臨震預報

呂氏臨震預報精選 (作者:呂大炯,授權轉發)



                  

            

            

            

          

OFFER REWARDS                          eXTReMe Tracker 

CHOICES OF LU』S ARTICLES

呂氏臨震預報精選


呂 氏 精 選

(A) Research Report on the 「LIGO scientists directly detecting gravitational waves」 event

 

--- Is it a "gravitational wave" or "earthquake precursor wave"? ---

 

Author: Dajiong Lu

 

Foreword 

The laser interferometer is not only able to record seismic waves, but also a variety of earthquake precursors (Reference book "Impending Earthquake Prediction" by Dajiong Lu). The paper about detecting gravitational waves published in the name of "LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration" only mentioned that they considered the exclusion of seismic waves, but not whether they considered the exclusion of earthquake precursors or other sources from the Earth's interior. At least we did not see that and it is not entirely impossible  ......

     Accordingly, we ask whether the detected "gravitational waves" may be a kind of "earthquake precursor wave". Following this thought, we did ​​some research.

A.   Is the 「Gravitational wave」 detected by America』s LIGO possibly an 「earthquake precursor wave」?

If the 「gravitational wave」 detected by America』s LIGO onSeptember 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC was a kind of 「earthquake precursor」, it should occur before a large earthquake.  Again if the 「gravitational wave」 was one kind of 「impending earthquake precursor」, then it should occur a few days, for example 2 or 3 days, before a large earthquake.

First, let』s search for large earthquakes over M7 around the world which occurred within half a year before October 26, 2015:

1.    A magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck Nepal 34 km (21 mi) east southeast of Lamjung on April 25 at a depth of 8.2 km (5.1 mi).

2.     A magnitude 7.5 earthquake struck Papua New Guinea 130 km (81 mi) south southwest ofKokopo on May 5 at a depth of 55.0 km (34.2 mi).

3.    A magnitude 7.3 earthquake struck Nepal 19 km (12 mi) southeast of Kodari on May 12 at a depth of 15.0 km (9.3 mi).

4.    A magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck offshore of Japan 189 km (117 mi) west northwest ofChichi-jima in the Ogasawara Islands on May 30 at a depth of 664.0 km (412.6 mi).

5.    A magnitude 8.3 earthquake struck Chile 48 km (30 mi) west of Illapel on September 16 at a depth of 22.4 km (13.9 mi).

6.     A magnitude 7.1 earthquake struck Vanuatu 34 km (21 mi) northeast of Port Olry on October 20 at a depth of 135.0 km (83.9 mi).

7.    A magnitude 7.5 earthquake struck Afghanistan 45 km (28 mi) east of Farkhar,Farkhar district, Takhar province on October 26 at a depth of 231.0 km (143.5 mi).

Why such a coincidence?  Is this a pure coincidence or does it mean we are in the right direction? A large earthquake of M8.3 occurred in Chile which is 7,000~8,000 km away from LIGO gravitational wave detectors and just within 2~3 days after the so-called gravitational wave arrived. The 「gravitational wave」 event just fell within the impending quake period of the large earthquake in Chile, while other large earthquakes in the world within the same half-year period were far away from the LIGO gravitational wave detectors and were not within the 2~3 days after that event.  This means that the unique Chile earthquake was the closest to the LIGO gravitational wave detectors and the 「gravitational wave」 was detected within 2~3 days before the earthquake in Chile, so it may be a good idea that the 「gravitational wave」 detected by America』s LIGO was only a kind of earthquake precursor wave!

According to our past experiments on earthquake prediction, it is not strange for detectors which are far away from the epicenter of a M8 earthquake to receive an earthquake precursor wave   (electromagnetic wave) from the emitter related with the M8 earthquake. On the other hand, it is very strange that instruments with high sensitivity cannot receive any impending earthquake precursor wave from M8 earthquakes!

In conclusion, it is another possible option that the signals detected by America』s LIGO gravitational wave detectors were earthquake precursor waves. 

B. About the spectrum of signals:

    If someone detected a certain wave motion, then he (or she) would have described the detected signal spectrum and the response curve of the detection equipment for the fluctuation frequency, in order to determine whether the detected waveform has been distorted or not......        

    According to the article "human directly detected the gravitational waves for the first time」 (Tencent Space Qiao Hui at 23:43 on February 11, 2016), the initial frequency of the detected gravitational wave signal was 35 Hz, then quickly it went up to 250 Hz, and finally became disorderly and then disappeared...... (the whole process lasted for only a quarter of a second. The signal detected by the detector in Livingston was 7 milliseconds earlier than the signal detected by the detector in Hanford.  The time difference indicates that gravitational waves were coming from the southern sky.) 

      If we say that the detected signal is a kind of earthquake precursor wave, then let's take a look at the general earthquake precursor wave to see if it corresponds with the spectrum of the signal detected by the LIGO detector or not.

    For earthquakes over M6.5 to M7, if using the frequency counter to measure the wave frequency of earthquakes, their spectrum should be between 40Hz and 1575Hz. We can treat the earthquake precursor as an analog of initial motion of large earthquake (no quake after being triggered), its low-end frequency of the initial motion should be the same as the low-end frequency of the earthquake, but it should be less than the high-end frequency 1575Hz of the earthquake, to be estimated as several hundred Hz. Thus the bands of earthquake precursor are in accordance with the bands of so-called "gravitational waves signal」.

Secondly, assuming that the electromagnetic radiation precursor is caused by certain kind of piezoelectric effect, then the bands of electromagnetic radiation precursors should be consistent with bands of stress precursor. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that the signal detected by the LIGO detector could possibly be a kind of earthquake precursor wave. 

C.  About the duration of the signal:

   Why is the duration of the precursor only 0.4 seconds?  That is, why only 0.4 seconds if their signals are a kind of earthquake precursor?

   In the past years, the author mostly studied impending earthquake precursors, namely, precursors occurring a few days before large earthquakes.

   As we all know, the crustal stress is modulated by solid tide, so the earthquake precursor occurs only when the crustal stress reaches or exceeds the precursor threshold. In other words, the impending earthquake precursor as the sudden change form occurs in the peaks or valleys of solid tide, so generally speaking, they are short-lived. (The earthquake would occur when crustal stress reaches or exceeds the threshold of the earthquake.) Due to their gravitational wave detectors is well shielded, only the strongest electromagnetic radiation emitted in the short duration (for example 0.4 seconds) in which there are largest peak or valley tidal values is able to penetrate the shield and be detected. The electromagnetic radiation outside this duration (0.4 seconds) is shielded by their instrument. 

D. About the arrival time of the signal:            

          A typically impending earthquake precursor occurs within 2 to 3 days before the earthquake. Most of the time this will be the case! We have said in the previous section that the so-called "gravitational waves" detected by LIGO did occur within 2-3 days before the M8.3 earthquake in Chile!   

E. About the angle of incidence and the signal strength:

   The issue of the incident angle of "gravitational waves" did not appear to be mentioned in detail in the paper from LIGO. How about the angle between the incident angle of "gravitational waves" and the plane of the detecting equipment? It is directly related to the signal strength. Because the two perpendicular arms of their each interferometer is in free form, two signals may offset at a certain angle of incidence. Also, because the interferometer arms of the two interferometers are not parallel to each other (refer to paper screenshot), the signal strength detected by the two interferometers may have differences, or large or small......

Let's look at a passage of LIGO paper in English.  It says, 「Only the LIGO detectors were observing at the time of GW150914. The Virgo detector was being upgraded, and GEO 600, though not sufficiently sensitive to detect this event, was operating but not in observational mode」.   「With only two detectors the source position is primarily determined by the relative arrival time and ……」

    That is, the angle of incidence is anti-deducted, not by taking measurements.

 Also another article which introduced LIGO』s detection says: 「The positioning accuracy of gravitational wave sources can be improved only after the Australian interferometer is networked.」 In other words, the positioning of the source encountered difficulties before the Australian interferometer is networked. It shows indirectly that our suspicion is reasonable. 

F.  Discussion of the time difference of signals detected by the two detectors:

1. The time difference between signals detected by the two LIGO detectors was about 7 milliseconds. Some people think that this can only be an error of signals made by a human. We believe that if the signal was emitted from the epicenter of the earthquake in Chile, then this 7ms may be human error and in fact the time difference should be 10 milliseconds!

  2. The second possibility is that the epicenter was not necessarily the original source of the specific precursor (of course the precursor also can be emitted from the epicenter); the area of ruptured plate of a M8 earthquake may have an extension up to thousands of kilometers, and it is entirely possible that the stress point of a precursor is far away from L1, H1 and located in a different direction! It is expected that this stress point is likely to be located in a fault of the eastern Pacific. We wish to find this stress point which meets the condition with 7 ms time difference between the two detectors.  To test and verify this argument, three detectors are necessary at least! This corresponds with the content discussed in Section E!

G. GRB (gamma-ray bursts) cannot explain that the signal detected by LIGO is a gravitational wave (I hope to discuss this with Professor Cai Yifu, University of Science and Technology of China.)

    In the important news of the first edition, February 18, 2016 China Science News, there is a report about a response to the question of gravitational wave detection by Professor Cai Yifu, Department of Physics, University of Science and Technology of China.

At first Mr. Cai affirmed the issues involved in the gravitational wave detection, but he defended the result of the LIGO detection: While the merging of black holes, was emitted not only gravitational waves but also electromagnetic signals, that is, gamma-ray bursts, the relevant signals were captured and examined by other telescopes independently. This shows that the probability of a non-gravitational wave is very low.

The author believes that his explanation did not help LIGO, but gave further help to the research fellow  Dajiong Lu, providing further evidence for Lu』s dissertation --- The signals detected by LIGO may be a kind of earthquake precursor!

