It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# UPDATE: Credible Data Regarding the Relation of ELENIN and Recent Seismic Activity

page: 2
13
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:20 AM

As a quick and dirty primer out of Wikipedia...

Believe it or not, electrostatic force and gravitational force share a common form:

For 2 masses (m1, m2) the attractive force between them is: F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 ; where G is the gravitational constant and r is the distance between the two masses.
Newton's Law of Gravitation

Similarly, for two point charges (q1, q2) will have a force of: F = Ke * q1 * q2 / r^2 ; where Ke is a constant and r is the distance between the two charges. One item to note is that the charges can be either positive or negative, so as to be either repulsive (both the same sign) or attractive (opposite signs).
Coulomb's Law

So you can think of electrostatic forces being like gravity where the charges are analogous to the masses.

Beyond this things get trickier... Moving charges (or changing charges) generate magnetic fields. Also, changing or moving magnetic fields generate electric fields.

The important thing to remember is the 1/r^2 term above. If you double the distance between the 2 objects, you are cutting the force by a factor of 4. And for all things astronomical, the distances are HUGE.. So to get any kind of meaningful interaction, the masses/charges must also be HUGE!
edit on 8/3/2011 by xenthuin because: Semantics

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:23 AM

House cats and leopards have the same form...

At any rate, it was my understanding that doubling the distance results in 1/4 initial strength. Not loss of 1/4 but a loss of 3/4

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:27 AM

Cool!
Thanks for the explanation. I did read some of that already in my searches but you DID put it in terms I could more easily understand. The whole Electric Universe Theory has me thinking out-of-the-box on all these things before coming to any conclusions.

One day you hear an explanation from an astrophysicist and the next day you'll hear they were mistaken and things weren't as they thought they were so I try to keep an open mind on space and space-time topics.
There's still many questions we don't have the answers too and just cause the "mainstream" theories are what most scientists push doesn't mean they are fact... that's why they're called theories.
edit on 8/3/11 by AstroBuzz because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:28 AM

I would be relieved if you could intelligently debunk my data. That means more than 'it's been proven' or 'we would know' explanation. I ain't seen that proof. I would very much like to see what convinces you I'm wrong.

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:31 AM

That's not what you said.

You can go back over the last 10 years at USGS and see the yearly surge in febuary and early march.

But if you want to move the goalposts, I'll play.

By year, 7.0 and greater
Year 2001
Month Total
1 5
2 2
6 2
7 1
8 1
10 3
11 1
12 1

Year 2002
Month Total
1 1
3 3
4 1
6 1
8 2
9 1
10 1
11 3

Year 2003
Month Total
1 2
3 1
5 2
6 1
7 1
8 2
9 3
10 1
11 1
12 1

Year 2004
Month Total
1 1
2 2
7 2
9 2
10 1
11 5
12 3

Year 2005
Month Total
2 1
3 2
6 2
7 1
8 1
9 2
10 1
11 1

Year 2006
Month Total
1 3
2 1
4 1
5 2
7 1
8 1
11 1
12 1

Year 2007
Month Total
1 2
3 1
4 1
8 3
9 6
10 1
11 2
12 2

Year 2008
Month Total
2 2
3 1
4 2
5 1
6 1
7 2
9 1
11 2

Year 2009
Month Total
1 3
2 2
3 1
5 1
7 1
8 2
9 3
10 3
11 1

Year 2010
Month Total
1 2
2 2
4 2
5 2
6 2
7 4
8 3
9 2
10 1
12 2

Year 2011
Month Total
1 4
3 4
4 1
6 1
7 2

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:33 AM

Yup, you are correct and that's what I meant. Words are bad, mmmkay?

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:37 AM

The whole Niburu thing is a lie piled on top of lies. There is no evidence for it other than ancient Sumerian writings.

These sum things up well:
HERE
astrobiology.nasa.gov...
AND HERE

As for Elenin, more links does not equal more proof. I addressed it sufficiently in my first post.

