Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 6707

Directory

In article , tar@isi.edu wrote:
>In article <...> gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
> > Oh well!  Informative post Gerard although I was under the impression
> > that it wasn't until the 50's before his case was accepted.  Close
> > to 50 years after he had came forth with it.  That sure was a lot
> > of meetings and arguments.
>
>So?  As I have remarked earlier, science is a skeptical and conservative
>philosophy.  It takes a lot of work to convince a skeptical audience of
>a new idea.  50 years is enough time to build up a convincing case and
>refine the hypothesis to the point where it provides a better
>explanation than existing thought.  The entire period of argumentation
>is what the scientific process is about.
A whole lifetime and then some.  About 20+ years after he died?
He sure was able to refine it and see it come to fruition.
But you know as well as I that it wasn't thru his own merits
that it did come true.
Dennis

In article <19970129013901.UAA05877@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
miklwillms@aol.com wrote:
>In article ,
>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
>
>>Which tells me a great deal about how science works.  :-(
>
>Extremely well when you get the big picture.
Does that mean your still looking?
Dennis

Dennis Gentry wrote:
(snip)
> At what point is it defeating to be too careful?  Or has anybody
> thought about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis
When you are standing in one place and going nowhere.
Paul
-- 
"There are only two races on earth: the decent and the indecent"  Viktor
Frankl

In article  gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
>From: gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry)
>Subject: Re: Tims Idea/Possibility Thinking
>Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 20:04:33 -0300
>In article , jewett@netcom.com (Bob Jewett) wrote:
>>Which he seems to be doing without any understanding of the physical
>>processes that Tim has included in his theory.  Neither of them
>>is any Wegener.
>I know I'm getting to sound like a broken record, but you guys seem
>to keep conveniently forgetting that back in Wegener's day the same
>thing was thought of him.
It was thought of Wegener that he wasn't any Wegener? 
Roger Musson
r.musson@bgs.ac.uk 

In article  gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
>From: gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry)
>Subject: Re: Dew Point Theory Paper (nonsense - not entirely)
>Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 20:04:55 -0300
>Recently, Lucy posted a hypothesis that somebody else had formulated
>saying that quakes may not be predictable because the length of the
>break would vary.  I know I'm not saying it in exactly the words
>that she used, but thats not the point here.
>At this point that theory is all speculation, yet I've only seen
>posts asking for more information.  Nothing about it being all
>BS.
That is because the work behind it was presented in proper scientific fashion, 
with all the supporting data in place. Have a look at Mori & Kanamori (1996, 
Geophys. Res. Letters, vol 23 pp 2437-2440) and you will see why no-one is 
calling it "BS".
Roger Musson
r.musson@bgs.ac.uk 

In article <32EEAE61.521C@interlog.com>,
Harold and Lise   wrote:
[...]
>It's ok! (I don't want this thread getting any longer!)  I understand
>Dave after all these years. :)  But actually, at work we just had a
>bunch of *very* serious Americans take over Nuclear Operations, so any
>suggestion that I offended all of the U.S. would probably get me exiled
>to Quality Assurance!  Thus, I have to say good-bye for a while (in an
>active sense). (and this piece was copied from Newsedge)
As a former nuclear certifed QA Lead Auditor I think I'm offended by that
remark...
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

Folks:
MathSoft, creator of Mathcad and S-Plus, is currently looking to talk to
professionals or members of the academic community who use either
Mathcad or S-Plus in real-world applications ranging from engineering to
applied research, from academia to the commercial laboratory.  
If you are using Mathcad or S-Plus on a regular basis for any
application, we would like to hear from you.  We are especially
interested in Mathcad and S-Plus users who are involved in activities
that have an impact on the general public in areas such as medical
research, the environment, product or civil engineering, space research,
finance, clinical trials, etc.  But we would like to hear from a broad
cross section of users regardless.
Anyone who would be willing to talk about your project and how it
involves Mathcad or S-Plus is asked to send a brief e-mail to
ALLSTARS@schwartz-pr.com.  Please include a brief description of how you
use Mathcad or S-Plus as well as your name and a daytime phone number
and/or e-mail address where you would prefer to be contacted.
Thank you for your time and help and especially thank you for allowing
us to contact you via your Newsgroup.  We look forward to hearing from
you and I apologize for any inconvenience.
R. Pierce Reid

Chapter 15 of the revised Manual of Seismological Observatory Practice, in 
first draft form, is now available for inspection. It covers macroseismic 
studies, intensity and intensity scales. You can read it at
http://www.gsrg.nmh.ac.uk/~phoh/msop1.htm
I am hoping that any seismologists with an interest in macroseismics will send 
me their comments, so that the final draft (intended for IASPEI in August) 
will reflect, as far as is possible,  a concensus of opinion.
Roger Musson
r.musson@bgs.ac.uk 

