The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.reply to post by MamaJ
to avoid thread drift I've sent you a U2U in response to some of what you've talked about.
Regarding the eventual possibility to predict quakes via technology -- yes, I really believe this might be possible. Some might say that the experts
are basically doing this now to some degree, but generally they are looking at averages and trends in fault systems and often on a fairly localized
level. (eg the studies of SoCal and the faults there.)
True, scientists in various disciplines already look at a range of factors related to quakes and tectonic movement and so forth -- and to a far
greater extent than they did even a couple of decades ago; the key problem is tying it all together in a formalized way that will allow for high
levels of consistency in the results. And I feel that there are still new aspects of energy storage and exchange that need to be discovered and
investigated so that they can be incorporated into the "quake energy models" that will be needed to develop the hardware and software required to
predict (or "forecast") these events.
Along with this, more study has to be done of the human/animal effect aspects. We're only scratching the surface but sometimes even small efforts
uncover some remarkable things
With many aspects of our planet, there are ways that different forms of energy influence the environment and all within it, both at the macro and
micro levels. We see this with tides -- long since understood to a fair degree, wind, rain, thunderstorms and other common features that are the
physical evidence of energy exchange. Quakes are another aspect and as I said way back in thread maybe three years ago, I feel that quakes are
something like the weather: small changes in one place could lead to large changes elsewhere.
In other words, some kind of "1+1=2" method of analyzing quakes, their energy and its interactions is simply not going to cut it. It's my belief
that there could be a "Butterfly in Beijing" aspect and if this is overlooked or simply discarded as implausible, then the process of understanding
how quakes really
work is never going to get near to the seeing the bigger picture. Sometimes, it could be that "1+1=5" and other times it
may well be that "1+1=0" (or even a minus number) -- in a given time and location
It's not like hitting an old wall with a sledgehammer to slowly knock it down in chunks. That's fundamentally what's behind tectonic plate theory,
but while it's invaluable as a model it's far too simplistic and doesn't even explain all the known, observed interactions. The planet is much more
complex and the three-dimensional, multi-layered and near-spherical nature of the total system has to be considered. It's more like hitting that same
wall and making cracks, while at the same time other parts of the wall collapse completely -- and yet others rebuild themselves or change shape, or
get stronger, with no clear and apparent cause and effect relationship!
Not a good analogy but it's just to give some idea of how I see it. We are dealing with what's effectively a closed system. We have a major external
energy source -- the sun, a major internal one -- heat energy within the planet, and secondary inputs from gravity and spin and related forces. To
ignore any of these is fraught with risk -- the risk of missing out a vital piece of the whole puzzle.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.