Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 6652

Directory

In article ,
gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
> 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.
They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
-- 
timberwoof@the*mall.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 ,
> LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) wrote:
> 
> 
> >You need to establish that there is a correlation between dew conditions
> >and earthquakes, not just in Los Angeles, but more broadly.  It won't
> 
> I don't agree with this assumption as I've pointed out before that
> weather varies in different locations because of local anomalies.
I don't agree with your assumption as I've pointed out before that weather
follows the same general rules and that "local anomalies" are natural
consequences of those rules, not exceptions to them. 
You could change my mind, however. Tell me, just what anomalies are 
there in LA that make your Dew Point Theory work there and not in Texas? 
> But back to dew point and Dallas.
> 
> The dew points that we know about are surface level measurements.
> 
> Question.  Would these measurements stay the same over varying
> levels of altitude?  Or would they temperature/dew point temperature
> remain constant with each other the higher up you go.
> 
> I doubt if that is even known.  But say they do or don't.  Wouldn't
> it be possible that dew point occurs at higher altitudes and therefore
> wouldn't happen at ground level?
When water condenses from the atmosphere, you get clouds. If too much
water condenses, it rains. 
The problem with your hypothesis is that it's getting more and more 
complicated. Every time we bring up an objection to your ideas, you make
your ideas more complicated to try to fit the facts. Your hypothesis has all
kinds of exceptions and special cases. It works in the Los Angeles area, but 
because of unspecified "local anomalies" it does not work in Texas. 
I still don't buy it. It still seems simpler to explain weather and earthquakes
with fiarly well-understood existing theories. Why should I accept your
ideas?
-- 
timberwoof@the*mall.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
> ,
> timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>
> >But if a hypothesis is true, then it would not have those kinds of holes
> >in it to begin with. And if the objections were answered in a 
> >convincing way, then the hypothesis would eventually be accepted. 
> >Can you name any hypothesis that went through the kind of 
> >process you described? 
> 
> How about Edison and Wegener.
Wegner's hypothesis was eventually accepted, once measurements were
made that support it. The difference between Wegner's hypothesis and 
yours is this: the objections to Wegner's hypothesis were made based on
basically complete ignorance of geological processes. Your hypothesis is
presented despite specific physical evidence against it, in the presence of
well-substantiated alternative explanations. 
Edison invented, among other things, the light bulb. He was an engineer. 
What controversial hypotheses did he propose? (He did have a fierce
disagreement with Nikolai Tesla over the safety of alternating current. 
He claimed that AC was far too dangerous to have any practical use.)
> >Systems of ideas tend to work together in nicely interlinked ways. 
> >I don't believe the idea that you can mix and match bits and pieces
> >of hypotheses to come up with meaningful new ideas. Can you name
> >any instances where this has occurred? (If there are any, I'd surely
> >like to know about them!)
> 
> First you say one thing and then reverse yourself.  Which is it.
I'm not contradicting myself. You cannot take some piece of one theory
and plonk it into some other theoretical system and get anything useful
out of it.   (A single counterexample would disprove the statement. Got
any?)
-- 
timberwoof@the*mall.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

Keith A. McKain (kmckain@den.k12.de.us) wrote:
: Purchased SEISMIC last year and would like to update the data base - but
: can no longer find the program on SimTel nor any other site!  I think
: the author was Alan Jones.  Any ideas where an update can be obtained?
: 					Keith
Keith, 
you can find Seismic (now called Seismic/Eruption) at the IRIS home
page in the software exchange library:
http://www.iris.washington.edu
or
ftp dmc.iris.washington.edu
It now contains volcanic eruptions.
Alan Jones

In article
,
timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>In article ,
>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
And they stopped laughing at Wegener.

