info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Just a query?
18 views
Skip to first unread message
moonlightin
Sep 5, 2012, 12:16:05 PM9/5/12
to
Is there any connection between the two 7.6 earthquakes in the last few days
on almost opposite sides of the world?
Philippines 10.838�N, 126.704�E 7.6 31st August
Costa Rica 10.120�N, 85.347�W 7.6 today 5th Sept.
on almost opposite sides of the world?
Philippines 10.838�N, 126.704�E 7.6 31st August
Costa Rica 10.120�N, 85.347�W 7.6 today 5th Sept.
Skywise
Sep 5, 2012, 2:23:51 PM9/5/12
to
"moonlightin" <moonli...@overthemoon.com> wrote in
news:L7L1s.421661$GQ4.1...@fx05.am4:
They happened on the same planet?
That's not meant to be an entirely sarcastic reply.
What about the 7.3 off El Salvador Aug 27th?
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
news:L7L1s.421661$GQ4.1...@fx05.am4:
That's not meant to be an entirely sarcastic reply.
What about the 7.3 off El Salvador Aug 27th?
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
moonlightin
Sep 5, 2012, 4:23:29 PM9/5/12
to
"Skywise" wrote in message news:XMM1s.20180$EJ7....@newsfe10.iad...
>at the map from http://www2.demis.nl/quakes/ and sometimes there seem to
>be patterns.
Weatherlawyer
Sep 5, 2012, 5:57:30 PM9/5/12
to
On Sep 5, 9:23 pm, "moonlightin" <moonlight...@overthemoon.com> wrote:
> "Skywise" wrote in messagenews:XMM1s.20180$EJ7....@newsfe10.iad...
>
> "moonlightin" <moonlight...@overthemoon.com> wrote innews:L7L1s.421661$GQ4.1...@fx05.am4:
> >be patterns.
Knowing nothing about the so called science is a damned good start.
You are not hampered by any of the output from dark satanic mills.
The connections are:
1. The times of the phases of the moon are more or less identical:
Aug 24 13:54
Aug 31 13:58
(Sep 8 13:15)
> http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phase2001gmt.html
And in Britain there was a chill just before the last two occurred. (I
don't remember anything about the 27th.)
Perhaps someone from uk.sci.weather could help out with that?
Something worth bearing in mind is that cold front.
Previously I have only been aware of warm fronts associated with them.
Quite why there should be either for large quakes when there seems
little outstanding for lesser ones is anyone's guess.
One thing is certain, it has nothing whatsoever to do with either
subduction or obduction as there is no such a stupid thing.
> "Skywise" wrote in messagenews:XMM1s.20180$EJ7....@newsfe10.iad...
>
> "moonlightin" <moonlight...@overthemoon.com> wrote innews:L7L1s.421661$GQ4.1...@fx05.am4:
>
> > Is there any connection between the two 7.6 earthquakes in the last few
> > days on almost opposite sides of the world?
>
> > Philippines 10.838°N, 126.704°E 7.6 31st August
> > Costa Rica 10.120°N, 85.347°W 7.6 today 5th Sept.
>
> They happened on the same planet?
>
> That's not meant to be an entirely sarcastic reply.
>
> What about the 7.3 off El Salvador Aug 27th?
>
> > Is there any connection between the two 7.6 earthquakes in the last few
> > days on almost opposite sides of the world?
>
> > Philippines 10.838°N, 126.704°E 7.6 31st August
> > Costa Rica 10.120°N, 85.347°W 7.6 today 5th Sept.
>
> They happened on the same planet?
>
> That's not meant to be an entirely sarcastic reply.
>
> What about the 7.3 off El Salvador Aug 27th?
>
> >As you see I know nothing about the science but am just interested. I look
> >at the map fromhttp://www2.demis.nl/quakes/ and sometimes there seem to
> >be patterns.
Knowing nothing about the so called science is a damned good start.
