吕氏临震预报精选（CHOICES OF LU’S ARTICLES ABOUT EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION)

OFFER REWARDS                           

吕 氏 精 选

（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) 关于对【LIGO科学家直接探测到引力波】事件的研究报告
------“引力波”还是“地震前兆波”------

作者：吕大炯

前言

    由于激光干涉仪不仅能够记录地震波，而且还可以记录到各种各样的地震前兆（参考吕大炯所著“临震预报”一书）。在以“LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration”的名义发表的引力波探测一文中只提到，已经考虑了对地震波的排除，但起码没有看到是否也考虑了对地震前兆或者地球内部其他来源的排除。而这些也并不是完全不可能的......

    据此，我们设想：所探测到的“引力波”是否可能是一种“地震前兆”？按照这一思路，我们作了一些探讨！

一.美国所探测到的“引力波”是否可能是大地震的临震前兆波？

    如果说，在2015年9月14日9：50：45 （ UTC） 所探测到的“引力波”是一种“地震前兆”，那么这一事件应该发生在某一次大地震之前；又如果所探测到的“引力波”是一种“临震前兆” 那么这一事件应该发生在某一次大地震之前若干天，比如说2～3天。

    让我们先来查询一下在2015年10月26日之前的前半年时间内所发生的全世界七级以上大地震：

·       1.尼泊尔博克拉†‡（M7.9，4月25日）
·       2.尼泊尔科达里†（M7.3，5月12日）
·       3.日本小笠原群岛（M8.5，5月30日）
·       4. 智利伊亚佩尔（M8.3， 2015年9月16日19：54：33本地时间）
·       5. 兴都库什山脉†（M7.5，10月26日）

    怎么这么巧呢？这到底是偶然的巧合还是思路正确：恰恰在所谓的“引力波”到达后的2～3天的时间内，在离美国两个 LIGO 引力波探测器 7000～8000公里左右的智利发生了8.3级大地震，“引力波”事件正好落入智利大地震临震的时间段！而在这半年中其他一些大地震离LIGO探测器就要远得多，唯独这个离 LIGO 探测器最近的智利的大地震的前2～3天探测到了“引力波”。所以说，所探测到的“引力波”只是一种“地震前兆波”的构想也逐渐浮出水面。

    根据我们以前预报地震的实验来看，能够接受到几千公里以外的8级以上地震的前兆波一点也不奇怪，而对于高灵敏度仪器接受不到8级以上大地震的临震前兆那才是非常值得奇怪的事情！

二.  关于信号频谱：

    如果说探测到了某某波动，那么就要说明所探测到的信号的频谱以及探测仪器对波动频率的响应曲线，从而确定所探测到的波形有没有被畸变……

    据“人类首次直接探测到了引力波“（腾讯太空乔辉2016年02月11日23:43）一文介绍：探测到的引力波信号初始频率为35赫兹，接着迅速提升到了250赫兹，最后变得无序而消失……（整个过程持续了仅四分之一秒。位于利文斯顿的探测器比位于汉福德的探测器早探测到7毫秒，这个时间差表明引力波是从南部天区传来。）

    如果说，所探测到的信号是地震前兆波的话，那么让我们来看一看一般的地震前兆波是否符合LIGO探测器所探测到的信号的频谱。

    对于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。 我们可以把前兆看成类似于大地震的初动（在被触发后没有震起来），其初动频率的低端应该和地震频率相同，而高端则应该低于1575Hz ，估计可为几百Hz. 这个频段和他们探测到的所谓的“引力波”信号频段一致。

    其次，假定电磁辐射前兆是由于某种压电效应引起的，那么电磁辐射前兆的频段也应该和应力前兆一致。

    所以说，不能排除LIGO探测器所探测到的信号是地震前兆波的可能性。

三.关于信号的持续时间：

    前兆为什么只有0.4秒？也就是说，如果他们的信号是地震前兆的话，为什么只有0.4秒？

    作者在过去主要研究的是临震前兆，也就是发生在大地震前数天的前兆。在地震前，地应力是被固体潮所调制的，所以只有在地应力达到或超过前兆阈值时，前兆才会产生。也就是说临震前兆是在固体潮的峰谷值处以突变形式发生，所以一般来说，它们都是短暂的。（在地应力达到或超过发震阈值时，地震就发生了。）由于他们的引力波探测器的屏蔽肯定非常之好，所以只有在固体潮最大峰谷值的那一小段时间（比如说0.4秒）内发出的最强的电磁辐射才能够穿透屏蔽，从而被他们的探测器探测到。而在0.4秒以外的电磁辐射被仪器屏蔽掉了。

