It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
* Sunday, September 18, 2011 at 12:40:48 UTC
* Sunday, September 18, 2011 at 06:10:48 PM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location 27.730°N, 88.082°E
Depth 20.7 km (12.9 miles)
Region SIKKIM, INDIA
Distances 68 km (42 miles) NW of Gangtok, Sikkim, India
119 km (73 miles) NNW of Shiliguri, West Bengal, India
272 km (169 miles) E of KATHMANDU, Nepal
572 km (355 miles) N of Kolkata (Calcutta), West Bengal, India
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 14.4 km (8.9 miles); depth +/- 7.4 km (4.6 miles)
Parameters NST=258, Nph=258, Dmin=369.6 km, Rmss=1.17 sec, Gp= 29°,
M-type=regional moment magnitude (Mw), Version=9
* Magnitude: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Location: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Event ID usc0005wg6
I took a look at the post you linked regarding the link between the Kuril Island and North Atlantic eatthquakes and my mind immediately pictured rotating the globe 90 degrees until the earthquakes are now on tangent to the edge of the globe and with the the pole running perpendicular to the equator (I hope this makes sense).
Now using the intersection of the axis and the equator as a center point and the globe as a circle rather than the surface of a sphere, we describe and arc between the two earthquakes that runs through approximately 90 degrees. The same can be done wry any other "180 degree" earthquake paring.
Originally posted by StealthyKat
[...] What's this about the GOM? The India quake could cause something here? I have MUCH reading to do......and still nothing from Middleton on Cali?....*sigh*....oh well....you all are doing fine without him!
While suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s, scientific consensus has rejected any expansion of the Earth.
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.
Next week six scientists and an official go on trial in Italy for manslaughter over the earthquake in L'Aquila that killed 309 people two years ago.
This extraordinary case has attracted international attention because science itself seemed to be on trial, with the seven defendants apparently charged for failing to predict the magnitude 6.3 earthquake that struck on the night of 6 April 2009.
In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.
Collective or professional opinions are defined as meeting a higher standard to substantiate the opinion. (see below)
A scientific opinion which represents the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. "The scientific opinion" (or scientific consensus) can be compared to "the public opinion" and generally refers to the collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field.
Subject: Re: M8
Just got here. Heading to (XXXX) office now. Current calcs in hand... hope it's not on the larger end.
Meet me in there. [a range of the amounts the upcoming expansion phase would encompass is presented with the hope that it is a smaller expansion rather than a larger one as that would have a correspondingly larger impact on the surface of the earth damage-wise]
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:07 PM, xxxxxxx wrote:
Absolutely. I'm concerned that we may be jumping the gun? do we NOT say anything and let it play out for another week or two?
We knew this was a possibility..[yeah, since the mid 1800's]
We're for sure, right? [really? I mean, are we really being asked to consider this?]
On Aug 25, 2011, at 4:55 PM, xxxxxx wrote:
Ugh. None really. We have to think this thru and make sure to not send alarm bells. [since this goes against all established geology, no protocol would exist for dealing with it. Not to mention how the general public would respond to “oh by the way, Geology has all been based upon a false assumption and we're about to get a VERY obvious demonstration of just how wrong we were”]
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:54 PM,xxxxxxxx wrote:
Is the plan to send an alert or something? What protocol do we have for this anyway?
Afraid so. Just spoke to (XXXX), we’re gathering shortly to discuss. On my way in now.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T [yeah, really really]
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:53 PM, xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Did we really just get this report?? [incredulity that someone “upstairs” says we have to think about the earth expanding]
posted on 18-9-2011 @ 02:57 PM
TextNow this is strange. The bird we have here in a cage freaked out squawking for 15 minutes and the birds outside all started carrieng on as well. I was outside and decided better check the stuff out. When I checked the Earthquake info there seems to have been one many many miles away. Like Type: Earthquake 17 minutes ago Magnitude: 3.8 DateTime: Sunday September 18 2011, 19:19:12 UTC Region: Ontario-Quebec border region, Canada Depth: 5 km from this site quakes.globalincidentmap.com... now all is normal here again just an occasional bird singing. Was very freaky and rather annoying.
From Library Journal
Seymour brings cosmology and astrology together to determine the relationship between living organisms and their physical environment. He discusses the effects of seasonal weather changes and the resulting temperature responses in animals and humans. Early humans, he posits, may have used planetary movement as well as the geomagnetic field of the earth for navigational purposes on land and sea. As people moved from living in small bands to larger groups, mechanical means of time-keeping such as calendars and clocks became necessary. Later, transportation developments also caused a need for the uniformity of time. Seymour also debates the theories of Michel Gauquelin and Suitbert Ertel, both of whom studied the effects of planetary positions at the time of an individual's birth and their correlation to human behavior. This is an intriguing if inconclusive book by a prominent British astronomer. An optional purchase.
- Lisa Wise, Three Rivers Lib. Sys., Glenwood Springs, Col.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Kirkus Reviews
Not, as many will expect from the title, a sheaf of blank pages, but rather a farrago of information about navigation, calendars, magnetism, and other subjects bearing on schedules and cycles; astrology lurks in the wings until the last few chapters. Perhaps this is because Seymour is a professional astronomer (Plymouth Polytechnic Institute, England) who's aware that he tiptoes on professional quicksand, edging into a region toward which most scientists demonstrate ``an appalling lapse in...understanding.'' He circles his goal warily, by laying down what is known about bio-cycles and the environment; most of this is schoolbook primer, although Seymour slips in some zingers--for instance, that early humans knew how to use earth's magnetic field for navigation, or that the Star of Bethlehem was actually a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. Finally, he leaves his astronomical colleagues in the dust, outlining his theory of extraterrestrial influence--in a nutshell, that planets affect solar cycles, which in turn affect earth's geomagnetic fields, which in turn affect human fetal development. A neat theory, currently unprovable (although the recent discovery of micromagnets in the human brain gives it credence). The spirit of Michel Gauquelin, pioneer of the ``scientific'' defense of astrology, hovers over this book (which is dedicated to him, contains an afterword about him, and has the same title as Gauquelin's classic). As such, it's as down-to-earth as such starry-eyed productions get. (Diagrams throughout.) -- Copyright ©1992, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.