Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 6536

Directory

In article <32E147F4.3C0E@nbn.com>, filfrad@nbn.com wrote:
> Since the theory of plate tectonics is only thirty years old, and 
> replaced a theory in its time, I would think some hypothesis (or 
> whatever the plural of that word is) is attempting to replace it. Am I 
> using the words correctly?
Plate Tectonics is actually older than that; it was not generally accepted
in geology until about thirty or forty years ago. 
It's my understanding that since plate tectonics provides such a logical
and cohesive explanation for all kinds of geologic phenomena, it is
generally accepted as the correct theory. It is not likely that any new
theory will come along and invalidate it. New data will fill in gaps in
understanding, filling in details here and there, but the basic structure
will not change. (Just as with Darwin's theory of evolution, which is
the basis of all biological thought. Again, while details here and there
get filled in or corrected, the overall structure is in place. Likewise, 
Newton's laws of motion and gravity, which are still used to predict 
the flight of satellites and interplanetary probes. Einstein just filled in
a few details for special circumstances that we mortals rarely encounter.)
-- 
timberwoof*@themall.net
(Take the * out to email me. It's for the benefit of spammers.)
1989 Honda CB400f CB-1; 1991 Honda Civic Si; Macintosh Centris 610

In article <32E23436.43E3@interlog.com>, pilasm@interlog.com wrote:
> timberwoof wrote:
> 
> > First off, there's the law of conservation of matter, so the water isn't
> > going to
> > just disappear. It's got to go somewhere. Water is not likely to leave the
> > atmosphere, so it's still around.
> 
> Great explantion!  Soon all you guys are going to make me look serious
Thank you. 
> :)  But seriously, I've always been fascinated by the tremendous amount
> of water that goes down into the earth with subduction. 
It does? 
> Trouble is, it
> doesn't stay there forever.  It has a major effect on the rocks, and
> comes out in big blasts under Oregon.  Also, it is interesting to note
> (to keep this on topic) that there probably could not be any earthquakes
> without water.  
Uh... The moon hasn't got any water, except perhaps in that crater at the
south pole. Yet the moon has seismic activity, and not all of it is from
meteor impacts. 
> Dry, cracked rock under pressure is almost as strong as
> solid rock, so only with water-induced stress corrosion, and
> water-reduced effective stresses, can we get earthquakes.
Uh... no. Rock isn't all that strong. It's actually plastic. (That is, it
has plasticity -- not it is made of plasticine.) Under enough stress it
will bend and flow. Please read a basic geology textbook.
-- 
timberwoof*@themall.net
(Take the * out to email me. It's for the benefit of spammers.)
1989 Honda CB400f CB-1; 1991 Honda Civic Si; Macintosh Centris 610

Pinpoint Earthquake Newsletter has been updated Janury 19 and may be
viewed at:
http://iea.com/~rshannon/
--
Rev. Robert Shannon Sr. Hon. DD Theology
Pinpoint Newsletter
"The web existed before spiders. The web existed before the net...
 We are all a part of the web and whatever we do to part - we
 do to the whole"
------------------------------------------------------------------