四. 关于信号的产生时间：

    通常临震前兆在大地震前2～3天发生。大多数情况会是这样！在前面第一节中已经讲过，LIGO所探测到的所谓”引力波“的确发生在智利8.3级地震前2～3天！

五.关于引力波的入射角及信号强度：

    该文好像没有提到“引力波”的入射角度的问题。它与探测仪器所在平面的夹角究竟如何？因为这直接关系到信号强度。由于他们每台干涉仪互相垂直的两臂都是自由的，所以在某个入射角度下，信号可能会被抵消。又由于两台干涉仪的干涉臂不是互相平行的（请参考论文截图），因此两台干涉仪测到的信号强度可能会有或大或小的差异 ……

    让我们来查看LIGO英文论文中的一段。论文上说: 他们的另外两台仪器，其中一台灵敏度低，测不到，另一台正在升级，所以在只有两台仪器的情况下，发射源的位置是被相对到达时间来决定的。

    也就是说，他们是反推出来的！不是测量出来的。

    另外一篇介绍性的文章中说：只有澳大利亚的干涉仪联网后才能提高引力波源的定位精度。换句话说，没有澳大利亚的干涉仪，定位就会有困难。间接说明了我们的怀疑是有一定道理的！
 
六.关于两个探测器之间信号时差的讨论：

1.两台LIGO探测器探测到的时间之差约7毫秒 ，有人认为：这只能是一个人为的信号产生的误差值。我们认为：如果信号是从智利地震的震中发出来的，那么这个7毫秒就可能是人为的误差，实际上应该是10毫秒！

2.第二种可能是：震中不一定是这个特定前兆的發源地（当然震中也会产生前兆），M8级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！预计这个应力点很有可能是在东太平洋的断裂带上。需要找出符合两个探测器之间具有7毫秒时差的这个前兆应力点，。为了验证这个论点，至少要有三个探测器！这和上面第五节中讨论的内容相呼应！

七. 伽马射线暴不能说明LIGO探测到的信号就是引力波：

   （和中国科技大学蔡一夫教授商榷）

    中国科学报2016－02－18第一版要闻中，有一篇报道了中国科技大学物理学院蔡一夫教授对“引力波探测质疑”的回应文章。

    蔡先生首先对质疑表示肯定，然而他为LIGO对引力波的探测结果作了如下的辩解：

    黑洞并合不仅仅只有引力波还有电磁波信号，也就是伽马射线暴，相关信号被其他望远镜独立捕捉到并互相检验过。这就说明LIGO探测到的信号不是引力波的概率很低。

    本文作者认为，他的这一辩解非但没有帮了LIGO，反而给“吕大炯研究员认为LIGO所探测到的信号可能是地震前兆“的论述提供了进一步的佐证！

    在地震预报领域中几乎是众所周知，在大地震前经常会观测到来自宇宙的磁暴。有的地震学家还利用磁暴来预测地震！让我们先来引用“汶川8.0级地震的根源和成因”（虞震东）一文中的一段话：

    以２００５年１月２０日的宇宙线大ＧＬＥ事件为标志的宇宙线环境增强是汶川８．０级大地震的主要根源。在此要加以说明的是，宇宙线大ＧＬＥ事件的增强幅度，只是一个标志或指标。并不是说增强了的那些宇宙线中子部分单独就能引起大地震。引起大地震的是相应的那个太阳宇宙线耀斑在爆发中产生的全部高能辐射，包括已知的和未知的各种高能辐射。我们认为，还有一个重要的天文事件对汶川大地震也是有影响的。它就是２００８年３月１９日观测到的极为重要的γ射线暴ＧＲＢ０８０３１９Ｂ。这个γ射线暴距地球约７５亿光年。它最令人惊奇的特点是它的光学余辉竟然达到视星等５．３［１０］。γ射线暴是宇宙大爆炸之后所知的最猛烈的爆发。一般认为，大多数γ射线暴是大质量恒星燃尽核燃料后发生坍缩形成黑洞或中子星时产生的。它释放的能量可以高达１０５４尔格／秒［１１］。爆发过程中除产生γ射线、Ｘ射线、可见光和射电辐射外，还产生已知的和未知的各种高能粒子流。这些作用到地球的由γ射线暴产生的各种高能辐射和物质肯定要对地球产生影响。在新星爆发和大地震关系的研究中已经知道，恒星爆发的最亮视星等是反映它对地震影响程度的指标。最亮视星等达到３等的新星爆发就可能引起 ８级大地震［４］。γ射线暴ＧＲＢ０８０３１９Ｂ的最亮视星等已经达到５．３等。它和前者的视星等之差只有２个星等。但γ射线暴的爆发规模比新星爆发要大很多亿倍，从中产生的引起大地震的那些高能辐射和物质比新星爆发要大得多。所以，有理由相信，ＧＲＢ０８０３１９Ｂγ射线暴对地震活动有影响。也就是说，２００５年１月２０日的宇宙线大ＧＬＥ事件反映的太阳宇宙线耀斑和γ射线暴ＧＲＢ０８０３１９Ｂ的联合作用是汶川８．０级地震的根源。

