Subject: Re: San Francisco earthquake predicted for 07-26-97
From: anthony042@aol.com (Anthony042)
Date: 12 Jan 1997 22:30:37 GMT
texasai@aol.com writes:
-In article <32D1E00D.8BB@iname.com>,
- "Raymond T. Kaya" writes:
->He has been channeling with the spiritual world since 1985. On January
->18, 1994, he first channeled that there would be an earthquake in San
->Francisco of magnitude 10.2. This will happen on Saturday, July 26,
->1997, at 11:48 a.m. California time.
->
-This is interesting. A magnutude 10.2? We at the Texas Aseismic
-Institute have been told that a magnitue 10 earthquake would require
-a fault a bit larger than could fit within the confines of the city of
-San Francisco, unless the city is much bigger than my map shows.
Right conclusion, wrong reason. The San Andreas fault is not capable of a
M=10.2 earthquake, and there may be _no_ fault anywhere on earth so
capable. However, if the prediction had said M=8.2, the fact that the
rupture zone would be several hundred kilometers long would not prevent
the actual epicenter from being in (actually, near) San Francisco. The
epicenter is where the fault rupture starts. Of course, San Francisco is
not the only city (or even the largest) which would be affected. A M=8.2
earthquake with epicenter sightly offshore San Francisco could affect
cities and towns from Eureka to near San Bernardino, depending on the
exact fault rupture.
-By the way, if someone actually believed this prediction and the
-quake does not happen will this gentlemen be willing to take
-personal responsibility for any economic disruption? Or perhaps
-he will recommend "All of Reiki Book III" in which we will learn
-all of things that were not included in "All of Reiki Book I" and All
-of Reiki Book II"?
Probably no more so than the "Make Money Quick" spammers will refund your
$5 + stamps if you follow their directions and don't get any cash!
-Jim Loftus
-TEXASAI@aol.com
-Author of "How to Survive in This Inane World"
Anthony Argyriou
All unsolicited advertising will be considered a request for my service of
evaluating effectiveness of advertising. Minimum charge: $1,200.00 US.
Subject: Re: Dew Point Theory Paper (nonsense - is it?)
From: gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:19:12 -0300
In article ,
LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) wrote:
>In article <5ai9a2$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.
This isn't the first time that a hypothesis contradicts current thinking
and probably won't be the last.
>> 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.
Looking at this definition from an encyclopedia, it appears that Tims'
hypothesis is more closer to current thinking then what he thought
current thinking was. It also appears that Linc was spouting off
without doing any research (his normal modus operandi).
Dew is atmospheric moisture that condenses on objects, usually at
night. The condensation takes place on objects that are colder than
the dew-point temperature of the surrounding atmosphere. That is,
air can hold only a certain percentage of moisture, depending on
its temperature and pressure. When it is cooled, locally, to the
point where it is saturated, it deposits its moisture. The point
is called the dew point.
Hmmm....I wonder what "atmospheric moisture" means? ;-)
But then I wonder how this recent question and answer post on SGM
relates to Tims' theory?
>I have heard recently that when a night is clear you can have dew or
>frost, but when the night sky is cloudy you can not have dew or frost.
>Is this in general true, and if so, why?
As a general rule of thumb (and all rules fail occasionally), this is
true.
Frost and dew normally form when the ground cools by radiating its
heat through the clear atmosphere to outer space. If clouds are
present, then they radiate enough heat of their own back down toward
the ground so as to partially cancel the surface heat loss, so the
ground doesn't cool nearly as rapidly, and it's therefore much harder
for surface condensation to occur.
For quakes here in So. Cal, its always been clear for most quakes.
>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.
Maybe a whole lot of energy isn't needed. Maybe it causes some kind
of coating action on a fault causing it to slip. Much in the same
way as was proposed by Lowell Whiteside in his investigation of the
relationship of solar flares and earthquakes.
Whitesides' theory:
The most logical mechanism is that as the flare interacts with
the earth's magnetosphere, it produces ring currents in the
ionosphere (this is known). These currents, in turn, induce
electrical currents in the earth. The electrical currents run
up against faults. Many faults mark the junction of a change
between low and high electrical resistance. This means they
can act as capacitors. Laboratory research shows that electricity
added to slipping systems can change the frictional coefficients
and promote sliding. Electrical heating at the fault due to the
differences in electrical properties on the two sides of the faults
is perhaps the main effect which could promote the generation of
earthquakes.
Since faults act as capacitors and when electricity is applied (Tims'
theory?), sliding is promoted.
