Why was the Haiti Earthquake was not predictable?
in [Relativity]
|
From: ""The Great One"" on 14 Jan 2010 19:17 "Double-A" <double-a3(a)hush.com> wrote in message news:ebb9b805-721f-426b-8d99-eb8eee1533db(a)p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... On Jan 14, 2:44 pm, "\"The Great One\"" <honestj...(a)centurytel.net> wrote: > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in messagenews:90298796-a152-4205-9ca1-0f7f5064cd99(a)m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > On Jan 14, 2:13 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > > > BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >On Jan 13, 3:57=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >wrote: > > >> BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >> >> Why do you say that? The calculations are public record. > > >> >And yet you never mention the 2e20 N/sec or any other tidal or energy > > >> >transfer related matters. > > > >> I've corrected you regarding this a couple of times before. =A0"N/sec" > > >> (newtons per second) isn't a unit of energy or force. =A0It would be > > >> a rate of change in force, which can go by the unofficial unit called > > >> "yank". =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yank_(physics) > > > >> What do you intend this 2E20 number to mean, if not "yanks"? =A0Or is it > > >> just something you made up, meaningless to everyone else? > > >The moon(Selene) isn't standing still, and that 2e20 N binding force > > >is therefore continuously on the move (like the second hand on a the > > >clock), whereas each and every second that force is causing the crust > > >and interior of Earth to morph, as well as causing oceans to ebb and > > >tide (by one account 3.5 TW worth). > > > Well, then, figure out what you are talking about, whether it's force, > > energy or something else. Once you've done that, use the correct units. > > Newtons for force, Joules for energy etc. Newtons/sec is informally "yank", > > an obscure unit at best, and unlikely what you want to discuss. > > Guth makes up the units just like he makes up the numbers. In reality > he's just "yanking" your chain! > > Double-A > ~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Must be, since a Newton = joule/meter. > > Say Double-A did you hear about the tremendous solar flare that will knock-out electricity to over half of the U.S. around dec. of 2012 for months and the resulting anarchy will destroy civilization to most of the earth ?? No. I don't have electricity now, except for here at the store. > Gov't. has been building underground shelters for Gov't workers and staff and filthy rich folks for the past 10 years !! > > Super-sized underground city-complex built under Denver, CO airport !! > > Old Carl might have been in on that.....I wonder if he lost his room after losing his easy Gov't. job ?? > -- > CHJ Carl lost more than he knew! Double-A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Since he knows how to operate a coffee pot he may be able to sneak in by being: A "COFFEE BOY" !! -- HJ
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Jan 2010 09:40 Scott Campbell wrote: > Sanny wrote: > > [...] > >> I once created a program that can predict the outcome of a complex >> phenomena. >> >> It was some Horse racing / Lottery system. I was asked by the client >> to design a system which predicts a number that will occur next. >> >> Then numbers looked very random. But I designed a system that was able >> to predict the outcome with 80% accuracy. Way better than any human >> can think of. > > [...] > >> I designed a prediction program fewyears back, that could predict the >> outcome based on previous data. > > If it was so accurate picking the ponies/lottery, why not just pick winners > until you had enough funding to do whatever you want? Because that would require him to do some work. And that is a mortal sin. <snip> /BAH
From: PD on 15 Jan 2010 13:46 On Jan 14, 5:33 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 14, 2:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 14, 3:44 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 14, 1:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 14, 2:54 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 14, 12:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 2:11 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 10:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 12:36 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 14, 9:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 14, 10:59 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Your obfuscation and transference is noted. > > > > > > > > > > > And what did I obfuscate? > > > > > > > > > > Pretty much anything of GW and earthquakes as having to do with our > > > > > > > > > moon. > > > > > > > > > > > > Try instead being constructive, or the least bit