In article
,
timberwoof*@themall.net (timberwoof) writes:
>In article ,
>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>> Of course, if seismologists knew exactly what caused earthquakes
>> wouldn't it follow that they should be able to predict them?
>
>Um, no. I know exactly what sorts of things cause traffic accidents. Yet 
>I know better than to try to predict them for any kind of time span 
>longer than, oh, three or four seconds.
>
>Meteorologists know fairly well what causes thunderstorms, 
>tornadoes, hurricanes, and other exciting weather ... and we know
>what a dismal failure our efforts to predict the weather beyond a 
>few days is. 
>
>Cardiologists know precisely what causes heart attacks, yet they 
>still urge people to eat a rational diet and exercise properly. If
>you could predict a heart attack, then you'd just take the day off
>and go to the hospital instead. Hook up the EKG, have the 
>heart attack, take the right drugs, rest for a while, and go home. 
>
>There appears to be a class of events whose conditions and precursors 
>are well known but whose precise occurrence cannot be predicted 
>with any kind of acuracy. These things can be modeled fairly well; 
>the models yield behaviors that closely match what is observed. 
However, using current theories of the examples given above, and prior
data, it is possible to make broad, statistical, predictions of these
events.  A traffic engineer can look at prior accident and traffic data
and predict how many accidents will occur in a particular stretch of road
over the next year.  Don't ask him exactly when they will occur.  We can
predict "average" rainfall for a year, but not whether it will rain on
March 1.  Etc.
If the dew-point theory can tell us, in advance, some condition which will
correlate with increased earthquake activity, we can check in 1998 and see
if the correlation holds up.  The original posting did not provide enough
information to evaluate this.  If the author wants us to test his theory,
he must provide a list of measurable indicators which can be checked.  Due
to the limitations of this field, the indicator should be something which
can be checked after an earthquake, from readily obtainable data.  Then
this data should be compiled and correlated with earthquake occurence
data.  
Results which would qualify as interesting:
1) All/most earthquakes are accompanied by "trigger" dew conditions, which
occur at a-seismic periods as well.
2) Few/no earthquakes are accompanied by "trigger" dew conditions, which
are absent during some a-seismic periods.
3) "Trigger" dew conditions (almost) only occur immediately prior to
earthquakes.
4) "Trigger" dew conditions (almost) never occur immediately prior to an
earthquake.
Note that 2 and 4 would mean that the author has it exactly backwards, but
there is still something to investigate.  Also note that "trigger"
conditions can be drawn to exclude, say, recent electrical storms, etc.,
and that the theory merely proposes to explain triggering mechanisms, and
so is irrelevant in East Texas, where there is nothing to trigger (except
guns :-) ).
If any of the four correlations above are observed, then cause and effect
need to be investigated.  Perhaps the correlation is there because high
rock stress conditions create electrical fields which change dew patterns.
 If this is the case, then dew conditions are only of predictive value if
the "trigger" conditions _only_ occur prior to earthquakes.
The burden of proof is on the proposer, so the original author should step
forward with conditions which the rest of us can check, if we are so
inclined.
Anthony Argyriou
  Only then might it be worth spending lots of money on instrumenting the
entire Bay Area, etc.

In <32E18ED7.1BA8@ix.netcom.com> Bill Oertell 
writes: 
>
>> Of course, a preliminary analysis is pretty easy to do. Get a list
of all
>> the big
>> earthquakes of the past century, along with an ephemeris. For each
big 
>> earthquake, list the time of day and the phase of the moon. If
there's a 
>> correlation, I'd expect more earthquakes at maximum tidal strain,
which
>> would be noon or midnight during a full or new moon.
>> 
>
>   FWIW, both the 1906 and 1989 events on the San Andreas near San
>Francisco occured just before maximum low tide at a point on the tidal
>curve at which it becomes non-linear.
>   I personally believe that tidal forces do have some effect on the
>slip/strike faults bordering large technonic plates, and both the
North
>American and Pacific plates fit that definition.  I also believe that
>the direction and force excerted by the tidal force is what may
trigger
>an earthquake by both pulling the plates apart and pulling them in the
>direction in which they're already moving.
>   Since there's only a data point of two events, it'd be pretty hard
to
>compile any meaningful data.  I've checked the timing of other events
on
>some of the branch faults of the San Andreas and none of them occured
at
>any significant point in the tidal curve.  I also know of no other
fault
>but the San Andreas that'd fit my definition of that susceptable to
>tidal influence.
>
>-- 
>
>                                 Bill
> ------------------------------------
        Whenever you hear a prediction for an earthquake to happen on a
particular day, check the moon and tide tables.  Most sizeable 
earthquakes happen when the tide changes from going out farther and 
farther to coming in closer and closer each day, (and vice versa) 
which coincides with different phases of the moon, (full, quarters and 
new  moon).  If it checks out, beware.   
    The tide goes out twice a day and the tide comes in twice a day. I
kept a chart for several months a few years ago and compared it with
earthquakes.  It goes out/in a certain distance each day (each of the
four) and the next day it goes out/in further, and so on.  Eventually
it reaches a point where it does not go out/in further than the day
before but starts returning.   It goes out/in less and less until it
reaches a point where it starts to return.   
 I am not saying that the tides cause earthquakes because there are too
many of them but significant earthquakes around the world occur on the
day or day before or after the "turning point", or when two tides
"cross over" each other. (When an incoming tide and an outgoing tide
reach the same height on the same day.)  
      Ora 