    It is almost well-known in the field of earthquake prediction that magnetic storms from the cosmos are frequently observed before the occurrence of large earthquakes. Some seismologists also use these magnetic storms to predict earthquakes! First let us quote a text passage in Prof. Zhendong Yu』s paper, "the root and causes of the M8 Wenchuan earthquake".

    The environmental enhancement of cosmic rays which is symbolized by large GLE events of cosmic rays on January 20, 2005 was a major source of the Wen-chuan M8.0 earthquake. It should be noted that the enhancement of cosmic rays in large GLE events is only a symbol. We don』t say that the neutron part of enhanced cosmic rays alone can cause a major earthquake. Large earthquakes are trigged by all high-energy radiation, including known and unknown varieties of high-energy radiation, caused by corresponding solar flares of cosmic rays in the outbreak. We believe that there was an important astronomical event which was going to affect the Wen-chuan earthquake. It just is extremely important γ-ray bursts GRB080319B observed on March 19, 2008. The γ-ray bursts were 75 hundred-million light-years away from the Earth. The most surprising feature is that its optical afterglow has reached apparent magnitude 5.3. γ-ray bursts are the most violent bursts known after the Big Bang. It is generally believed that most γ-ray bursts are produced when a massive star after burning all its nuclear fuel collapses to form black holes or neutron stars. The energy released may reach up to 1054 erg / sec. The outburst process produces a variety of known and unknown flux of energetic particles, in addition to γ-rays, X-rays, visible light and radio emissions. This high-energy radiation and material arising from the γ-ray burst arrives and affects the Earth absolutely. Based on research on the relationship between supernova explosions and large earthquakes, we already know that the brightest apparent magnitude of stellar explosions is an indicator reflecting the degree of magnitude of earthquakes. A supernova explosion of the brightest apparent magnitude of 3 can just cause an earthquake of M8. The brightest apparent magnitude of γ-ray burst GRB080319B reached 5.3; their difference is 2 only, but the outbreak scope of the γ-ray bursts is a hundred million times larger than a supernova explosion, so generating high-energy radiation and material which could cause large earthquakes much greater than that generated by supernova explosion. Therefore, there is reason to believe that γ ray burst GRB080319B could affect seismic activity. That is, the combined effect of solar flares of cosmic rays reflected by the large GLE event on January 20, 2005 and γ-ray burst GRB080319B is the trigger factor of the Wen-chuan earthquake.    

Thus the argument (the correlation signal, electromagnetic wave signal namely GRBs were independently captured by other telescopes and cross-checked by each other) which was said by Mr. Cai does not illustrate that a gravitational wave was detected by LIGO, and precisely it just provides other favorable evidence for the thesis of the author (the signal detected by LIGO may have been an earthquake precursor wave.) There is a close relation between earthquakes, magnetic storms, and gamma-ray bursts; and the relationship between electromagnetic wave signals (namely GRBs) and gravitational waves has never been confirmed before, because a gravitational wave has never been detected by mankind before.

   Of course, the result detected by LIGO detectors perhaps will play a role in the research on the causes of earthquakes or trigger mechanism.

    Conclusion: The concept of earthquake precursors may be used to explain the signal detected by the LIGO gravitational wave detectors, i.e. it is another possible option! 

 CODA: 

    This article attempts to reveal a secret: Why have scientists around the world not been able to achieve impending earthquake predictions so far.

    Forty years ago, Researcher Dajiong Lu predicted accurately and successfully some earthquakes, especially three elements of teleseisms. Since then until today, no scientist in the world can reach the level of earthquake prediction achieved by researcher Dajiong Lu 40 years ago!

     To investigate its cause:  It may be that seismologists around the world regard impending earthquake precursors as interference or noise to deal with. Coincidentally, recently astronomers around the world are likely to regard impending earthquake precursors as gravitational waves! Therefore, scientists all over the world consider that there are no trustworthy impending earthquake precursors before large earthquakes, so that they do nothing and are helpless in the field of impending earthquake prediction!

    The above-mentioned serves as a reference for worldwide scientists!

     At the same time, the subjective feeling of the author is that scientists around the world are avoiding research on earthquake prediction, preferring to study gravitational waves emitted 1.3 billion light-years far far away, preferring to study artificial intelligence 「GO」 (a game played with black and white stones on a board of 361 crosses) ......but dare not touch the impending earthquake prediction of large earthquakes!

Thanks: Japanese Dr. Dai Feng made very valuable comments, herein to express my gratitude!

(A) 關於對【LIGO科學家直接探測到引力波】事件的研究報告
------「引力波」還是「地震前兆波」------

作者:呂大炯

前言

    由於激光干涉儀不僅能夠記錄地震波,而且還可以記錄到各種各樣的地震前兆(參考呂大炯所著「臨震預報」一書)。在以「LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration」的名義發表的引力波探測一文中只提到,已經考慮了對地震波的排除,但起碼沒有看到是否也考慮了對地震前兆或者地球內部其他來源的排除。而這些也並不是完全不可能的......

    據此,我們設想:所探測到的「引力波」是否可能是一種「地震前兆」?按照這一思路,我們作了一些探討!

一.美國所探測到的「引力波」是否可能是大地震的臨震前兆波?

    如果說,在2015年9月14日9:50:45 ( UTC) 所探測到的「引力波」是一種「地震前兆」,那麼這一事件應該發生在某一次大地震之前;又如果所探測到的「引力波」是一種「臨震前兆」 那麼這一事件應該發生在某一次大地震之前若干天,比如說2~3天。

    讓我們先來查詢一下在2015年10月26日之前的前半年時間內所發生的全世界七級以上大地震:

·       1.尼泊爾博克拉†‡(M7.9,4月25日)
·       2.尼泊爾科達里(M7.3,5月12日)
·       3.日本小笠原群島(M8.5,5月30日)
·       4. 智利伊亞佩爾(M8.3, 2015年9月16日19:54:33本地時間)
·       5. 興都庫什山脈(M7.5,10月26日)

    怎麼這麼巧呢?這到底是偶然的巧合還是思路正確:恰恰在所謂的「引力波」到達后的2~3天的時間內,在離美國兩個 LIGO 引力波探測器 7000~8000公里左右的智利發生了8.3級大地震,「引力波」事件正好落入智利大地震臨震的時間段!而在這半年中其他一些大地震離LIGO探測器就要遠得多,唯獨這個離 LIGO 探測器最近的智利的大地震的前2~3天探測到了「引力波」。所以說,所探測到的「引力波」只是一種「地震前兆波」的構想也逐漸浮出水面。

    根據我們以前預報地震的實驗來看,能夠接受到幾千公里以外的8級以上地震的前兆波一點也不奇怪,而對於高靈敏度儀器接受不到8級以上大地震的臨震前兆那才是非常值得奇怪的事情!

二.  關於信號頻譜:

    如果說探測到了某某波動,那麼就要說明所探測到的信號的頻譜以及探測儀器對波動頻率的響應曲線,從而確定所探測到的波形有沒有被畸變……

    據「人類首次直接探測到了引力波「(騰訊太空喬輝2016年02月11日23:43)一文介紹:探測到的引力波信號初始頻率為35赫茲,接著迅速提升到了250赫茲,最後變得無序而消失……(整個過程持續了僅四分之一秒。位於利文斯頓的探測器比位於漢福德的探測器早探測到7毫秒,這個時間差表明引力波是從南部天區傳來。)

    如果說,所探測到的信號是地震前兆波的話,那麼讓我們來看一看一般的地震前兆波是否符合LIGO探測器所探測到的信號的頻譜。

    對於6.5至7級以上的地震,若以計頻器計測大震的頻率,應該介於40Hz至1575Hz左右。 我們可以把前兆看成類似於大地震的初動(在被觸發后沒有震起來),其初動頻率的低端應該和地震頻率相同,而高端則應該低於1575Hz ,估計可為幾百Hz. 這個頻段和他們探測到的所謂的「引力波」信號頻段一致。

    其次,假定電磁輻射前兆是由於某種壓電效應引起的,那麼電磁輻射前兆的頻段也應該和應力前兆一致。

    所以說,不能排除LIGO探測器所探測到的信號是地震前兆波的可能性。

三.關於信號的持續時間:

    前兆為什麼只有0.4秒?也就是說,如果他們的信號是地震前兆的話,為什麼只有0.4秒?

    作者在過去主要研究的是臨震前兆,也就是發生在大地震前數天的前兆。在地震前,地應力是被固體潮所調製的,所以只有在地應力達到或超過前兆閾值時,前兆才會產生。也就是說臨震前兆是在固體潮的峰谷值處以突變形式發生,所以一般來說,它們都是短暫的。(在地應力達到或超過發震閾值時,地震就發生了。)由於他們的引力波探測器的屏蔽肯定非常之好,所以只有在固體潮最大峰谷值的那一小段時間(比如說0.4秒)內發出的最強的電磁輻射才能夠穿透屏蔽,從而被他們的探測器探測到。而在0.4秒以外的電磁輻射被儀器屏蔽掉了。

四. 關於信號的產生時間:

    通常臨震前兆在大地震前2~3天發生。大多數情況會是這樣!在前面第一節中已經講過,LIGO所探測到的所謂」引力波「的確發生在智利8.3級地震前2~3天!

五.關於引力波的入射角及信號強度:

    該文好像沒有提到「引力波」的入射角度的問題。它與探測儀器所在平面的夾角究竟如何?因為這直接關係到信號強度。由於他們每台干涉儀互相垂直的兩臂都是自由的,所以在某個入射角度下,信號可能會被抵消。又由於兩台干涉儀的干涉臂不是互相平行的(請參考論文截圖),因此兩台干涉儀測到的信號強度可能會有或大或小的差異 ……

    讓我們來查看LIGO英文論文中的一段。論文上說: 他們的另外兩台儀器,其中一台靈敏度低,測不到,另一台正在升級,所以在只有兩台儀器的情況下,發射源的位置是被相對到達時間來決定的。

    也就是說,他們是反推出來的!不是測量出來的。

    另外一篇介紹性的文章中說:只有澳大利亞的干涉儀聯網后才能提高引力波源的定位精度。換句話說,沒有澳大利亞的干涉儀,定位就會有困難。間接說明了我們的懷疑是有一定道理的!
 
