Why was the Haiti Earthquake was not predictable?
in [Relativity]
|
From: BradGuth on 20 Jan 2010 15:01 On Jan 20, 11:21 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote in message > > news:hj773d02sbg(a)news5.newsguy.com... > > > > > I thought islands were the acne of the plates caused by either > > volcanic holes in the plate or plates mushing up against each > > other (like two flat pieces of Play-dough). So an island > > can be similar to those big rocks which would eventually show > > up on the ground in my backyard in Massachusetts? I always > > thought that had more to do with a large lump getting joggled > > among smaller lumps. > > There's a great series on The History Channel (a rarity) > called "How The Earth Was Made". They go into great > detail about tectonic plate interactions and other geological > phenomenon. How was Venus w/o moon made so differently than Earth? It seems the mantel of Venus must be more dense and thus a little more buoyancy worthy than ours, because the magma and thinner crust is so much unlike that of our terrestrial magma and crust. Of course the 90.5% gravity might have something to say about how the thinner and much hotter Venusian crust stays afloat, but then that kinda screws most everything up for understanding the planet Mercury. Venus is giving off 20.5 w/m2, as opposed to Earth losing 125 mw/m2, suggesting the crust of Venus being considerably thinner than any known other planet or moon. Either that it's not as old as Earth or whatever's under the Venus crust is perhaps extensively of thorium and uranium, because it's not the 5% of solar energy that's getting through those thick acidic clouds that's keeping Venus so unusually hot. ~ BG
From: Anthony Buckland on 20 Jan 2010 21:40 "BradGuth" <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:23e057fb-e567-4422-98b5-6e19056e163e(a)c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > ... > How was Venus w/o moon made so differently than Earth? > ... By failing to have a Mars-size object crash into it. And by being noticeably closer to its star.
From: BradGuth on 20 Jan 2010 21:47 On Jan 20, 6:40 pm, "Anthony Buckland" <anthonybucklandnos...(a)telus.net> wrote: > "BradGuth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:23e057fb-e567-4422-98b5-6e19056e163e(a)c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > ... > > How was Venus w/o moon made so differently than Earth? > > ... > > By failing to have a Mars-size object crash into it. > And by being noticeably closer to its star. That's not even close. Please try again. How does 13 w/m2 of solar influx manage to heat up the crust? ~ BG
From: BradGuth on 21 Jan 2010 14:35 On Jan 20, 6:40 pm, "Anthony Buckland" <anthonybucklandnos...(a)telus.net> wrote: > "BradGuth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:23e057fb-e567-4422-98b5-6e19056e163e(a)c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > ... > > How was Venus w/o moon made so differently than Earth? > > ... > > By failing to have a Mars-size object crash into it. > And by being noticeably closer to its star. That's not even close. Please try again. Correction: How does 133 w/m2 of solar influx manage to heat up the crust? (try to remember the 121.5 day season of nighttime offers zero solar influx as reaching its surface) The "measured up-welling radiation" "papers, published after the Pioneer Venus mission, confirm the fact that the data indicate much more energy is being radiated from the planet than is being received from the Sun." http://firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf "Measurements made from the orbiter outside the atmosphere, indicate that Venus is radiating 153 +/-13 watts/meter2 while absorbing only 132 +/-13 watts/meter2 from the Sun, constituting a net outflow of 21 watts per square meter over the entire surface of the planet (6)." "Discussing the net upward flux measured by the four probes that sounded the atmosphere, the same paper states that below 13 km Venus is radiating a net flux of between 15 and 30 watts/m2. In fact, a large part of the data from the most sensitive infrared radiometer (LIR) on the large probe, designed to detect visible and near infrared, were discarded because, from the lower cloud layer (~ 48 km) to the surface, all channels produced signals that increased unreasonably (9)." It seems if multiple instruments at different times and of entirely different missions are each suggesting the surface itself is excessively radiating heat, whereas a NASA and faith-based approved scientist is obligated to merely obfuscate/exclude whatever thermal upwelling or outflux of surface energy upsets their predisposition or mandate. ~ BG
From: BradGuth on 21 Jan 2010 16:29
Within reason, earthquakes can be predicted, though not every form of seismic trigger is going to be predictable, especially of those deep (below crust) implosion kinds of events may never be understood. In spite of our global warming above-surface trends (thawing most every km3 of glacial ice and otherwise trashing our biodiversity), Earth itself and as a whole is cooling off and ever so slightly shrinking by perhaps <1mm/year, though somewhat less cooling than possible is taking place due to our having that 2e20 N/sec of tidal binding force contributed from our moon(Selene), as always morphing or modulating the entire litho plus interior of Earth at <16.9 m/s (obviously the core is not affected). Terrestrial islands of basalt crust are never entirely alone, as being essentially 100% packed up against other islands of crust. Trust me, that's a very good thing, as opposed to dealing with any Warhol "lake of fire" (vast open sores of magma would be a very bad sign, such as if greater Yellowstone opened up or any portion of the ocean floor were to sink into that infernal layer of magma due to whatever lack of litho buoyancy). Thus far there's no indications that the thinner crust of Venus has any disconnected or individual plates of its litho working against one another, and it's also cooling off and shrinking much faster because there's no moon stirring it up, as well as it's hardly spinning itself at 243 times slower than Earth, and