timberwoof*@themall.net (timberwoof) writes:
>> Dry, cracked rock under pressure is almost as strong as
>> solid rock, so only with water-induced stress corrosion, and
>> water-reduced effective stresses, can we get earthquakes.
>Uh... no. Rock isn't all that strong. It's actually plastic. (That is, it
>has plasticity -- not it is made of plasticine.) Under enough stress it
>will bend and flow. Please read a basic geology textbook.
If rock always bent and flowed under stress then we would never have 
earthquakes.  I think you need to do a little bit more reading yourself.
-- 
Darlene A. Cypser                          
dcypser@netcom.com   dcypser@nyx.net	(303) 938-9903		
http://www.nyx.net/~dcypser/home.html	P.O. Box 2187, Boulder, CO 80306

> A plot of tide heights will follow a sine curve. It's non-linear everywhere. 
   Not true.  A sine wave is considered nearly linear between certain
points on the curve.  If memory serves, between .707 of max amplitude.
> What time were the earthquakes? What was the phase of the moon? 
> 
   Irrelavent.  The earthquakes occured at the point on the tidal curve
at which that curve becomes non-linear AND just before max low tide.  I
said nothing of the moon's phases.
> Have you done the math? Show us...
> 
   No I haven't.  Quite frankly, the math is beyond my mathematical
skills, and since I am NOT trying to prove anything, rather merely
suggesting a possibility, I have no intention of trying to.
> Well, then. Start looking. The planet is ringed with them.
   Perhaps you'd like to name them.  The Pacific and North American
plates are probably the largest ones on the planet.
   At any rate, I jumped into this fray only to suggest that tidal
influence may be a factor in some earthquakes, not to prove that this is
so.  Were I trying to prove my point, I'd be armed with considerably
more data what I have, but the fact that both the 1906 and 1989 events
in Northern California on the San Andreas occured on the same point in
the tidal curve is at least intriguing.
-- 
                                 Bill