六.關於兩個探測器之間信號時差的討論:

1.兩台LIGO探測器探測到的時間之差約7毫秒 ,有人認為:這隻能是一個人為的信號產生的誤差值。我們認為:如果信號是從智利地震的震中發出來的,那麼這個7毫秒就可能是人為的誤差,實際上應該是10毫秒!

2.第二種可能是:震中不一定是這個特定前兆的發源地(當然震中也會產生前兆),M8級地震破裂板塊面積實乃上千公里,前兆應力點完全有可能是在遠離L1、H1的另一方向上!預計這個應力點很有可能是在東太平洋的斷裂帶上。需要找出符合兩個探測器之間具有7毫秒時差的這個前兆應力點,。為了驗證這個論點,至少要有三個探測器!這和上面第五節中討論的內容相呼應!

七. 伽馬射線暴不能說明LIGO探測到的信號就是引力波:

   (和中國科技大學蔡一夫教授商榷)

    中國科學報2016-02-18第一版要聞中,有一篇報道了中國科技大學物理學院蔡一夫教授對「引力波探測質疑」的回應文章。

    蔡先生首先對質疑表示肯定,然而他為LIGO對引力波的探測結果作了如下的辯解:

    黑洞併合不僅僅只有引力波還有電磁波信號,也就是伽馬射線暴,相關信號被其他望遠鏡獨立捕捉到並互相檢驗過。這就說明LIGO探測到的信號不是引力波的概率很低。

    本文作者認為,他的這一辯解非但沒有幫了LIGO,反而給「呂大炯研究員認為LIGO所探測到的信號可能是地震前兆「的論述提供了進一步的佐證!

    在地震預報領域中幾乎是眾所周知,在大地震前經常會觀測到來自宇宙的磁暴。有的地震學家還利用磁暴來預測地震!讓我們先來引用「汶川8.0級地震的根源和成因」(虞震東)一文中的一段話:

    以2005年1月20日的宇宙線大GLE事件為標誌的宇宙線環境增強是汶川8.0級大地震的主要根源。在此要加以說明的是,宇宙線大GLE事件的增強幅度,只是一個標誌或指標。並不是說增強了的那些宇宙線中子部分單獨就能引起大地震。引起大地震的是相應的那個太陽宇宙線耀斑在爆發中產生的全部高能輻射,包括已知的和未知的各種高能輻射。我們認為,還有一個重要的天文事件對汶川大地震也是有影響的。它就是2008年3月19日觀測到的極為重要的γ射線暴GRB080319B。這個γ射線暴距地球約75億光年。它最令人驚奇的特點是它的光學餘輝竟然達到視星等5.3[10]。γ射線暴是宇宙大爆炸之後所知的最猛烈的爆發。一般認為,大多數γ射線暴是大質量恆星燃盡核燃料后發生坍縮形成黑洞或中子星時產生的。它釋放的能量可以高達1054爾格/秒[11]。爆發過程中除產生γ射線、X射線、可見光和射電輻射外,還產生已知的和未知的各種高能粒子流。這些作用到地球的由γ射線暴產生的各種高能輻射和物質肯定要對地球產生影響。在新星爆發和大地震關係的研究中已經知道,恆星爆發的最亮視星等是反映它對地震影響程度的指標。最亮視星等達到3等的新星爆發就可能引起 8級大地震[4]。γ射線暴GRB080319B的最亮視星等已經達到5.3等。它和前者的視星等之差只有2個星等。但γ射線暴的爆發規模比新星爆發要大很多億倍,從中產生的引起大地震的那些高能輻射和物質比新星爆發要大得多。所以,有理由相信,GRB080319Bγ射線暴對地震活動有影響。也就是說,2005年1月20日的宇宙線大GLE事件反映的太陽宇宙線耀斑和γ射線暴GRB080319B的聯合作用是汶川8.0級地震的根源。

    由此可見蔡先生所說的「相關信號(電磁波信號,也就是伽瑪射線暴)被其他望遠鏡獨立撲捉到並互相檢驗過「,並不能說明LIGO探測到的是引力波,而恰恰為本文作者認為的「LIGO所探測到的信號有可能是地震前兆波「提供了又一個有利的證據。地震與磁暴及伽馬射線暴之間有著緊密的聯繫;而電磁暴與引力波的關係卻從來就沒有被證實過,因為人類之前從未探測到過引力波。

    當然,LIGO探測器的探測結果也許正好為地震的成因或者觸發機制的研究起到一定的推波助瀾的作用!

    本文的結論:地震前兆也許可以用於解釋 LIGO 引力波探測器所探測到的信號的另一種可能的選項!

    結尾:

    本文試圖揭秘,全世界科學家不能實現臨震預報的原因。

    40年前,呂大炯研究員多次成功地精確預報了某些地震,特別是遠震三要素。自那之後直至今天,全世界沒有任何一位科學家能夠達到呂大炯研究員40年前的水平!

    究其原因:可能是全世界的地震學家都把大地震的臨震前兆當作干擾或者雜訊來處理。無獨有偶,最近全世界的天文學家很可能又把大地震的臨震前兆當作引力波來處理!因此,全世界的科學家都認為大地震前不存在任何值得信賴的臨震前兆,從而他們在大地震的臨震預報方面一籌莫展和束手無策!

    以上所述不一定正確,僅供全世界科學家參考!

    同時作者主觀感覺, 全世界的科學家都在躲避對大地震的臨震預報的研究 ! 寧願去研究 13億光年遠處發出的引力波, 寧願去研究智能圍棋 ...... 而不敢碰大地震的臨震預報 !

感謝:日本的戴峰博士對本文提出了非常寶貴的意見,在此表示感謝!

(B) Is the 「Gravitational wave」 detected by America』s LIGO  the 「earthquake precursor wave 」 only ?

 

We had some questions in the past article:  Is the 「gravitational wave」 detected by America』s LIGO the 「earthquake precursor wave 」 only ? According to this 「thinking」, we do a little bit investigations!

If  the 「gravitational wave」 detected by America』s LIGO on Sept. 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC was one kind of 「earthquake precursor 」, it should occur before a large earthquake, again if  the 「gravitational wave」 was one kind of 「impending earthquake precursor」, in that way  it should occur at a few days, for example 2 or 3 days,  before a large earthquake.At first, let』s inquire large earthquakes over M7 in the world which occurred within half a year before Oct. 26 , 2015 :

 

1.   A magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck Nepal 34 km (21 mi) east southeast of Lamjung on April 25 at a depth of 8.2 km (5.1 mi).

2.    A magnitude 7.5 earthquake struck Papua New Guinea 130 km (81 mi) south southwest of Kokopo on May 5 at a depth of 55.0 km (34.2 mi).

3.   A magnitude 7.3 earthquake struck Nepal 19 km (12 mi) southeast of Kodari on May 12 at a depth of 15.0 km (9.3 mi).

4.   A magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck offshore of Japan 189 km (117 mi) west northwest of Chichi-jima in the Ogasawara Islands on May 30 at a depth of 664.0 km (412.6 mi).

5.   A magnitude 8.3 earthquake struck Chile 48 km (30 mi) west of Illapel on September 16 at a depth of 22.4 km (13.9 mi).

6.    A magnitude 7.1 earthquake struck Vanuatu 34 km (21 mi) northeast of Port Olry on October 20 at a depth of 135.0 km (83.9 mi).

7.   A magnitude 7.5 earthquake struck Afghanistan 45 km (28 mi) east of Farkhar, Farkhar district, Takhar province on October 26 at a depth of 231.0 km (143.5 mi). 

 

Why so fortunately?  This is occasional coincidence or correct thinking? A large earthquake of M8.3 occurred in Chile which is 7000~8000 km far away from LIGO gravitational wave detectors and just within 2~3 days after so-called gravitational wave arrived. The 「gravitational wave」 event just fell into impending quake period of the large earthquake in Chile,  other large earthquakes in the world within same half a year were far away from LIGO gravitational wave detectors and were not within 2~3 days after that event. It means that unique Chile earthquake which was closest from LIGO gravitational wave detectors and the 「gravitational wave」 was detected within 2~3 days before Chile earthquake. So that it may be a good idea that  the 「gravitational wave」 detected by America』s LIGO is one kind of earthquake precursor wave only!

 

According to our past experiments of earthquake prediction, it is not strange that the detectors which is far away from the epicenter of M8 earthquake can receive the earthquake precursor  wave   (electromagnetic wave) from  the emitter related with the M8 earthquake. On the other hand, it is very strange that the instruments with high sensitivity cannot receive   any impending earthquake precursor wave from M8 earthquake!

 

In conclusion, it is another possible  option that the earthquake precursor  wave  just are  the signals detected by America』s LIGO gravitational wave detectors.

(B) 美國所探測到的「引力波」是否可能是大地震的前兆波?