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

In article
,
timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>In article ,
>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> >You need to establish that there is a correlation between dew conditions
>> >and earthquakes, not just in Los Angeles, but more broadly.  It won't
>> 
>> I don't agree with this assumption as I've pointed out before that
>> weather varies in different locations because of local anomalies.
>
>I don't agree with your assumption as I've pointed out before that weather
>follows the same general rules and that "local anomalies" are natural
>consequences of those rules, not exceptions to them. 
That is what I am trying to point out.  The conditions that cause
certain kinds of weather don't exist in all locations.  Those locations
without those conditions can't have the same affect.
>You could change my mind, however. Tell me, just what anomalies are 
>there in LA that make your Dew Point Theory work there and not in Texas? 
See below.
>
>> But back to dew point and Dallas.
>> 
>> The dew points that we know about are surface level measurements.
>> 
>> Question.  Would these measurements stay the same over varying
>> levels of altitude?  Or would they temperature/dew point temperature
>> remain constant with each other the higher up you go.
>> 
>> I doubt if that is even known.  But say they do or don't.  Wouldn't
>> it be possible that dew point occurs at higher altitudes and therefore
>> wouldn't happen at ground level?
>
>When water condenses from the atmosphere, you get clouds. If too much
>water condenses, it rains. 
And sometimes the rain evaporates prior to hitting the ground.
California is famous for that.  The same thing probably applies
to Texas.  But I would like to check into that.
>The problem with your hypothesis is that it's getting more and more 
>complicated. Every time we bring up an objection to your ideas, you make
>your ideas more complicated to try to fit the facts. Your hypothesis has all
>kinds of exceptions and special cases. It works in the Los Angeles area, but 
>because of unspecified "local anomalies" it does not work in Texas. 
Weather itself is complicated.  If it wasn't, the forecasters would be
able to make reliable forecasts.
>I still don't buy it. It still seems simpler to explain weather and earthquakes
>with fiarly well-understood existing theories. Why should I accept your
>ideas?
Your choice.  But if a person doesn't look at things from all angles,
progress will continue its grudgingly slow pace.
Dennis

In article
,
timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>In article ,
>gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> ,
>> timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) wrote:
>>
>> >But if a hypothesis is true, then it would not have those kinds of holes
>> >in it to begin with. And if the objections were answered in a 
>> >convincing way, then the hypothesis would eventually be accepted. 
>> >Can you name any hypothesis that went through the kind of 
>> >process you described? 
>> 
>> How about Edison and Wegener.
>
>Wegner's hypothesis was eventually accepted, once measurements were
>made that support it. The difference between Wegner's hypothesis and 
>yours is this: the objections to Wegner's hypothesis were made based on
>basically complete ignorance of geological processes. Your hypothesis is
>presented despite specific physical evidence against it, in the presence of
>well-substantiated alternative explanations. 
The objections were made to the plates floating around.  Not because
of geological processes being unknown.
>Edison invented, among other things, the light bulb. He was an engineer. 
>What controversial hypotheses did he propose? (He did have a fierce
>disagreement with Nikolai Tesla over the safety of alternating current. 
>He claimed that AC was far too dangerous to have any practical use.)
Actually, I remembering that Eric DeFonso had posted about the
uproar caused by Edison and off-hand I don't remember the exact
details.  But thats the way I am.  I remember generalities but
have a hard time with specifics.  I also won't try and BS anybody
with anything I don't know for sure.
Dennis

In article
,
timberwoof@the*mall.net (timberwoof) writes:
>I don't agree with your assumption as I've pointed out before that
weather
>follows the same general rules and that "local anomalies" are natural
>consequences of those rules, not exceptions to them. 
>
>You could change my mind, however. Tell me, just what anomalies are 
>there in LA that make your Dew Point Theory work there and not in Texas? 
>
I hate to be defending the "dew point theory", because I am still
unconvinced, but...
Is the theory an explanation for causes of earthquakes, or for triggering
of earthquakes?  I think any theory which purports to explain the causes
of earthquakes differently than current geological thought is nonsense,
but there's plenty not known about brittle fracture on that scale, so we
do have to consider possibly outlandish theories regarding triggering
mechanisms.
After we see some significant data posted by the propounder.  
Anthony Argyriou
generic .sig

In article ,
gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) writes:
>Actually, I'm not in the habit of making things up.  Only if its a
>reputable source, will I post the information.  Maybe the LA Times
>isn't the Journal Science, but they usually are pretty accurate in
>what they report.
>
>
ROFL

In article <32E9A9CE.5FE6@basicso.com> canie@basicso.com writes:
>I just saw something on Beyond 2000 (TV -and I'm not a troll!) that said
>that a french agency (NES?) was studying satelite images from ERS1 &
>ERS2 and using interferograms - they could see earth movement and
>predict earthquakes.  
>
>Is there any advancement on this subject? Are they having any success?
>Does anyone know anything about this?
INSAR- or Inferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar- facilitates a technique
called dynamic geodesy for studying earthquakes.  "Geodesy" means measuring the
shape of earth, and "dynamic" means time-changing.  This technique goes back
at least to the 1906 S.F. quake.  INSAR automates the measurement of
millions of surface locations - a great improvement over hand surveying
and possible improvement over GPS (global positioning satellite- single
point ground measuements). GPS will probably still be used to
constrain the INSAR results.
Many geophysicists have been studying the dynamic geodetic aspects of earthquakes
and volcanoes.  Prof. Segall of Stanford/USGS comes to mind as written
several articles in Scientific American over the past decade on the subject.
The 1994 Northridge earthquake was anticipated a year earlier by a JPL/CIT
geodicist (I forget her name and Nature paper reference) who observed
the strain-deformation of a basin in that area had returned to that approximately
of the 1971 San Fernando quake.  She used measurements from the JPL GPS
southern Cal network.
The interpretation of dynamic geodetic data is not clear.  One geophysicst
who occasionally posts in this group has observed that seismic energy release
only explains a fraction of the deformation in the L.A. region.  Whether the
energy of deformation is being released by other means or that more large quakes
will be occuring is the question.  Both expanded GPS networks and INSAR
show increase the detail of dynamic geodesy data and maybe answer these questions.
(Sorry if I used too much geo-jargon and acronymns.)