You are not hampered by any of the output from dark satanic mills.
The connections are:
1. The times of the phases of the moon are more or less identical:
Aug 24 13:54
Aug 31 13:58
(Sep 8 13:15)
> http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phase2001gmt.html
And in Britain there was a chill just before the last two occurred. (I
don't remember anything about the 27th.)
Perhaps someone from uk.sci.weather could help out with that?
Something worth bearing in mind is that cold front.
Previously I have only been aware of warm fronts associated with them.
Quite why there should be either for large quakes when there seems
little outstanding for lesser ones is anyone's guess.
One thing is certain, it has nothing whatsoever to do with either
subduction or obduction as there is no such a stupid thing.
Skywise
Sep 5, 2012, 9:57:08 PM9/5/12
to
"moonlightin" <moonli...@overthemoon.com> wrote in
news:jxO1s.456008$Re2.2...@fx06.am4:
>As you see I know nothing about the science but am just interested. I
>look at the map from http://www2.demis.nl/quakes/ and sometimes there
>seem to be patterns.
The problem with "seem to be patterns" is that the human brain
is wired for seeing patterns. So much so that it tends to see
patterns where there are none. Think of optical illusions.
This is called apophenia, and is a contributing factor in many
a quack 'theory'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
What makes it such a problem in seismic circles is that quakes
simply don't happen often enough, and that we have such a short
historical record of them, that it's hard to say what patterns
there may be or not.
However, science (much to weatherlawyer's chagrin) does offer
tools to help determine if there is a pattern or not. This is
simple statistical anlysis. But still, due to a shortage of
data, it can still be hard to see if there is anything.
Specific to your question. No. There is no reason to suspect
that a quake in the Phillipines and one in Central America
are related in any meaningful way.
Perhaps to help you understand, I will ask you, "why should
they be related?"
news:jxO1s.456008$Re2.2...@fx06.am4:
>As you see I know nothing about the science but am just interested. I
>look at the map from http://www2.demis.nl/quakes/ and sometimes there
>seem to be patterns.
is wired for seeing patterns. So much so that it tends to see
patterns where there are none. Think of optical illusions.
This is called apophenia, and is a contributing factor in many
a quack 'theory'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
What makes it such a problem in seismic circles is that quakes
simply don't happen often enough, and that we have such a short
historical record of them, that it's hard to say what patterns
there may be or not.
However, science (much to weatherlawyer's chagrin) does offer
tools to help determine if there is a pattern or not. This is
simple statistical anlysis. But still, due to a shortage of
data, it can still be hard to see if there is anything.
Specific to your question. No. There is no reason to suspect
that a quake in the Phillipines and one in Central America
are related in any meaningful way.
Perhaps to help you understand, I will ask you, "why should
they be related?"
Weatherlawyer
Sep 6, 2012, 12:24:25 AM9/6/12
to
On Sep 6, 2:57 am, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
> "moonlightin" <moonlight...@overthemoon.com> wrote innews:jxO1s.456008$Re2.2...@fx06.am4:
be a TV interview about Mars at 6pm today.
The thought struck me that because the USA was at war with several
countries and losing a big one at the same time as it's first
generation was a exploring the moon, it was not sharing the event with
mankind the way Neil Armstrong announced it.
The inevitable result was that all those trained experts whose
training cost millions and whose plant was irreplaceable went to waste
as the effort lost kudos.
Maybe I am a fool for seeing a pattern with that?
This research endeavour to Mars is now looking for patterns to show
that there are microbial life forms on Mars. Or to indicate there
isn't. (When you can't see something, you don't know it isn't there. (|
For what it's worth that is another pattern.))
I am not chagrined that science is totally against people with
apophenia. If I have it in spades I consider it a gift. I watch the
skies for patterns or used to. I used to see them all the time. In
fact I got pretty good at guessing the weather for my location.
I used to feel pretty good about that until I learned that anyone
could do it if he knew what patterns to look for.