there's also not much seasonal tilt, so there little solar tidal modulation to contend with. Question: is the outer crust of Earth expanding or contracting as it cools? The entire crust of Earth, as massive and dense as it is, perhaps solidifying at roughly 1 mm/century, essentially floats on a substantial mantel of <5.75 g/cm3 that's frosted or lubricated with a highly fluid ocean layer of magma that's worth ~3.5 g/cm3. The average basalt crust density of perhaps <3.3 g/cm3 leaves us with >0.2 g/cm3 worth of buoyancy (let us say 0.25 g/cm3) to work with, giving our crust roughly a volumetric 7.5% buoyancy factor. The relatively thin crust of Earth (roughly less than a fifth that of our moon) has also been badly broken, shifting about and seemingly suffering from deep 100+MT implosions as additional surface quake triggers for quite some time, and our trusty moon(Selene) is simply most responsible for keeping it that way. However, the solidified basalt crust or substantial litho of our moon is not broken, and forms a continuous outer sell like structure that could be fused vapor tight enough to hold considerable internal pressure, and conceivably even including brine/water as well as hosting crystal populated geode pockets that could conceivably accommodate every human on Earth, with volume to spare. As the relativly thin ocean basin crust of Earth gets closer to the density of 3.5 g/cm3, the amount of its litho buoyancy becomes neutral and just as likely to sink as swim (so to speak). Fortunately this issue of plate tectonics is never going to happen on our moon(Selene), and even the hot outer crust of Venus seems relatively stable even though highly populated with volcanic and geothermal vents. A more than century old question: How was the planet Venus w/o moon and w/o capture made so differently than Earth? It seems the mantel of Venus must be somewhat more dense and thus a little more litho buoyancy worthy than ours, because the magma and thinner crust is so much unlike that of our cooler terrestrial magma and thicker crust, and all of those mountainous terrains of Venus had to have been volcanic instead of plate tectonic formed. Of course the 90.5% gravity might have something to say about how the thinner and much hotter Venusian crust stays afloat, but then that kinda screws most everything up for our understanding the planet Mercury which supposedly have an extremely thick litho and that's also w/o moon and subsequently isn't losing nearly as much of its geothermal heat because of its much thicker crust (10+ fold thicker than Earth's litho) that's receiving an average day of <9.9 kw/m2 of solar influx because of the thin atmosphere and there's never a cloud in that sky. In other words, Venus just doesn't add up. The "measured up-welling radiation" "papers, published after the Pioneer Venus mission, confirm the fact that the data indicate much more energy is being radiated from the planet than is being received from the Sun." http://firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf "Measurements made from the orbiter outside the atmosphere, indicate that Venus is radiating 153 +/-13 watts/meter2 while absorbing only 132 +/-13 watts/meter2 from the Sun, constituting a net outflow of 21 watts per square meter over the entire surface of the planet (6)." "Discussing the net upward flux measured by the four probes that sounded the atmosphere, the same paper states that below 13 km Venus is radiating a net flux of between 15 and 30 watts/m2. In fact, a large part of the data from the most sensitive infrared radiometer (LIR) on the large probe, designed to detect visible and near infrared, were discarded because, from the lower cloud layer (~ 48 km) to the surface, all channels produced signals that increased unreasonably (9)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight "The actual illumination of the surface is about 5,00010,000 lux, comparable to that of Earth during a dark, very cloudy day." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux "The peak of the luminosity function is at 555 nm (green); the eye's visual system is more sensitive to light of this wavelength than any other. For monochromatic light of this wavelength, the irradiance needed to make one lux is minimum, at 1.464 mW/m2. That is, one obtains 683.002 lux per W/m2 (or lumens per watt) at this wavelength." It seems if multiple instruments at different times and of entirely different missions are each interpreting the surface itself is excessively radiating geothermal energy, whereas a NASA and faith- based approved scientist is obligated to merely obfuscate/exclude whatever thermal upwelling or outflux of surface energy upsets their predisposition or mandate. I am suggesting that Venus is most likely giving off an average of 20.5 w/m2 (within the mid ballpark of what our most objective instruments suggest), as opposed to Earth losing 125 mw/m2 and that of our moon <22 mw/m2(could just as easily be less than half that amount), suggesting the crust of Venus being considerably thinner and/ or more thermally conductive than any known other planet or moon, as well as suggesting either that Venus is simply not as old as Earth, or whatever's under that thin Venus litho is perhaps extensively of heavier elements such as thorium and uranium, because it's simply not the 5% of solar energy (<133 w/m2 by day) that's getting through those thick acidic clouds that's keeping the surface of Venus so unusually hot from the inside out, and of course this isn't excluding greenhouse heating on top of whatever that surface of thermal upwelling is radiating (including active geothermal vents and volcanism that are not in short supply). On the other hand, the interior of our unusual moon(Selene) with its thick litho seems as dead or worse than Mars. The Venus EXPRESS mission was supposed to thoroughly quantify this thermal imbalance (net up-welling), however their public funded PFS instrument data remains private (supposedly as non-functioning), so that to date there's still nothing of any improvements or revisions over previous missions that obviously don't wish to be made to look inadequate or bogus. ~ BG |