Why was the Haiti Earthquake was not predictable?
in [Relativity]
|
From: tadchem on 16 Jan 2010 20:38 On Jan 15, 5:42 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > "tadchem" <tadc...(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_ea... > > Tom Davidson > Richmond, VA > > ============================================ > Los Angeles is ripe for one, too. I don't see anyone moving away. So are the Pacific coast of Washington state, the New Madrid fault zone, the Yellowstone caldera, Stromboli, and half the volcanoes in Indonesia. People simply don't want to be bothered to do anything about it until it is too late. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
From: tadchem on 16 Jan 2010 20:44 On Jan 16, 10:33 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 Maps: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2010rja6.php#maps In particular, the epicenter was almost dead-on at Port-Au-Prince: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_rja6_l.html The Dominican Republic saw only light to moderate shaking: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/2010rja6/ Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
From: Double-A on 16 Jan 2010 21:11 On Jan 16, 4:34 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 16, 2:29 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 13, 8:32 am, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Why was todays, Haiti Earthquake not predictable? > > > > It was ~ 7.0 scale. Why cant we model or simulate the complete earth > > > structure on a Super Computer. That may help predict such earth > > > quakes. > > > > Say, If we know that some earthquake is going to hit someplace in 1-2 > > > days. People can travel away from the place and take their important > > > thing with them. > > > In the 1960's Meteorologist Ed Lorenz was using an early computer to > > run a similation of the weather. One day he was rushed for time. He > > set the computer to round off the numbers to be calculated so a result > > would be found sooner. He was expecting that the rounding off would > > have little or no effect on the final results. What he surprisingly > > found however, was that the final results were dramatically different. > > He found small changes in the state of a system can cause major > > changes in the final output (sensitivity to initial conditions). We > > had been used to thinking lage changes need large forces. he found > > that small forces could have large effects. This has become known as > > the butterfly effect. It has been said (although it is an > > exaggeration) that a butterfly flapping its wings in Hong Kong could > > cause a tornado in Texas. The picture above is the mathematical > > depiction of the attractor he found investigating the weather and is > > lknown as the butterfly attractor. > > >http://complexity.orcon.net.nz/history.html > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/http://www.st... > > > For small pieces of weatherand to a global forecaster, small can mean > > thunderstorms and blizzardsany prediction deteriorates rapidly. > > Errors and uncertainties multiply, cascading upward through a chain of > > turbulent features, from dust devils and squalls up to continent-size > > eddies that only satellites can see. > > > The modern weather models work with a grid of points on the order of > > sixty miles apart, and even so, some starting data has to be guessed, > > since ground stations and satellites cannot see everywhere. But > > suppose the earth could be covered with sensors spaced one foot apart, > > rising at one-foot intervals all the way to the top of the atmosphere. > > Suppose every sensor gives perfectly accurate readings of temperature, > > pressure, humidity, and any other quantity a meteorologist would want. > > Precisely at noon an infinitely powerful computer takes all the data > > and calculates what will happen at each point at 12:01, then 12:02, > > then 12:03 . . . > > > The computer will still be unable to predict whether Princeton, New > > Jersey, will have sun or rain on a day one month away. At noon the > > spaces between the sensors will hide fluctuations that the computer > > will not know about, tiny deviations from the average. By 12:01, those > > fluctuations will already have created small errors one foot away. > > Soon the errors will have multiplied to the ten-foot scale, and so on > > up to the size of the globe. > > > FROM - Chaos: Making a New Science -by James Gleickhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140092501/ > > > ###################################### > > > Imagine that we put weather sensors 1 foot apart over the entire > > globe, put the sensors one foot above each other to the top of the > > atmosphere. You will still get an inacurate reading because there are > > things going on in the 12 inch region that is not being