It is the same with seismology. Or at least the best bits, the bits
without scientists in.
There is a chart for the southern hemisphere produced by the
Australian Meteorology people BOM. I have posted plenty of links to it
over the last few months due to the fact I have seen patterns in the
behaviour of this planet that indicates when large earthquakes are due
and patterns that indicate severe storms are due.
I don't propose to explain them all again here. That would be too much
of a pattern with you for my liking.
However if you wish to explore patterns this is a blog thread I was
working on at the start of this series:
> http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/blog/2012/08/17/new-moon-15-54-weather-for-the-17th-to-the-24th-august-2012
It is absolutely chocker with patterns and coincidenta including
computer problems.
All of which will be an heinous job for the OP to go through as I have
left explanations out of it for the most part. I don't really feel up
to explaining myself. I seldom do but I can be easily inveigled.
One more thing about this hard-wiring business. I take it you believe
in evolution?
I don't. It is a science designed by losers for losers. But that is me
seeing patterns again.
The thing is how do you explain this "problem"
> that the human brain
> is wired for seeing patterns. ?
My view of the matter is an heroic one. One that is mentioned in
passing in holy script. Not that the multitude of practitioners were
by any means correct for most of the time. The same holy script is
dead set against using uncanny powers for divination.
But used with care and rejecting the conclusions that defy logic, they
do help unravel the patterns god has used to make us and make us our
home.
Thanks for the opportunity to set this matter straight.
It should make a nice little thread for the blog to add to my
collection.
(The nice thing about a blog is that you can use evidence supplied by
scientists to dispute their conclusions even confound them if they
insist on ignorance.
Not something worth bothering with as at the very least it opens the
door to trolls and worse puts an end to doing something more useful.)
> http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/blog/2012/09/06/moron-apophenia
> "moonlightin" <moonlight...@overthemoon.com> wrote innews:jxO1s.456008$Re2.2...@fx06.am4:
>
> >As you see I know nothing about the science but am just interested. I
> >look at the map fromhttp://www2.demis.nl/quakes/ and sometimes there
> >As you see I know nothing about the science but am just interested. I
> >seem to be patterns.
>
> The problem with "seem to be patterns" is that the human brain
> is wired for seeing patterns. So much so that it tends to see
> patterns where there are none. Think of optical illusions.
>
> This is called apophenia, and is a contributing factor in many
> a quack 'theory'.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
>
> What makes it such a problem in seismic circles is that quakes
> simply don't happen often enough, and that we have such a short
> historical record of them, that it's hard to say what patterns
> there may be or not.
>
> However, science (much to Weatherlawyer's chagrin) does offer
>
> The problem with "seem to be patterns" is that the human brain
> is wired for seeing patterns. So much so that it tends to see
> patterns where there are none. Think of optical illusions.
>
> This is called apophenia, and is a contributing factor in many
> a quack 'theory'.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
>
> What makes it such a problem in seismic circles is that quakes
> simply don't happen often enough, and that we have such a short
> historical record of them, that it's hard to say what patterns
> there may be or not.
>
> tools to help determine if there is a pattern or not. This is
> simple statistical analysis. But still, due to a shortage of
> data, it can still be hard to see if there is anything.
>
> Specific to your question. No. There is no reason to suspect
> that a quake in the Phillipines and one in Central America
> are related in any meaningful way.
>
> Perhaps to help you understand, I will ask you, "why should
> they be related?"
I have just received an email from NASA informing me that there will
>
> Specific to your question. No. There is no reason to suspect
> that a quake in the Phillipines and one in Central America
> are related in any meaningful way.
>
> Perhaps to help you understand, I will ask you, "why should
> they be related?"
be a TV interview about Mars at 6pm today.
The thought struck me that because the USA was at war with several
countries and losing a big one at the same time as it's first
generation was a exploring the moon, it was not sharing the event with
mankind the way Neil Armstrong announced it.
