7.7 Okhotsk Earthquake AGAIN at beginning of Earth, Venus,

Originally posted by steve1709
I think I saw in your OP that the third planet that was supposed to cause an effect was Pluto. If so, how about you or one of your followers put numbers into this equation and work out how "large" the effect of Pluto would be. F (gravitational attraction) = Gm1m2/d(squared) (I don't know how to make it look pretty but I hope you get the drift) So I guess I'm saying Pluto effect ......pft!!!!

I am learning towards to opposite theory in that it is the repulsion of the planets that has the affect, not the attraction.

Any effect by Pluto would have to have a flow on effect somewhere with the other planets, so instead of looking at alignments as such, we should be looking where all the planets are in relation to each other at that time.

That requires solar system modeling in a 3 dimension view.

You may just find that it is not in fact the alignments that we should be investigating, but the other planets positions when an alignment occurs.

reply to post by Melyanna


Personally, I think that it IS just co incidence. There are EQs every day and there are, imo, many other causes. Just the slipping of the plates at irregular intervals is a big one. But I hope that you're right in some way and we can actually find a way of predicting them. But saying that, I also wouldn't mind proof of ETs or a prior human civilization that for some reason was wiped out. THOSE are the sorts of things that I really get a buzz out of. I reckon it would be awsome to still be alive when/if first contact occurs. I'm 60 so hopefully, one of the predictions for the near future actually comes to pass. Not that I'd know about it, but I reckon the worst thing that could happen would be to kick the bucket and the very next week first contact is made. Wouldn't that be a bummer

Originally posted by Melyanna
reply to post by NoExpert

 

No Expert

Shame on you for posting such an unthinking response. Read the papers, review the math. Use your head, It is unarguable. People like you burned leading thinkers at the stake for stating the obvious. It is people like you who tried to keep everyone believing that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that there is no aether.

I will not respond to any more drivel like this fron unthinking people who think a degree makes them a scientist.

Take your brain out of the box and put it back in your head.

Pluto? and Venus? If you said maybe Jupiter and Venus or something, i think that maybe you would be on to something, but Pluto? Give me a break.

You do realise Pluto is no longer a planet because of its size? How the hell can Pluto influence anything here?

reply to post by Melyanna


"Every single quake occured during an alignement that last 3 days or more between the earth and two other solar system bodies. As there are about 40 such alignments a year, that last three days or more, and there were about two earthquakes per year, the odds would be calculated at 40/365 x 39/365 multiplied 11 times, if I have my statistics correct. That probability is absolutely beyond chance."

I have no idea what you formula you've written is trying to calculate. The chart you cite on page 5 has 22 entries, maybe you mean the one on page 6 that has 11 entries. The chance of all eleven falling into one of 40 windows per year of three OR MORE days depends on just how many more days, or more precisely, the total number of non-overlapping days in the 40 windows. If the windows averaged 5 days, the odds would be (40 X 5)/365 raised to the 11th power.

A small number, but nothing I've seen in the paper or your posts gives me confidence that ANY of the charts or numbers in the discussions are right.

Originally posted by JohnVidale
reply to post by Melyanna

 

On the off chance you take yourself seriously, perhaps you can defend the repeated references to the only real journal article in the references, i.e., "geophysics community is clueless as to the source of most of the energy supplied to the Earth and required for tectonogenesis (mantle/plates dynamics), as well as for causing strong earthquakes [1]." that are dead wrong.

There is nothing in Dave's article that even hints that there is inadequate energy in the known Earth to drive earthquakes or plate tectonics. Ample energy is known to have been stored in radioactivity, hear of formation, and chemical stratification to drive both.

This also means the lead-off sentence is flat wrong: "Geophysics cannot explain the mechanism that supplies most of the energy required for tectonogenesis and overall seismicity on Earth [1]." It can, and it does.

But the article is a parody; to discuss it as serious does it a disservice.

In David Stevenson paper (first link in Essential Research section on seismo.info...), section "Plate tectonics..." on page 264: "We understand why Earth’s mantle convects: there is no alternative mechanism for eliminating heat. However, we do not understand why Earth has plate tectonics."

Yep, they are clueless as to tectonics. Looks like Omerbashich has just given them the alternative mechanism.

WTH!!! I just got through reading the first two pages of comments!!!

Good grief, if people have some personal problem with Melyanna, take it somewhere else, this is Melyanna's thread.

If you have doubts regarding the theory Melyanna's OP was about then point out where exactly it's inaccurate while acknowledging the context.

Sorry Melyanna, I'm off topic, but those first two pages of comments were shamefully ridiculous!

As to the theory, it's interesting that Omerbashich says that the atmosphere is part of the georesonator and "reacts along the vector of the alignment, in a precursory fashion." When thinking of the Earth as an object that resonates, it's easy to forget that the atmosphere is part of that object so that if there is an outside influence causing resonations the atmosphere would conceivably be affected by that influence.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to ascertain whether the theory is something that would convince me as I don't have the time to read and verify the PDF completely. I suppose somewhere in that PDF there may be the one point that makes it seemingly impossible, I tried to skim for such a point but the content is too extensive. But, there may be no such point, all the evidence referred to may be factual and this "georesonator" theory may be good and solid. I don't know.