In article , 
gentryd@pipeline.com says...
>
>In article <32EB042B.72EE@jnb.com>, vern@jnb.com wrote:
>
>>Hi.
>>I'm not sure I understood. Are you indicating that severe magnometer
>>fluxes occurred within 4 hours prior to an earthquake and not
>>afterwards? And that this somehow increases the number of whale
>>strandings?
>>Vern
>
>Actually, it was in response to a question as to whether the
>magnetic field increases prior to earthquakes or not.  Once
>that is established, then the question of whether whales or birds
>or anything else can be affected can then be looked into.
>
>Dennis
>
I don’t follow the discussion on whales and I apologize 
for my interference.
I have set up a short study on a recent small landslide 
in Dieulefit (Drome-France). A ear-witness has said
that since two days he had heard several cracks but he
had not payed attention.
I think that before an earthquake ultrasounds and infrasounds 
could be send out by  the rocks being bended.
Animals could be heard them. 
I believe more in mechanical precursory effects than in 
electric (magnetic, piezoelectric) precursory effects. 
I am reading again an old issue (december 1977)
of La Recherche, a french journal and I find that
W.H. GAWTHROP has published some works about 1976
(U.S.G.S. Office of earthquakes studies) and  BUFFON, in 
his Histoire naturelle (1749) notices an abnormal behavior
of animals before an earthquake. 
Lucien COSTE
lcoste@asi.fr
risks and environment attache
Senior lecturer in natural hazards (Saint Etienne 
National School of Mines)
Science is asymptote of truth (Victor Hugo)

In article <32EE6B30.3A3B@earthlink.net>, obrlndr@earthlink.net wrote:
>Dennis Gentry wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> At what point is it defeating to be too careful?  Or has anybody
>> thought about that?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dennis
>
>
>When you are standing in one place and going nowhere.
This wasn't the direction that I was taking this, but since
you insist, I'll take a detour.
Ah, the classic approach of "if we can keep them off balance
long enough, maybe they'll go away".
Or is it,  "if we ignore them and don't ever mention anything
about their hypothesis in our meetings or publications, maybe
it'll die out and be forgotten".
Or is it,  "if we can provide enough ridicule with half truths,
maybe they'll go away".
And on and on and on.......
Dennis

In article , e_rmwm@va.nmh.ac.uk (Roger
Musson) wrote:
>In article 
gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
>>From: gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry)
>>Subject: Re: Tims Idea/Possibility Thinking
>>Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 20:04:33 -0300
>
>>In article , jewett@netcom.com (Bob Jewett)
wrote:
>
>
>>>Which he seems to be doing without any understanding of the physical
>>>processes that Tim has included in his theory.  Neither of them
>>>is any Wegener.
>
>
>>I know I'm getting to sound like a broken record, but you guys seem
>>to keep conveniently forgetting that back in Wegener's day the same
>>thing was thought of him.
>
>
>It was thought of Wegener that he wasn't any Wegener? 
Good snip job.
Dennis

In article
,
timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>In article ,
>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>
>> In article <32ECD9A0.7C35@gps.caltech.edu>, lucy_jones@caltech.edu wrote:
>> 
>> >Dennis Gentry wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>> >> >They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
>> >> 
>> >> And they stopped laughing at Wegener.
>> >
>> >No, they didn't. Wegener was wrong. He thought that continents plowed
>> >through the oceans like spoons through a bowl of pudding. His theory was 
>> 
>> Huh?  I thought that is what I said somewhere.
>> 
>> The point is, though, that he was right about it occurring.  He was
>> only wrong in how it occurred.
>> 
>> Which tells me a great deal about how science works.  :-(
>
>Timberwoof wrote:
>
>The lesson here is that though Wegener was wrong about the underlying
>mechanism of continental drift, his field work presented incontrovertible
>evidence for the drift. 
I think you need to go back and read the various posts on the subject
again TW.
>What differs between Wegener's hypothesis and the Dew-Point speculation
>is that speculation is all that it is. There's no cohesive evidence for it, and
>there's even strong circumstantial and physical evidence against it (namely
>that the weather conditions described do not correlate with observed earth-
>quakes, and that the direction of earthquake shaking does not correlate with
>what would be expected to happen from the speculated mechanism).
You still haven't posted any proof that this is the case.
As I mentioned before, even if Tim did get the proof that you are
asking for and posted it or put it on some web site, somebody would
still have to verify it.  I'm sure that you nor anybody else would
take Tims' word for it and you would still argue against it because
it doesn't fit in with existing laws.
Dennis