The inevitable result was that all those trained experts whose
training cost millions and whose plant was irreplaceable went to waste
as the effort lost kudos.
Maybe I am a fool for seeing a pattern with that?
This research endeavour to Mars is now looking for patterns to show
that there are microbial life forms on Mars. Or to indicate there
isn't. (When you can't see something, you don't know it isn't there. (|
For what it's worth that is another pattern.))
I am not chagrined that science is totally against people with
apophenia. If I have it in spades I consider it a gift. I watch the
skies for patterns or used to. I used to see them all the time. In
fact I got pretty good at guessing the weather for my location.
I used to feel pretty good about that until I learned that anyone
could do it if he knew what patterns to look for.
It is the same with seismology. Or at least the best bits, the bits
without scientists in.
There is a chart for the southern hemisphere produced by the
Australian Meteorology people BOM. I have posted plenty of links to it
over the last few months due to the fact I have seen patterns in the
behaviour of this planet that indicates when large earthquakes are due
and patterns that indicate severe storms are due.
I don't propose to explain them all again here. That would be too much
of a pattern with you for my liking.
However if you wish to explore patterns this is a blog thread I was
working on at the start of this series:
> http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/blog/2012/08/17/new-moon-15-54-weather-for-the-17th-to-the-24th-august-2012
It is absolutely chocker with patterns and coincidenta including
computer problems.
All of which will be an heinous job for the OP to go through as I have
left explanations out of it for the most part. I don't really feel up
to explaining myself. I seldom do but I can be easily inveigled.
One more thing about this hard-wiring business. I take it you believe
in evolution?
I don't. It is a science designed by losers for losers. But that is me
seeing patterns again.
The thing is how do you explain this "problem"
> that the human brain
> is wired for seeing patterns. ?
My view of the matter is an heroic one. One that is mentioned in
passing in holy script. Not that the multitude of practitioners were
by any means correct for most of the time. The same holy script is
dead set against using uncanny powers for divination.
But used with care and rejecting the conclusions that defy logic, they
do help unravel the patterns god has used to make us and make us our
home.
Thanks for the opportunity to set this matter straight.
It should make a nice little thread for the blog to add to my
collection.
(The nice thing about a blog is that you can use evidence supplied by
scientists to dispute their conclusions even confound them if they
insist on ignorance.
Not something worth bothering with as at the very least it opens the
door to trolls and worse puts an end to doing something more useful.)
> http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/blog/2012/09/06/moron-apophenia
Skywise
Sep 6, 2012, 2:13:36 AM9/6/12
to
Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote in news:bc7c63de-d192-449b-
921d-abc...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
> I am not chagrined that science is totally against people with
> apophenia. If I have it in spades I consider it a gift.
There's nothing wrong with seeing patterns, per se. It's when
we think they're real when they're not does it becomes a problem.
For example, a little thing I do sometimes as I'm lying in bed
is to to look for images and patterns in the stucco on the
ceiling. Apophenia, yes. But I know the patterns are not real.
I don't go around thinking that I can read patterns in the
stucco and that they mean something.
Apophenia can be put to good use. It get's our attention.
But science is the tool by which we determine if the pattern
we are seeing is real or not. It keeps me from proselytizing
to the world that I see patterns in the stucco and can
interpret them to something meaningful. Science keeps us from
deluding ourselves.
> I watch the skies for patterns or used to. I used to see them
> all the time. In fact I got pretty good at guessing the weather
> for my location.
Watching the skies for the near future weather is a handy skill.
I have a passing interest in the weather and I've gotten good
enough at it that I can many times be a bit more accurate for my
location than the local weather report. Especially for storm
tracks. And this was gained from observing patterns - notably
that for my location storms always seem to pass further north
and arrive later than predicted.
> One more thing about this hard-wiring business. I take it you believe
> in evolution?
This is a question that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine.