In article
,
timberwoof*@themall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>In article ,
>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>
>> Lets look at it another way.  We all know that no two earthquakes
>> are exactly the same.  It is also known that weather patterns are
>> different from one part of the world to another.  So then it
>> follows that their may need to be variations to Tims theory for
>> other parts of the world.
>
>Um, no. Weather patterns are pretty much the same all over the world. 
>You get warm fronts and cold fronts and high- and low-pressure systems
>rolling around in patterns determined by Hadley cells, the jet stream, 
>ocean currents, landmasses, and big mountains. Make a computer model
>of the earth's surface, throw a weather simulation program at it, and
>you get a pretty good approximation of the weather here. You don't need
>all kinds of special cases to account for Denver's wildly variable weather
>and San Francisco's generally mild climate. 
Weather patterns aren't pretty much the same the world over.  And you
do need special cases to account for weather in one part of the
world versus another part.  Also how they react are different.
Some cases in point:
Hurricanes and typhoons (aka cyclones)
They form only over oceans where the water temperature is at least
27 degrees C or 80 degrees F.
   That happens every where.  Right?
In the Northern Hemisphere they rotate in a counterclockwise 
direction while in the Southern Hemisphere they rotate in a
clockwise direction.
   Another difference based on location.  Right?
Monsoons
Occur in Chili and parts of North America.  The largest, the
Asian-Australian and African systems, occur in the Eastern Hemisphere.
   Guess these areas about cover the globe.  Right?
The process of differential heating of large continental regions and
adjacent oceans where, the ocean being fluid, can mix the heat from
solar radiation down to lower levels and the ocean water temperatures
vary only over a small range through-out the year.
   I guess this happens in a lot of areas also.
During the summer Asian monsoon we've got air rising over hot land
areas which in turn produce maximum precipitation over India and
Southeast Asia.  In the winter the rising of air occurs over
Indonesia and Australia and the monsoon is greatly intensified 
thru the release of heat during the precipitation processes.
So we have the southwest monsoon and the northeast monsoon.  One
for the winter and one for the summer.
Then we've got the Coriolis effect resulting from the Earths
rotation, that when it interacts with the rising air over the
continent during summer produces southwesterly surface winds
over the oceans south of Asia and northwesterly winds aloft while
in the winter the reverse is true.
   The Asian Australian connection.  :-)  Where'd the U.S. go?
   Things are supposed to be the same from place to place.
   We also have a difference depending on what time of the year
   it is.
Monsoons are also affected by large mountain chains, the shape of
continents along with the oceans to the east and west of the
continents.  They also may have different circulations in
different locations.
   I wonder where all the rice paddies are here in the U.S.?
>And ... faults are pretty much the same all over the world. Ther fall into 
>four general categories, but examples of each are found all over the place. 
>Again, you don't need any special cases to describe the earth's geologically
>active surface. 
Actually I wasn't talking about earthquakes in general.  I was talking
about individual earthquakes.  For instance, the beach balls.  Are they
the same from quake to quake?  Is the amount of energy release from
quake to quake the same?  Even when the rupture area is the same?
Should I go on?
>A fundamental principle of science is that everything everywhere follows
>the same physical laws. I'm not going to buy the argument that the
>dew-point thing causes earthquakes in one part of the planet while it 
>causes exciting weather in other parts while two existing sets of theories
>(namely meteorology and geology, both fairly well understood) provide
>simple, plausible explanations for all the observed events without making
>all sorts of special cases everywhere. 
Well...as I've pointed out above, we do have special cases that
come into consideration depending on the location.
>> Of course, if seismologists knew exactly what caused earthquakes
>> wouldn't it follow that they should be able to predict them?
>
>Um, no. I know exactly what sorts of things cause traffic accidents. Yet 
>I know better than to try to predict them for any kind of time span 
>longer than, oh, three or four seconds.
Actually, people are unpredictable.  Nobody reacts to each situation
the same.
>Meteorologists know fairly well what causes thunderstorms, 
>tornadoes, hurricanes, and other exciting weather ... and we know
>what a dismal failure our efforts to predict the weather beyond a 
>few days is. 
Again, I've pointed out above the various conditions have to be
present before the hurricane or monsoon can exist.  So we have
the differences depending on where on the globe we are.
At to what causes thunderstorms they know what the interaction
is to cause the lightning, but they don't know how the charging
occurs in the first place.  I've already posted on this.
>Cardiologists know precisely what causes heart attacks, yet they 
>still urge people to eat a rational diet and exercise properly. If
>you could predict a heart attack, then you'd just take the day off
>and go to the hospital instead. Hook up the EKG, have the 
>heart attack, take the right drugs, rest for a while, and go home. 
From a recent statistic I've heard, 30% of first heart attacks
are fatal.  If everything ruptures at the time of the attack,
how will the right drugs help?
>There appears to be a class of events whose conditions and precursors 
>are well known but whose precise occurrence cannot be predicted 
>with any kind of acuracy. These things can be modeled fairly well; 
>the models yield behaviors that closely match what is observed. 
>Until better models come along, the ones we have are used as the
>standard against which new ideas are tested. It's a system that 
>works very well. I think we should keep it.
I didn't say anything about getting rid of current models.  But
I also don't think that its right to base standards on those
models.
But I do agree that any new information that comes along should be
proven whether or not it agrees with the current model.  When it
is proven and it doesn't agree with the current model, then that
model should be modified or tossed.
Dennis

timberwoof wrote:
> > Dry, cracked rock under pressure is almost as strong as
> > solid rock, so only with water-induced stress corrosion, and
> > water-reduced effective stresses, can we get earthquakes.
> 
> Uh... no. Rock isn't all that strong. It's actually plastic. (That is, it
> has plasticity -- not it is made of plasticine.) Under enough stress it
> will bend and flow. Please read a basic geology textbook.
Okay, Mr. Timberwoof, it's midnight at the ball.  Time to come out from
under that mask and reveal your credentials in geology and rock
mechanics. I won't carry on a discussion with someone who has the
advantage of anonymity, and can freely insult 'till the cows come home.
Harold Asmis (at home)