 

在之前所發表的文章中曾經提出疑問:所探測到的「引力波」是否可能是一種「地震前兆」?按照這一思路,我們作了一些探討!如果說,在201591495045  UTC 所探測到的「引力波」是一種「地震前兆」,那麼這一事件應該發生在某一次大地震之前;又如果所探測到的「引力波」是一種「臨震前兆」 那麼這一事件應該發生在某一次大地震之前若干天,比如說23天。

讓我們先來查詢一下在20151026日之前的前半年時間內所發生的全世界七級以上大地震:

·       1.尼泊爾博克拉†‡(M7.9425日)

·       2.尼泊爾科達里†(M7.3512日)

·       3.日本小笠原群島(M8.5530日)

·       4. 智利伊亞佩爾(M8.3 2015916195433本地時間)

·       5. 興都庫什山脈†(M7.51026日)

 

怎麼這麼巧呢?這到底是偶然的巧合還是思路正確:恰恰在所謂的「引力波」到達后的23天的時間內,在離美國兩個 LIGO 引力波探測器 70008000公里左右的智利發生了8.3級大地震,「引力波」事件正好落入智利大地震臨震的時間段!而在這半年中其他一些大地震離 LIGO探測器就要遠得多,唯獨這個離LIGO 探測器最近的智利的大地震的前23天探測到了「引力波」。所以說,所探測到的「引力波」只是一種「地震前兆波」的構想也逐漸浮出水面。

根據我們以前預報地震的實驗來看,能夠接受到幾千公里以外的8級以上地震的前兆波一點也不奇怪,而對於高靈敏度儀器接受不到8級以上大地震的臨震前兆那才是非常值得奇怪的事情!

結論是:地震前兆也許可以用於解釋 LIGO 引力波探測器所探測到的信號的另一種可能的選項!

(C) Dr. Lu Dajiong is clearly a first-rate scientist

 

British Scientist, Prof. J. Tarney, Director of Department of Geology, University of Leicester reported to the British Council that 「Dr. Lu Dajiong is clearly a first-rate scientist.」

Reputedly, British Scientists are more conservative usually and rarely to appraise other country』s scientist as a first-rate scientist. Therefore, Lu was over whelmed by the document Lu received in 1981 (Lu was 41 years old), and Lu felt distressed because Lu suffered…

(C) 很明顯呂大炯是第一流科學家


    英國科學家,英國萊徹斯特大學地質系主任簡.泰尼教授在向英國文化委員會的報告中稱:」很明顯,呂大炯是第一流科學家」.
(原文請看網站 
http://dajionglu.spaces.live.com 首頁右邊圖片框)
    據說, 英國科學家向來是比較保守的,很少評價其它國家的科學家為第一流科學家.因此在1981年當41歲的呂大炯收到該文件時,真是感到受寵若驚!再聯想到,自己卻受到……,又感到無比的痛心!

(D) The Earthquake Prediction Instrument Developed by Dajiong Lu and Gao Jian Guo Had the Honor to Get a Great Science and Technology Award from the Chinese Academyof Science

 

The readers, who already read the books 「Impending Earthquake Prediction」 and 「Rose Cloud as a kind of Earthquake Precursor」, should know that Prof. Dajiong Lu successfully predicted earthquakes mainly depending on 「Laser Phase-Locked Strainometer」, 「Bedrock Earth-current Recorder」 and 「Electromagnetic Radiation Envelope Recorder」. At the same time, in order to increase successful probability of prediction, Rose Cloud as a kind of earthquake precursor and other Meteorological data was used.

Dajiong Lu expounded that Earthquake Cloud is a kind of sudden change precursor of earthquake, but it doesn』t mean that people could predict three elements of earthquake easily and accurately only using one kind of precursor ------ earthquake cloud.  Dajiong Lu purported to be 「Earthquake Prediction is more Accurate than Weather Forecast」, mainly means above-mentioned precursors from three instruments. Moreover, the Rose Clouds as a kind of Precursor also is an important auxiliary medium indeed.

Due to Prof. Dajiong Lu found that there was a reader (from Chinese Baibu) misunderstood earthquake cloud, so that Lu emphasizes here again. Please various large websites pay attention to the importance to use instruments to explore earthquake precursors, don』t reveal only one-legged on earthquake cloud, thereby cause reader to have an illusion.

The original type of laser phase-locked strainometer developed by Dajiong Lu and Gao Jian Guo is 「Laser Phase-Locked Interferometer」. The readers, who already read 「Impeding Earthquake Prediction」, perhaps noticed: In 1973 the 「Laser Phase-Locked Interferometer」 developed by Lu and Gao was for probing gravitational radiation which is possibly emitted from the Pulsar NP 0532 in Crab Nebula, 7000 light-year away from the earth. On July 28, 1976, the Tangshan earthquake of Ms 7.8 occurred, this instrument was converted into a strainometer suitable for recording bedrock strain. Afterward this instrument and its application in the field of earthquake prediction, especially under its operation in coordination with other instruments successfully predicting three elements of some teleseisms, had the honor to get a great science and technology achievement award from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. At that time, Guan Wei Yan was an affair cadre of physics Institute.

Some people said houmerously: The instrument used to probe gravitational radiation emitted from the Pulsar which is 7000 light-year away from us, now we use it to probe earthquake precursors in the earth, it looks like using a knife of killing cow to kill a chicken? No wonder it could predict earthquakes which are several thousands km away from earthquake prediction station.

(D) 呂大炯與高建國研製的地震預報儀器
榮獲中科院重大科技成果獎

    閱讀過呂大炯所著」臨震預報」及」震兆雲霞」的讀者就會知道: 呂大炯主要是依靠」激光鎖相應變儀」,」基岩地電記錄儀」及」電磁輻射包絡記錄儀」三種儀器來成功地預報地震,同時為了增加預報的成功率而引用震兆雲霞及其它氣象資料.
    呂大炯論證了地震雲是一種地震的突變前兆,並不等於說,根據地震雲單項手段就能夠很容易精確地預報成功地震三要素. 呂大炯所稱: 地震預報比天氣預報還要準確, 主要是指上述三種儀器,但震兆雲霞也的確是一種重要的輔助手段.
    由於呂大炯發現有一些(例如百度網站上的)讀者對地震雲產生了一些誤解,所以在此再一次強調一下.同時也請各大網站報道時注意強調用儀器探測地震前兆的重要性,不要片面地只報道地震雲,以給讀者一種錯覺.
    呂大炯與高建國研製的激光鎖相應變儀來源於它的原型」激光鎖相干涉儀」. 讀過」臨震預報」一書的讀者也許會注意到: 1973年呂大炯與高建國研製的激光鎖相干涉儀是為了探測離地球七千光年的蟹狀星雲的引力輻射. 1976年7月28日唐山發生了7.8級大地震,所以這才將其改裝成適合於記錄基岩應變的應變儀. 該儀器及其在地震預報領域內的應用,特別是它與其它儀器配合在世界上首次成功地預報了遠震三要素,因而榮獲中科院重大科技成果獎. 此時管惟炎為物理所業務負責人.
    有人風趣地說: 原來用於探測離地球七千光年的引力輻射的儀器,現在用於探測地球上的地震前兆不是殺雞用牛刀嗎?怪不得可以預測離台站數千公里以外的地震

(中科院重大科技成果獎獎狀,請看網站http://dajionglu.spaces.live.com首頁右邊圖片框).

(E) Lu Dajiong had predicted successfully the earthquake in America to Prof. Qiang Zuji etc.,China State Seismological Bureau

 

 From April 3-9th, 1978, Lu attended the Achievements Exchange Meeting on Earthquake and Geology in Tongxian County, Beijing. In the small hours of April 8, Lu found that earthquake clouds had appeared in the northeast. After taking into account the periodic sudden changes of wind velocity in the past few days, Lu predicted to Prof.Qiang Zuji and Mr. Zhang Decheng of the Office of Analysis and Prediction of the State Seismological Bureau, and Mr. Fu Muxing of the Earthquake Publishing House and  another colleague, that there could be an earthquake of magnitude 7 or so near the Aleutian Islands in the northern Pacific on April 12, 1978.

An earthquake of 7.0 occurred in Alaska, east of the Aleutians, on April 12. Prof. Qiang Zuji asked Mr.Zhang Decheng wrote an certificate to Lu, it indicated Lu made a  successful  prediction at that time.

Someone required Lu makes a miraculous forecast according to earthquake cloud. It means, otherwise Lu is a …. In fact, Lu already answered this question many times: 「It』s just necessary to obtain a valuable forecast only when co-operating to various means  people use earthquake cloud to predict earthquakes. Above-mentioned just is a typical example.

Regarding whether it is 「miraculous」, it』ll depend on your personal understanding. As Lu』s idea, this prediction is miraculous than that famous tactician Mr.Zhu Geliang forecast the east wind for fighting. He took advantage of east wind only due to he forecast the change of local wind direction, but Lu predicted strong earthquake which occurred 6000 km far from the station. (if Lu would have other meteorological information and satellite information at that time, it may be more accurate to predict the epicenter).

Please report to Prof. Qiang Zuji, Zhang Decheng and Fu Muxing to verify this forecast, thank you!

(E) 呂大炯向國家地震局強祖基等人成功預報了美國地震


    1978年4月3日至9日,呂大炯在北京通縣參加地震地質成果交流會.4月8日呂
大炯在激光等儀器記錄全球應力場的基礎上,又觀測到地震雲與周期性風速突變,
於是向與會的國家地震局強祖基,張德成,傅木行等四人預報:1978年4月12日在
北太平洋的阿留申群島附近可能發生7級左右強震. 強祖基說: 4月12日我們一定會與地震目錄核實的.結果1978年4月12日在阿留申群島以東的美國阿拉斯加發
生了7.0級地震. 作為當時國家地震局分析預報室主任的強祖基責成張德成寫了
一份證明,說明呂大炯的確作了一次成功的預報.
    有人要求我必須根據地震雲作出一個」神乎其神」的預報(言下之意,否則你呂大炯就是XX). 我已經回答過了我必須把地震雲與多種手段配合才能作出有價值的預報,上面所介紹的就是一個典型的例子.
    至於說是否」神乎其神」,那就要看個人的理解了.依我個人認為:這次預報比諸葛亮借東風的」神乎其神」還要」神乎其神」,因為諸葛亮的借東風是他預測了當地地區的風向轉變,而我預測的是6000公里以外發生的強震.(如果我當時還有其它氣象資料和衛星資料,或許震中可以預報的更加準確).
    敬請各位儘速向強祖基,張德成,傅木行等人核實這次預報.謝謝大家!