Bob Jewett wrote:
> 
> Dennis Gentry (gentryd@pipeline.com) wrote:
>...
> : Sure the earths normal magnetic field is only about .00005 Tesla,
> : but who knows how high it can get.  But then again, it isn't known
> : if it preceeds all quakes or only a subset of quakes in certain
> : areas.
> 
(Bob's reply was:)
> I'm willing
> to bet that the ambient magnetic field averaged over a square kilometer
> has never been observed to vary by more than 10%.  .000055 Tesla is
> a long way from 5.0.  Do you have any references to more significant
> changes?
A good bet to take. Magnetic observatories have recorded hourly and 1
-minute means of the magnetic field at hundreds of sites over the earth
for as long as 120 years. The largest fluctuations are "magnetic
storms", which produce "DC" disturbances lasting as long as a few days.
According to Kaufman and Keller, (Elsevier, 1981), great storms can
reach 3000 gamma or more, which about 5% of the total field. If Dennis
hypothesizes that these nearly static field changes push water around
and cause earthquakes, then comparing the observatory magnetic data and
the world seismicity records would provide an excellent test. (This
would be equivalent for searching for a sunspot-earthquake correlation,
and would probably be as unsuccessful)
On the other hand, micropulsations in the 1 Hz range (where Fraser-Smith
made his measurements) are typically 0.1 gamma. If the "factor of 600"
is correct, then the amplitude of these fluctuations is 60 gamma, or
about 1/1000 of the total static field. I don't think that there is
evidence for much stronger fluctuations in this frequency range. Any
assertion that these signals represent the "cause" of the earthquake
(rather than reflect a symptom of a different cause) has to deal with
their small size and oscilatory nature.
-- 
====Paul Kasameyer (510)422-6487 Fax (510) 422-3925
Hazards, Energy and Field Programs Group 
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
kasameyer1@llnl.gov

In article <32EBCF05.65@llnl.gov>, Paul Kasameyer 422-6487
 wrote:
>Bob Jewett wrote:
>> 
>> Dennis Gentry (gentryd@pipeline.com) wrote:
>>...
>> : Sure the earths normal magnetic field is only about .00005 Tesla,
>> : but who knows how high it can get.  But then again, it isn't known
>> : if it preceeds all quakes or only a subset of quakes in certain
>> : areas.
>> 
>(Bob's reply was:)
>> I'm willing
>> to bet that the ambient magnetic field averaged over a square kilometer
>> has never been observed to vary by more than 10%.  .000055 Tesla is
>> a long way from 5.0.  Do you have any references to more significant
>> changes?
>
>A good bet to take. Magnetic observatories have recorded hourly and 1
>-minute means of the magnetic field at hundreds of sites over the earth
>for as long as 120 years. The largest fluctuations are "magnetic
>storms", which produce "DC" disturbances lasting as long as a few days.
>According to Kaufman and Keller, (Elsevier, 1981), great storms can
>reach 3000 gamma or more, which about 5% of the total field. If Dennis
>hypothesizes that these nearly static field changes push water around
>and cause earthquakes, then comparing the observatory magnetic data and
Actually, the hypothesis is that the earthquake, just prior to
breaking, is causing the increase in the magnetic field.  Not the
magnetic field causing the quake.
I believe that in the geological community its hypothesized that an
electrokinetic effect is occurring by water being squeezed.  Its
not really known what causes this phenomena but several theories
have been proposed that are all possible.
>the world seismicity records would provide an excellent test. (This
>would be equivalent for searching for a sunspot-earthquake correlation,
>and would probably be as unsuccessful)
From the way I understand it, this is only a localized phenomena.
Is the observatory magnetic data recorded at the location that the
earthquake had occurred?
>On the other hand, micropulsations in the 1 Hz range (where Fraser-Smith
>made his measurements) are typically 0.1 gamma. If the "factor of 600"
>is correct, then the amplitude of these fluctuations is 60 gamma, or
>about 1/1000 of the total static field. I don't think that there is
>evidence for much stronger fluctuations in this frequency range. Any
>assertion that these signals represent the "cause" of the earthquake
>(rather than reflect a symptom of a different cause) has to deal with
>their small size and oscilatory nature.
No, not the cause.  A by-product of.
Dennis