Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 6359

Directory

George Graham wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> The interesting posting by Harold Asmis, regarding GPS sensors
> recording movement in the Northridge area, reminds us of the
> predictions made by Edgar Cayce back in the thrities.
> 
> He predicted that much of western California would disappear into
> the ocean in  "the twinkling of an eye sometime in '97."  Although
> Cayce's track record might excite disquiet, we must note that he
> did not provide the first two digits of the year.  Although the
> context suggested 1997,  there is room for doubt.
> 
> He also noted that westerners would be "warned" by unusual weather
> events and geologic activity of a minor amount over a large area
> prior to the major subsistance.
> 
> In the manner of  Hong Kongers presently, people living west of
> the St Adrras Fault may want to buy the kind of insurance that a
> dwelling place elsewhere can provide.
> 
> 1997 might prove a bumper year for earthquake watchers, human as
> well as GPS robotic.
> 
> George Graham
> grgra@atcon.com
This newsgroup is "SCI".geo.earthquakes.  "sci" stands for science.
Paul Oberlander
-- 
"There are only two races on earth: the decent and the indecent"  Viktor
Frankl

In article <5ai9a2$m2c@bashir.peak.org>, kellyt@PEAK.ORG (Tim Kelly) wrote:
>To Those Interested:
>
>Here's an alternative view of how most large earthquakes are generated.
>
>    This paper introduces a set of [unfounded] hypotheses which
> incorporates many unexplained events surrounding what shall be defined
> as Type II earthquakes (EQ).  I propose [without foundation] that rather
> than only one type of EQ, there are actually several types of EQs
> occurring on the planet.  Fault-free EQs are not confined to fault lines,
> but occur in many diverse locations. This assertion is based on the
> inference that Type II EQs are electromagnetic in nature.
This inference is utterly without foundation, as is your entire
hypothesis.
I will state it simply: your hypothesis does not explain any EQs at all.
It predicts earthquakes that do not happen, as I have repeatedly pointed
out, but you have ignored all evidence which contradicts your hypothesis.
That is a very unscientific stance to take.
Simply stated, there are enormous regions of the globe that greatly
exceed the conditions you list as causative of your fantasized "Type II
Earthquakes," but yet exhibit NO EARTHQUAKES.  For example, the eastern
half of the state of Texas fits EACH AND EVERY condition you outline --
many WEEKS without a single night of dew, but humidity in the range you
suggest -- but has not had a single earthquake over magnitude 3.5 in
many decades.
There is only one explanation for this obvious contradiction: YOUR
HYPOTHESIS IS WRONG.
>    Dew.  It is a commonly held belief that the dew which gathers 
>overnight comes from water molecules situated close to the ground. I 
>propose, however, that airborne water molecules with static charges 
>attached, descend from all levels of the atmosphere during the dew 
>formation process. When the water molecules return to the ground and form 
>dew, charged particles return static electricity to the earth where the 
>initial separation occurred.
You have absolutely ZERO evidence for this assertion.  Scientists have
studied the dew formation process in great detail, and have not found
any evidence to suggest that your explanation should replace the current
model.  You have not presented any evidence that contradicts existing
theories of dew formation.
Again, your hypothesis predicts things which do not happen, so therefore
your hypothesis is WRONG.
Figure out how much energy is released in a magnitude 3.5 quake.  Now
figure out what level of static charge would be required to release
that much energy.
You cloak your fantasy in much better trappings than Mr. Turi does, but
at the foundation you are no more a scientist than he, and your method
yields no better results.  I propose you replace both methods with the
more successful technique of having a blindfolded assistant throw darts
at a calendar.
There is no shame in creating an unsuccessful hypothesis.  That is the
way that science proceeds -- make a hypothesis, test it, and then either
keep it if it succeeds or MODIFY IT IF IT FAILS.  Your hypothesis has
failed, so you need to modify it.
-- 
** Any unsolicited commercial e-mail will be subject to a $1500 **
** processing charge.  Sending e-mail to this address, whether  **
** automatically or manually, signifies consent to these terms. **
Linc Madison  *  San Francisco, CA  *  LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.com
>>  NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com".  <<