(F) Administration Burean of the Headquarters of the General Staff of the Chinese People』s Liberation Army had supported Dajiong Lu』s Research on Earthquake Prediction

 

After Tang-Shan Earthquake,the Shock Prevention Office under the headquarters of the General Staff heard that Dajiong Lu』s research on earthquake prediction is getting a great achievement and established contact with Lu actively and help him to solve some difficulties. At that time, it was not easy to make a phone call from Miyun Reservior to Beijing. Lu』s earthquake prediction cannot be announced promptly. Therefore the Administration Bureau help Lu set up a military phone line. So that Lu was easy to announce his earthquake prediction to the Shock Prevention Office timely. Secondly, people on duty was lacking at the Miyun Reservior Station. Then the Administration Bureau sent two soldiers to be on duty. Thus, Lu』s research on earthquake prediction at Miyun Reservior was proceeding swimmingly.

One day, the Affairs department of Physics Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences held a hearing meeting for earthquake prediction research.  Zhang Chun-buo, staff officer, told Guan Wei-yan, the leading cadre for affairs that:」Dajiong Lu』s earthquake prediction is a good one. The Physics Institute should give Lu a support」.

Thereafter, when Lu predicted successfully three elements of teleseism occurred in Ogasawara isles of Japan, it is a first time in the world, the Administration Bureau of the Headquarters of the General Staff wrote a certificate letter with official stamp to the Physics Institute to express thanks. Consequently, it could not be separated between the earthquake prediction achievements obtained by Dajiong Lu and the support with great exertion given by the Headquarters of the General staff.


(F) 總參謀部管理局大力支持呂大炯的地震預報研究


    唐山大地震后,總參管理局防震辦公室聽說呂大炯的地震預報研究很有起色,
就主動與他聯繫並幫助解決一些困難. 當時密雲水庫地區與北京市區的電話線路
繁忙,呂大炯的預報意見不能及時發出去.因此總參管理局就幫助架設一條軍用線.
這樣呂大炯很容易把預報意見及時向防震辦公室報告.其次, 當時密雲水庫地震台
站缺少值班人員, 總參管理局就派兩名戰士幫助值班. 這樣使密雲水庫台站的研究工作得以順利進行.有一次在中科院物理所業務處召開的地震預報聽證會上, 總參管理局的參謀張春波明確告訴當時主管物理所業務的管惟炎:」 呂大炯的地震預報搞得很不錯, 物理所應該給予支持」. 後來,當呂大炯在世界上首次實現對日本小笠原群島遠震三要素的成功預報時, 總參管理局寫了一封蓋有公章的證明信給物理所表示感謝.所以說呂大炯在地震預報方面所取得的成就與總參的大力支持是分不開的.
    另外,希望大家記住:首先預報成功日本地震三要素的不是日本人,而是咱們中
國人呀! 這一事迹在日本讀賣新聞1980年4月30日的」人間登場」中有詳細報導.
 

(G) Prof.Wu Youxun, famous scientist in the universe, paid attention and support to Dajiong Lu』s research on earthquake prediction

 

One day after Tang Shan earthquake, Dajiong Lu got notice suddenly that Prof. Wu youxun, the vice-president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences wanted to comprehend Dajiong Lu』s research on earthquake prediction. Due to Dajiong Lu had known the Compton-Wu Youxun Effect in the Physics Textbook. Therefore Lu felt very excited about it.

The collective report was held in the evening at Wu』s hous. Lu introduced his research work on earthquake prediction entirely and detaily. It lasted for two hours. For the duration Wu asked some questions too. After that Wu said:』I understood it now.」 And he made a phone call ask a car from Academy of Sciences for that the next morning  he will go to the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Few days later, Prof. Wu told Lu that:」I already told them, but they said: 」You are physicist, not seismologist, why you are favor to this young people?」 (at that time Dajiong Lu was only 36 years old.) Then Prof. Wu continued his talking: 「It is necessary for earthquake prediction that various academic subjects combine to storm fortifications. You are working from a point of view of physics, just like what you said, it belonged to the phenomenological physics for earthquake prediction. Consequently, I have the right to speak.」 At last Wu said: 「I』ll support your research work for earthquake prediction and admire your achieved success.」

Now thirty years passed already, Prof. Dajiong Lu felt Chinaneeds more scientists like Prof. Wu Youxun: Not only he got outstanding success for himself but also he』ll support for the young generation and feel happy with their achievements.

(G) 世界著名科學家吳有訓
關心和支持呂大炯的地震預報研究工作


    在1976年唐山大地震之後的某一天,呂大炯突然得到通知:中國科學院吳有訓副院長想了解一下呂大炯的地震預報研究工作及所遭遇的困難情況.由於呂大炯在物理課本上已經知曉了康普頓-吳有訓效應,因此對這次約見很是興奮.
    工作彚報在晚上吳副院長家裡進行. 呂大炯把自己的地震預報研究工作全面而又詳細地作了介紹,足足用了兩個小時.在此期間, 吳副院長也時時提出問題.最後, 吳副院長說:」我聽明白了!」說罷就拿起電話,向科學院要車,明天一早去院部.
    幾天後, 吳副院長告訴呂大炯,」已經和他們講了,但他們說我是物理學家,不是地震學家,為什麼這麼偏袒這個年輕人?」(注:當時呂大炯正值36歲) 吳副院長又接著說:」地震預報需要由多學科聯合來攻堅.你是從物理學的角度來研究的.就象你所說的,是屬於地震預報的唯象物理學.所以我是有發言權的!」 吳副院長最後說:」我支持你的地震預報研究工作,並讚賞你所取得的成就!」
    三十年過去了. 呂大炯覺得現在的中國需要更多一些像吳有訓這樣的科學家:不但自己能夠取得卓越的成就,也能支持年輕科學家的工作,並為他們的成就而感到高興,少一些……

(H) Prof. Yan Jici, the Scientist Tycoon in China, Supported Dajiong Lu』s Importment Thesis and Importment Law of Nature to Publish on the Magazine 「Science China」

 

In 1980 Dajiong Lu had an important thesis about earthquake Prediction 「Stress Wave, Motion of Strain Wave and Slow Earthquake」.  Lu submitted it to the most authoritative magazine 「Science China」 in China. This thesis published right away due to it had been supported by Prof. Yan Jici, the Science Tycoon, the Chief Editor of magazine. This important law of nature called Lu』s Law in short discovered and summarized by Lu was expounded especially. It solved the crucial problems confused for many years in the scope of earthquake prediction.

Afterward some people couldn』t understand the thesis』s significance, they express opinion to Prof. Yan. Then Prof. Yan, the chief editor, said: 「It』s good thing, please write out your different idea and I will publish your thesis and Lu』s replying thesis together, but don』t play game under table.」 This  attitude taken by the Science Tycoon was serious, conscientious and responsible one seeking truth from facts for sciences.

Above-mentioned fact was provided by Liu Yanming, the senior editor in 「Science China」 magazine. I appreciated him very much.

(H) 科學泰斗嚴濟慈支持呂大炯重要論文及重要定律
在中國科學上發表


   一九八零年呂大炯寫了一篇地震預報方面的重要論文"應力波,應變波動及緩慢地震",投稿於中國最權威的科學雜誌"中國科學".該論文得到了中國科學泰斗,當時的中國科學主編嚴濟慈教授的大力支持,立即予以發表.該論文中特別論述了呂大炯所發現和總結出來的重要定律"遠近震前兆相關定律(簡稱呂氏定律),該定律解決了地震界困惑多年的關鍵問題.
   後來,有些人看不懂也理解不了該論文的重大意義,向嚴濟慈反映.嚴濟慈主編說:"很好么!你們有不同意見可以寫出論文來,我將把你們的論文及呂大炯的答辯論文一起發表!但不要在下面搞小動作."
   這就是真正的科學泰斗對科學問題的實事求是和嚴肅認真的負責態度.
   本信息原由中國科學資深編輯劉延敏提供,在此表示感謝.
 
(關於該論文的英文版,請看網站 
http://dajionglu.spaces.live.com 首頁右邊圖片框.)

(I) Prof. Lu Jiaxi, the President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences supported Dajiong Lu』s research on Frontier Science

 

The twelveth day after Tang Shan earthquake, Dajiong Lu started to research earthquake prediction. Lu created a new academic subject 「Phenomenological Physics for earthquake prediction」 by himself. As a matter of fact, this subject belongs to the Frontier Science. As everyone knows, it』s difficult to develop the Frontier Science. It is one of major cause for the most of science research department to think that these frontier sciences are not belong to their scope of research. Under that, these subject wouldn』t be arranged in any plan and any international academic exchanges wouldn』t be taken on the plea that they don』t understand these subjects, and nobody identified achievements in the field of Frontier Sciences… Anyhow a serious of problems couldn』t be solved.

At this crucial moment, Dajiong Lu encounted Prof. Lu Jiaxi, newly named president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, who is not only nice and honest but also adhering to principles. He came forward to solve lots of problems and to help develop this new academic subject. For example, President Lu notice the Physics Institute that the Institute only needs to do political qualification for Dajiong Lu goes abroad to carry out academic exchange, President Lu would sign by himself for approval. Also President Lu agreed to establish the Applied Physics and Seismology Lab. Within the Chinese Academy of Sciences. and appointed Dajiong Lu as director. Prof. Wang Daheng, the Chief of the Technology and Science Department, came forward to collect recommendation letters from Prof. Zhang Wenyou, Prof. Cheng Yuqi and other three scientists (they are all Academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences) and submitted to President Lu jiaxi, so that Dajiong Lu was approved as an associate research fellow…

At the same time, a lot of highly evaluation from overseas…

So it can be said if President Lu and Chief Wang didn』t support Dajiong Lu, he would accomplish nothing.

That』s why if the Frontier Sciences could obtain strong support from intellective and provident scientists like President Lu and Chief Wang, they would have a rising and flourishing development.

