Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by eriktheawful
Wait a minute are you saying gravity only travel's in a straight line ?
Gravity from celestial objects like planets and stars is out in a 360 degree spherical shell.
The great debate is: does gravity from other planets and the sun cause earthquakes here?
Leave no doubt, if the gravity from another body is strong enough, it most likely would cause earthquakes.
But, the question becomes: how strong does it have to be?
Tidal forces from gravity has been something debatable not only among us ATS members, but the scientific community too.
Most scientist completely agree that if two bodies get close enough, gravitational influence is obvious.. For example, if a small enough body comes
close enough to the Earth (and slow enough, not talking about meteors here), it's possible for the
to completely shatter that object.
But does Jupiter have any gravitational influence on the Earth even when it's at it's closest to us? What about Venus?
The sun, being as massive as it is, obviously has gravitational influence on us. We orbit it. But does the sun's gravitational field have influence
on Earth's tectonic plates?
Just to be clear, we're talking gravity here, not magnetic fields. The two are different from each other.
Now as you pointed out, gravity isn't like a laser beam. It's influence from planets and stars goes out all over. So in the case of an "alignment"
we would be looking at distance (IE an alignment of say the sun, Earth and Jupiter would mean a shorter distance than say a alignment of Jupiter, the
sun, then the Earth).
However, my statement about inclinations still holds true. The distance would be affecting if say Earth is higher up in inclination, than say if it
was exactly align on the solar plane with both Jupiter and the Sun.
I won't discount the possibility of gravity wells affecting the Earth's tectonic plates. The sun tugs on us, and Jupiter (as an example) can also
tug on us......very, very, very, very minutely, but it's still there.
However, I can't say for sure it's absolutely right. I've not seen enough evidence for it being the case. As with all things in science, you can't
pick and choose your data. You have to include ALL earthquakes, ALL alignment dates. You have to show everything, including dates when nothing
happened, or when a major quake did happen yet no alignment either. It would need to be pretty consistent.
What I mean by that is: we have major quakes with no alignments, but there are also cases of quakes with some sort of alignment.
Is one the product of the other? Or is it random chance, with the frequency of quakes and alignments being taken into account?