The Principal of Universal Parallelism and its Application in Earthquake Prediction.

THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL PARALLELISM
AND IT'S APPLICATION IN EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION

With the parallel relationship we will not need to base our reasoning solely on the cause-effect relationship in order to analyse and explain natural phenomenon. This principle is based on the assumption that the harmony of nature is so perfect that there is no room for accidents thus everything is potentially predictable. Therefore we can apply the harmonics of any known natural phenomena as a reference platform in order to infer, on the base of the parallel relationship, the unknown harmonics of any other natural phenomenon. This opens many new horizons in science, and a better understanding of the universe. It can be applied to any branch of science, like geophysics, climatology, biology, economics, etc. This paper will show how this relationship can be applied to earthquake prediction by taking the known harmonics of our solar system for the past 105 years (1900-2005) as a reference platform in order to predict the unknown harmony of the yearly global earthquake (mag.>=7.0) frequencies for the same period.

At this very beginning some of the main evidence is presented with the below given 3 figures including a brief explanation serving as an introduction. Then its underlying novel principle, namely the Principle of Universal Parallelism is discussed along with a detailed explanation about the earthquake data and of how the solar system harmonics are extracted including more evidence as well.

Here the correlation of two time series based on two physical models, one on earthquake triggering mechanism, and the other on solar system harmonics are analyzed on the base of the "parallel relationship". If in case an irrefutable, or at least a significant correlation between these two time series is established, then these results can serve as a guide for research scientist to search in the proper direction for the nature of earthquakes from the physical cause- effect relationship point of view.

Figure 0.01 shows the yearly global major earthquake (mag.>=7.0) frequency from 1970 to 5^th Dec.2005 along with the yearly component of the solar system harmonics for the same period extended up to 2020. This yearly component is just a preliminary extraction leaving plenty of scope for refinements (i.e. fine tuning).

The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient between the above two time series is 0.73844. The new data shown later in figure 0.7 gives a correlation coefficient of 0.7806

In the upper part of the below figure 1 the yearly global major earthquake (mag.>=7.0) frequency is given from 1900 to 1998. The lower part of this figure shows the yearly component of the solar system harmonics for the same period. This figure was published in the paper which introduced the Principle of Universal Parallelism for the first time at the 21^st National Symposium on Geo Sciences in Tehran/ Iran (Feb. 2003). The above figure 0.01 is just an extension of this figure which includes the remaining years 1998 to 2004.

Figure 1.5 below shows the yearly global major earthquake (mag.>=7.0) frequencies from 1905 to 1965 (black line) along with the yearly component of the solar system harmonics (red line). This earthquake statistic was used in the 22 June 1969 conference organized by the departments of geophysics, university of western Ontario, London and Canada (see reference 4). In 1990 the same statistic was used by me to show the relationship of the earthquake frequency with the movements of the 5 outer planets in our solar- system, and which was submitted to the institute of geophysics in Tehran/ Iran. At that time this work had been presented without the context of Universal Parallelism, and it was regarded by the academics as just a curious and interesting coincidence. The aim was to obtain support for further research and to finally mention the principle of Universal Parallelism. Because the needed support and cooperation did not materialize, the progress of this research work slowed down and was confined more on other natural phenomenon other than earthquakes with good results. Now with the services of the internet making the availability of data easier to the public the research on earthquakes has been revived, extended and presented now in this paper along with the context of Universal Parallelism. . If 15 years ago there were any doubts about the merits of this correlation and whether if it would hold true for future trends, now with this extended data including the years 1965 to 2004 and the context of Universal Parallelism, these doubts should become weaker and make room for more attention and incite further research work in this field.

In the above figure the data of the solar system harmonics (red line) has been smoothed using is a three year running average using the formula

******************************************************************************************************************************

3 - Because of this harmony, the harmony of any sub reality can be used to infer

and analyze the nature of other sub realities. This we name the "Parallel Relationship".