(I) 中科院院長蘆嘉錫支持呂大炯從事邊緣科學的研究

    在唐山地震以後第十二天開始從事地震預報的呂大炯,獨創了一門地震預報唯
象物理學的新學科.實際上這門學科屬於邊緣科學.眾所周知, 邊緣科學是很難生
存和發展的.主要原因是一些科研部門認為這些邊緣科學不屬於它們的研究範圍,
因此課題不能列入計劃;出國進行學術交流藉口不懂這門學科而不被批准;成果無
人鑒定…  總之,一系列的問題得不到解決.
    正在此困難當頭,呂大炯遇到了一位新來的善良而堅持原則的好院長蘆嘉錫. 
蘆院長出面幫助解決了許多困難,扶植了這一新學科的研究與發展.例如:通知所
里對呂大炯出國進行學術交流只需對呂進行政審, 蘆院長將親自在批准書上簽字;
蘆院長又親自同意成立中國科學院應用物理與地震學研究實驗室,並由呂大炯負
責;由技術科學部主任王大珩出面組織整理張文佑,程裕祺等五位學部委員的書面
推薦信,並由蘆院長親自批准提升呂大炯為副研究員…
    與此同時國外的高度評價也接踵而來…
    所以說,沒有蘆院長及王大珩主任的大力支持, 呂大炯將一事無成.
    由此看來, 邊緣科學如果能得到象他們這樣有膽識有遠見的科學家的支持,就能
得到蓬勃發展.

(J) Prof. Zhang Wenyou, the Chief of Geology Department of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Director of the Geology Institute Provided Powerful Evidence for Predicting Epicenter through Observing Figures by Dajiong Lu

In the early period of research on earthquake prediction, Dajiong Lu found out some symptoms: observing figures recorded could predict the epicenter. Then Lu went to consult Prof. Zhang Wenyou, the Director of Geology Institute. Prof. Zhang said: 「It』s reasonable. Long ago, there was an overseas seismologist. He only needed to look at the pattern of an earthquake wave recorded, he could judge directly where an earthquake already happened, didn』t need any calculation according to earthquake waveform. Therefore, it should be feasible from logic that according to waveform of earthquake precursor you could judge directly where an earthquake would happen.」 Thereafter, Dajiong Lu made a lot of efforts to research and summarize, then obtained the concept of precursor mode for predicting epicenter and according to recorded waveform of earthquake precursor predicted epicenters of some strong earthquakes successfully.

After Dajiong Lu successfully predicted three elements (epicenter, magnitude and occurrence time) of Ogasawara Isles Earthquake and the Shock Prevention Office under the headquarters of the General Staff issued a certificate of successfully predicting this earthquake, Prof. Zhang said excitedly: 「Please give me a copy of this certificate, I』ll show it to the Chinese Academy of Sciences and State Seismological Bureau!!!」

Actually, on the basis of Dajiong Lu』s research, the precursor mode of earthquake has even more important and profound meaning and subtle function. If a new book could be published by any chance in the near future, Prof. Dajiong Lu would write this subject and a lot of knowledge, what Lu has learned but others haven』t yet, into his book.

(J) 中國科學院地學部主任, 中國科學院地質所所長張文佑
為呂大炯的」 觀察圖形預報震中」提供有力佐證


    呂大炯在研究地震預報的初期,發現了」 觀察記錄圖形可預報地震震中」的一些苗頭,就去向中國科學院地學部主任, 中國科學院地質所所長張文佑請教.張教授說:」你說得很有道理.記得以前有一位國外的地震學家,他只要一看地震波形形態,就可直接判斷地震已在那裡發生了,不用根據地震波形作任何計算.因此你根據前兆波形直接判斷地震將要在那裡發生,從邏輯上看應該也是可行的.」於是呂大炯在這方面下功夫研究,總結出了預報地震震中的前兆模式概念及根據記錄圖形
成功地預報了某些強烈地震的震中位置.當呂大炯成功地預報了日本小笠原群島
地震的震中,震級與震時三要素及總參防震辦公室出具了成功預報的證明之後, 
張文佑教授興奮地說:「把證明信給我,我去給他們(意指XXXX院及XX局)看!」

    其實, 根據呂大炯後來的研究,地震的前兆模式還有其更加重要與深刻的含意及微妙的用處.如果以後有機會出書的話,呂大炯有可能會把這一問題及其它許多至今尚不為人知的研究心得寫在他未來的書中.

(K) Japanese Prof. Hideo Toriyama admired Prof. Dajiong Lu』s book 「Impending Earthquake Prediction」 as a classic writing

 

Japanse Prof. Hideo Toriyama was very fond of Dajiong Lu』s book 「Impending Earthquake Prediction」 and gained its copy in Chinese in 1986, but it』s difficult for him to read it in Chinese.

After Lu published his book in English version in 1988, Prof. Hideo Toriyama expressed to Lu that: However he want to get it in English version. After he read the book sent by Lu, Prof. Hideo Toriyama admired Lu』s book 「Impending Earthquake Prediction」 as a classic writing in the field of Earthquake Prediction.

(K) 日本鳥山英雄教授讚譽呂大炯所著"臨震預報"
為經典著作

    日本鳥山英雄教授在1986年喜獲呂大炯所著"臨震預報"中文版一書,但他閱讀中文書籍有困難.當他知道呂大炯所著"臨震預報"在1988年出版了英文版,他就向呂大炯表示:無論如何要得到一本英文版的"臨震預報".呂大炯就寄了一本給他.鳥山英雄教授在讀完后,讚譽呂大炯所著"臨震預報"為地震預報領域內的經典著作.
 

呂大炯所著"臨震預報"英文版一書封面請看網

http://dajionglu.spaces.live.com 首頁右邊圖片框內


 

http://dzlu.cname02.cn/files/pic/20085634423.jpg

(L) BRIEF INTRODUCTION

As everyone knows, earthquake prediction has been an arduous problem through all ages. However, thirty years ago the author of this book Earthquake Prediction: more accurate than weather forecast has predicted some earthquakes more successful than weather forecasts at the time. The book is written with vivid and understandable dialogue form and introduces this significant science achievement which is rarely known by people until now.

The method of earthquake prediction introduced in this book is not only in the aspect of time with astonishing accuracy, but also in the aspect of space it is a kind of technology for remote measurement under certain conditions, namely, people can predict strong teleseisms successfully which may be over several thousand kilometers away from local station of earthquake prediction.

Mr. Yasuhiro Nakasone, Former Prime Minister of Japan, in his title as a Japan Cabinet Prime Minister said in a letter after he had read this dialogue of earthquake prediction in the Chinese version: 「… (your book) attracts readers so much just due to its excellent theory, I am very interested in it after reading, …」 Prof. J. Tarney, the Director of the department of Geology, University of Leicester, U.K. reported to the British Council that: Dr. Lu Dajiong (the author of this book) is clearly a first-rate scientist.

This book could be used as a reference for professionals of earthquake prediction, but it is also especially suitable for numerous teenagers who have lively intellectual hunger.

 

http://dzlu.cname02.cn/files/pic/20085634435.jpg

 

(M) PREFACE

A catastrophic earthquake of magnitude 9.0 occurred at South Asia on December 26,2004, total casualty about 300,000. This is another human tragedy after Tang-Shan earthquake in China of magnitude 7.8 on July 28, 1976, in which 240,000 human lives perished.

 

Now, it is almost 30 years after the Tang-Shan earthquake. I started my research on earthquake prediction since 12th day after the Tang-Shan earthquake. Before long, I have made considerable progress in the field of earthquake prediction. The research results were in my book titled "Impending Earthquake Prediction" and my paper also presented at the international conference in Europe.

 

It is really to my dismay that today after 30 years this research results were not used and further developed, so that the South Asia earthquake and Tsunami were not predicted as I stated in my article that "Earthquake prediction should be more accurate than weather forecast".

 

Because of this, I feel it is necessary to write this popular and easy-understood book to introduce my thought, theory and methodology of earthquake prediction to the people. Any comments, criticism from geophysicist, geologist, scholars, students and those who care about earthquake prediction will be appreciated.   

 

 

http://dzlu.cname02.cn/files/pic/20085634448.jpg   

(N) AUTHOR: DAJIONG LU


點擊圖片查看內容
1
點擊圖片查看內容
2
點擊圖片查看內容
3
點擊圖片查看內容
4
點擊圖片查看內容
5
點擊圖片查看內容
6
點擊圖片查看內容
7
點擊圖片查看內容
8
點擊圖片查看內容
9
點擊圖片查看內容
10
點擊圖片查看內容
11
點擊圖片查看內容
12

 

http://dzlu.cname02.cn/files/pic/2008563455.jpg

 

(O) SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLES 

THREE EXAMPLES OF EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION:

First example:

I think it would be wonderful if there was Internet in 1976. Everybody could enjoy my earthquake prediction at that time. 
For example: 

Around 10:00 a.m. Nov. 30, 1976, many people from the Beijing Seismic Brigade and the Chinese Academy of Metrology Research came to visit my earthquake prediction station which was located near Miyun Reservoir in the suburb of Beijing. While they were coming into my Laboratory they saw the tail of strong teleseism wave which had been recorded by my laser phase-locked strainmometer. At that time, I pointed at the seismic wave recorded by a tremble needle and said that: "Yesterday I predicted to Miyun Reservoir Earthquake Observation Station that at 9:04 a.m. tomorrow a strong teleseism (namely , far away from Beijing) would occur in the earth. This is the seismic wave of magnitude 7.9 of Chile, its arrival time was 9:00 a.m. The time difference between its arrival time and the occurrence time predicted by me is 4 minutes." They were very surprised and can not believe and ask the staff member of Reservoir Earthquake Station. Mr. Sun Shihong, the technician of station verified that it is true!