I'll read some more pages of comments now, and I hope the first two pages are no indication of the rest of the thread.

Originally posted by Melyanna
reply to post by steve1709

 

You have a point, for sure, just like the post above does when he says that perhaps there is a new mechanism at work that we do not yet understand.

What do you make of the fact that every one of the 11 largest quakes in history occured with such alignments. The odds against chance are so small my spreadsheet blows up when I try to calculate them. the number is too large...

Nummbers are never to large.They are infinate,that is why math solves probs.

Originally posted by JohnVidale
reply to post by Melyanna

 

"Every single quake occured during an alignement that last 3 days or more between the earth and two other solar system bodies. As there are about 40 such alignments a year, that last three days or more, and there were about two earthquakes per year, the odds would be calculated at 40/365 x 39/365 multiplied 11 times, if I have my statistics correct. That probability is absolutely beyond chance."

I have no idea what you formula you've written is trying to calculate. The chart you cite on page 5 has 22 entries, maybe you mean the one on page 6 that has 11 entries. The chance of all eleven falling into one of 40 windows per year of three OR MORE days depends on just how many more days, or more precisely, the total number of non-overlapping days in the 40 windows. If the windows averaged 5 days, the odds would be (40 X 5)/365 raised to the 11th power.

A small number, but nothing I've seen in the paper or your posts gives me confidence that ANY of the charts or numbers in the discussions are right.

If it's a small number (I get 0.1% or 99.999% certainty) then it means you lost the argument, same as with the above reference on Stevenson paper.

Your are making a mistake when you consider entire windows for earthquakes above 7. They occur instantaneously when the exact alignment strikes +-1 day, as just confirmed by a Greek professor: cna.uop.gr...

Way I understand it, Omerbashich uses 6-7 earthquakes only to show us his pattern. As the signature of a continuous event, any pattern would have to be demonstrated over the entire window. And he demonstrates it.

But you don't want to consider the whole window when observing quakes above 7, your analysis is meaningless if you do. Not to mention you seem to be misleading the audience, like with the Stevenson paper above.

reply to post by ttimez


That quote indicates the process that creates a set of rigid plates on the surface with flowing material underneath is not fully delineated. Plenty of energy sources are known. Her quote claimed the source of energy is unexplained.

reply to post by ttimez


That "professor's" "confirmation" paper is in a folder called "student_papers", and explains in excruciating detail what buttons on the keyboard were pressed, and only has "Kepler's equations of motion" as the fully explanation of what their computer code does, while also referring to PRECOMPUTED orbits. Even the perspective in what is plotted is unexplained. Even if, from some 2-D point of view (which is clearly not looking at the solar system side-on) there were an alignment, it would not follow that in 3-D there was an alignment.

But even that is more theory than was presented in the original paper linked at the top of this thread.

I have to assume you guys are all joking, it's too ludicrous, albeit hilarious.

Originally posted by JohnVidale
reply to post by ttimez

 

That quote indicates the process that creates a set of rigid plates on the surface with flowing material underneath is not fully delineated. Plenty of energy sources are known. Her quote claimed the source of energy is unexplained.

I'm not sure what it "indicates", just as you can't be sure either.

We have to stick to what the Caltech author says in his Nature article: "We understand why Earth’s mantle convects: there is no alternative mechanism for eliminating heat. However, we do not understand why Earth has plate tectonics." (page 264)

So he is saying they understand energy sources for mantle convection, but not for tectonics. And Omerbashich repeats it. So it seems to me mantle convection and tectonics are two unrelated phenomena, which is the same conclusion Omerbashich arrives at too, using his own theory and the mechanism he proposes.

So yes they are clueless as to tectonics. And given that you are trying to mislead us all, so are you. Except you won't admit it, unlike your fellow scientists Stevenson and Omerbashich.

So I have a few questions.....

What was the alignment on April 11, 2012? There was an 8.6 off the west coast of northern Sumatra. Once you come up with what alignment happened, can you please post a link to the source.

Why was there not a major quake around March 21st (2012)? And with that if these alignments happen about 40 times a year why isn't there more major quakes?

If these alignments do cause these major quakes why didn't we have a major quake when all the planets aligned on May 5, 2000?

reply to post by ttimez


"So it seems to me mantle convection and tectonics are two unrelated phenomena, which is the same conclusion Omerbashich arrives at too, using his own theory and the mechanism he proposes.

So yes they are clueless as to tectonics. And given that you are trying to mislead us all, so are you. Except you won't admit it, unlike your fellow scientists Stevenson and Omerbashich."

Actually, I work more on tectonics than does Dave, who studies across the solar system, and if you claim plate tectonics and convection are unrelated, I'm wasting my time. The theory of plate tectonics, which is exceedingly well documented, IS the theory of rafting of the lithosphere on convecting mantle. What theory of plate tectonics do you think is being contested here?

