It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quake Watch 2011

page: 78
203
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by berkeleygal
 


I haven't closely looked at any other active areas of the US, expect Yellowstone and Arkansas. And you're right about Arkansas picking back up steam after a long pause. I'm not nervous yet, but I've been observing closely and invite all those wondering about this to visit...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You might find comfort there. I think the thread is helping those that are living right ontop of the activity.




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Daily energy released at Honshu since the 9.0

This does not include that day as it would completely swamp the figures and you would see nothing.




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I'm getting a little edgy here


5.2 2011/03/22 23:14:28 23.666 154.651 14.8 MINAMI-TORI-SHIMA, JAPAN REGION
5.1 2011/03/22 22:53:31 37.062 140.620 27.9 EASTERN HONSHU, JAPAN
5.0 2011/03/22 22:51:38 36.924 142.333 30.1 OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
5.4 2011/03/22 22:36:32 37.078 140.561 15.7 EASTERN HONSHU, JAPAN
5.7 2011/03/22 22:12:29 37.109 140.673 1.0 EASTERN HONSHU, JAPAN


The Link

Love the charts guys!



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
FYI: Here are a couple of Twitter Feeds I follow on EQ's...

Earthquake Alarm
twitter.com...

Earthquake Watch M2+
twitter.com...

EarthquakeNews
twitter.com...


edit on 3/22/2011 by Hx3_1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   


5.2 2011/03/22 23:14:28 23.666 154.651 14.8 MINAMI-TORI-SHIMA, JAPAN REGION


they took it off



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Does anyone know of a source where I can find all global quakes plotted against moon distance from earth? No, I'm not going bonkers, trying to debate a theory!!

If one isn't available, some advice on how to go about putting the figures together would be good



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoorfNZ
Does anyone know of a source where I can find all global quakes plotted against moon distance from earth? No, I'm not going bonkers, trying to debate a theory!!

If one isn't available, some advice on how to go about putting the figures together would be good


Found this:
astroblogger.blogspot.com...

Hope it helps.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I was glad not to see an eq in Ethiopia.

I am surprised not to see any eq activity in or around Italy. Mt. Etna and Mt. Stromboli have both been active. Is it because of the nature of those volcanoes? Are they not your "normal" stratovolcanoes?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
I have just realized that since japan moved only 2 inches from asia(korea) but several metres towards the US then thats alot of tension in that plate that japan is on,it would have been much better to see a greater movement from asia as well,that plates like a highly strung plastic ruler just now bent and rubbing against a desk and waiting to go boing again,for sure,as a anology of the subduction .
Yeah the signs have been there for months cracks all around the world.www.presstv.ir...
edit on 23-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Been watching the JMA Japan Met Agency web site for a few days and notice they are not catching anywhere near the number of quakes that usgs is showing.

Not sure if this is because of the damage there or they just can't spare the time right now.
In the past I used to watch NIED where they had lists of earthquakes but the english page is down just now. It was on earlier in the day and a message saying they were having difficulties with some of their equipment, but the page did open.

I thought I would download the JMA data anyway, but had to go through and open each quake page to get the lat/long details
took me a few hours.
Not a user friendly site at all, you would have to go in every day and download the days quakes, or end up with a big task ....and they don't have UTC either, that took me another hour converting that

I didn't get around to setting up the formulas to convert in Excel yet.

anyway heres the result, a comparison between usgs and jma for the 22nd March UTC.
Unfortunately usgs was a bit slow loading up that last 6.0 (their 5.9) so I didn't get it on the usgs file.

