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.

 

7.7 Okhotsk Earthquake AGAIN at beginning of Earth, Venus,

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by OneisOne
 


Now I understand what's going on here. Thank you for pointing me to the intro thread. The OP, presented an *opinion*, not facts there. The thread was closed by a MOD for not adhering to T&C intro guidelines.

Hence...this thread to continue their *opinion*, not facts......

Thank You OneisOne for helping me connect the dots.....


Des




posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Problem is, you have forgotten to try to connect any of the 'factual' dots...



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by OneisOne
 


Now I understand what's going on here. Thank you for pointing me to the intro thread. The OP, presented an *opinion*, not facts there. The thread was closed by a MOD for not adhering to T&C intro guidelines.

Hence...this thread to continue their *opinion*, not facts......

Thank You OneisOne for helping me connect the dots.....


Des


Des, I'm getting a strange sense of deja vu here

edit on 14-8-2012 by paradisepurple because: Sp.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
i actually looked at the PDF file and there's a lot of data but when i saw "elenin" mentioned i stopped looking. sorry, that really destroys any credibility he might have had.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pasiphae
i actually looked at the PDF file and there's a lot of data but when i saw "elenin" mentioned i stopped looking. sorry, that really destroys any credibility he might have had.


Oh well done for getting that far, I didn't... Thanks for that



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Melyanna
 


I couldnt get past the sensationalism. ATS is jam packed with it, and Im tired of seeing it. Sick of it, really. People who sensationalize do NO favors to the "truth" movement, or whatever. It actually turns common people off; it makes the person look like they are a tabloid magazine and while they might read your tabloid, they automatically and involuntarily shut down their minds to the otherwise perhaps legitimate hypothesis presented.

Butcher, I understand 10^7 is a million, and mega means million in a technical sense. But colloquially, mega means something huge, enormous, exceptionally powerful, the grandest of the grand, and even unheard of. A 7.7 is none of those things, and I dont buy when sensationalists hide behind "I was just being technical". Bull. They just wanted to spice up the article with some hyperbole. A "mega quake" in the minds of the non-hyper literal person (ex: 99.x%+ of individuals), means a 10+ quake, and attached to that 10+ is a sense of fear and dread.

Mega here is not used in a technical sense IMO, its used for an emotional evocation.

However I did go over the article. Gravity from small bodies over such tremendous distances is very, very weak in a practical sense. The amount of force exerted is so small its barely measurable by the finestly tuned instruments, if at all. Could an earthquake be so close to being realized, teetering on the precipice ever so, that the smallest of pushes can trigger it? Perhaps. But it would have happened anyway if that were the case.

Also, what about those quakes that happened when there were no alignments?

I think dots are being connected that do not logically connect.
edit on 8/14/2012 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melyanna
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Problem is, you have forgotten to try to connect any of the 'factual' dots...


Sorry. The only fact I see here, is you have an agenda regarding Elenin. Since that issue has been debunked every which way imaginable, or, at least to my satisfaction. I choose not to waste anymore of my time looking at your *facts*.

Des



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Melyanna
 

I don't have the time currently to read the whole paper, but I am willing to believe that maybe planets do have an effect on earth- thus causing quakes. Why not believe? I was told for years that Pluto was a planet, then a few years back scientists changed their minds. I was told for years that research showed coffee was bad for you, then research showed it was okay. IMO, research is constantly evolving so why not.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by CaticusMaximus
 


Thank you so much for explaining that article

edit on 14-8-2012 by paradisepurple because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AuntB
reply to post by Melyanna
 

I don't have the time currently to read the whole paper, but I am willing to believe that maybe planets do have an effect on earth- thus causing quakes. Why not believe? I was told for years that Pluto was a planet, then a few years back scientists changed their minds. I was told for years that research showed coffee was bad for you, then research showed it was okay. IMO, research is constantly evolving so why not.


