From: PD on
On Jan 15, 12:59 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I'm not disregarding it. I'm interested in working with you on
estimating possible causes of them.
I'm inviting you to do calculations you surely know how to do, with my
guidance, to evaluate the magnitudes of those possible causes. You
suddenly seem shy, and you are claiming *I'm* not interested.

> Perhaps you should try quoting more of everything, if that
> makes you and other ZNRs feel important.
>
>  ~ BG

From: tadchem on
On Jan 13, 11:32 am, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Why was todays, Haiti Earthquake not predictable?
>
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100115/science/science_us_haiti_earthquake_warning_1

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
From: Androcles on

"tadchem" <tadchem(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a4ae69e1-2316-430e-aba2-be69f173d7bc(a)a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 13, 11:32 am, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Why was todays, Haiti Earthquake not predictable?
>
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100115/science/science_us_haiti_earthquake_warning_1

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

============================================
Los Angeles is ripe for one, too. I don't see anyone moving away.





From: jmfbahciv on
tadchem wrote:
> On Jan 13, 11:32 am, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Why was todays, Haiti Earthquake not predictable?
>>
> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100115/science/science_us_haiti_earthquake_warning_1
>

Why is all the news about Haiti? Didn't Santo Domingo get an
earthquake?

/BAH
From: BradGuth on
On Jan 16, 7:33 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote:
> tadchem wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 11:32 am, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Why was todays, Haiti Earthquake not predictable?
>
> >http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100115/science/science_us_haiti_ea...
>
> Why is all the news about Haiti? Didn't Santo Domingo get an
> earthquake?
>
> /BAH

Whenever that moon gets aligned, and worse yet if this included the
planet Venus, there's lots of earthquakes to pick from.

~ BG