JST: 07:12 JST 23 Mar 2011
UTC:2011/3/22 22:12
LAT/LONG: 37.1, 140.8
DEPTH: very shallow
MAG: 6.0 ML
LOCATION: Fukushima-ken Hamadori
Source:
lifted off the popup tag on the Google Maps Version of the KML file created on GPS Visualiser using data from JMA converted from text to Excel with UTC added in by me


KMZ usgs/jma comparison

Google Maps version


edit on 23-3-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)

Note 1; Google Maps is not so good to view quakes that are on top of each other, the 6.0 is under the jma yellow 4.9 marker NW of Iwaki, you have to click on the side list to open the tag with the details.
Note 2; I expected some discrepincies in magnitude as usgs uses varying types, and the locatons beng out too, have seen some NZ usgs plotted ones waaaaaaaay out from the locals results

edit on 23-3-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 


Theres a low-mid Mag 8 to come yet I think, may be next week or next month. JMO



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


Just curious as to what makes you say that?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 


I agree in a sense and considering the movement of japan towards the US for sure pressure is put across that plate either the one japans on,or the pacific plate itself.The odd thing about all this is chile earthquake sped the planets rotation 1.6 microseconds a day and now the japan earthquake slowed it down by 1.8 microseconds back to where it was its like the planet changed gravity slightly over a period and the plate at japan released it or rather compacted to conform gravity and speed of rotation to its normal rate,pretty scary if this is true as it would mean the earth did ride a gravity fluctuiation wave and the earthquake was the sun and earth equalibrium relationship getting back to normal,crazy but

Its a Big think ?
edit on 23-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzy
reply to post by gringoboy
 


Theres a low-mid Mag 8 to come yet I think, may be next week or next month. JMO


Are you saying that based on the premise that an aftershock of about a mag lower than the mainshock usually occurs within the aftershock sequence?

Or are you saying a mag 8 somewhere else and not as part of aftershocks?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Hi guy's

I know this is nothing compared to what others around the world have but just wanted to share it here.


2011 03 23 05 37 58.8 52.169 -2.581 360.3 252.5 7.4 1.3 BROMYARD,HEREFORDSHIRE
2011 03 21 12 33 12.1 52.411 -2.183 387.6 279.3 8.2 1.3 KIDDERMINSTER,WORCS
2011 03 18 10 27 42.8 53.315 -1.795 413.7 379.8 2.5 1.4 BRADWELL,DERBYSHIRE


Link to site and map of recent quakes in UK.

I notice that two are near to Birmingham where we had the 4.8 in 2002. Would be interesting to see what quakes there were before that one. I know this is not a sign of an impending larger quake here in the UK, but it worth documenting just in case.

EDIT: Now this is interesting:

Midland Quake: The rock of ages squeezed until it had to give in.

Julian Bukits, said: 'This was a big earthquake. It occurred in a known area of seismic activity running from Hereford to Derby.


Link to full article

Notice where it says Hereford to Derby, two of the above quakes where in these areas. I think this maybe something to watch.
edit on 23/3/11 by boo1981 because: Add more info and links




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by gringoboy
 

Interesting idea. However, rather than a "gravity fluctuation wave", the main reason for the rate of change in our planet's rotation is simply conservation of its angular momentum, rather than any significant changes in its gravity. I am not saying that there were no gravitational changes but they were not the primary factor in changing the rate of rotation. Conservation of our planet's angular momentum is.

With any mass that is rotating around a single axis, its rate of spin at a given time is a function of three primary components: ( a ) the amount of energy that's available to cause that spin, and ( b ) the mass that is being moved (spun) by that energy, along with ( c ) the distance of that mass from the axis of rotation.

It takes a certain amount of energy to move a fixed amount of mass through a given distance at a given velocity. So, where the mass is spinning, and the amount of energy available to move it remains unchanged, then the mass will spin more slowly if it is moved further from the axis, because now that mass has further to travel. If it's moved closer to the axis (and the energy of rotation remains the same), then it will spin faster, because it has less distance to travel in the given time.

To further explain this concept of conservation of angular momentum, consider the analogy of an ice skater doing a spin: if the skater spins with arms outstretched and then pulls the arms in close to the body, the rate of spin increases. Moving the arms out again slows the rate of spin.