The principle of universal parallelism as formulated and outlined in this paper is the result of the merger of the oriental and occidental mentality which necessarily had to emerge sooner or later at some point in the evolution of science as the world grows into a global village. According this principle all the laws of nature, whether physical, chemical or otherwise are subject to the "parallel relationship". The philosophical foundation of the parallel relationship is independent of the cause- effect relationship but at the same time functions complimentary to it. It means that all the present workable equations on natural laws are already based on the parallel relationship. The parallel relationship can analyze natural phenomenon with greater flexibility and obtain results far ahead of the conventional cause- effect relationship and in this way guide research scientists in the proper direction in their effort to explain nature from the cause- effect relationship point of view.

The first part of the principle implies that due to this complete harmonic unity, there is no room for “accidents”; and because accidents do not exist, therefore with the second and third part of the principle we can know past, present, future and the nature of all things.

Sub- realities could be anything, for example the formation of human bodies, animals, plants, mountains, winds, etc., also geophysical and atmospheric phenomenon like earthquakes, floods, storms, droughts; economical trends like the rise and fall of prices and stocks; in medicine it could be for example the progress of diseases or recoveries; in biology it could be, say, epidemics, the growth progress of vegetations like forests, crops and so on.

Although the definition and nature of sub- realities play an important role, but at this juncture it is sufficient to define them as “any subject whose frequency can be plotted on the time scale”. The harmony of the reference sub- reality can be used to infer upon the harmony of the unknown sub- reality and in this way accelerate the progress of understanding the nature of the unknown sub- reality. We must have sufficient information of the reference sub- reality in order to make inferences on the unknown sub- reality.

A big aid which is available in our age of information is the presence of a vast amount of sufficient reliably recorded data along with date and time which can be taken as control and research material.

Using a convenient reference sub- reality

Here we take as our reference sub- reality the harmonics of our solar- system which is for example visible in the movements of its planets and which can be conveniently pre- calculated and plotted on the time- scale.

It is important that we have a good understanding of the reference sub- unit in order to extract its harmonics and on base of the parallel- relationship, using these harmonics to study and infer on the harmonics of other sub- realities.

The harmonics of the solar- system must be studied in its three dimensional aspect, i.e. the celestial longitude, latitude and distance of the planetary orbits,-although the latitude and distance from the sun are just minor variations. The relative sizes in terms of their masses must be considered too.

The most basic and elementary rhythms or harmonics in this system are the revolutions (time needed to circle once round the sun) of the planets themselves (see Appendix AI). The size of the bodies and their cycles (orbits) are very good indicators of the nature of their parallel phases present in all organic and inorganic matters.

For example, Jupiter which compared to other planets is a giant (see Appendix A1) has very marked parallel phases proportional to its 12 year cycle i.e. revolution. Next comes Saturn with its 30 year cycle. And so on with the other bodies. For example, the earth has a 12 month cycle and a 24 hour cycle which regulate most of our lives and are very apparent. Then the small planet Moon because of its proximity to earth identifies very marked phases and cycles in proportion to its own 27.5 day cycle. In the same manner, all, the other cycles in our solar system go parallel with phases present in the whole solar system.

In Appendix A2 we can see the most important cycles i.e. elementary cycles in our solar- system. The slow- moving planets are shown on a yearly scale for 101 years (1900 to 2001). The fast- moving planets are given on a five- year scale. These graphs show the longitudinal position of the planets as seen from the sun (i.e. heliocentric). They are depicted in such a manner that the oscillation of their cycles becomes visible.

Appendix I gives an overview of the planetary data. The six orbital elements can be used to compute their approximate orbital positions. Besides the mentioned planets there are other bodies (comets) which are member of our solar- system and which are in accordance to their own proportion significant.

Next come the relative distances of the planets from each other. Here the two extreme points are when two bodies are at their closest (conjunction) or farthest (opposition) distance from each other. In the same way as the conjunction and opposition of the Moon and Sun go parallel with the extremities of water tides on earth (spring tides) in the same way the conjunction and opposition of other bodies go parallel with certain phenomenon.