In article ,
Dennis Gentry  wrote:
>In article <5bocch$mvb$1@mark.ucdavis.edu>, szdefons@boris.ucdavis.edu
>(Eric DeFonso) wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, I was dead serious. The joke is in believing that there are
>>obvious relationships between tides and earthquakes, based on the
>>observation that EQs occur "within *several* hours of high tide".
>>Everything on this planet occurs within several hours of a high tide.
>
>Eric,
>
>Its that kind of mentality that kept people from looking further into
>Wegeners' theory.  Sure his theory about how the process worked was
Sorry to cut you off here, but you seem to have missed the word "obvious"
in my statement above. I included it for a reason.
I am saying absolutely nothing else about any possible or plausible
connection between tides and EQs. 
-- 
Eric D                                                                UC Davis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  "Building the towers belongs to the sky..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <5bufn7$pnc$1@mark.ucdavis.edu>, szdefons@boris.ucdavis.edu
(Eric DeFonso) wrote:
>In article ,
>Dennis Gentry  wrote:
>>In article <5bocch$mvb$1@mark.ucdavis.edu>, szdefons@boris.ucdavis.edu
>>(Eric DeFonso) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Actually, I was dead serious. The joke is in believing that there are
>>>obvious relationships between tides and earthquakes, based on the
>>>observation that EQs occur "within *several* hours of high tide".
>>>Everything on this planet occurs within several hours of a high tide.
>>
>>Eric,
>>
>>Its that kind of mentality that kept people from looking further into
>>Wegeners' theory.  Sure his theory about how the process worked was
>
>Sorry to cut you off here, but you seem to have missed the word "obvious"
>in my statement above. I included it for a reason.
Looks as if I'm still missing the reason for it.
>I am saying absolutely nothing else about any possible or plausible
>connection between tides and EQs. 
Fine.
Dennis

I have issued a prediction for the East and South Bay Areas of San
Fransisco. This is based purely on NON-scientific data that is yet proven.
In these areas it is important to keep certain items handy. #1 is water
and food. #2 is your wits....If you had any wits you wouldn't be reading
my prediction:->
  This is a serious prediction and based on my 4 years of data and
intuition which is also based on hypothesis....*however* I suggest that in
the next 21 days, people who live within a 250km radius of Berkeley
California take ordinary precations a bit more seriously.!
  I will issue an "official" #1 prediction in  the next 4 days....Other
wise you may wish to keep up this at:
http://iea.com/~rshannon
  We also have 9 other web sites which mirror our offical site.
Bob Shannon
Pinpoint Earthquake Newsletter
--
Rev. Robert Shannon Sr. Hon. DD Theology
Pinpoint Newsletter
"The web existed before spiders. The web existed before the net...
 We are all a part of the web and whatever we do to part - we
 do to the whole"
------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <19970119211400.QAA14094@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
anthony042@aol.com wrote:
>In article
>,
>timberwoof*@themall.net (timberwoof) writes:
>>In article ,
>>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>>> Of course, if seismologists knew exactly what caused earthquakes
>>> wouldn't it follow that they should be able to predict them?
>>
>>Um, no. I know exactly what sorts of things cause traffic accidents. Yet 
>>I know better than to try to predict them for any kind of time span 
>>longer than, oh, three or four seconds.
>>
>>Meteorologists know fairly well what causes thunderstorms, 
>>tornadoes, hurricanes, and other exciting weather ... and we know
>>what a dismal failure our efforts to predict the weather beyond a 
>>few days is. 
>>
>>Cardiologists know precisely what causes heart attacks, yet they 
>>still urge people to eat a rational diet and exercise properly. If
>>you could predict a heart attack, then you'd just take the day off
>>and go to the hospital instead. Hook up the EKG, have the 
>>heart attack, take the right drugs, rest for a while, and go home. 
>>
>>There appears to be a class of events whose conditions and precursors 
>>are well known but whose precise occurrence cannot be predicted 
>>with any kind of acuracy. These things can be modeled fairly well; 
>>the models yield behaviors that closely match what is observed. 
>
>However, using current theories of the examples given above, and prior
>data, it is possible to make broad, statistical, predictions of these
>events.  A traffic engineer can look at prior accident and traffic data
>and predict how many accidents will occur in a particular stretch of road
>over the next year.  Don't ask him exactly when they will occur.  We can
>predict "average" rainfall for a year, but not whether it will rain on
>March 1.  Etc.
>
>If the dew-point theory can tell us, in advance, some condition which will
>correlate with increased earthquake activity, we can check in 1998 and see
>if the correlation holds up.  The original posting did not provide enough
>information to evaluate this.  If the author wants us to test his theory,
>he must provide a list of measurable indicators which can be checked.  Due
>to the limitations of this field, the indicator should be something which
>can be checked after an earthquake, from readily obtainable data.  Then
>this data should be compiled and correlated with earthquake occurence
>data.  
>
>Results which would qualify as interesting:
>1) All/most earthquakes are accompanied by "trigger" dew conditions, which
>occur at a-seismic periods as well.
>2) Few/no earthquakes are accompanied by "trigger" dew conditions, which
>are absent during some a-seismic periods.
>3) "Trigger" dew conditions (almost) only occur immediately prior to
>earthquakes.
>4) "Trigger" dew conditions (almost) never occur immediately prior to an
>earthquake.
>
>Note that 2 and 4 would mean that the author has it exactly backwards, but
>there is still something to investigate.  Also note that "trigger"
>conditions can be drawn to exclude, say, recent electrical storms, etc.,
>and that the theory merely proposes to explain triggering mechanisms, and
>so is irrelevant in East Texas, where there is nothing to trigger (except
>guns :-) ).
>
>If any of the four correlations above are observed, then cause and effect
>need to be investigated.  Perhaps the correlation is there because high
>rock stress conditions create electrical fields which change dew patterns.
> If this is the case, then dew conditions are only of predictive value if
>the "trigger" conditions _only_ occur prior to earthquakes.
>
>The burden of proof is on the proposer, so the original author should step
>forward with conditions which the rest of us can check, if we are so
>inclined.
Anthony,
Very well put and I entirely agree.
Dennis