    由此可见蔡先生所说的“相关信号（电磁波信号，也就是伽玛射线暴）被其他望远镜独立扑捉到并互相检验过“，并不能说明LIGO探测到的是引力波，而恰恰为本文作者认为的“LIGO所探测到的信号有可能是地震前兆波“提供了又一个有利的证据。地震与磁暴及伽马射线暴之间有着紧密的联系；而电磁暴与引力波的关系却从来就没有被证实过，因为人类之前从未探测到过引力波。

    当然，LIGO探测器的探测结果也许正好为地震的成因或者触发机制的研究起到一定的推波助澜的作用！

    本文的结论：地震前兆也许可以用于解释 LIGO 引力波探测器所探测到的信号的另一种可能的选项！

    结尾：

    本文试图揭秘，全世界科学家不能实现临震预报的原因。

    40年前，吕大炯研究员多次成功地精确预报了某些地震，特别是远震三要素。自那之后直至今天，全世界没有任何一位科学家能够达到吕大炯研究员40年前的水平！

    究其原因：可能是全世界的地震学家都把大地震的临震前兆当作干扰或者噪声来处理。无独有偶，最近全世界的天文学家很可能又把大地震的临震前兆当作引力波来处理！因此，全世界的科学家都认为大地震前不存在任何值得信赖的临震前兆，从而他们在大地震的临震预报方面一筹莫展和束手无策！

    以上所述不一定正确，仅供全世界科学家参考！

    同时作者主观感觉, 全世界的科学家都在躲避对大地震的临震预报的研究 ! 宁愿去研究 13亿光年远处发出的引力波, 宁愿去研究智能围棋 ...... 而不敢碰大地震的临震预报 !

感谢：日本的戴峰博士对本文提出了非常宝贵的意见，在此表示感谢！

(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.

(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) 很明显吕大炯是第一流科学家

    英国科学家,英国莱彻斯特大学地质系主任简.泰尼教授在向英国文化委员会的报告中称:”很明显,吕大炯是第一流科学家”.
(原文请看網站 http://dajionglu.spaces.live.com 首页右边图片框)
    据说, 英国科学家向来是比较保守的,很少评价其它国家的科学家为第一流科学家.因此在1981年当41岁的吕大炯收到该文件时,真是感到受宠若惊!再联想到,自己却受到……,又感到无比的痛心!

(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.

(D) 吕大炯与高建国研制的地震预报仪器
榮获中科院重大科技成果奖

    阅读过吕大炯所著”临震预报”及”震兆云霞”的读者就会知道: 吕大炯主要是依靠”激光锁相应变仪”,”基岩地电记录仪”及”电磁辐射包络记录仪”三种仪器来成功地预报地震,同时为了增加预报的成功率而引用震兆云霞及其它气象資料.
    吕大炯论证了地震云是一种地震的突变前兆,并不等于说,根据地震云单项手段就能够很容易精确地预报成功地震三要素. 吕大炯所称: 地震预报比天气预报还要准确, 主要是指上述三种仪器,但震兆云霞也的确是一种重要的辅助手段.
    由于吕大炯发现有一些(例如百度網站上的)读者对地震云产生了一些误解,所以在此再一次强调一下.同时也请各大網站报道时注意强调用仪器探测地震前兆的重要性,不要片面地只报道地震云,以给读者一种错觉.
    吕大炯与高建国研制的激光锁相应变仪来源于它的原型”激光锁相干涉仪”. 读过”临震预报”一书的读者也许会注意到: 1973年吕大炯与高建国研制的激光锁相干涉仪是为了探测离地球七千光年的蟹状星云的引力辐射. 1976年7月28日唐山发生了7.8级大地震,所以这才将其改装成适合于记录基岩应变的应变仪. 该仪器及其在地震预报领域内的应用,特别是它与其它仪器配合在世界上首次成功地预报了远震三要素,因而榮获中科院重大科技成果奖. 此时管惟炎为物理所业务负责人.
    有人风趣地说: 原来用于探测离地球七千光年的引力辐射的仪器,现在用于探测地球上的地震前兆不是杀鸡用牛刀吗?怪不得可以预测离台站数千公里以外的地震

(中科院重大科技成果奖奖状,请看網站http://dajionglu.spaces.live.com首页右边图片框).