positive. > > > > > > > > > > > I did. I gave you a pointer to how to do a self-check to see if your > > > > > > > > > > idea is worth pursuing. This is called constructive criticism. > > > > > > > > > > In other words, we're never supposed to read and learn about anything > > > > > > > > > old or new, so as to incorporate these mostly public funded research > > > > > > > > > efforts as valid science along with our own investigative research. > > > > > > > > > And we're supposed to ignore whatever those educated deductive > > > > > > > > > conclusions of others, especially if it's also supported by those > > > > > > > > > pesky regular laws of physics that any halfwit 5th grader could manage > > > > > > > > > to replicate. > > > > > > > > > > It seems that you are the perpetual mainstream mindset that's forever > > > > > > > > > topic/author stalking and subsequently excluding/obfuscating upon > > > > > > > > > anything of our GW and earthquake prone environment, especially as > > > > > > > > > having to do with our trusty moon(Selene). > > > > > > > > > > Is there some special faith-based or political agenda reasons as to > > > > > > > > > why we're not supposed to figure out how to best deal with GW, or go > > > > > > > > > about predicting those earthquakes? > > > > > > > > > > > I see > > > > > > > > > > no value in encouraging someone to pursue a pointless venture. If an > > > > > > > > > > idea is pointless, it is helpful to try to help get you to understand > > > > > > > > > > why it is pointless. > > > > > > > > > > Oddly, you're in good company because, that's exactly what those > > > > > > > > > Rothschilds, Big Energy plus most every other ZNR on Earth has to > > > > > > > > > say. Your policy of do nothing and learn to live with it, as such > > > > > > > > > certainly doesn't rock any of those rich and powerful mainstream > > > > > > > > > boats, does it. > > > > > > > > > > > Being original is not a virtue in itself -- > > > > > > > > > > That's certainly good-news for you, because when was the last time you > > > > > > > > > had anything original to offer? (how about never) > > > > > > > > > > > homeless, park-bench mutterers are original too -- but being original > > > > > > > > > > and RIGHT is another matter. But to be original and right, you have to > > > > > > > > > > learn how to check whether your originality is right or wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > This is where the well-to-do stick-in-the-mud folks like yourself and > > > > > > > > > other brown-nosed clowns of the same old mainstream status quo are not > > > > > > > > > helping one bit, not that you ever intended to in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > Boondoggles, no matter how well intentioned, are not helpful. They > > > > > > > > distract attention from more carefully thought out attempts.. You owe > > > > > > > > it to this effort to be more careful and prepared about your attempts > > > > > > > > before launching them out there, because as it is, you are just > > > > > > > > generating noise that does not help. > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > Then by all means, you are free to constructively assist in this > > > > > > > effort of better understanding what our moon(Selene) is capable of > > > > > > > doing to us (as having something to do with gravity, motion and IR > > > > > > > thermal considerations), especially while it's most earthquake trigger > > > > > > > assisting whenever sufficiently aligned with the sun and Venus, which > > > > > > > thank god doesn't happen too often. > > > > > > > > The total tidal stress imposed upon a given tectonic plate is how much/ > > > > > > > km2? > > > > > > > And why are you not capable of starting this calculation yourself? > > > > > > You tossed out a number earlier. How did you get it? > > > > > > The centripetal force that's roughly equal to the gravitational force > > > > > that exist between Earth and that pesky moon of ours. Why is that so > > > > > hard for you to figure out? > > > > > The centripetal force is NOT roughly equal to the gravitational force > > > > between the Earth and the Moon. > > > > At best, the tidal force is 1/2 the *difference* in the gravitational > > > > force between the near face of the earth and the moon, and the far > > > > face of the earth and the moon. It is this difference that gives rise > > > > to the tides in the first place. > > > > Now that I've given you a solid hint, and since you calculated the > > > > force between the earth and the moon, surely you can calculate this > > > > difference. > > > > I'm using center to center, because it's pretty much what everyone > > > else does, but then you can fart around all you like. > > > But the center doesn't have anything to do with the TIDAL forces, > > which is the one that is important. > > Since you have the distance from the center of the earth to the far > > side and to the near side of the earth, it shouldn't be hard for you > > to calculate the difference. You can do it, right? Remember, I'm > > trying to HELP YOU make a convincing argument that this is an effect > > is worth worrying about, or HELP YOU discover for yourself that it is > > not worth worrying about. Well? How about the calculation? > > > > > > > Start first by finding out the energy deposited on the surface of the > > > > > > Earth by sunlight. You can Google that. Then let's say that any number > > > > > > we get from tidal interactions that is significantly less than that is > > > > > > not worth worrying about, ok? Deal? > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > Perhaps this should also be expressed as force or stress imposed per > > > > > > > km3. > > > > > > In other words, you agree with all the ZVRs and those Rothschilds on > > > > > this one, by insisting that our moon has nothing measurably important > > > > > to offer. > > > > > I didn't say that. What I said is that we should calculate it and then > > > > compare that number to something we're not worried about. > > > > You'd calculate away your own mother if she didn't agree with you. > > > You shouldn't be afraid of doing this. If it turns out to be less than > > sunlight, wouldn't you be RELIEVED that you don't have to continue > > panicking about the moon? > > Your silly transference of "panicking about the moon" is nored. > > > > > > > If the number is smaller than the one we're not worried about, then I > > > > don't see the point of worrying about the smaller number anyway. Do > > > > you? > > > > The continuous 2e20 N/sec isn't any small insignificant number, > > > Neither is the power delivered by sunlight on the surface. I invite > > you to find out what that number is. > > Some numbers that LOOK big turn out not to be something we should > > worry about. > > Solar energy and whatever solar wind simply doesn't morph the average > 15 km thick crust of Earth by 540 mm, whereas by far the most (<57%) > of which is directly caused by the gravity and tidal forces of our > moon (Selene) that's always on the move. When our moon is aligned > with the sun is when we'll see that crustal morph or land tidal wave > of <540 mm. Add in the alignment of Venus isn't exactly going to make > such tidal forces go away, whereas instead expect <600 mm vertical > deflection of our tectonic plates. And is 540 mm of a whole landmass worth worrying about? Let's calculate the energy deposited, and compare it to sunlight. > > Obviously thinner plates will always have a proportionally greater > vertical deflection value than thick plates. Why is this obvious? Remember the tidal bulge is due to the difference in gravitational pull and the land masses are simply executing an orbit accordingly just like a satellite does. Also remember that satellites in the same track experience the same accelerations regardless of their mass. The geodesic path of a land mass is independent of the mass of that piece of land. So why do you think that thinner plates will have greater deflection? > > > > > > than I'm not a devout ZNR or part of your Rothschild dynasty that can > > > afford to ignore most everything that's the least bit upsetting. > > > > > > Good for you, in thinking there's no point in trying to > > > > > figure out whatever triggers earthquakes or global warming, > > > > > Oh, I'm all in favor of figuring it out. I just figure that if we can > > > > calculate for sure that the effect of the moon is smaller than > > > > sunlight, then that's one cause we can rule out. That's helpful, you > > > > see, because then we wouldn't be distracting everyone with a > > > > boondoggle about the moon if we learn that it can't possibly be the > > > > cause. That way, we could turn our attention to what the REAL reason > > > > for the earthquakes might be. Don't you think that makes sense? > > > > Your transference of suggesting solar contributed energy as a force or > > > thermal issue, > > > I'm not suggesting that solar energy is a problem at all. We KNOW it's > > not a problem. > > What I'm suggesting is that if the energy delivered by tidal forces > > from the moon are much less than the solar energy delivered, then we > > KNOW that this tidal energy is not a problem either. It seems so easy, > > don't you think? > > Sorry, that crazy Newton and I don't think so. Newton didn't do this calculation but could have. You have the tools to do the calculation. Do it. > > > > > > are rather terribly insignificant as to the forcing or > > > triggering of earthquakes, and not even all that variable with regard > > > to GW unless you're going for that red giant phase that isn't even > > > going to start for a couple billion years. > > > > > > as I'm > > > > > certain all those families and communities that lost members of their > > > > > own will understand your total lack of