Why was the Haiti Earthquake was not predictable?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Immortalist on 17 Jan 2010 19:32 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. > If Earthquakes are caused mostly by rupture of geological faults, but also by volcanic activity, landslides, mine blasts, and nuclear experiments, are you saying that these triggers are predictable with current technology or are they predictable in principle? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3R7W0HwaIE > ~ BG
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Jan 2010 10:37 J. Clarke wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> BradGuth wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> Huh? I was talking about the country which is on the other >> half of that island. > > You expect BradGuth to actually know some geography? > > Yea. Guess I was being stupid again ;-). /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Jan 2010 10:39 BradGuth wrote: > On Jan 17, 3:21 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> jmfbahciv wrote: >>> BradGuth wrote: >>>> 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. >>> Huh? I was talking about the country which is on the other >>> half of that island. >> You expect BradGuth to actually know some geography? > > You expect anyone to take you seriously, as in ever? > > Can you give us an example where anything you've ever had to offer had > actual value or meaning outside of just parrot talk. > > Apparently you don't know squat about tectonic plates either, though > pretending is so much fun. An earthquake can be a horrific 9 on one > side of the line and merely a mild 6 on the other side that's just a > few miles away, and by all means it should help that isolation by > having a mountain of mass in between. > > How much did Haiti near ground zero rise or fall? > I figured the quake was volcanic and not a slip of faults. Are you saying that the mountain separaing the two countries is from two plates rather than a volcano? Maybe the island I'm remembering was a different island. /BAH
From: John Stafford on 18 Jan 2010 14:01 In article <hj1uim4292d(a)news7.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > BradGuth wrote: > > How much did Haiti near ground zero rise or fall? > > > I figured the quake was volcanic and not a slip of faults. > Are you saying that the mountain separaing the two countries > is from two plates rather than a volcano? Maybe the island > I'm remembering was a different island. It was a strike-slip quake. No significant rise or fall.
From: BradGuth on 18 Jan 2010 15:20
On Jan 18, 11:01 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article <hj1uim42...(a)news7.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > wrote: > > > BradGuth wrote: > > > How much did Haiti near ground zero rise or fall? > > > I figured the quake was volcanic and not a slip of faults. > > Are you saying that the mountain separaing the two countries > > is from two plates rather than a volcano? Maybe the island > > I'm remembering was a different island. > > It was a strike-slip quake. No significant rise or fall. In other words, the buoyancy of Haiti is roughly the same, and unlike Yellowstone, there's no build-up of any gas or magma bubble that's looking for a way out. ~ BG |