picked up. > > When you get such a large number of interacting componts these small > > differences become amplified. > > > So this is a question of measurment as the question of infinity is a > > question of measurment. > > > If there are many combinatory factors they are still deterministic but > > nonlinearily as a set of changing relationships. We just change out of > > the classical mode of one on one deterministic effects. > > > If there are many levels of emergent activity influencing thoses level > > above or below them this at least represents a local deterministic > > effects. Relationships of activities at different levels happening > > simualtainiosly are just nonlinear determinism replacing classical > > determinism. > > >http://www.calresco.org/lucas/quantify.htmhttp://www.physics.cornell.... > > > > That way Economical Losses and Deaths can be lowered. > > > > Why do the scientists unable to simulate Earth Quake predictions, Just > > > like they do the Weather Forecasts. > > > > If I get enough funding I can create such sotware with 50-60% accurate > > > forecasts. > > > > Will need Funds & enough information to start the project & Research. > > > > This Earth Quake cost $2 Billions of loss. If I get even $100 million, > > > I may create a software that predicts EarthQuakes in advance. That > > > could save Billions of Dollars every year and 1000s of lives. > > > > I think United Nations/ Some BIG Org should donate me $100 million to > > > work on a reliable EarthQuake forecasting program. > > > > I will need costly Super Computer and other things to do the > > > research. > > > > I find every year EarthQuake kills 1000sof people and a 2 Billions > > > Dollar looses./ year. So creating a EarthQuake predicting program will > > > be good for mankind. > > > > I have the brains to create it. But looking for people who can fund > > > it. > > > > Bye > > > Sanny > > > > Computer has become Human, > > > > See how:http://www.GetClub.com > > > > Now you can chat with it. > > The triggering of earthquakes is predictable. The extent of > earthquake damage is currently unpredictable. > > ~ BG The extent of damage is predictable, and depends on the earthquake resistant structure of the buildings. Your own suggestion of sending rebar, quality concrete, etc. is just what should be being done. Double-A
From: Androcles on 16 Jan 2010 21:13 "tadchem" <tadchem(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:0265ab40-c0da-4861-a1e0-1340b0c4efbb(a)c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Jan 15, 5:42 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > "tadchem" <tadc...(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_ea... > > Tom Davidson > Richmond, VA > > ============================================ > Los Angeles is ripe for one, too. I don't see anyone moving away. So are the Pacific coast of Washington state, the New Madrid fault zone, the Yellowstone caldera, Stromboli, and half the volcanoes in Indonesia. People simply don't want to be bothered to do anything about it until it is too late. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA ============================================== Yep. Ask 'em and they are blas� about it. Then when it hits they want a handout so they can rebuild.
From: BradGuth on 16 Jan 2010 22:36
On Jan 16, 6:11 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > On Jan 16, 4:34 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 16, 2:29 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 13, 8:32 am, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Why was todays, Haiti Earthquake not predictable? > > > > > It was ~ 7.0 scale. Why cant we model or simulate the complete earth > > > > structure on a Super Computer. That may help predict such earth > > > > quakes. > > > > > Say, If we know that some earthquake is going to hit someplace in 1-2 > > > > days. People can travel away from the place and take their important > > > > thing with them. > > > > In the 1960's Meteorologist Ed Lorenz was using an early computer to > > > run a similation of the weather. One day he was rushed for time. He > > > set the computer to round off the numbers to be calculated so a result > > > would be found sooner. He was expecting that the rounding off would > > > have little or no effect on the final results. What he surprisingly > > > found however, was that the final results were dramatically different.. > > > He found small changes in the state of a system can cause major > > > changes in the final output (sensitivity to initial conditions). We > > > had been used to thinking lage changes need large forces. he found > > > that small forces could have large effects. This has become known as > > > the butterfly effect. It has been said (although it is an > > > exaggeration) that a butterfly flapping its wings in Hong Kong could > > > cause a tornado in