I hear you.. But I just spent a little bit of time reading about Mensur Omerbashich (lots of threads here) and it doesn't look good...
edit on 14-8-2012 by paradisepurple because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Neither side will know entirely for a long long time.
It's just as reckless to say planetary alignments
NEVER cause earthquakes.
They don't know.
NASA just recently decided ripples on the Sun were SunQuakes.
Prior to this, bringing this up (after being ridiculed) it was explained
away by distorted optics of the Solar Observatories.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melyanna
reply to post by Destinyone
 

Problem is, you have forgotten to try to connect any of the 'factual' dots...


Here are some facts from the USGS:

"Number of Earthquakes Worldwide for 2000 - 2012"
There were 17 magnitude 8.0 or greater earthquakes between 2000 and the present; there are an average of 15 magnitude 7.0 or greater each year. There are an average of 134 mangitude 6.0-6.9 quakes each year.
Earthquake Facts and Statistics

Thus, there have been approximately 1,800 magnitude 6.0 or greater quakes since 2000 and 1440 days of 3-day "alignments." There are approximately 120 days of these "alignments," or 1/3 of the year, each year.

It is not difficult to see that many of these "mega" quakes will fall within the time of these "alignments" just by chance.

jw


edit on 14-8-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


This is some logic I can wrap my brain around. Sorry OP, but this thread is bunk.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 

I don't know Butcherguy. According to Wikipedia:

2010 Haiti earthquake was a catastrophic magnitude 7.0 Mw earthquake
I think experts chose their wording depending upon destruction and affect to human life. That is my opinion.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
Neither side will know entirely for a long long time.
It's just as reckless to say planetary alignments
NEVER cause earthquakes.
They don't know.
NASA just recently decided ripples on the Sun were SunQuakes.
Prior to this, bringing this up (after being ridiculed) it was explained
away by distorted optics of the Solar Observatories.

I agree with that.

But to state that EQs are unrelated to tectonics is equally reckless.
From the first 2 lines the the paper's conclusions:

The Earth’s strong seismicity is unrelated to tectonics, and they both arise due to the same external (astronomical) causes, namely the Earth’s position with respect to the solar system’s constellations. So the long alleged mutual causality of strong earthquakes and tectonics is not real either.

from the op's link.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


Hi Pasiphae

That's unfortunate, because if you had kept reading you would see that his research actually discredits the elenin hysteria very succinctly and factually.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by CaticusMaximus
 



Butcher, I understand 10^7 is a million, and mega means million in a technical sense. But colloquially, mega means something huge, enormous, exceptionally powerful, the grandest of the grand, and even unheard of. A 7.7 is none of those things, and I dont buy when sensationalists hide behind "I was just being technical". Bull. They just wanted to spice up the article with some hyperbole. A "mega quake" in the minds of the non-hyper literal person (ex: 99.x%+ of individuals), means a 10+ quake, and attached to that 10+ is a sense of fear and dread. Mega here is not used in a technical sense IMO, its used for an emotional evocation.

I agree with you entirely.

I was just curious and looked it up and was surprised that the term is used for what is certainly not the top end of earth's experienced quakes. ( in terms of relative power and destructive capabilities)


edit on 14-8-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by CaticusMaximus
 


Hi CaticusMaximus

What did you think of Omerbashich's comment that it is not gravity that is at work here. As you will no doubt have caught, his work on such alignments was intended to illustrate an as yet unknown mechanism. How about the mathematical proofs? Are you mathematically literate enough to see that they are unarguable?

Melyanna



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Destinyone
 


Hi Destinyone

Thanks for having the courage to admit that you have no interest in Facts. As for an agenda regarding Elenin, the only thing I have written regarding it is to logically call attention to the fact that all of the hysteria was completely uncalled for. In other words, I helped to debunk it. Another one of those facts that you have no interest in....

Melyanna



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by paradisepurple
 


Hi ParadisePurple

Just to clarify, his comments show that he did not understand the article at all, nor the mathematics, but kudos to him for at least trying....

Melyanna




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join