Because our planet is (almost) spherical, it means that not all of its mass is located uniformly along its axis of rotation. It has less mass perpendicular to its rotational axis as we get closer to the poles and more as we near the equator. Now, if we consider land masses at or near its surface (as is the case with Honshu and Chile), then in simple terms, moving one of those surface masses closer to the equator will slow the planet's rate of rotation, because the moved land mass gets further away from the axis. The further away it moves, the more the rate will slow (proportionate to its mass). Conversely, moving a land mass towards one of the poles will bring it closer to the axis and so the rate of rotation will increase.

Now let's consider Honshu. We know from data supplied that much of Honshu moved southeast. The easterly component of movement could have a small effect on the planet's rotation, but not so much as the southerly movement which meant that land mass was moved further away from the Earth's central axis of rotation.

As the system is effectively "closed" for this exercise, moving this mass of land further from the axis resulted in a slight slowing of the planet's rotation.

With Chile, it appears that some mass moved slightly further south -- meaning closer to the south pole. Because that mass therefore moved closer to the central axis of rotation, it meant the planet's rate of rotation increased very slightly.

This is not at all surprising, as it follows what's to be expected with conservation of the planet's angular momentum.

About gravity: as the Earth's gravity is a function of its mass (and density), moving some of the mass on its surface will have almost no effect on its total gravity, as that mass still remains about the same distance from the planet's center. (This is not to be confused with the distance that its surface mass can be from its axis, as I explained above.) Such movement can cause minor, localized variations in gravity readings, but these changes will not have any significant effect on the planet's rotation. In simple terms, the planet's gravity would remain the same, whether it were spinning or not.

I hope this helps to explain what I mean.

Best regards,

Mike


edit on 23/3/11 by JustMike because: Typos. If I missed any, please fix 'em yourselves.
I'm hurrying to go to work.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Hm...over 2 Hours with no (big) Aftershock...a little too quit,isn´t it?

Edit: Bah,i´m beginning to hate this Seismologists,they added one which happened an Hour ago...
edit on 23-3-2011 by Shenon because: grml



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MoorfNZ

Originally posted by muzzy
reply to post by gringoboy
 

Theres a low-mid Mag 8 to come yet I think, may be next week or next month. JMO


Are you saying that based on the premise that an aftershock of about a mag lower than the mainshock usually occurs within the aftershock sequence?
Or are you saying a mag 8 somewhere else and not as part of aftershocks?


In the same area (off the east coast of Honshu)
Based on what happened at Sumatra where they had an 8.7 three months later


The largest aftershock, which originated off the coast of the Sumatran island of Nias, registered a magnitude of 8.7, prompting debate among seismologists as to whether it should be classified as an aftershock of the December 2004 quake or as a "triggered earthquake" (which typically differs from an aftershock in that it is not located along the same fault line and may be as large or larger than the earthquake which triggered it). This earthquake was so large that it produced its own aftershocks (some registering a magnitude of as great as 6.1) and presently ranks as the 7th largest earthquake on record since 1900.

wikipedia

Maybe 1 week to 1 month could be a bit too soon, as you know the Chch 6.3 was 6 months after the 7.1.
There is no standard sequence of aftershocks, every quake is different.

Smaller but still significant result after the Chile 8.8


Date/Time: 2010/3/11 14:55:28
Lat: -34.25 Long: -71.9
Region: Liberator Bernardo O'Higgins, Chile
Mw: 7.2
Depth: 20 km
Deaths: n/a , Injuries: n/a Tsunami: n/a
Source: geofon
The earthquake occurred almost 2 weeks after the major 8.8 earthquake a Maule.