No. I don't 'believe' in evolution. I accept it as the best
explanation for a given set of observations and facts. And it is
not immutable. New observations and new facts will change the
theory, as has already happened many times over it's lifetime.
The pet peeve is in the word 'believe'. The word implies taking
something purely on faith with no evidence. This goes hand-in-hand
with how the general population uses the word 'theory' as compared
to scientists. People use the word as if it implies it's nothing
more than a wild assed guess. To a scientist, a theory is something
supported by observations and facts. Wild assed guesses are called
hypotheses.
So no, I don't 'believe' in evolution because I am not accepting
it on faith.
As for faith systems (sometimes called religions), I don't
necessarily have a problem with those. But that's a topic I
generally avoid as I rarely encounter the individual who can
discuss it without getting all emotional and bent out of shape
simply because you have a differing point of view.
921d-abc...@d7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
> I am not chagrined that science is totally against people with
> apophenia. If I have it in spades I consider it a gift.
we think they're real when they're not does it becomes a problem.
For example, a little thing I do sometimes as I'm lying in bed
is to to look for images and patterns in the stucco on the
ceiling. Apophenia, yes. But I know the patterns are not real.
I don't go around thinking that I can read patterns in the
stucco and that they mean something.
Apophenia can be put to good use. It get's our attention.
But science is the tool by which we determine if the pattern
we are seeing is real or not. It keeps me from proselytizing
to the world that I see patterns in the stucco and can
interpret them to something meaningful. Science keeps us from
deluding ourselves.
> I watch the skies for patterns or used to. I used to see them
> all the time. In fact I got pretty good at guessing the weather
> for my location.
I have a passing interest in the weather and I've gotten good
enough at it that I can many times be a bit more accurate for my
location than the local weather report. Especially for storm
tracks. And this was gained from observing patterns - notably
that for my location storms always seem to pass further north
and arrive later than predicted.
> One more thing about this hard-wiring business. I take it you believe
> in evolution?
No. I don't 'believe' in evolution. I accept it as the best
explanation for a given set of observations and facts. And it is
not immutable. New observations and new facts will change the
theory, as has already happened many times over it's lifetime.
The pet peeve is in the word 'believe'. The word implies taking
something purely on faith with no evidence. This goes hand-in-hand
with how the general population uses the word 'theory' as compared
to scientists. People use the word as if it implies it's nothing
more than a wild assed guess. To a scientist, a theory is something
supported by observations and facts. Wild assed guesses are called
hypotheses.
So no, I don't 'believe' in evolution because I am not accepting
it on faith.
As for faith systems (sometimes called religions), I don't
necessarily have a problem with those. But that's a topic I
generally avoid as I rarely encounter the individual who can
discuss it without getting all emotional and bent out of shape
simply because you have a differing point of view.
moonlightin
Sep 6, 2012, 8:43:31 AM9/6/12
to
"Skywise" wrote in message news:UpT1s.15165$e_7....@newsfe01.iad...
>resonance effect through or round the world as these two earthquakes were
>within the 10th and 11th parallels. Rather like a row of pennies, hit one
>on one side of the row and the one at the end of the row jumps away. I
>understand the "apophenia" remark having been annoyed at a repeat carpet
>pattern looking like Jesuses in a flat I once lived in! (tendency in
>healthy individuals without necessarily implying the presence of
>neurological differences or mental illness)! One of these days someone
>is going to have a "Crick and Watson" moment and find a good use for it.
It would be interesting to have a long animation of these maps as coloured
bubbles popping up red and losing colour over years though.
Skywise
Sep 6, 2012, 1:44:22 PM9/6/12
to
"moonlightin" <moonli...@overthemoon.com> wrote in news:gU02s.643801
$NM3....@fx04.am4:
> Thank you for the reply. I was only wondering if there was some sort of
> resonance effect through or round the world as these two earthquakes were
> within the 10th and 11th parallels.
Nope. There's nothing like that. Some may claim there to be
or suspect, but no hard evidence. By 'some', I'm referring
to those out on the fringe.