Texas. The picture above is the mathematical > > > depiction of the attractor he found investigating the weather and is > > > lknown as the butterfly attractor. > > > >http://complexity.orcon.net.nz/history.html > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/http://www.st.... > > > > For small pieces of weatherand to a global forecaster, small can mean > > > thunderstorms and blizzardsany prediction deteriorates rapidly. > > > Errors and uncertainties multiply, cascading upward through a chain of > > > turbulent features, from dust devils and squalls up to continent-size > > > eddies that only satellites can see. > > > > The modern weather models work with a grid of points on the order of > > > sixty miles apart, and even so, some starting data has to be guessed, > > > since ground stations and satellites cannot see everywhere. But > > > suppose the earth could be covered with sensors spaced one foot apart, > > > rising at one-foot intervals all the way to the top of the atmosphere.. > > > Suppose every sensor gives perfectly accurate readings of temperature, > > > pressure, humidity, and any other quantity a meteorologist would want.. > > > Precisely at noon an infinitely powerful computer takes all the data > > > and calculates what will happen at each point at 12:01, then 12:02, > > > then 12:03 . . . > > > > The computer will still be unable to predict whether Princeton, New > > > Jersey, will have sun or rain on a day one month away. At noon the > > > spaces between the sensors will hide fluctuations that the computer > > > will not know about, tiny deviations from the average. By 12:01, those > > > fluctuations will already have created small errors one foot away. > > > Soon the errors will have multiplied to the ten-foot scale, and so on > > > up to the size of the globe. > > > > FROM - Chaos: Making a New Science -by James Gleickhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140092501/ > > > > ###################################### > > > > Imagine that we put weather sensors 1 foot apart over the entire > > > globe, put the sensors one foot above each other to the top of the > > > atmosphere. You will still get an inacurate reading because there are > > > things going on in the 12 inch region that is not being picked up. > > > When you get such a large number of interacting componts these small > > > differences become amplified. > > > > So this is a question of measurment as the question of infinity is a > > > question of measurment. > > > > If there are many combinatory factors they are still deterministic but > > > nonlinearily as a set of changing relationships. We just change out of > > > the classical mode of one on one deterministic effects. > > > > If there are many levels of emergent activity influencing thoses level > > > above or below them this at least represents a local deterministic > > > effects. Relationships of activities at different levels happening > > > simualtainiosly are just nonlinear determinism replacing classical > > > determinism. > > > >http://www.calresco.org/lucas/quantify.htmhttp://www.physics.cornell..... > > > > > That way Economical Losses and Deaths can be lowered. > > > > > Why do the scientists unable to simulate Earth Quake predictions, Just > > > > like they do the Weather Forecasts. > > > > > If I get enough funding I can create such sotware with 50-60% accurate > > > > forecasts. > > > > > Will need Funds & enough information to start the project & Research. > > > > > This Earth Quake cost $2 Billions of loss. If I get even $100 million, > > > > I may create a software that predicts EarthQuakes in advance. That > > > > could save Billions of Dollars every year and 1000s of lives. > > > > > I think United Nations/ Some BIG Org should donate me $100 million to > > > > work on a reliable EarthQuake forecasting program. > > > > > I will need costly Super Computer and other things to do the > > > > research. > > > > > I find every year EarthQuake kills 1000sof people and a 2 Billions > > > > Dollar looses./ year. So creating a EarthQuake predicting program will > > > > be good for mankind. > > > > > I have the brains to create it. But looking for people who can fund > > > > it. > > > > > Bye > > > > Sanny > > > > > Computer has become Human, > > > > > See how:http://www.GetClub.com > > > > > Now you can chat with it. > > > The triggering of earthquakes is predictable. The extent of > > earthquake damage is currently unpredictable. > > > ~ BG > > The extent of damage is predictable, and depends on the earthquake > resistant structure of the buildings. Your own suggestion of sending > rebar, quality concrete, etc. is just what should be being done. > > Double-A Don't forget those relatively failsafe geodesic habitats that even a village could assemble. I bet China could make those geodesic interlocking panels for not more than $1 each. ~ BG |