In article <32E28B38.2756@ix.netcom.com>, woertell@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > A plot of tide heights will follow a sine curve. It's non-linear
everywhere. 
> 
>    Not true.  A sine wave is considered nearly linear between certain
> points on the curve.  If memory serves, between .707 of max amplitude.
"nearly linear" does not equal "linear". 
> > What time were the earthquakes? What was the phase of the moon? 
> > 
>    Irrelavent.  The earthquakes occured at the point on the tidal curve
> at which that curve becomes non-linear AND just before max low tide.  I
> said nothing of the moon's phases.
Tides have everything to do with the moon's phases and the time of day. 
The tides are caused by the moon and sun's gravitational attraction. The 
time of dat and phase of moon will tell you precisely the current tide. 
> > Have you done the math? Show us...
> > 
>    No I haven't.  Quite frankly, the math is beyond my mathematical
> skills, and since I am NOT trying to prove anything, rather merely
> suggesting a possibility, I have no intention of trying to.
Well, since you haven't done the math and are merely suggesting the
possibility, then am I wrong to brush off your suggestion as incredible? 
> > Well, then. Start looking. The planet is ringed with them.
> 
>    Perhaps you'd like to name them.  The Pacific and North American
> plates are probably the largest ones on the planet.
If you don't know what tectonic plates exist on the planet, then how
can you claim that those two are probably the largest? 
>    At any rate, I jumped into this fray only to suggest that tidal
> influence may be a factor in some earthquakes, not to prove that this is
> so.  Were I trying to prove my point, I'd be armed with considerably
> more data what I have, but the fact that both the 1906 and 1989 events
> in Northern California on the San Andreas occured on the same point in
> the tidal curve is at least intriguing.
No, it's at least a coincidence.
-- 
timberwoof*@themall.net
(Take the * out to email me. It's for the benefit of spammers.)
1989 Honda CB400f CB-1; 1991 Honda Civic Si; Macintosh Centris 610