ETA: Nibiru or Niburu or whatever it's made-up name is has been debunked on ATS Ad Nauseum. While I am loathe to cite ATS as a source, these threads provides relevant sources in their own right. A simple use of the SEARCH function will confirm this.

edit on 3-8-2011 by SpringHeeledJack because: additional info

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Hillbilly123069
That doesn't show there more intense quakes that have been prominent in the late winter. You know, more than 1 being of the top 5 on record. I'm actually only aware of three 9+ that did not occur in the late winter early spring time frame that I have been emphasizing. My research shows at least 9 earthquakes registering 9.0 or above magnitude in recorded history. At least 5 occurring in febuary to march.

edit on 3-8-2011 by Hillbilly123069 because: (no reason given)

I see you completely changed your post.
There have been exactly two earthquakes of 9.0 or greater since 1973. One in December and one in March.

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:39 AM

And you're supposed to make me feel better ? Stop talking rational, I'm trying to be scared!

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:41 AM
Lets shoot for 9.0 and larger quakes over the last 300 years. Although estimations are the record most the way back on that. I would like to know the sum number of all quakes as well. I think I know most of the 9.0+ but Id like to see total quake monthly tallies for your data. I haven't changed my posts. I add if I find relevent info. And here is a list contradicting someones comment about 2 quakes.

Date Location Name Magnitude
May 22, 1960 Valdivia, Chile 1960 Valdivia earthquake 9.5
**March 27, 1964 Prince William Sound, Alaska, USA 1964 Alaska earthquake 9.2
December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean, Sumatra, Indonesia 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake 9.1–9.3
November 4, 1952 Kamchatka, Russia (then USSR) 1952 Kamchatka earthquakes 9.0[2]
**March 11, 2011 Pacific Ocean, Tōhoku region, Japan 2011 Tōhoku earthquake 9.0[3][4][5]
November 25, 1833 Sumatra, Indonesia 1833 Sumatra earthquake 8.8–9.2 (est.)
**February 27, 2010 Maule, Chile 2010 Chile earthquake 8.8
**January 26, 1700 Pacific Ocean, USA and Canada 1700 Cascadia earthquake 8.7–9.2 (est.)[6]
July 8, 1730 Valparaiso, Chile 1730 Valparaiso earthquake 8.7–9.0 (est.)[7]
November 1, 1755 Atlantic Ocean, Lisbon, Portugal 1755 Lisbon earthquake 8.7 (est.)[8]
**February 4, 1965 Rat Islands, Alaska, USA 1965 Rat Islands earthquake 8.7
July 9, 0869 Pacific Ocean, Tōhoku region, Japan 869 Sanriku earthquake 8.6 (est.)
October 28, 1707 Pacific Ocean, Shikoku region, Japan 1707 Hōei earthquake 8.6 (est.)
August 15, 1950 Assam, India – Tibet, China 1950 Medog earthquake 8.6
**March 9, 1957 Andreanof Islands, Alaska, USA 1957 Andreanof Islands earthquake 8.6
**March 28, 2005 Sumatra, Indonesia 2005 Sumatra earthquake 8.6
August 13, 1868 Arica, Chile (then Peru) 1868 Arica earthquake 8.5–9.0 (est.)[9]
December 16, 1575 Valdivia, Chile (Kingdom of Chile) 1575 Valdivia earthquake 8.5 (est.)
October 20, 1687 Lima, Peru (Viceroyalty of Peru) 1687 Peru earthquake 8.5 (est.)
May 24, 1751 Concepción, Chile (Kingdom of Chile) 1751 Concepción earthquake 8.5 (est.)
November 11, 1922 Atacama Region, Chile 1922 Vallenar earthquake 8.5 [10]
**February 3, 1923 Kamchatka, Russia (USSR) 1923 Kamchatka earthquakes 8.5 [11]
**February 1, 1938 Banda Sea, Indonesia (Dutch East Indies) 1938 Banda Sea earthquake 8.5
October 13, 1963 Kuril Islands, Russia (USSR) 1963 Kuril Islands earthquake 8.5 [11]
November 1, 1755 Lisbon, Portugal 1755 Lisbon earthquake 8.5–9.0 (est.)
September 12, 2007 Sumatra, Indonesia 2007 Sumatra earthquakes 8.5
edit on 3-8-2011 by Hillbilly123069 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:44 AM

There are no magnitude records for 300 years but there are since 1900.
There have been four 9.0+; one each in March, May, November, and December.
earthquake.usgs.gov...