(Excerpt from the new book "Earthquake Prediction: more accurate than weather forecast", P.28)

 

Dear Cal Orey:

Don said that the occurrence time of that earthquake was: 1976 11 30 00:40:57.8 (I think it is Greenwich time). The time difference between Beijing local time and Greenwich time is 8 hrs. Namely 1976 11 30 08:40:57.8 (Beijing local time).

Don said that 'it would take... about 19 min to reach the Seismographs in China from the quake that occurred in Chile...". Ok! let's add 19 min to it: 1976 11 30 08:59:57.8 (after adding) In my post, I said on Nov. 30, 1976 09:00 (arrival time). The error was 2.2 second. 作者註:此處有誤。應為:用應 變及地電兩者所推算出來的發震時間,應變 9:04 AM 及地電8:58AM。所以誤差為:應變誤差:42.2秒,地電誤差:157.8秒。預報誤差與應變誤差相同。

Please tell Don. Thank you!

Dajiong Lu 7/4/2006

The second example:

The first example I posted to www.earthquakeepi-center.com passing through Cal Orey was the earliest history of my earthquake prediction. At that time, I could predict the exact time of teleseism occurrence, but could not predict the epicenter. Afterwards, through my research, I could predict three elements (including epicenter) of some teleseisms successfully. For example:

On March 6, 1978, I made a report to the Shock Prevention Office of the Headquarters of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army and forecast that around 10:00 a.m. on March 7, 1978, an earthquake of magnitude over 7 would occur near Japan. 
Outcome: the earthquake of magnitude 7.5 occurred in Japan Sea at 10:48 a.m. on March 7, 1978. The time difference was 48 min.

After I published my book in Japanese version, many Japanese people called to Japan Publishing House and asked that "Is it true? Is it true? Foreigner Dajiong Lu predicted our Japan Earthquake successfully? Japanese Prof. Hideo Toriyama told me this story.

The third example:

It was a pity that there was no Internet in 1978. Everybody couldn't enjoy my exact earthquake prediction at that time. So right now I excerpt the third example of earthquake prediction from my book "Earthquake Prediction: more accurate than weather forecast", I hope it would excite everybody. It shows my method of earthquake prediction not only can predict teleseism but also near earthquake. Third Example:

In the evening of June 10, 1978, I analyzed from the data of earthquake precursor that a near earthquake would occur tomorrow. " and got up at 4:00 a.m. in the morning of June 11 ". 
I made a phone call to the duty office of Physics Institute immediately: "A near quake of magnitude 5 would occur around 13:18 today. The epicenter would be 200 km away and S-E 
direction from Miyun Station " The duty officer reported to the leader " of Physics Institute and asked that if report to the Chinese Academy of Sciences (C.A.S.). " answered: "Yes, of course". ... Then the duty officer of the C.A.S. reported to the leader of the C.A.S. also and asked that if report to the State Bureau of Seismology. The answer was: "Yes, of course". 
So a lot of people worked in the State Bureau of Seismology observed around the seismograph at the occurrence time I predicted. 
Outcome, an earthquake of magnitude 4.8 occurred in Lei-Zhuang at 12:29 and another earthquake of magnitude 4.4 occurred in Lei-Zhuang at 13:52. The center time between two quakes was 13:10. The time difference between the center time and occurrence time predicted by me was 8 minutes. In energy summation of two quakes was equal to the energy of earthquake of magnitude 5.

(Excerpt from the new book "Earthquake Prediction: more accurate than weather forecast", 
P.29)

Any comments, criticism from geophysicist, geologist, scholars, students and those who care about earthquake prediction will be appreciated. Thank you again!

 

http://dzlu.cname02.cn/files/pic/20085634533.jpg

(P) RESEARCH & DISCUSSION 

DISCUSSION ON EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION
BETWEEN FREUND AND LU

FRIEDEMANN T. FREUND: NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, 
                                                   PLANETARY GEODYNAMICS LABORATORY
DAJIONG LU:                          AUTHOR OF THE BOOK
EARTHQUAKE            
                                                   PREDICTION: MORE ACCURATE THAN WEATHER
                                                   FORECAST

From :  Friedemann Freund <ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To :  ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov
Sent :  Saturday, November 4, 2006 8:02 PM
To :  Dajiong Lu <dajionglu@hotmail.com>
Subject :  Re: Copy of New suggestion

Dear Professor Lu,

yes, I did receive your earlier email and I marked it with a flag to come back to it and reply

maybe I don't fully understand your methodology of narrowing down the prediction window in time and spac.

Please let me know what you think.

Friedemann

From :  Dajiong Lu <dajionglu@hotmail.com>
Sent :  Tuesday, November 7, 2006 4:57 AM
To :  ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov
CC :  dajionglu@hotmail.com
Subject :  narrowing down the prediction window
 
Dear Prof. Freund:


Now I answer your important question before you answer my question in my last E-mail dated on 11/5/06.

Your question is that I dont fully understand your methodology of narrowing down the prediction window in time and space.

This is very very important question. My methodology is that observe impending earthquake precursor in real time. At that time, my station located at Miyun Reservoir in the suburbs of Beijing. I stayed in the cave with my instruments 24 hrs per day. So I could observe real impending earthquake precursor. Therefore, I could get firsthand data of earthquake precursor in real time and analyzed them immediately and made earthquake prediction quickly.  I think other scientists couldnt do so.

Secondly, I found the periodicity of impending earthquake precursor. It made me be able to make accurate prediction of earthquake. This is why I could narrow down the prediction window in time and space.

Thirdly, I explained my observation result using generalized strain. So I surmounted the obstacles and continued to make progress.

Regards,

Dajiong Lu          11/6/06 

From :  Friedemann Freund <ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To :  ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov
Sent :  Tuesday, November 7, 2006 5:32 AM
To :  Dajiong Lu <dajionglu@hotmail.com>
Subject :  Re: narrowing down the prediction window
 
Dear Professor Lu

Thanks!  This is very important information, which helps me making progress. I
still need to understand two things:

(i)  which precursors did you monitor in real time (probably it's written in
your book and I think you mention magnetic field variations but I would have to check it)

(ii) what kind of periodicities did you observe and how did you decide that the periodicities would end and an earthquake would occur?

I am very interested in the periodicities (or more or less regular
fluctuations) and what causes them.  What is you idea about the cause or causes of periodic signals?

Friedemann

From :  Dajiong Lu <dajionglu@hotmail.com>
Sent :  Wednesday, November 8, 2006 4:12 AM
To :  ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov
CC :  dajionglu@hotmail.com
Subject :  answer three questions

Dear Prof. Freund:

Now I answer your three questions.

1. Answer: Generally I observed three kinds of earthquake precursor: strain, earth-current and electromagnetic radiation in real time.

2. (How did you decide that the periodicities would end and an earthquake would occur?) 
Answer:  It may be concluded that impending shock prediction may be defined as determining the time at which the precursors of same or different type simultaneously reach extremum in accordance with their sequential intervals.

3. The Mechanism and Cause of Formation. 
Answer: Please see P.125 of book
Impending Earthquake Prediction. But I think this is the second Item which Id like to research with you. 

 
Regards,

Dajiong Lu          11/7/2006

From :  Friedemann Freund <ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To :  ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov
Sent :  Wednesday, November 8, 2006 5:08 AM
To :  Dajiong Lu <dajionglu@hotmail.com>
Subject :  Re: answer three questions
 
Dear Professor Lu,

Thanks for the information.  I am still puzzled by your statement "...impending shock prediction may be defined as determining the time at which the precursors of same or different type simultaneously reach the extremum in accordance with
their sequential intervals."

I see in many data collected in the field that, after a period of intense and often pseudo-periodic activity (either magnetic, EM or similar), the signals seem to fall "silent" just before the event.  In lab experiments we sometimes observed a similar phenomenon with electrical measurements and infrared
emission.  My question therefore is:  How did you "decide" that you reached an "extremum" in one or several precursory indicators?


 
Friedemann

From :  Dajiong Lu <dajionglu@hotmail.com>
Sent :  Thursday, November 9, 2006 5:06 AM
To :  ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov
CC :  dajionglu@hotmail.com
Subject :  silent period and others
 
Dear Prof. Freund:

Thanks for your E-mail dated on 11/8/06.

First of all, I answer your questions.

1. You said in your E-mail that the signals seem to fall silent just before the event. 
Maybe my instruments were more sensitive than others, so that my instruments could record impending shock precursor during
silent period.

2. Your question: How did you decide that you reached an extremum in one or several precursory indicators? 
Did you see my attached Figures of the book (Impending Earthquake Prediction)? After you see it and read P.48 of the book, maybe you can understand this point.


 
Regards,

Dajiong Lu          11/8/2006    

From :  Dajiong Lu <dajionglu@hotmail.com>
Sent :  Sunday, November 12, 2006 3:45 AM
To :  ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov
CC :  dajionglu@hotmail.com
Subject :  supplement
 
Dear Prof. Freund: 

I have a supplement to my last E-mail about that my instruments recorded impending earthquake precursors in the silent period. Namely: 
High sensitivity of my instruments only is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition. 

Regards,

Dajiong Lu          11/11/06        

From :  Friedemann Freund <ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To :  ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov
Sent :  Sunday, November 12, 2006 5:40 AM
To :  Dajiong Lu <dajionglu@hotmail.com>
Subject :  Re: supplement

Dear Professor Lu,

I continue to find the "silence" before earthquakes a very interesting, but also troubling question.