Let's consider this simple example observable in nature which exemplifies the importance of this conjunction- opposition axis. The below given chart (figure 0.1) shows the water tides, i.e. spring and neap tides (water height level) at Pointe au Pere, Quebec for the month of April 1965, although at different places on earth there may be certain variations due to local factors,. Below it the sun- moon longitudinal distance is given for the same period (figure 0.2).

The above diagram (figure 0.3) shows the sun, moon and earth relationship in respect to water tides. At point a1 (conjunction) the sun- moon longitudinal distance is zero, and at point a2 (opposition) it is 180 degrees. At these two points the water tides have their maximum fluctuations. We call a1 and a2 the positive axis. The points b1 and b2 are the negative axis and is exactly vertical to the positive .axis. At these two points the water tides have their least fluctuations (neap tides). The above example shows the significance of the positive and negative axes.

As we can see, this phenomena correlates with the sun- moon distances (moon phases). In other words these two phenomenons are parallel to each other. Of course today we have from the cause- effect relationship point of view a physical explanation for this correlation. But Universal Parallelism is not concerned with the physical relationship. Here the parallel relationship is of significance only.

In Appendix A3 the mutual distance of some of the slow- moving planets are given on the yearly scale for 101 years (1900 to 2001).

Appendix A1 shows a relative view of the solar- system's planetary orbits and the sizes of the planets in terms of their masses. To create a reference base to work with the planetary movements, we can take any degree of the ecliptical plane as our starting point. From this point we split this plane into a convenient geometrical form. For example we will use in this paper the hexagon model (see Appendix B). Here two hexagons, one positive the

other negative are superimposed on the ecliptical plane in such a manner that the vertexes of the two hexagons are placed equal distances. Now we have 12 parts, each alternating positive and negative. It makes no difference which hexagon we assign as positive or negative, important is only their alternating polarity. This model is shown in Appendix B. Figure 3.

Now in respect to this model we consider the true geocentric planetary movements given in international almanacs. For our present purpose they can have an accuracy of up to one to two degrees of the ecliptic. Of course we could use their heliocentric positions as well, but we use here the geocentric positions in order to save us same extra work. Because in this paper we deal mainly with earth related phenomena therefore we use the exact harmonics as seen from the earth. Here the 27.5 day cycle of the earth's satellite Moon, and the earth's own 24 hour rotation (i.e. hour factor) which are elementary cycles or harmonics for the planet earth are used for the daily, hourly (and smaller time units) variations.

If we project the planetary movements graphically on the time scale it will look for the range of AD 1950 to 2000 as given in Appendix D (graph C). Here on a yearly scale with monthly demarcations, the movements of the five slow moving outer planets Jupiter to Pluto can be seen, each separately, entering the various sectors of the two hexagons. For example we can read from graph C that Jupiter enters sector 1 (i.e. longitude 0 degree) in April 1951 and sector 2 (i.e. longitude 30 degree) in May 1952. The occasional breaks visible at the border of sectors is due to their apparent retrograde movements (geocentric view) occurring at sector border.

According to present day convention, the starting point of the celestial longitude (i.e. zero degree) is fixed at vernal equinox. Graph C in Appendix D shows the planetary movements in respect to this starting point. But because the two hexagons define 12 equal sections, each spaced 30 degree, therefore we will have a range of 30 degrees, which anywhere in this range, the hypothetical starting point could lay. This 30 degree range we will call the “tuning range”. Now we have divided this tuning range into 4 equal parts of 7.5 degree each (see Appendix C) and assigned a new starting point for them which are shown with the 4 graphs (A,B,C,D) in Appendix D. In Appendix C we see that the celestial longitude of 345 degree is the starting point of the A division. 7.5 degree further at 352.5 degree of celestial longitude is the starting point of the B division. Again 7.5 degree further at 360 or 0 degree of the celestial longitude (vernal equinox) is the starting point of the C division. That is why graph C shows the standard planetary movements as given in international almanacs. Finally, the celestial longitude of 7.5 degree is the starting point of the D division. As we can see from the four graphical presentation of the planetary movements in Appendix D, these four starting points result in a slight displacement of the 12 sectors along the time axis. The below given table shows the celestial longitudes of the 12 sectors as outlined above.