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:52 AM
I dont rely on the government for info. A google search will show they are far from accurate at record keeping. Anything I do use is verified by other sources before I consider it credible.
edit on 3-8-2011 by Hillbilly123069 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:52 AM

Sorry, the catalog above only goes up to 2007, make that 2 in March to include the Japan quake this year.

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:55 AM

Originally posted by Hillbilly123069
I dont rely on the government for info. A google search will show they are far from accurate at record keeping. Anything I do use is verified by other sources before I consider it credible.
edit on 3-8-2011 by Hillbilly123069 because: (no reason given)

I must have misunderstood when you said this:

Originally posted by Hillbilly123069

This link will provide you all the scientific info you need to see yourself this is no coincidence.
earthquake.usgs.gov...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or do you only consider it credible when it supports your hypothesis. That's real good science.

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:57 AM
I would like to apologize to the OP for using this thread to argue theory. Ultimately, all thoughts on this subject will be answered over the next 2 months. I pray I'm wrong and the critics are right.

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Hillbilly123069
I dont rely on the government for info. A google search will show they are far from accurate at record keeping. Anything I do use is verified by other sources before I consider it credible.
edit on 3-8-2011 by Hillbilly123069 because: (no reason given)

I must have misunderstood when you said this:

Originally posted by Hillbilly123069

This link will provide you all the scientific info you need to see yourself this is no coincidence.
earthquake.usgs.gov...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or do you only consider it credible when it supports your hypothesis. That's real good science.

I don't think they're listening my friend

- nothing like a good hypothesis, the basis of all scientific exploration lol

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 03:38 AM

Uh oh. Now you've done it.

What's your take on this whole Elenin topic sir?

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 06:48 AM

Originally posted by SpringHeeledJack

The whole Niburu thing is a lie piled on top of lies. There is no evidence for it other than ancient Sumerian writings.

I'm a Christian. Important note for the coming text:

...so, I read your post and watched the attached video. I'm sitting there watching, and see the "prophecyfilm.com" section, and I'm thinking, "please. Don't let this be people claiming to be Christian, and/or Biblical".

Head on over to prophecyfilm.com, aaaaand...

*facepalm*

Great video - and great logical, sound reasoning. I agree wholeheartedly.
Anyone who thinks a 2-3km comet is hiding a massive planet in its wake, which is currently traveling at a similar speed to that comet, and entering our solar system, without leaving significant evidence of its intrusion...

is deluding themselves.

As for the "planetary alignment = earthquakes" theory...
There MAY be something to that (I think it unlikely, but let's run with it for now), but it does not involve Elenin/Nibiru. Seriously.

I just can't wait for October, so this can all END!!!

oh, and by that, I don't mean (end = armageddon), I mean (end = discontinuation of mindless posts about hiding planets and crap).

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:48 PM
I think the damn thing will fly past...nothing of great significance will happen except we might get a really nice firework display from the tail...I shall lay on the roof and watch in awe...whilst sipping a beer (if it's not snowed)

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Hillbilly123069
I dont rely on the government for info. A google search will show they are far from accurate at record keeping. Anything I do use is verified by other sources before I consider it credible.
edit on 3-8-2011 by Hillbilly123069 because: (no reason given)

I must have misunderstood when you said this:

Originally posted by Hillbilly123069

This link will provide you all the scientific info you need to see yourself this is no coincidence.
earthquake.usgs.gov...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or do you only consider it credible when it supports your hypothesis. That's real good science.

new topics

top topics

13