> It would be interesting to have a long animation of these maps as
> coloured bubbles popping up red and losing colour over years though.
That's pretty much how I do my animations, the fading over time
thing, that is.
$NM3....@fx04.am4:
> Thank you for the reply. I was only wondering if there was some sort of
> resonance effect through or round the world as these two earthquakes were
> within the 10th and 11th parallels.
or suspect, but no hard evidence. By 'some', I'm referring
to those out on the fringe.
> It would be interesting to have a long animation of these maps as
> coloured bubbles popping up red and losing colour over years though.
thing, that is.
Belba Grubb
Sep 6, 2012, 1:45:06 PM9/6/12
to
On Sep 5, 2:23 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
> "moonlightin" <moonlight...@overthemoon.com> wrote innews:L7L1s.421661$GQ4.1...@fx05.am4:
Or is epicenter depth a factor? Is month important? If not, there
were those two 8-plus earthquakes off Sumatra in April; the 7.1 in
Maule, Chile and the 7.4 in Oaxaca, Mexico in March; the 7.1 in
Vanuatu in February; the 7.2 off Northern Sumatra in January)?
Is there any reason for a cut-off at the year 2012, or at magnitude 7
or greater? And so forth?
One of the trickiest problems in science may be what seems simple and
obvious at first: what's the question? To get the best results, it
has to be carefully stated.
Here's my contribution: Can it be disproven, this current assumption/
hypothesis of many people that two or more large earthquakes in
different places (say, the Philippines and Costa Rica) are not
related?
Barb
-------------
“Every individual acts and suffers in accordance with his peculiar
teleology, which has all the inevitability of fate, so long as he does
not understand it.”
-- Alfred Adler
> "moonlightin" <moonlight...@overthemoon.com> wrote innews:L7L1s.421661$GQ4.1...@fx05.am4:
>
> > Is there any connection between the two 7.6 earthquakes in the last few
> > days on almost opposite sides of the world?
>
> > Philippines 10.838°N, 126.704°E 7.6 31st August
> > Costa Rica 10.120°N, 85.347°W 7.6 today 5th Sept.
>
> They happened on the same planet?
>
> That's not meant to be an entirely sarcastic reply.
>
> What about the 7.3 off El Salvador Aug 27th?
Might as well throw in the 7.7 in the Sea of Okhotsk on August 13th.
> > Is there any connection between the two 7.6 earthquakes in the last few
> > days on almost opposite sides of the world?
>
> > Philippines 10.838°N, 126.704°E 7.6 31st August
> > Costa Rica 10.120°N, 85.347°W 7.6 today 5th Sept.
>
> They happened on the same planet?
>
> That's not meant to be an entirely sarcastic reply.
>
> What about the 7.3 off El Salvador Aug 27th?
Or is epicenter depth a factor? Is month important? If not, there
were those two 8-plus earthquakes off Sumatra in April; the 7.1 in
Maule, Chile and the 7.4 in Oaxaca, Mexico in March; the 7.1 in
Vanuatu in February; the 7.2 off Northern Sumatra in January)?
Is there any reason for a cut-off at the year 2012, or at magnitude 7
or greater? And so forth?
One of the trickiest problems in science may be what seems simple and
obvious at first: what's the question? To get the best results, it
has to be carefully stated.
Here's my contribution: Can it be disproven, this current assumption/
hypothesis of many people that two or more large earthquakes in
different places (say, the Philippines and Costa Rica) are not
related?
Barb
-------------
“Every individual acts and suffers in accordance with his peculiar
teleology, which has all the inevitability of fate, so long as he does
not understand it.”
-- Alfred Adler
Weatherlawyer
Sep 6, 2012, 2:59:12 PM9/6/12
to
On Sep 6, 6:45 pm, Belba Grubb <trungsister...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Here's my contribution: Can it be disproven, this current assumption/
> hypothesis of many people that two or more large earthquakes in
> different places (say, the Philippines and Costa Rica) are not
> related?