In article , dcypser@netcom.com (Darlene
Cypser) wrote:
> timberwoof*@themall.net (timberwoof) writes:
> 
> >> Dry, cracked rock under pressure is almost as strong as
> >> solid rock, so only with water-induced stress corrosion, and
> >> water-reduced effective stresses, can we get earthquakes.
> 
> >Uh... no. Rock isn't all that strong. It's actually plastic. (That is, it
> >has plasticity -- not it is made of plasticine.) Under enough stress it
> >will bend and flow. Please read a basic geology textbook.
> 
> If rock always bent and flowed under stress then we would never have 
> earthquakes.  I think you need to do a little bit more reading yourself.
My mistake. I should have said that under stress and pressure rocks will
deform. That deformation can be as the folding of strata as well as fracture
of rocks along fault lines. Either way, water does not have the influence
you claim for it. 
I'm no expert, and anybody with more factual information than I have
is invited to correct me if I make an error. The geology I know comes
from reading Scientific American, taking Geology 101 (Rocks for Jocks), 
and having a father who taught graduate courses in geology. I need to
do a whole lot more reading and fieldwork before I can call myself a 
geologist. Where did you say you got your degree?
-- 
timberwoof*@themall.net
(Take the * out to email me. It's for the benefit of spammers.)
1989 Honda CB400f CB-1; 1991 Honda Civic Si; Macintosh Centris 610

In article , gentryd@pipeline.com
(Dennis Gentry) wrote:
> In article <5bufn7$pnc$1@mark.ucdavis.edu>, szdefons@boris.ucdavis.edu
> (Eric DeFonso) wrote:
> >Sorry to cut you off here, but you seem to have missed the word "obvious"
> >in my statement above. I included it for a reason.
> 
> Looks as if I'm still missing the reason for it.
"Obvious" doesn't make it so. In the middle ages, it was obvious
that food left around in a basement naturally transmuted into 
mice and cockroaches. 
To me it's obvious that the experimenter needed to perform
a control experiment by sealing up one jar of food and leaving
the other one open and seeing which one "transmuted."
-- 
timberwoof*@themall.net
(Take the * out to email me. It's for the benefit of spammers.)
1989 Honda CB400f CB-1; 1991 Honda Civic Si; Macintosh Centris 610

In article  gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
>From: gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry)
>Subject: Re: Dew Point Theory Paper (nonsense - is it?)
>Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 21:23:04 -0300
>In article ,
>LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) wrote:
>>In article , gentryd@pipeline.com
>>(Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>>
>>My point is that Tim's hypothesis contradicts current DATA.  I am not
>>concerned that his hypothesis contradicts current thinking, only that
>>it does so without any foundation whatsoever.  To test a hypothesis,
>>you see what predictions it leads to and then see if those predictions
>>are correct.  Tim's hypothesis predicts earthquakes which do not happen.
>>Therefore, Tim's hypothesis is incorrect.  End of discussion.
>Have you gone out and done the research on the data to support your
>statement that Tims' hypothesis predicts earthquakes that don't
>happen?  If not, then how do you know that they don't happen?
< snip >
Actually, one of the interesting things about Tim's hypothesis is that it is 
more or less disprovable in a very definite manner. The hypothesis states that 
(roughly speaking) some electrical phenomenon lifts the earth's surface at the 
start of an earthquake. This is similar to the effect of an explosion, which 
causes a lifting of the earth at the initiation of the release of wave energy. 
As a result, all vertical seismometers recording an explosion record the first 
wave arrival as an upwards motion. The same effect would be observed from an 
EM earthquake. This follows absolutely from Tim's hypothesis. It isn't 
observed in reality. Seismometers recording an earthquake record first 
arrivals which can be either up or down, according to azimuth. Therefore a 
huge amount of existing data, used routinely every day by seismologists the 
world over, contradicts the EM hypothesis. 
This illustrates the dangers of coming with hypotheses on fundamental aspects 
of subjects that you have not studied. It also indicates why professional 
scientists usually give amateurs short shrift. Amateur theorising usually 
takes place without the knowledge of such things as basic seismometry, so the 
chances of error are rather high.
Roger Musson
r.musson@bgs.ac.uk 

In article  hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:
>From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
>Subject: Re: Earthquake Damage Scale Info
>Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 20:02:30 GMT
>In article <32DE409A.516D@umd5.umd.edu>, SConway   wrote:
>>I am an earth science teacher and need a little info concerning 
>>earthquake damage, please.  I once saw an earthquake magnitude scale 
>>that also included the damage that could be expected from each 
>>magnitude.  Another scale I saw actually compared the energy released 
>>with various mega-tonage of explosives.  
>>
>>Could someone direct me to a net site or pamphlet that would have this 
>>info?
>You want the Mercalli scale. Do a Yahoo on "mercalli".
Actually, you don't. No-one uses either of the Mercalli Scales anymore, 
although the Modified Mercalli and the MCS (Mercalli-Cancani-Sieberg) Scales 
are still in use. For an intensity scale that approaches damage in a 
quantitative way, see
    http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb1/pg2/ems92/ems92_0.htm
which will give you a lot of useful information.
Roger Musson
r.musson@bgs.ac.uk 