remorse, as well as your well- > > > > > to-do lack of benevolence to boot. > > > > > > We should all be so lucky and as public funded as rabbi Saul Levy and > > > > > yourself, so that we too could care less about others less fortunate. > > > > You and rabbi Saul seem to be insisting there's nothing outside of > > > terrestrial that's ever responsible, and at best we still can't > > > predict squat, so why bother. > > > But we CAN predict. More importantly, we can surely figure out what > > cannot possibly be the problem. Then we don't have to worry about that > > as a possible cause and we can focus our attention on more likely > > causes. > > What's more likely than a crustal morph/wave of <540 mm (<600 mm w/ > Venus) moving along at 16.93 m/s (37.87mph), plus whatever's keeping > the innards of Earth extra hot and always on the move? You can't decide what's more likely based on hunches. If the calculation shows that it cannot possibly be the cause, then it is not the most likely cause, period. But you don't know that until you do the calculation. That's why you do it. To check the validity of your hunches. > > > > > Don't you think it makes more sense to focus attention on things that > > might actually be the cause, if we can rule out some things that are > > surely not the cause? > > You haven't mentioned any other possible factor that's in any way > interactive. enough, other than the usual planetary cooling that's > kind of on hold as long as we got that moon to work with, as perhaps > contributing more energy than Earth is otherwise capable of cooling > itself off (worse yet as we pollute and further water saturate our > atmosphere). > > If that moon were contributing more than half of the 64 TW that Earth > is supposedly radiating, we may have uncovered a problem that's bigger > than all of us combined. > > > > > > I think there's a good enough portion of 6.75e9 other mostly good > > > folks that might not agree with your ignore-everything mindset, but > > > then you're not the one that's under a pile of heavy stuff, or > > > otherwise traumatized. > > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet
From: BradGuth on 15 Jan 2010 13:51 On Jan 13, 10:29 am, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Why did you think this was suitable fare for an astronomy newsgroup, > > or one related to relativity? > > Earthquake is caused due to collision of earth crusts. Since Its a > Planet related topic, astronomy can say a bit about earth quakes and > volcanos. All planets have earthquakes & volcanoes we need to study > them too. > > Bye > Sanny It's also directly related to the alignment of our moon with our sun. If we don't understand how Earth works, we're simply not going to get the active geophysics of other planets or their moons correct either. ~ BG
From: BradGuth on 15 Jan 2010 13:59
On Jan 15, 10:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 14, 5:33 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Well? How about the calculation? > > > Solar energy and whatever solar wind simply doesn't morph the average > > 15 km thick crust of Earth by 540 mm, whereas by far the most (<57%) > > of which is directly caused by the gravity and tidal forces of our > > moon (Selene) that's always on the move. When our moon is aligned > > with the sun is when we'll see that crustal morph or land tidal wave > > of <540 mm. Add in the alignment of Venus isn't exactly going to make > > such tidal forces go away, whereas instead expect <600 mm vertical > > deflection of our tectonic plates. > > And is 540 mm of a whole landmass worth worrying about? Let's > calculate the energy deposited, and compare it to sunlight. > > > Obviously thinner plates will always have a proportionally greater > > vertical deflection value than thick plates. > > Why is this obvious? Remember the tidal bulge is due to the difference > in gravitational pull and the land masses are simply executing an > orbit accordingly just like a satellite does. Also remember that > satellites in the same track experience the same accelerations > regardless of their mass. The geodesic path of a land mass is > independent of the mass of that piece of land. So why do you think > that thinner plates will have greater deflection? > > Newton didn't do this calculation but could have. You have the tools > to do the calculation. Do it. > > You can't decide what's more likely based on hunches. If the > calculation shows that it cannot possibly be the cause, then it is not > the most likely cause, period. But you don't know that until you do > the calculation. That's why you do it. To check the validity of your > hunches. Your perpetual transference and utter disregard of terrestrial geophysics plus the ongoing collateral damage caused by earthquakes is noted. Perhaps you should try quoting more of everything, if that makes you and other ZNRs feel important. ~ BG |