On the lightning issue, the following was also out of an encyclopedia:
Cause of lightning
Before lightning can occur, a charge separation large enough to
cause electrical breakdown of air must develop. Thunderstorms are
generally negatively charged at the base and positively charged in
higher regions. One theory holds that the principle mechanism for
separating electric charge is the vertical separation of larger
charged droplets of water or ice (raindrops, hailstones, and so on)
from differentially charged smaller droplets, as a result of their
different settling velocities within a cloud. Another theory holds
that small cloud particles and droplets are the principal charge
carriers, and that the main mechanism for the separation of charge
is the variable convective air motions within a cloud, which carry
some particles upward and others downward.
Notice that they keep using the word "theory". This means that its
not really known for sure. Its just a plausible way that the process
could be evolving.
From a recent post on SGM on research for being able to determine
the amount of rain from space, it appears that they think they can
determine this based on the amount of lightning. It also has its
own theory about lightning formation. Colliding ice particles???
>Lightning research was once the stepchild of atmospheric science because of
>the belief that it had no connection with climate study. Now, thanks to new
>research at the University of Washington in Seattle, and to recent data from
>NASA's space-based lightning detector, scientists believe that lightning
>frequency might be a reliable surrogate for tracking precipitation in those
>regions where direct, ground measurements are not possible."Lightning
>research could become very important in climate studies," says Marcia Baker,
>professor of geophysics at the UW.
>The key to understanding lightning's connection with weather monitoring
>seems to be, curiously enough, ice. A great puzzle in cloud studies was
>once: where does the electric charge that creates lightning come from? Today
>it is widely believed that the charging occurs when fast-moving ice
>particles collide in clouds.
>Small ice particles, produced in the updraft of moisture from the ground,
>crash into soft hail as it falls downward, and in the process transfer a
>negative charge of electricity. It is, says Baker's fellow researcher, UW
>physics professor emeritus Gregory Dash, like "traveling at 25 miles an hour
>into a thick cloud of sleet and hail." The trillions upon trillions of
>ice-on-ice collisions, he says, rapidly build up a charge until the electric
>field gets high enough and the air breaks down into lightning.
>Much of that soft hail carrying the negative charge ultimately reaches the
>ground as precipitation. Thus, says Baker, "if we could relate lightning
>frequency to charging frequency, and then calculate how long it's going to
>take those ice particles to fall to the ground, we would have some sort of
>predictor of rainfall." In other words, the more lightning there is, the
>more ice particles there are that will ultimately reach the ground as rain,
>sleet or snow.
>To make use of the lighting flash data, though, will require a greater
>understanding of the physical mechanism of lightning charges. Why, asks
>Baker, do the ice particles produce the electric charge in the first place?
>"You can take two rocks or two pieces of glass or anything else and collide
>them and charging won't happen on a reproducible basis," she says.
>It is known, says Dash, that the charge transfer between two ice particles
>mainly occurs at temperatures between minus 5 C and minus 20 C (23 F and
>minus 4 F) and at an altitude of about six kilometers (3.72 miles) in
>temperate regions of the globe. As the ice breaks apart after the collision,
>the small particles tend to carry a positive charge, and the hail a negative
>charge. What isn't known is why. Baker and Dash theorize that in the
>collision, a thin layer of liquid carrying the electric charge is
>transferred from the small ice particle to the hail.
>To test the charge transfer theory, Dash's doctoral student Brian Mason has
>for the past 3 1/2 years been creating artificial ice collisions in the
>laboratory. Inside a copper cylinder, cooled to minus 20 C, Mason has
>created the kinds of conditions believed to occur in clouds, including
>temperature, pressure and humidity. He doesn't have hailstones. Instead, he
>has an assembly consisting of a quartz crystal (the same as in a watch) and
>gold electrodes, or terminals. This is placed inside the cylinder, and an
>identical assembly is placed upside down facing it, so that the gold
>terminals are a hundredth of an inch apart.
>Ice is grown on both sets of terminals, and then a brief soundwave from a
>tiny loudspeaker causes one terminal to shudder and briefly tap the terminal
>on the assembly above it.
>Mason is then able to measure both the mass transfer -- of ice or liquid
>--and the charge transfer between the two electrodes. He expects to have
>significant results in the next six months. Says Mason: "I am detecting
>charging. And I am finding appreciable amounts of liquid or ice moving from
>one terminal to the other."
>He is, says Baker, the first researcher to look at single ice collisions in
>such carefully controlled surroundings. And from this may come one answer to
>the many puzzles about ice. "Look," says Baker, "it's 1996 and we still
>don't fully understand everything that happens when water freezes in your
>freezer ice cube tray."
I like that last comment obout water freezing in an ice cube tray. :-)
If this is the only way, I said *if*, that charging can occur then
it would blow Tims' theory apart. But all of this is theory and
not really known for sure. Both Tim's theory and the current
theories for lightning formation (charging).
And we also wouldn't get one big sheet of lightning as some have
proposed.
Dennis