Originally posted by JohnVidale
reply to post by ttimez

 

That "professor's" "confirmation" paper is in a folder called "student_papers", and explains in excruciating detail what buttons on the keyboard were pressed, and only has "Kepler's equations of motion" as the fully explanation of what their computer code does, while also referring to PRECOMPUTED orbits. Even the perspective in what is plotted is unexplained. Even if, from some 2-D point of view (which is clearly not looking at the solar system side-on) there were an alignment, it would not follow that in 3-D there was an alignment.

But even that is more theory than was presented in the original paper linked at the top of this thread.

I have to assume you guys are all joking, it's too ludicrous, albeit hilarious.

edit on 15-8-2012 by JohnVidale because: add word "professor"

The professor supervises his students obviously. Don't you have some students to supervise? Hope not.

What difference does it make whether you use 2d or 3d? All of the bodies Omerbashich uses travel pretty much inside the sun ecliptic. I read it in his alignments paper intro. You are again trying to mislead audiences, as with the Stevenson paper.

I won't comment your argumentum ad hominem, or argumentum ad verecundiam. You seem drunk or something. Keep on, you are quite entertaining in your present state of mind.

By the way, is it true what your Wikipedia article says, that you are being ridiculed by your own colleagues? You came to the wrong place if you were looking for recognition, this is just an internet forum.

Originally posted by JohnVidale
reply to post by ttimez

 

"So it seems to me mantle convection and tectonics are two unrelated phenomena, which is the same conclusion Omerbashich arrives at too, using his own theory and the mechanism he proposes.

So yes they are clueless as to tectonics. And given that you are trying to mislead us all, so are you. Except you won't admit it, unlike your fellow scientists Stevenson and Omerbashich."

Actually, I work more on tectonics than does Dave, who studies across the solar system, and if you claim plate tectonics and convection are unrelated, I'm wasting my time. The theory of plate tectonics, which is exceedingly well documented, IS the theory of rafting of the lithosphere on convecting mantle. What theory of plate tectonics do you think is being contested here?

Good. All you have to do now is submit your stuff to Nature and have their reviewers acknowledge your claim instead of Stevenson's. Until then...

Originally posted by OneisOne
So I have a few questions.....

What was the alignment on April 11, 2012? There was an 8.6 off the west coast of northern Sumatra. Once you come up with what alignment happened, can you please post a link to the source.

Why was there not a major quake around March 21st (2012)? And with that if these alignments happen about 40 times a year why isn't there more major quakes?

If these alignments do cause these major quakes why didn't we have a major quake when all the planets aligned on May 5, 2000?

Sure, we can continue as soon as you address the serious concerns about your credibility, misleading us about Stevenson paper, or 2d-3d, and so on.

I'm going to check personally everything you say here from now on. You seem one of those authoritarian guys who can't be trusted even in most trivial things.

Originally posted by ttimez

Originally posted by OneisOne
So I have a few questions.....

What was the alignment on April 11, 2012? There was an 8.6 off the west coast of northern Sumatra. Once you come up with what alignment happened, can you please post a link to the source.

Why was there not a major quake around March 21st (2012)? And with that if these alignments happen about 40 times a year why isn't there more major quakes?

If these alignments do cause these major quakes why didn't we have a major quake when all the planets aligned on May 5, 2000?

Sure, we can continue as soon as you address the serious concerns about your credibility, misleading us about Stevenson paper, or 2d-3d, and so on.

I'm going to check personally everything you say here from now on. You seem one of those authoritarian guys who can't be trusted even in most trivial things.

Wow ttimez.

You are so caught up in your digital ego you are swinging in the dark.

Take a breath, walk outside.

reply to post by ttimez


"submit your stuff to Nature and have their reviewers acknowledge your claim"

I've written 10-15 papers published in Nature, many on this very topic. And you?

reply to post by JohnVidale


Hi John

First off, thanks for dialing down the sarcasm. Believe it or not we are on the same page.

There are a couple of things that we can agree on, I hope. I agree with you that if the only quote from the Stevenson paper was that posted, that Omerbashich's interpretation of it is misleading at best. However, as you seem to be confirming that Geology does not have a clear idea of why there are plate techtonics at all, then I believe it follows that the energy source for the techtonics cannot be nailed down, and it then follows that the energy source for earthquakes cannot be nailed down either. Can you agree?

As to your comment that you have no confidence in any of the graphs or charts in Omerbashich's work, that is fair and reasonable to me. I am a mathematician with 30 years experience in developing a completely new field of math within the field of topology. My initial advisor told me that no one anywhere in academia would support the work I wanted to do as it was completely outside of any work that had even been done in math, so I obtained outside fundeing and have worked on it steadily.

My interest in these alignments is as a potential source of verification for the mechanism that I am working on. I would love to put all the data in proper order and discuss it with you sanely and intelligently. You up for that?

Melyanna

reply to post by ttimez


Hi Ttimez

Thanks for finding that paper. The site you mentioned will not load on my machine, keep crashing every time but I'll keep working on it.

I do think that JohnVidale has a point that the quote does not exactly back up Omerbashich, and that he should have done a better job than that if he wanted to reference the paper.

Have your read 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'?

Melyanna