Another Supermoon is Upon Us- and This Could Mean a Massive Quake

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
Pretty good quake just hit Colombia/Ecuador/Venezuela area.

6.1


earthquake.usgs.gov...

Pretty meh responses as to being felt or any damage though.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TrueAmerican
Pretty good quake just hit Colombia/Ecuador/Venezuela area.

6.1


earthquake.usgs.gov...

Pretty meh responses as to being felt or any damage though.

Not so "massive."

Nor unusual. Between 1980 and 2018 the average annual number of quakes between 6 and 7 was 120. An average of one every 3 days. There have been 27 so far this year. Totally average so far, even with 3 supermoons.

a reply to: Phage

Good observation but somehow I don't think saying because nothing happened the theory fails.

The outcome of supermoons and earthquakes are only part of the equation. Wether tectonic plates give way or are put under more stress should also be taken into account, should it not?

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but the outcome of a chaotic system are kind of hard to predict if not all variables are known. I would incourage TA to keep looking at the data despite the lack of direct evidence.

I hope we will be able to predict these events one day ...I mean what's the worst that could happen in trying?

You guys are right to be sceptical but I hope you can respect the effort.

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

And don't forget everybody's favorite; geomagnetic storms.

Everything causes earthquakes apparently, that makes predicting them all the more difficult. I suppose.

If it does become possible to predict earthquakes it's going to have something to do with measurements of internal forces and an understanding of precursors. Not external forces.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah those sunspots cause havoc but in all seriousness measuring the internal forces would seem the most logic way to predict earthquakes but those forces could be influenced by external forces, could they not?

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

It has been/is being investigated. I said earlier in this thread that correlations between lunar phases and activity in certain faults shows correlation. But as far as being useful to predict earthquakes (large ones, in particular), not so much. Perhaps for saying one location may be more hazardous than another, but we already know that.


academic.oup.com...

a reply to: Phage

But would describe TA's efforts as fearmongering or a (valid) attempt at trying to find those correlations?

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Mixed bag. For the most part. That whole aspect did ease a lot after 2012 - Elenin - ISON.

I don't think TA is fearmongering. But I don't think you're going to find anything usable using something so simple as a correlation. TA is focusing on one occurance, in 2016.

But no massive quake last time, or the time before that. So far no massive quake this time, there's some time left on the clock, depending on how wide the clock is. But if there happens to be a massive quake in the next 12 hours, what does that tell us? Occasionally there is a massive earthquake when there are perigean high tides. But guess what? Occasionally there is a massive earthquake when there are neap tides.

Right now all we know is that there are places which are more subject to massive earthquakes than other places. Some of those places also have these earthquakes more frequently that other places.

a reply to: Phage

You know, I'm the kind of guy who would take up the challenge of building a pepentium mobile, you're the kind of guy who would explain that the laws of physics does not allow such a thing. I guess education does go a long way.

The idealist in me will always believe that somehow science might have overlooked something and unexpected discoveries can be made.

It's hard denying ignorance and keeping an open mind at the same time.

Thank you for your elquent reply...

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

The idealist in me will always believe that somehow science might have overlooked something and unexpected discoveries can be made.

Actually, that's the scientist in you.

There are people (scientists) who try to prove just one aspect of General Relativity wrong. If they did, they would be "the next Einstein." None have succeeded. Yet.

In science, proving something wrong is at least as important as proving something right.