Now if you want to talk about seismic activity...

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 01:00 PM
How about the 4.2 that just went off not far from L A.

Personally I've been thinking it's about time for a big one in that area, due to the fact that a lot of plates around the globe seem to be moving.... so to the resident seismic crew here:

Since all the plates are interlocked, and they are all 'floating', doesn't it stand to reason that when you get that much activity on one side of the ring of fire, you will see activity on the other side, maybe not immediately, but shortly thereafter? (and we have had a LOT of > 6 quakes in the Pacific lately).

For the recordl; I don't think the sky is falling, and I don't think we are about to get smacked into by a stray planet, and I don't think there is an ominous blob in the sky at night about to eat my children. I don't think this is the end of the world.

I do think we can have major seismic happenings, without it being the end of the world and that is what I'm interested in discussing


posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by otlg27

For the recordl; I don't think the sky is falling, and I don't think we are about to get smacked into by a stray planet, and I don't think there is an ominous blob in the sky at night about to eat my children. I don't think this is the end of the world.

I do think we can have major seismic happenings, without it being the end of the world and that is what I'm interested in discussing


Wow, man, you just took all the fun out of it.

posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 12:46 PM
Hang on there. It's making it's way around the ring. There was just a 4.8 in HOKKAIDO, JAPAN so it's coming round the ring. It takes time to radiate.

You can keep an eye on them here:

For the world.

For the USA

4's and 5's seem common on these maps. There was a 4.2 in Co. yesterday.

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:51 PM
The earthquakes do not "Travel" round the ring of fire, any pattern is purely coincidental.

If an earthquake occurs in LA it will not trigger one of accross the pacific, however it may trigger other earthquakes on faults nearby to the fault that has moved. A process known as earthquake triggering.

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:05 PM
Correct me if im wrong, but the plates done follow any rythem, then just collide from time to time, some are also expanding, some contracting.... to a point.

but back to the origenal subject. I believe it is past due time for something to happen once more. Im thinking much bigger than most would anticipate. Im just not so sure about it being in LA. I'll see what i can find to back my thoughs up.

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:31 PM
Its been a long night, i wont be finding too much supporting evidence. Take a look at a global posting of recent earthquakes. They've mainly been on the edges of the pacific. right now i think the plates associated with the pacific are expanding towards mainland. This may continue, or may halter. I will assume that it isnt stopping soon.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 12:01 AM
Actually (and sorry all for not responding sooner, reallife and work interrupted)...

What I'm talking about not that hard to understand. I don't have the patience to draw up pictures, so I'll try with words.


1) All the plates are interlocked
2) One plate moves it puts stress on one of the outcroppings another plate is currently 'hung up on'

Expected outcome:

The more the plates move (earthquakes) the more pressure on those that haven't quaked recently.

I would point out the increased siemic activity in California and Alaska in the last week as 'supporting evidence'.

Also note several smaller quakes are just as capable of releasing the same pent up energy. All depends on how long it goes without quaking, and the frictional strength (made up term, but you get the idea) of whatever it's hung up on.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 02:52 AM

Frequency of Earthquakes Worldwide Annual Average :
1 that is 8.0 or higher
18 that are 7 - 7.9
120 that are 6 - 6.9
800 that are 5 - 5.9
6200 that are 4 - 4.9
49,000 that are 3 - 3.9
and 9000 a DAY that are 1 - 3.
( Source: Infoplease, National Earthquake Information Center, U.S. Geological Survey.)

And multiplier for how much more energy one magnitude bigger quake releases is 32.

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 01:40 PM
The plates are not interlocked in this sense, and earthquakes occur for a mutitude or reasons, and do not travel around, because one plate has moved, which then passes stress onto another. For this to happen you would need an astronomical earthquake which would be so powerful that it would destroy the entire planet. On local scales, such as the northern anotolian fault in turkey, earthquakes can trigger others in the region as the stress of an earthquke can cause more stress in one region and less in another.

As for the california and Alaska "supporting evidence" you could look at anywere around the globe and say that two random earthquake events are connected.

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:35 PM
Rock Hunter:

Sorry for the extended delay in replying.

Please note, I'm not talking about an earth quake one day, then another the next, but cumlative effect over time (be it a year, 10s of years or even 1000s depending on how you want to look at it).

I know it sounds convenient to reply after that huge quake in the Indian Ocean, but it does make for a great example of what I'm trying to say... one plate just moved 30 Meters in a few seconds. This is certainly going to increase stress on other plate boundries, somewhere.

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:54 PM

don't worry about the long delay!! #

your initial post was talking about earthquakes occuring "shortly" thereafter, and that is what I was responding too.

A distinction needs to be made between a fault and a plate boundary. With the huge 9 it was still a fault that moved, albeit one that was probably around 1000km long. And yes the chances of this causing other eartquakes to be triggered on surrounding faults is high, and yes over hundreds of thousands of years stress will be transfered around to diffrent faults. But this does not always mean an earthquake will occur, as remember that an earthquake is a result of the release of stress, in this case the energy unfortunatly was transfered into a tidal wave. The fault that caused this will have created a surrounding "stress Field" which will have put more stress on certain faults and "released" stress on certain others. This may trigger some other quakes in the vicinity of the fault, but not at the other end of the plate.

It is unlikly though that a earthquake on one side of a plate will result in the stress to be transmitted all the way accross thousands of km to the other side of the plate.

[edit on 31-12-2004 by Rock Hunter]

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 01:03 PM
Rock Hunter:

Well my talk of 'shortly' was unintentional. Rather I was thinking (if not stating) that it seems to have been a while since there has been any *major* release in the California area. While on the other side of the Pacific plate there has been a ton of energy released in the last 5-10 years.

While I won't argue there are many factors at play, I also wouldn't rule out the fact that simple transferance of energy has to be happening. The only question is at what levels are these energies sufficient and I'm really too lazy to do all the math (not that it would help as we really don't know what levels of energy are required to dislodge any plate from whatever it's currently 'hung-up on', since we don't even know what they are hung-up on, damn not having xray vision good enough to see through the earth

Having said that, I also accidentally 'ignored' (I know.. cardinal sin #1, ignore something obvious because you are looking right past it) all the activity in the Alaskan area, so while from a california getting screwed standpoint, I retract, I still think the energy transfer stuff should be investigated more, because it *maybe* be useful one day to help determine the locations of future quakes.



log in