The fast moving inner planets, unlike the slow moving planets, cannot be shown conveniently on a yearly scale. Appendix E shows on a daily scale for 6 months the fast moving planets too.

To present some extra details, we have split each hexagon into its two constituent triangles (see Appendix B) and are shown each with a different shade. The bright colors designate the two triangles of the positive hexagon; the dark colors the negative ones (see Appendix C).

Now by plotting one of the polarities, it is possible to present each cycle or combination of cycles with a curve. The curve of the other polarity would be its exact counterpart. The linear presentation of the cycles seen in the ABCD graphs is crammed full of information, while the curve just presents filtered data of certain type. In Appendix G the combined curve of the 5 slow moving outer planets is given for the 100 year range AD 1900 - 2000. This curve shows the number of planets in the positive hexagon A. Appendix H shows all the possible curves within the 30 degree tuning range of each the positive and negative hexagon for the 5 slow- moving outer planets from 1900 to 2000.

For the yearly component of the solar system harmonics we consider the movements of the 5 slow moving outer planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

The monthly component is defined by the 4 fast moving inner planets Mars, Earth, Venus and Mercury, and should be considered along with the yearly component.

The daily component is defined mainly by the Moon which should be considered along with the monthly and yearly components.

The hourly component is defined mainly by the 24 hour rotation of the earth which should be considered along with daily, monthly and yearly components.

It has to be pointed out that different geometrical models and the manner of their application will result in different frequencies. At this initial stage it is enough to know that the unknown frequency we are searching for must exist, and it is only a matter of finding that frequency.

The tuning process of solar- system harmonics to the harmonics of the sub- reality under study

The correlation of global earthquake frequency with solar- system harmonics has been obtained by the process of tuning in with the frequency of the events. In this case the global earthquake frequency will be tuned to a frequency obtained by solar- system harmonics. In fact we could create with solar- system harmonics many kind of frequencies, but the criteria is that they should correlate with the past and future events, and this not only on yearly scale but also on monthly scale and smaller time units. According the theory of Universal Parallelism which states that everything in the universe (i.e. all sub realities) follow an absolute harmonic and systematic pattern, which means that all sub realities will have certain parallel relationships with each other, therefore it will be possible to refer to the harmonics of any sub reality as a reference in order to find and predict the harmonics of other sub realities.

In this paper we have taken the yearly and monthly earthquake frequencies for the whole planet earth into account because they are easier digestible than the earthquake frequency for an individual locations (i.e. city, province, etc,). But its applicability can be extended also to a certain location, say, Tokyo or Tehran. It means that the frequency of the sub- reality "monthly earthquake (mag.> 7.0) count for Tokyo" can be tuned (i.e. will be parallel) to a certain kind of solar- system harmonics i.e. frequencies. Now by obtaining reliable historic data of the above sub reality's frequency, we can use it to tune it to the harmonics of the solar- system.

Although the tuning process is the most important and complex part of the scientific application of the parallel relationship, here in this paper I will give just an outline of the possibilities and of how the preliminary frequency used in this paper has been obtained.

As there are infinite numbers of sub realities so there are infinite variations of extracting solar system harmonics. As already mentioned before, the unknown frequency we are searching for must exist, and it is only a matter of finding that frequency. It is this knowledge and confidence that the unknown frequency must exist that one is ready to set out for finding that frequency. There are several approaches for creating a tuning parameter. One approach is just by automating the search process with a computer. Here one keeps on searching frequencies based on different geometrical models and using various elementary cycles with yearly, monthly and daily revolutions depending on what time scale one is working. Since we are using solar system harmonics as our reference sub reality we could theoretically use cycles with revolutions running into millions of years (macro cycles), that is as far as the age of our solar system permits. On the other end of the spectrum one could theoretically use time scales in the order of seconds and smaller time fractions using micro cycles. All these different cycles and frequencies, or to be more accurate, all these sub realities have a fractal nature which is an essential aspect of the parallel relationship and should serve as a guide in searching and finding a certain frequency. The above points are mentioned just in order to convey some of the possibilities of using the parallel relationship. But for most practical purposes we deal with time scales in the order of years, months, days and hours.