(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) 吕大炯向国家地震局强祖基等人成功预报了美国地震

    1978年4月3日至9日,吕大炯在北京通县参加地震地质成果交流会.4月8日吕
大炯在激光等仪器记录全球应力场的基础上,又观测到地震云与周期性风速突变,
于是向与会的国家地震局强祖基,张德成,傅木行等四人预报:1978年4月12日在
北太平洋的阿留申群岛附近可能发生7级左右强震. 强祖基说: 4月12日我们一定会与地震目录核实的.结果1978年4月12日在阿留申群岛以东的美国阿拉斯加发
生了7.0级地震. 作为当时国家地震局分析预报室主任的强祖基责成张德成写了
一份证明,说明吕大炯的确作了一次成功的预报.
    有人要求我必须根据地震云作出一个”神乎其神”的预报(言下之意,否则你吕大炯就是XX). 我已经回答过了我必须把地震云与多种手段配合才能作出有价值的预报,上面所介绍的就是一个典型的例子.
    至于说是否”神乎其神”,那就要看个人的理解了.依我个人认为:这次预报比诸葛亮借东风的”神乎其神”还要”神乎其神”,因为诸葛亮的借东风是他预测了当地地区的风向转变,而我预测的是6000公里以外发生的强震.(如果我当时还有其它气象资料和卫星资料,或许震中可以预报的更加准确).
    敬请各位尽速向强祖基,张德成,傅木行等人核实这次预报.谢谢大家!

(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) 总参谋部管理局大力支持吕大炯的地震预报研究

    唐山大地震后,总参管理局防震办公室听说吕大炯的地震预报研究很有起色,
就主动与他联系并帮助解决一些困难. 当时密云水库地区与北京市区的电话线路
繁忙,吕大炯的预报意见不能及时发出去.因此总参管理局就帮助架设一条军用线.
这样吕大炯很容易把预报意见及时向防震办公室报告.其次, 当时密云水库地震台
站缺少值班人员, 总参管理局就派两名战士帮助值班. 这样使密云水库台站的研究工作得以顺利进行.有一次在中科院物理所业务处召开的地震预报听证会上, 总参管理局的参谋张春波明确告诉当时主管物理所业务的管惟炎:” 吕大炯的地震预报搞得很不错, 物理所应该给予支持”. 后来,当吕大炯在世界上首次实现对日本小笠原群岛远震三要素的成功预报时, 总参管理局写了一封盖有公章的证明信给物理所表示感谢.所以说吕大炯在地震预报方面所取得的成就与总参的大力支持是分不开的.
    另外,希望大家记住:首先预报成功日本地震三要素的不是日本人,而是咱们中
国人呀! 这一事迹在日本读卖新闻1980年4月30日的”人间登场”中有详细报导.
 

(G) 世界著名科学家吳有训
关心和支持吕大炯的地震预报研究工作

    在1976年唐山大地震之后的某一天,吕大炯突然得到通知:中国科学院吳有训副院长想了解一下吕大炯的地震预报研究工作及所遭遇的困难情况.由于吕大炯在物理课本上已经知晓了康普顿-吳有训效应,因此对这次约见很是兴奋.
    工作彚报在晚上吳副院长家里进行. 吕大炯把自己的地震预报研究工作全面而又详细地作了介绍,足足用了两个小时.在此期间, 吳副院长也时时提出问题.最后, 吳副院长说:”我听明白了!”说罢就拿起电话,向科学院要车,明天一早去院部.
    几天后, 吳副院长告诉吕大炯,”已经和他们讲了,但他们说我是物理学家,不是地震学家,为什么这么偏袒这个年轻人?”(注:当时吕大炯正值36岁) 吳副院长又接着说:”地震预报需要由多学科联合来攻坚.你是从物理学的角度来研究的.就象你所说的,是属于地震预报的唯象物理学.所以我是有发言权的!” 吳副院长最后说:”我支持你的地震预报研究工作,并赞赏你所取得的成就!”
    三十年过去了. 吕大炯觉得现在的中国需要更多一些像吳有训这样的科学家:不但自己能够取得卓越的成就,也能支持年轻科学家的工作,并为他们的成就而感到高兴,少一些……

(H) 科学泰斗严济慈支持吕大炯重要论文及重要定律
在中国科学上发表

   一九八零年吕大炯写了一篇地震预报方面的重要论文"应力波,应变波动及缓慢地震",投稿于中国最权威的科学杂志"中国科学".该论文得到了中国科学泰斗,当时的中国科学主编严济慈教授的大力支持,立即予以发表.该论文中特别论述了吕大炯所发现和总结出来的重要定律"远近震前兆相关定律(简称吕氏定律),该定律解决了地震界困惑多年的关键问题.
   后来,有些人看不懂也理解不了该论文的重大意义,向严济慈反映.严济慈主编说:"很好么!你们有不同意见可以写出论文来,我将把你们的论文及吕大炯的答辩论文一起发表!但不要在下面搞小动作."
   这就是真正的科学泰斗对科学问题的实事求是和严肃认真的负责态度.
   本信息原由中国科学资深编辑刘延敏提供,在此表示感谢.
 