This is a quote from a copyright version.  Perhaps somebody from the
USGS can put in the whole PR version?  The money and donations are quite
interesting.
*******
Nearly 600 digital earthquake measurement stations will be added across
Southern California under a five-year program to provide faster
information on where the most damaging shaking has occurred when
earthquakes strike, scientists said last week.
-- 
Harold W. Asmis        harold.w.asmis@hydro.on.ca
tel 416.592.7379  fax 416.592.5322
Standard Disclaimers Apply

There is a long history of published studies on the subject.
The last paper I saw last year found a faint positive correlation between
the two.  It also broke down quakes into typ of source fault,
with one type correlating better.

In article <5br20l$7c6$1@news.structured.net> srea@dnc.net (Sean Rea) writes:
>	Several years ago when oregon had a small 5.7 earthquake, experts said
>we were due for a giant one. Does anyone know what this means?
>Geological time, so it could be hundreds of years from now, or normal
>time, so anytime. Just wndering if anyone knew anything about this.
I doubt if an "expert" said Oregon was "due" for a quake.
However it appears that states on the NW US subduction zone-
Washington, Oregon, and northern California- are susceptable
to quakes up to Richter M9 (larger than central-south CA).
Paleoseimology shows approximately three large quakes in the
area in the past 2000 years with the last one occuring 
about 300-350 years ago.
Buildings and public structures in this area should be designed
for significant seismic damage.  There is no good way of knowing
when the next large quake will occur.  Could be centuries from
now.

This could be an addition to our FAQ.
People Categorization in sci.geo.earthquakes
It takes all types to make a world, but contibutors to this group can be
lumped into these crude categories, postive and negative.
Positive Contributors
People of Credibility - people who work for the USGS or a university. 
Or anybody from the UK or New Zealand.  Of course, people of real
credibility wouldn't be caught dead posting in this newsgroup.
Hard Workers - people who have put up a good web site, compiled a
reading list, or done something else that involves actual work.
Wacky Predictors - these people never beat the House, with their
predictions of Ancient Mystical Origin, but at least they're polite and
try to formulate their predictions in a scientific manner.
Anti-Science - upholders of the theory: 'All Scientists are Involved in
a Massive Conspiracy to Keep Out New Ideas'.  These people usually cite
things such as 'They laughed at Wegener too, when he proposed that
continents plow through the crust like ocean liners.'  They represent
public opinion, are usually polite, and keep the scientists honest.
Negative Energy
Trolls - characterized by using phoney names, and suddenly appearing,
with immense power.  The trickiest trolls try to worm their way in by
spouting off things they learned on television.  Trolls are totally
self-centred and try to stir up debate for their own purposes.  The good
thing about trolls is that they turn to stone when exposed by
intellectural sunlight, and they can't type anymore.
Undefined
Canadian Humourist - extracts bizarre earthquake stories from Newsedge,
and muses that the world's earthquake problems would be solved, if only
everybody built basements.
Moderator - someone who makes any attempt to moderate this wacky group.
-- 
Harold W. Asmis        harold.w.asmis@hydro.on.ca
tel 416.592.7379  fax 416.592.5322
Standard Disclaimers Apply

In article  timberwoof*@themall.net (timberwoof) writes:
>It's my understanding that since plate tectonics provides such a logical
>and cohesive explanation for all kinds of geologic phenomena, it is
>generally accepted as the correct theory. It is not likely that any new
>theory will come along and invalidate it. New data will fill in gaps in
>understanding, filling in details here and there, but the basic structure
>will not change. (Just as with Darwin's theory of evolution, which is
If someone told me three years ago the inner core of the earth rotates
1-2 seconds faster per day than the outer earth, I would have been
amused.  But not today.  Science has a way of discovering unusual things.
P.S. Still this was rigorous science- predicted by mathematics and
a million-dollar supercomputer calculation and observationally
verified by at least three independent groups.
I cant say the same about some eq prediction hypotheses.