7+Project 2010

Or maybe it could go the other way like Napier 1931 and have an equal size or larger aftershock

Date/Time: 1931/2/13 1:27:16
Lat: -39.5 Long: 177.5
Region: Hawkes Bay, New Zealand
Mw: n/a Ms: 7.1 Mb: n/a ML: 7.3 (geonet)
Depth: n/a km
Deaths: n/a , Injuries: n/a
Tsunami: yes
Source: noaa
Following the main February 3 shock, the Hawke’s Bay Province experienced many scattered aftershocks, some of them very large. The largest had a magnitude MS 7.3, and it struck the already devastated region ten days later, at 1:27 pm (NZ Summer Time) on Friday, February 13. Its epicentre was ~50 km from that of the initial quake, offshore and to the east. It was felt widely from Hamilton to Christchurch, and was described by some inland communities as even more violent than the February 3 shock.

7+Project 1931

Probably the most comparitive historic quake sequence to this Japan one is the Chile 1960 mag 9.6 where there were 3 significant sized foreshocks. however there was no mag 8 aftershock.


8.2, 1960/5/21 10:2:57.7, -37.872, -73.243, 35, SW of Curanilahue, Bio Bio, Chile, ehb
7.3, 1960/5/22 10:32:49.66, -37.993, -73.341, 51, W of Contulmo, Bio Bio, Chile, ehb
7.9, 1960/5/22 18:56:4.03, -38.147, -72.984, 35, N of Capitan Pastene, Araucania, Chile, ehb
9.6, 1960/5/22 19:11:17.75, -39.5, -74.5, 35, o/s W of De Los Rios, Chile, ehb (location by noaa)
7.2, 1960/6/6 5:55:50.11, -45.727, -73.444, 25, Estero Quitralco, Aisen, Chile, ehb
7.0, 1960/6/19 22:1:, -38, -73.5, , o/s SW of Canate, Bio Bio, Chile, dgfudc
7.3, 1960/6/20 2:1:13.91, -38.254, -73.283, 25, S of Lago Gueulieu, Bio Bio, Chile, ehb
7.1, 1960/6/20 12:59:46.04, -39.218, -73.331, 25, o/s W of Tolten, Araucania, Chile, ehb
7.1, 1960/8/13 14:14:59.31, -39.914, -74.689, 45.2, o/s W of De Los Rios, Chile, ehb
7.2, 1960/11/1 8:46:1.08, -38.379, -74.848, 35, o/s Araucania, Chile, ehb
7.2, 1960/12/2 9:10:43.44, -24.677, -70.089, 15, SE of Cerro Amazones, Antofagasta, Chile, ehb

7+Project 1960



Originally posted by Nobama
reply to post by muzzy
 


Just curious as to what makes you say that?


See above

edit on 23-3-2011 by muzzy because: add source links


Lets hope for the sake of the folks in Japan that I am wrong.
edit on 23-3-2011 by muzzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JustMike
 


The dynamics of angular momentum are interesting but as at (C )in your analogy ,the distance of that mass from the axis of rotation are non comparable as the landmasses don`t fling out or move out from the central point of centrifuge as would be in your example and scientifically would not account for that variable speed change,also at(A )the amount of energy must have changed in order to change the spin which yet again means a change in energetic force(solar),the only real source of that energetic force is the sun,which relates to( B).



( a ) the amount of energy that's available to cause that spin, and ( b ) the mass that is being moved (spun) by that energy, along with ( c ) the distance of that mass from the axis of rotation.
.
The angular momentum explanation and those parameters does not explain the observation as stated each parameter requires a input of dynamic energy to influence the speeding up and slowing down,redistribution of weight ,albeit in small scale compared to the total mass would not do that in my opinion.
To the lay member this analogy is the bases for putting a balancing weight on your automobile wheel to balance centrifuge of your automobiles wheel stability,and because I do not agree that japan is a self moving chuck of weight that moves balancing the earths centrifuge ,i don`t buy it,as in the a,b,c all require clear and definable inputs which require energy in the first place to induce them.(a)the amount of energy that's available to cause that spin i.e the earths mass versus solar(b) and (c).
Exactly the amount of energy.
peace gringo

edit on 23-3-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Never mind... Didn't realize it had posted. My screen said "timed out" so I reposted the darned thing. (See next page).
edit on 23/3/11 by JustMike because: obvious.




top topics



 
203
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join