Why was the Haiti Earthquake was not predictable?
in [Relativity]
|
From: BradGuth on 25 Jan 2010 15:33 On Jan 25, 7:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 24, 4:12 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 23, 2:51 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:32:29 -0800 (PST), 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. > > > > What IS predictable is that we can expect far more volcanic and earthquake > > > activity as the Earth warms and its sea level rises. > > > > Something has to give.... > > > > Henry Wilson... > > > > Christians and muslims like to slaughter each other with bombs and bullets. > > > Their respective gods prefer to use earthquakes and hurricanes. > > > Haiti is payback for Ache. > > > Don't forget our trusty moon(Selene) contributes 2e20 Joules or > > Newtons > > Which is it? One is a unit of force and the other is a unit of energy. > Do you know which is which? > > > worth of tidal binding force that has to go somewhere. > > > ~ BG Force of any kind that causes stuff like our lithosphere to move and/ or slip-slide about is what creates energy, usually thermal energy. the 2e20 N/sec that's binding us like a Newtonian invisible tether to our moon(Selene), makes a great deal of our terrestrial mass move about. Imagine how much hotter and messed up we'd be if that moon were only half as far away. ~ BG
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 25 Jan 2010 16:07 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:53:50 -0500, "HVAC" <mr.hvac(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:5ffpl5df9vsv3l5394ridsjqm108sgjnvn(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> Don't be surprised if Japan or New Zealand gets hit hard either. >>> >>> >>>If we're lucky....... >> >> Don't you like the Kiwis? > > > >NZ is where most of the spam on newsgroups comes from. ....must be from all those Indian immigrants... Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 25 Jan 2010 16:13 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:54:05 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >news:5brql55eised6e08dve7df24nf1anglpcm(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:30:33 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>On Jan 24, 7:38 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:28:05 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> >Yes, a loss of ice loading could be interesting, especially as >>>> >Greenland is rising faster than ocean levels. >>>> >>>> > ~ BG >>>> >>>> Greenland is near the pole > >Bwahahahahaha! >Nuuk is 1790 miles from the North pole. >Sydney is 2,263 miles from Antarctica. >Australia is near Antarctica. I was talking about its relevance to the centrifugal force of the crust. The effect of a glacier melting at the equator would be larger than that of one near the poles. ...and OK, I know there are no large glaciers near the equator... Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: oriel36 on 25 Jan 2010 16:31 On Jan 25, 9:13 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:54:05 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > > > > > > > > >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message > >news:5brql55eised6e08dve7df24nf1anglpcm(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:30:33 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > > >>>On Jan 24, 7:38 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:28:05 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> >Yes, a loss of ice loading could be interesting, especially as > >>>> >Greenland is rising faster than ocean levels. > > >>>> > ~ BG > > >>>> Greenland is near the pole > > >Bwahahahahaha! > >Nuuk is 1790 miles from the North pole. > >Sydney is 2,263 miles from Antarctica. > >Australia is near Antarctica. > > I was talking about its relevance to the centrifugal force of the crust. > The effect of a glacier melting at the equator would be larger than that of one > near the poles. ...and OK, I know there are no large glaciers near the > equator... > > Henry Wilson... > > .......provider of free physics lessons The Earth's fractured crust has an even rotational gradient from equatorial to polar regions whereas the viscous composition beneath the crust has an uneven rotational gradient as per differential rotation,a consequence of all rotating celestial objects with exposed viscous compositions. The Earth has a 40 km spherical deviation due to the uneven rotational gradient indicative of differential rotation,and its lag/advance mechanism is responsible for symmetrical generation of oceanic crust off the Mid Atlantic Ridge.It all depends on knowing what the maximum equatorial speed of the Earth is and that answer is 1037.5 miles per hour and a full equatorial circumference of 24,901 miles in 24 hours. I believe relativists like stationary Earth ideas for the interior called 'convection cells' but the actual dynamics behind crustal evolution/motion and short term events such as Earth quakes is the difference between the fractured surface crust rotating as an even rotational gradient from equator to poles while the underlying viscous composition has an uneven rotational gradient thereby linking spherical deviation with crustal generation under a common mechanism. If the GOCE satellite does its job correctly,the internal mechanism will be revealed in tandem with the signatures of the great Mid ocean ridge and the fracture zones consistent with a rotational influence and especially that beauty of a fracture zone that divides the hemispheres of the Earth.
From: Androcles on 25 Jan 2010 16:44
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:542sl5psdg07d9rnl7vl7a5mpp9j687v0t(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:54:05 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:5brql55eised6e08dve7df24nf1anglpcm(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:30:33 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Jan 24, 7:38 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:28:05 -0800 (PST), BradGuth >>>>> <bradg...(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> >Yes, a loss of ice loading could be interesting, especially as >>>>> >Greenland is rising faster than ocean levels. >>>>> >>>>> > ~ BG >>>>> >>>>> Greenland is near the pole >> >>Bwahahahahaha! >>Nuuk is 1790 miles from the North pole. >>Sydney is 2,263 miles from Antarctica. >>Australia is near Antarctica. > > I was talking about its relevance to the centrifugal force of the crust. > The effect of a glacier melting at the equator would be larger than that > of one > near the poles. ...and OK, I know there are no large glaciers near the > equator... http://tcnjabroad.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/kilimanjaro.jpg Oh right, you've never climbed a mountain, there are none in Oz. Did you know Kilimanjaro is near the equator? What's that white stuff called again? Oh yeah, I remember... ice and snow. |