The computerized and automated search process can utilize cycles with revolutions having random values in the range suitable for the frequency under study. Although this process is almost like searching a pin in a haystack but with the speed of an electronic search procedure it should be a feasible undertaking. Once a satisfactory correlation is obtained, then by studying the constituent cycles that make up the frequency under study, it should reveal a parallel relationship with the cycles present in the solar system harmonics. An example of this fact is the frequency presented in this paper (figure 0.01 and 1) and which has been extracted from solar system harmonics. The constituent cycles making up this frequency are the cycles of the 5 outer planets. This frequency we could as well have obtained by a random search using cycles with random values and more than 5 cycles. The point is that by analyzing this random generated frequency it would reveal a relationship, or to be more precise, a parallel relationship with the 5 cycles of the outer planets. Therefore it will be easier and time saving to refer straightaway to the cycles present in solar system harmonics, or in other words, it is better to refer on the base of the parallel relationship to another sub reality.

Another approach of tuning into solar system harmonics is based on experience. By having a fairly good understanding of the parallel relationships one can choose cycles and harmonics appropriate to the work at hand. This is the approach I have used in obtaining the frequency presented in this paper. By taking the yearly earthquake frequency as reference and observing in which year the major peaks and troughs were occurring I quickly perceived that it correlates best with the positive hexagon of division A, that is where the starting point (i.e. zero degree) of the 12 sector cycle is positioned at 345 degree of the ecliptic or celestial latitude. Appendix H shows all the possible frequencies within the 30 degree tuning range as explained in the previous sections. Refer to Appendix J for an example of generating solar system harmonics using actual data.

Before continuing, it is appropriate to acquaint those who are less familiar with earthquakes, with few basic facts about earthquake data for which we will quote the below excerpt of an USGS release.

The above table shows, for example, that a magnitude 7.2 earthquake produces 10 times more ground motion than a magnitude 6.2 earthquake, but releases about 32 times more energy. The energy release best indicates the destructive power of an earthquake. The magnitude scale is logarithmic and is really comparing amplitudes of waves on a seismogram, not the STRENGHT (energy) of the quakes. So, a magnitude 9.7 is 794 times bigger than a 6.8 quake as measured on seismograms, but the 9.7 quake is about 23,000 times STRONGER than the 6.8! Since it is really the energy or strength that knocks down buildings, this is really the more important comparison. This means that it would take about 23,000 quakes of magnitude 6.8 to equal the energy released by one magnitude 9.7 event.

Descriptor	Magnitude	Average Annually
Great	8 and higher	1
Major	7 – 7.9	18
Strong	6 – 6.9	120
Moderate	5 – 5.9	800
Light	4 – 4.9	6,200 (estimated)
Minor	3 – 3.9	49,000 (estimated)
Very Minor	< 3	Magnitude 2 – 3: about 1,000 per day Magnitude 1 – 2: about 8,000 per day

The USGS estimates that several million earthquakes occur in the world each year. Many go undetected because they hit remote areas or have very small magnitudes. The NEIC now locates about 50 earthquakes each day, or about 20,000 a year.

Here the reliability of data plays an important role. The data for the harmonics of the solar- system is computable and therefore easily obtainable and reliable. But the data of the unknown sub- reality, which in this case are earthquake data, must be laboriously recorded, calculated and collected. Therefore one has to be cautious and pay special attention to the reliability of these types of data.