Another pattern almost always generated in the Antarctic is the
>
>
> Here's my contribution: Can it be disproven, this current assumption/
> hypothesis of many people that two or more large earthquakes in
> different places (say, the Philippines and Costa Rica) are not
> related?
twinning of these phenomena.
And another pattern is that I am still the only person on the planet
looking at them.
You'd think that with 6000 miserable years of human history behind it,
the most fully informed of the end product, so far, would accomplish
more than calling me names.
Skywise
Sep 6, 2012, 5:58:06 PM9/6/12
to
Belba Grubb <trungsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:555c5b7b-47e3-4949-98e6-
e928a3...@z4g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
> Here's my contribution: Can it be disproven, this current assumption/
> hypothesis of many people that two or more large earthquakes in
> different places (say, the Philippines and Costa Rica) are not
> related?
Define 'disproven'.
Sorry. :)
e928a3...@z4g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
> Here's my contribution: Can it be disproven, this current assumption/
> hypothesis of many people that two or more large earthquakes in
> different places (say, the Philippines and Costa Rica) are not
> related?
Sorry. :)
data...@yahoo.com
Sep 7, 2012, 8:12:18 PM9/7/12
to moonlightin
look over the pacific plate in its entirety
then to the Philippines quake at a plate apex
consider the plate as a paper plate medium and squeeze the paper toward NA/SA at that apex with the remaining perimeter relatively...as there were no other major quakes....fixed.
what happens ?
if your watching the map...notice the prelude time when there are no makor quakes anywhere as in yellow on the old map.
quakes flow west to east in 3.5 or 7 days approximately
moonlightin
Sep 11, 2012, 6:55:46 AM9/11/12
to
wrote in message
news:147cad47-16bf-43da...@googlegroups.com...
referring to. They only mention small quakes though.
"An earthquake in Alaska could trigger one near you, even if you're not in
an earthquake-prone area, new research shows. Seismologists are now finding
earthquakes in some unexpected places"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/1210-big_quakes_trigger_small_quakes.htm
data...@yahoo.com
Sep 12, 2012, 8:59:50 PM9/12/12
to moonlightin
On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 6:56:14 AM UTC-4, moonlightin wrote:
> wrote in message
>
interesting,,,,I'll follow that relative to animal behavior...thanks
> wrote in message
>
interesting,,,,I'll follow that relative to animal behavior...thanks
Belba Grubb II
Sep 16, 2012, 12:57:36 PM9/16/12
to
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 5:58:07 PM UTC-4, Skywise wrote:
>
> Define 'disproven'.
>
>
>
> Sorry. :)
>
:) No need to be sorry.
>
> Define 'disproven'.
>
>
>
> Sorry. :)
>
-- Method: Words are not allowed. Objective facts only.
-- "Are the quakes related" gets us nowhere.
--> Disprove the hypothesis by proving that the quakes are related. Any definite connection whatsoever would do it. Anyone game? <--
-- I raise your "same planet" with "Pacific plate." Perhaps also "each on a small plate that is being hit by a juggernaut along one margin" (but not the same small plate and with each plate having different things happening along its other margins [right?]).
-- My opinion (an amateur's) is that they're not related, with such great distances between the two hypocenters; with the August 31st quake happening on a subducting Philippine Sea plate http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_c000cc5m_l.html and the September 6th quake happening on an overriding Caribbean plate http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_c000cfsd_l.html ; different local tectonic settings and stress fields; and with a very active spreading center in between them.
-- My opinion and a few dollars will get you a cup of coffee at any Starbuck's.
-- Answer to the OP: Maybe, maybe not.
Barb
-----------
Unrelated but very cool video at Santiaguito: http://expedicionsantiaguito.blogspot.com/2012/01/high-speed-video-of-explosion.html
0 new messages