Friedemann Freund                  

--- Dajiong Lu <dajionglu@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear Prof. Freund:
  

Up to now I didn't find out any scientists predict earthquake like my past prediction. Did you find out someone predicted earthquake like my past prediction, namely, their earthquake prediction maybe more accurate than weather forecast?
 
with best regards,
 
 Dajiong Lu          11/21/2006     

From :  Friedemann Freund <ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Reply-To :  ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov
Sent :  Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:13 AM
To :  Dajiong Lu <dajionglu@hotmail.com>
Subject :  Re: FW: earthquake precursors
 
Dear Professor Lu,

I cannot judge the accuracy of your predictions because I still don't know
enough and don't understand enough how you arrived at your predictions. My problem is still how to reconcile the fact that the exact time of an earthquake is really "unknowable" because any earthquake is a process governed by chaos theory. The best one can do, I think, is to narrow down the time window and place where an event will occur.  What pre-earthquake signals can help us achieve is the narrowing of the time and place window. 

I wonder how the statistics would look, if you apply your prediction method to
dozens or maybe as many as a hundred earthquakes in different geophysical
settings. Probably you have done such an analysis, but I have not yet had the
time to absorb all this information.

With best regards,

Friedemann Freund    

From :  Dajiong Lu <dajionglu@hotmail.com>
Sent :  Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:04 PM
To :  ffreund@mail.arc.nasa.gov
CC :  dajionglu@hotmail.com
Subject :  funds and exact prediction
 
Dear Prof. Freund:

I think you always have very good questions, also I think you could get very good answers from my book "Earthquake Prediction: more accurate than weather forecast". 
Maybe you could borrow this book from somewhere, ...

with best regards,

Dajiong Lu          11/25/2006      

ARRANGEMENT ON FEBRUARY 2, 2008

 

http://dzlu.cname02.cn/files/pic/20085634553.jpg                         (R)           

美國電視台對呂大炯研究員的採訪實況(全部+重要附錄)

    https://big5.backchina.com/blog/331164/article-243848.html


http://dzlu.cname02.cn/files/pic/20085634615.jpg                         (S) 

http://dzlu.cname02.cn/files/pic/2008516194420.jpg                         (T) 

http://dzlu.cname02.cn/files/pic/20085634635.jpg                         (U) 

 


                                 (V)謝謝讀者的閱讀及支持!!




EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION  Copyright Infomation



凈化網路環境,遵守國家法律。空間服務商-諾凡科技wangzhan8.com技術支持-投訴建議




高興

感動

同情

搞笑

難過

拍磚
2

支持
17

鮮花

剛表態過的朋友 (19 人)

發表評論 評論 (32 個評論)

回復 shen_fuen 2017-11-11 23:56
為人類趨吉避凶, 支持!
回復 前兆 2017-11-11 23:57
shen_fuen: 為人類趨吉避凶, 支持!
謝謝評論!謝謝支持!周末愉快!     
回復 浮平 2017-11-12 00:02
如果引力波被視為平面波,入射角隻影響測量的方便性,但只要能測量到信號(consistent by two LIGOs)就不影響結論吧?支持您寫文章,分享文章,翻譯成英文投稿都需要投入很多。
回復 前兆 2017-11-12 00:07
浮平: 如果引力波被視為平面波,入射角隻影響測量的方便性,但只要能測量到信號(consistent by two LIGOs)就不影響結論吧?
我想,信號的方向性可能會影響結論的。
回復 浮平 2017-11-12 00:20
前兆: 我想,信號的方向性可能會影響結論的。
只要測到了不同地點信號的吻合就不會影響發現引力波的結論。

seven-stage mirrors 都在真空中嚴格固定相對方向和位置,唯一能改變的是引力波。

https://www.advancedligo.mit.edu/graphics/3846_20120715112427_IMG_1841_v2.jpg
回復 前兆 2017-11-12 00:42
浮平: 只要測到了不同地點信號的吻合就不會影響發現引力波的結論。

seven-stage mirrors 都在真空中嚴格固定相對方向和位置,唯一能改變的是引力波。

https://www.ad
1. 他們宣布發現引力波時,只有兩台儀器,僅依靠時間差應該不足以定位。
2. 他們沒有排除地震前兆波(只排除了地震波),我想地震前兆波也能改變兩鏡的相對位置。
回復 浮平 2017-11-12 00:44
前兆: 1. 他們宣布發現引力波時,只有兩台儀器,僅依靠時間差應該不足以定位。
2. 他們沒有排除地震前兆波(只排除了地震波),我想地震前兆波也能改變兩鏡的相對位置
不需要臨時定位。假設引力波是平面波並垂直於地面就行了。多鏡面只需要選擇足夠的方向性並固定,你可以看看懸挂7層鏡面的方向正是考慮到精確度而設。地震波或前兆波都不可能在相距千里之外對兩個 LIGO 產生相同的影響(方向和強度)。
回復 前兆 2017-11-12 01:18
浮平: 不需要臨時定位。假設引力波是平面波並垂直於地面就行了。多鏡面只需要選擇足夠的方向性並固定,你可以看看懸挂7層鏡面的方向正是考慮到精確度而設。地震波或前
過去我們在山洞裡的實驗證明地震前兆波可以對鏡面產生影響。
回復 浮平 2017-11-12 01:21
前兆: 過去我們在山洞裡的實驗證明地震前兆波可以對鏡面產生影響。
對,可以產生影響,但不足以解釋吻合,所以才不惜代價的要造兩個以排除其它波源對不同處的設備的不同影響。
回復 前兆 2017-11-12 01:31
浮平: 對,可以產生影響,但不足以解釋吻合,所以才不惜代價的要造兩個以排除其它波源對不同處的設備的不同影響。
兩台的吻合是不足夠的!地震前兆波也可以做到兩台的吻合。如果能確定此信號是來自天空中的某一個方向,而不是來自地球內部的某一個方向,那才有說服力!
回復 前兆 2017-11-12 01:49
浮平: 對,可以產生影響,但不足以解釋吻合,所以才不惜代價的要造兩個以排除其它波源對不同處的設備的不同影響。
我接著上面的回復。即使確定此信號是來自天空中的某一個方向,也不一定是引力波!宇宙中我們不知道的事情太多了,沒有足夠的證據說明一定是引力波。他們認為是引力波,只是一種推算出來的結果!
回復 前兆 2017-11-12 02:00
浮平: 對,可以產生影響,但不足以解釋吻合,所以才不惜代價的要造兩個以排除其它波源對不同處的設備的不同影響。
我再接著上面的回復。請查看我早期關於引力波探測的論文:   http://big5.backchina.com/blog/331164/article-241083.html       其中談到:如果「選擇理論預言比較清楚的發射源作為探測對象......"那就要好得多了!
回復 洛游郵樂 2017-11-12 02:50
你可以設立一個獎,獎勵後人在地震研究中取得突出成績的人士,以此把你的成果和理念傳揚下去,造福社會和人類。
回復 前兆 2017-11-12 03:47
洛游郵樂: 你可以設立一個獎,獎勵後人在地震研究中取得突出成績的人士,以此把你的成果和理念傳揚下去,造福社會和人類。
錢從何來?
回復 洛游郵樂 2017-11-12 04:28
前兆: 錢從何來?
科研成果可以轉化為經濟效益
回復 浮平 2017-11-12 05:49
前兆: 我接著上面的回復。即使確定此信號是來自天空中的某一個方向,也不一定是引力波!宇宙中我們不知道的事情太多了,沒有足夠的證據說明一定是引力波。他們認為是引
可以對信號有其它解釋,只是目前用引力波的解釋更合理,沒有充分的否定依據,也就是說並沒有與已知理論,定律,定理相矛盾之處。

而其它解釋的矛盾性就更顯著了。
回復 前兆 2017-11-12 06:11
浮平: 可以對信號有其它解釋,只是目前用引力波的解釋更合理,沒有充分的否定依據,也就是說並沒有與已知理論,定律,定理相矛盾之處。

而其它解釋的矛盾性就更顯著了
【只是目前用引力波的解釋更合理】那不等於說,一定探測到了引力波!否則這不是科學,只是在猜謎語!
回復 浮平 2017-11-12 06:15
前兆: 【只是目前用引力波的解釋更合理】那不等於說,一定探測到了引力波!否則這不是科學,只是在猜謎語!
科學領域的一定或者不一定都是相對的,但鑒定方法是一致的,任何理論都必須通過一是已被論證的定律定理檢驗,二是實驗驗證的雙重檢驗法,主觀空說得不到認可。得到了認可才能作為目前的結論,也就是說相對於得不到認可的是現在的「一定」。
回復 前兆 2017-11-12 07:33
浮平: 科學領域的一定或者不一定都是相對的,但鑒定方法是一致的,任何理論都必須通過一是已被論證的定律定理檢驗,二是實驗驗證的雙重檢驗法,主觀空說得不到認可。得
總而言之,現在下結論未免太早!應該等歐洲,澳大利亞的引力波探測器完善後,再來一起驗證!如果都能同時探測到信號,而且能夠辨別出方向,再下結論也不晚!
回復 浮平 2017-11-12 08:22
前兆: 總而言之,現在下結論未免太早!應該等歐洲,澳大利亞的引力波探測器完善後,再來一起驗證!如果都能同時探測到信號,而且能夠辨別出方向,再下結論也不晚!
根據這下結論有什麼負面效應嗎?愛因斯坦等了一百年了,現代科學實驗驗證出的理論被下一個實驗徹底否定的不多吧(也不是完全沒有),而且並未阻攔進一步的核實和提高精確度。

並不是因為宣布了這個結果而讓您的理論沒機會,而是您自己的理論是否容易被自身的不自洽而否定的問題。比如,如何解釋震源的影響與千裡外的兩個信號怎麼可能有同樣的所有的基本測量參數的一致性。如果您能說明清楚,與這個宣布無關。
12下一頁

facelist doodle 塗鴉板

您需要登錄后才可以評論 登錄 | 註冊

關於本站 | 隱私權政策 | 免責條款 | 版權聲明 | 聯絡我們

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外華人中文門戶:倍可親 (http://big5.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系統基於 Discuz! X3.1 商業版 優化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

本站時間採用京港台時間 GMT+8, 2020-1-18 10:49

返回頂部