One of the main reasons to use earthquake data for showing the workability of Universal Parallelism was the need for relative reliable data where events are recorded with date and time, and also from statistical point of view having a creditable data source. Of course the best data source for research purposes are those data which one has collected personally and knows about it accurateness. But for the purpose of presenting statistical results to the doubtful public the data source must have a verifiable and creditable status. There are many evidences for the workability of Universal Parallelism at hand but just because their data sources are not as creditable and easily verifiable as earthquake data they are not presented to the public yet.

Although the creditability of earthquake data is very high, nevertheless, it is good to have a general overview of these types of data and their accurateness. The practice of recording earthquake data on a constant basis started about the beginning of the 20^th century. The reliability of earthquake data is for the 2^nd part of the century higher than the first part, and before 1918 AD the data are even less reliable. Also the data recorded during the period of the 2^nd world war are somehow doubtful too.

The above figure shows the difference of recorded data. The black line shows the yearly global count of earthquakes greater or equal magnitude 7.0 (from 1905 to 1965) and which were used at an international conference on geophysics in 1969 (see reference 4). The red line shows the new statistics for the same magnitude range from 1900 to 2000, published by the US Geological Survey, National Earthquake Information Center (USGS NEIC).

The statistics of the different magnitude ranges for the period 1900 to 1994 is shown in figure 0.5. As we can see, different magnitude ranges produce different frequencies, but the main features of the data are more or less maintained.

It has to be noted that the data for the different magnitude ranges used in the above figure 0.5 has been downloaded from the searchable data base system of USGS NEIC (http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_global.html). As it can be observed, the frequency obtained for the magnitude 7.0 and greater earthquakes differs from the one used in this paper for evidence. For the purpose of evidence, the yearly earthquake frequency used in figure 1 at the beginning of this paper was provided by the USGS NEIC (http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/7up.html) with a ready made list of global number of magnitude 7.0 and greater earthquakes per year since 1900. But in this case we are not interested in the actual accuracy of different data bases and earthquake catalogues, but in the proportional relationships of different magnitude ranges.

Also it is worthwhile to note how the proportional relationship of these 4 magnitude ranges narrows systematically down as we move time backwards towards the beginning of the century (see figure 0.51). The question is how much is it related to data reliability, and how much is it related to the ability of locating earthquake magnitude ranges below magnitude 7.0?

In order to overcome the above difference for varying magnitude ranges we could consider the amount of energy released. In figure 1.2 (bottom chart) we see the monthly release of energy (using Log₁₀ E = 11.8 + 1.5 M_S) produced by the global magnitude 6.0 and grater earthquakes.

Figures for yearly harmonics have been shown with figure 0.01, figure 1 and figure 1.5 at the beginning of this paper. The below given two figures besides serving as evidence also highlight the problem of earthquake data reliability. Figure 0.6 is a reproduction of figure 0.01 given at the beginning of this paper so as to make the comparison with figure 0.7 easier. These two figures show the same time range for earthquake data (1970 – 2005) and solar system harmonics (1970 – 2020). Here we can observe some discrepancies with the earthquake data downloaded at different times and from different databases. Nevertheless the correlation with solar system harmonics is significant.

In the above Figure 0.6 the earthquake data has been downloaded in 2004 from the

The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient between the above two time series is 0.73844.

The below given Figure 0.7 shows the earthquake data downloaded on 5^th Dec. 2005 from the following earthquake data base:

Because this database gives the earthquake data from 1973 onwards, therefore the three data points from 1970 to 1972 have been taken from the previous figure 0.6.

The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient between this two time series is 0.7806.

Because I am not a seismologist familiar with all the intricacies of recording and calculating these earthquake data it is rather irritating to observe such discrepancies. I need clean and reliable data in order to fine tune properly into the earthquake frequency. It is obvious that the cooperation of experienced seismologists is required to make the principle of universal parallelism applicable to earthquake prediction and in this way advance the understanding of the nature of earthquakes from the physical cause- effect relationship point of view as well as from the parallel relationship point of view.