(关于该论文的英文版,请看網站 http://dajionglu.spaces.live.com 首页右边图片框.)

(I) 中科院院长芦嘉锡支持吕大炯从事边缘科学的研究

    在唐山地震以后第十二天开始从事地震预报的吕大炯,独创了一门地震预报唯
象物理学的新学科.实际上这门学科属于边缘科学.众所周知, 边缘科学是很难生
存和发展的.主要原因是一些科研部门认为这些边缘科学不属于它们的研究范围,
因此课题不能列入计划;出国进行学术交流藉口不懂这门学科而不被批准;成果无
人鉴定…  总之,一系列的问题得不到解决.
    正在此困难当头,吕大炯遇到了一位新来的善良而坚持原则的好院长芦嘉锡. 
芦院长出面帮助解决了许多困难,扶植了这一新学科的研究与发展.例如:通知所
里对吕大炯出国进行学术交流只需对吕进行政审, 芦院长将亲自在批准书上签字;
芦院长又亲自同意成立中国科学院应用物理与地震学研究实验室,并由吕大炯负
责;由技术科学部主任王大珩出面组织整理张文佑,程裕祺等五位学部委员的书面
推荐信,并由芦院长亲自批准提升吕大炯为副研究员…
    与此同时国外的高度评价也接踵而来…
    所以说,没有芦院长及王大珩主任的大力支持, 吕大炯将一事无成.
    由此看来, 边缘科学如果能得到象他们这样有胆识有远见的科学家的支持,就能
得到蓬勃发展.

(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!!!”

(J) 中国科学院地学部主任, 中国科学院地质所所长张文佑
为吕大炯的” 观察图形预报震中”提供有力佐证

    吕大炯在研究地震预报的初期,发现了” 观察记录图形可预报地震震中”的一些苗头,就去向中国科学院地学部主任, 中国科学院地质所所长张文佑请教.张教授说:”你说得很有道理.记得以前有一位国外的地震学家,他只要一看地震波形形态,就可直接判断地震已在那里发生了,不用根据地震波形作任何计算.因此你根据前兆波形直接判断地震将要在那里发生,从逻辑上看应该也是可行的.”于是吕大炯在这方面下功夫研究,总结出了预报地震震中的前兆模式概念及根据记录图形
成功地预报了某些强烈地震的震中位置.当吕大炯成功地预报了日本小笠原群岛
地震的震中,震级与震时三要素及总参防震办公室出具了成功预报的证明之后, 
张文佑教授兴奋地说:“把证明信给我,我去给他们(意指XXXX院及XX局)看!”

    其实, 根据吕大炯后来的研究,地震的前兆模式还有其更加重要与深刻的含意及微妙的用处.如果以后有机会出书的话,吕大炯有可能会把这一问题及其它许多至今尚不为人知的研究心得写在他未来的书中.

(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) 日本鸟山英雄教授赞誉吕大炯所著"临震预报"
为经典著作

    日本鸟山英雄教授在1986年喜获吕大炯所著"临震预报"中文版一书,但他阅读中文书籍有困难.当他知道吕大炯所著"临震预报"在1988年出版了英文版,他就向吕大炯表示:无论如何要得到一本英文版的"临震预报".吕大炯就寄了一本给他.鸟山英雄教授在读完后,赞誉吕大炯所著"临震预报"为地震预报领域内的经典著作.
 

吕大炯所著"临震预报"英文版一书封面请看網

http://dajionglu.spaces.live.com 首页右边图片框内

(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.

(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.   

(N) AUTHOR: DAJIONG LU

(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. 【作者注：此处有误。应为：用应 变及地电两者所推算出来的发震时间，应变 9:04 AM 及地电8:58AM。所以误差为：应变误差：4分2.2秒，地电误差：1分57.8秒。预报误差与应变误差相同。】

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!

(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 don’t 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 couldn’t 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 I’d 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

                         (R)           

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

                         (S) 

                         (T) 

                         (U) 

                                 (V)谢谢读者的阅读及支持！！