reply to post by BO XIAN
oh, now I see! Such are the vagaries of the English language. So "you also" meant "you, like others have done as well".
Thank for clearing that up!
It's a pity that sometimes our theories get knocked pretty hard by others. I am sure I have been guilty of this on occasion, though I generally try to
be fair. And when it comes to tectonic theory, quakes and so forth, I don't think anyone can claim to know for certain what all the interrelationships
are or even how much some things might relate (or not).
I for one see no reason why there cannot be a relationship between quakes in a known seismic region that happen in a fairly short time frame along or
near a known fault (or fault system). True, maybe there is not any known and quantifiable causative connection between them, but that doesn't mean
that none exists. It could simply be that we haven't indentified it yet.
However, even on the other thread, a lot of good discussion, speculation, hypothesizing and friendly disagreement goes on -- which is all for the
better, I feel. I certainly encourage it here and I think that we all do. We need to think outside the box, outside the square, outside the sphere,
because what we are trying to achieve requires us to do so. Simple concepts of cause and effect -- of A leads to B and that leads to C -- are simply
not enough. I think we are more likely to find that A leads to K and this leads to B, X and Z, which in turn lead back to A, but this time it leads
not to K, but to C, Y, and J -- and so on.
To my mind, there is some sense of chaos in the way quakes happen, but it's not completely without order: while tectonic plate theory is fair enough
as a model for now, I feel it's vastly too simple as it stands to make much progress in efforts to predict what will happen next and where it will
occur, let alone at what degree of magnitude and hypocentric depth. The number of variables is immense and we probably don't even know what they all
What if there is just one variable that we have overlooked or considered insignificant, but which turns out be highly important?
Allow me to elaborate: I have mentioned before in this thread (a long time back) that I see quake/seismic activity as something like the weather: a
small change in one place can eventually lead to a major change somewhere else. This "chaotic" type of principle is accepted in meteorology, to the
extent that even when a huge hurricane is bearing down on a region there might be half a dozen different projected tracks for where it will actually
go. They all rely on the weight of the fundamental assumptions used to compute the various tracks. In other words, while apparently scientific, they
come down to what are really subjective decisions.
However, the Butterfly in Beijing effect says that even all those varied projections could wind up wrong, because one small change can cause a cascade
of altered influences and the hurricane goes where no-one thought it would.
Hurricanes are energy movers, energy transfer machines, huge whirling masses of energy churning along just on or above the Earth's surface. Quakes are
also part and parcel of energy being moved or transferred or released, though sometimes that energy takes years or centuries to build versus a few
days for most major storms. And while the "butterflies" might not be as discernible as they are for hurricanes, does that mean that there aren't any?
Does it mean there is no slow-developing chrysalis of energy ready to emerge and spread its wings somewhere and through a cascade effect, lead to a
quake where and when we did not expect it? -- Meaning, that we do not see any link between the two?
Granted, while conventional science will tell us that (say) a mag 4.0 in Southern California cannot possibly lead to a mag 8 in the Kamchatkas or
Chile or Japan, how do we know for certain that this science is correct? On the surface, it would seem the science is right, but we have look beyond
the surface, both literally and figuratively, and consider possibilities that on their own might seem absurd.
Like the butterfly effect.
That's how I see things, anyway.
And in that light, I welcome any contributions from anyone that might give us an insight and perhaps find a
butterfly, or even one still in its chrysalis. Again, I believe we all want this, because the ultimate objective of being able to predict destructive
quakes is the goal -- because that could lead to saving lives. This is not about me being right, or you, or any one of us.
It's about that goal.
Along the way, we will often be wrong, but if we can help to find some keys and apply what we learn and through it, help to save even one life, then
it's all worthwhile.
edit on 13/2/12 by JustMike because: typos