Now we will discuss figure 1 shown at the beginning of this paper. For easy reference it is reproduced below. This figure shows the yearly global frequency of magnitude 7.0 and greater earthquakes which is the yearly component of the earthquake harmonics, along with the yearly component of the solar- system harmonics which is shown by the movements of the 5 slow moving outer planets through the positive hexagon A. Here the global earthquakes are given for 100 years (1900 – 2000). These data were published by the USGS NEIC (see reference 1). The data before 1918 are unreliable. Also note the statistical difference for the 1950 era (see figure 0.4). Some of the most salient features have been highlighted with flashes. The positive hexagon A has been chosen throughout this work because it correlates -fine tunes- best with the phenomena of global earthquake frequencies, and this not only on the yearly scale but also on the monthly scale.

The earthquake data before 1918 is unreliable; also the data recorded during the world war period may be suspicious.

In these data there is a tendency for a decrease of correlation as we move time backwards. For example, the earthquake data for the second part of the century shows a much better correlation with the solar- system harmonics than the data of the first half of the century. It seems obvious to assume that the earthquake data reliability for the recent decades is more accurate than the early decades of the century where earthquake detection was not as full-fledged as nowadays. The following figure 1.05 shows the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient between the above two time series in sections of 15 years from 1900 to 2005. A similar trend we have seen earlier in figure 0.51 showing the decrease of difference between four magnitude ranges from 1900 to 1994 and the question was how much is it related to data reliability, and how much it is related to the ability of locating earthquake magnitude ranges below magnitude 7.0. Comparing it to the below figure it seems that data reliability may be more involved than it appears to be. This example shows how the Principle of Universal Parallelism could be helpful in rectifying data.

Figure 1.1 shows the monthly solar system harmonics for two years (1998 – 1999). In the same way we used the movements of the 5 outer planets through the positive hexagon A to obtain the yearly harmonics, in the same way we use the movements of the 4 inner planets through the positive hexagon A to obtain the monthly harmonics. Here the Moon has been included as a 5^th body although the manner it is considered here she does not effect the monthly variations, but is most important for daily variations. This monthly harmonics is given along with the monthly frequency of magnitude 6.5 and greater earthquakes for the same period. Later I will show it along with other magnitude ranges so that one can make better judgment on the significance of these data. Nevertheless the correlation of the peaks and troughs are interesting.

In any case one should always keep in mind the subject of earthquake data reliability and the different frequencies of different magnitude ranges. .It has to be reminded again that this presentation is only an initial analysis of the subject and the monthly component requires much more fine tuning in order to obtain satisfactory results for long rage time periods, and better correlation with the value axis. Regarding this monthly component we have to consider that the yearly component is made up mainly by the four giant outer planets which count for most of the planetary systems mass, while the combined mass of all the other planets just counts for a small fraction (see Appendix A1). Of course talking about the planetary systems mass I do not view it from the point of physical cause- effect relationship but from its parallel relationship. The parallel relationship significance of a body is proportional to its mass /distance relationship.

In the above figure the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient is 0.58576.

The purpose of the following Figure 1.2 is not to present an actual point by point correlation between the frequencies of the different data sets but to show the overall similarity between the frequencies of these types of data. All these charts display the data for 29 years from 1/1/1973 to 31/12/2001. The upper chart displays the joint yearly and monthly component of the solar system harmonics. Here the movements of all the ten planets (including the Moon) through the positive hexagon A are considered. Below it the global earthquake data for the same period are displayed with five different magnitude ranges (i.e. greater or equal magnitude 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, 8.0). This helps us to have a better understanding of the type of data we are dealing with. The bottom chart shows the actual energy released by all magnitude 6.0 and greater earthquakes.

In order to see more detail, a magnified view of the above Figure 1.2 is given in the following Figure 1.3 in sections of 12 months for 8 years from January 1994 to December 2001.

The two top charts in Figure 1.3 display the solar system harmonics. The first row display the monthly component, the second row shows the joint yearly and monthly components. By comparing these two chart sets we see that the main features of the joint yearly and monthly harmonics on a monthly scale is made up mainly by frequencies of the monthly component. Here too, all planetary movements are considered in respect to the positive hexagon A. The magnitude.7.0 and greater earthquakes was suitable for presenting it on a yearly scale. For the monthly scale in order to have more data the magnitude ranges >=6.0 and 6.5 have been included as well. Some of the main features have been highlighted by up or down flashes. Although these figures are in themselves self- explaining, but it requires some training and experience to grasp the deeper significance of these data. In judging these data one has to look more to the overall picture of the data and the striking similarity of the signatures. Also there are many instances in which a slight shift on the time axis would result that the peaks and troughs of many data points would fall into places with the solar- system harmonics.

Although more evidences are at hand involving individual locations on earth but they are not presented in this paper in order to make this novel subject easier digestible. Assuming the earthquake statistics to be absolutely correct - which is not the case, but nevertheless having a high degree of reliability (see section: The need for reliable data) – then theoretically it should be possible to extract its exact mirror image using the principle of Universal Parallelism. This requires the consideration of all the solar system harmonics in their totality. As already mentioned, we have used in this paper the elementary factors only, leaving plenty of scope for fine tuning. In this paper the efforts have been concentrated mainly on the high magnitude range of 7.0 and grater earthquakes, though each magnitude range can be analyzed separately and its frequency extracted.

Now that we have reached the end of this paper and the reader has been acquainted with the parallel relationship of the Principle of Universal Parallelism I want to point out again that this principle can be helpful in solving many unexplained phenomenon in a simpler way. For example we could view the problem of an unified field theory from the viewpoint of the parallel relationship. By comparing the two formulas for gravitational force and electric force:

we see clearly their parallel relationship though their physical explanation from the cause effect relationship point of view is still a scientific challenge. Maybe this paper using earthquake data for introducing the Principle of Universal Parallelism and showing its workability may not be sufficient to prove this principle, but there is more evidence at hand using data from other kinds of natural phenomenon which I hope to publish in future.

Recent work, state of the art, and models in the field of earthquake triggering by stress induced from planet motion is not referenced or discussed due to the independent nature of the Principal of Universal Parallelism discussed in this paper.

****************************************************************************************************

************************************************************************************************************************************

The heliocentric longitudes of the 5 slow- moving planets given for 101 years

**************************************************************************************************************************************

The mutual distance of two planets taken combined for all the possible combination of the 5 slow- moving planets.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In regard to the B, C and D division in the above figure 2, the 12 sector circle should be rotated slightly to the right so as to make the starting point of the circle correspond to the respective starting points of the ecliptic.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Refer to Appendix E for the zoomed presentation of this 6 month range highlighted in the red rectangle.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1 shows 16 curves placed beneath each other illustrating all the possible curves within the 30 degree tuning range of the negative hexagon, i.e. from 15 degree of the ecliptic up to 45 degree, given for every 2 degree (from top to bottom).

Figure 2 is the inversion of figure 1. It shows the positive hexagon’s tuning range from 345 to 15 degree of the ecliptic which is the exact counterpart of the negative hexagon.

Here all the data have been smoothed with a three year running average using the formula

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

	Mercury	Venus	Earth	Mars	Jupiter	Saturn	Uranus	Neptune	Pluto
Sidereal period of orbit (years)	0.24	0.62	1	1.99	11.86	29.46	84.01	164.79	248.54
Epoch: degree of longitude	231.2973	355.7335	98.8335	126.3078	146.96636	165.32224	228.07085	260.35789	209.439
W (nearest point to sun (deg))	77.14421	131.28957	102.5964	335.69081	14.00954	92.66539	172.7363	47.86721	222.972
E (eccentricity)	0.2056306	0.0067826	0.016718	0.0933865	0.0484658	0.0556155

Magnitude Change	Ground Motion Change (Displacement)	Energy Change
1.0	10.0 times	about 32 times
0.5	3.2 times	about 5.5 times
0.3	2.0 times	about 3 times
0.1	1.3 times	about 1.4 times