Is it normal to have 3 X 7 magnitude earthquakes in the last 5 days?

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by Aelfrede

 

It's either CMEs or HAARP

Depends who you ask..

BTW, 3 doesn't sound like many unless they continue..

It's none of that, well a little of that. But the Earth is releasing a lot of accumulated negativity from eons of 'time'. She is shifting and will continue to shift for a few years to come. Nothing horrible will happen, no planet x will hit or the poles won't flip.

The planet is no different than any one of us (at a spirit level). She's ascending, and negativity is a low vibrational energy that cannot survive higher dimensions. Thus we and she/Earth must cast it away.... hence, oil leaks, earthquakes, storms... it's all of OUR negativity.

Be well.

"Normal" is kind of a funny word to use but if you consider clusters (aftershocks, etc.) in the same area there have been quite a few occasions.
Even if you keep them separated by a few hundred miles at least, it still happens.


08/08/1993: 7.8
08/09/1993: 7.0
08/10/1993: 7.0


01/09/2001: 7.1
01/10/2001: 7.0
01/13/2001: 7.7


12/23/2004: 8.1
12/26/2004: 7.2
12/26/2004: 9.0

If you expand it to a week you end up with a few more.

I'm counting 8 7.0+ earthquakes in less than 30 days. Can anyone
find a more active period anywhere in the past ? I know 3 of the 7.0+
quakes were the Moro gulf sequence, but still quite a few. Also the
most recent 3 7.0+ quakes were quite a distance from each other.

Originally posted by Three_moons

Originally posted by 12voltz
dont forget the triple sevens in the Moro gulf a couple of weeks ago.

I was thinking the same thing. Do 3 magnitude 7 quakes in the same day make you feel better or worse about only having 3 withing 5 days? Depends what way you're looking at things.


Edit to add:
reply to post by woogleuk

 

I absolutely agree with your first part but your last sentence is a direct contradiction, isn't it? How do we know the earth isn't going to shake itself to pieces as part of a natural occurrence?

[edit on 8/14/2010 by Three_moons]

Just the way its all held together, gravity and stuff i would assume, earthquakes are caused by plates moving, and any pressure inside the earth is released via volcano, I can't see any scientific reason that the earth would fall apart.

I find it funny how people use data that is so recent in Earth's history to determine norms... The earth is 4.5 Billion years old... Earthquake data is NOWHERE NEAR capable of determining what is normal and what is not...

It's like determining the picture of a 4.5 billion piece puzzle with 500 pieces... Impossible...

Magnum

reply to post by Magnum007


Exactly what I said on page 1, glad to see someone else can see sense, lol.

One of these days the earth is gonna kick out an earthquake so powerful and so widespread, its never been registered and people are gonna freak because they rely too heavily on modern data to understand the very planet we are living on.

reply to post by Magnum007


isn'tsampling a very normal way of determinng a standard when its not possible to grab the comlete picture?
Also I think that at the beginning of our earth there would be lots more quakes compared to nowadays..

The point here is to determine wether a pattern of increased activity is occuring. Its not interesting t know wether the earth has seen activity like this before.. what IS interesting would be wether humans were able to survive heavy quakes in the past. But again that intel is not up for grabs.

Another thing to keep in mind is that lots of people here are actually expecting this earth to figuratively fall apart, either because of 2012 or simply for whats been prophecyed by countless sources.

With all these factors taken into account I feel its possible to attain a decent picture with the little info we have to go on.

Originally posted by woogleuk
One of these days the earth is gonna kick out an earthquake so powerful and so widespread, its never been registered and people are gonna freak because they rely too heavily on modern data to understand the very planet we are living on.

Funny you should mention that, because I've always wondered if there is such a thing as a MEGA quake. Something that may not have happened before in recorded history. But so big and powerful that it was like a 15+ or something.

You figure that if there are about 1.5 to 3 years between 9+ quakes on average, maybe there is something like a MEGA quake that happens every 5 to 10,000 years or so.

Something like a huge tectonic plate movement, all at once. So big and powerful that a monster (500 ft.+) tsunami ensues. I think it's possible. Let's hope not in our lifetimes...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I dare make the claim that we WILL see one in our lifetimes. The way we treat our earth most certainly is gonna cause ever increasing damage to the planet, I see 2 ways out of the # we put ourselves in. Either this earth will eventually eject all our a$$es outa existence or a deity will intervene, clean up the mess and the accompanying bigots responsible and then start over. Either way it wont take another 50 years...

reply to post by faceoff85


I sometimes wonder if removing oil has anything to do with it, although I stand by what I say about recorded history, and how little we know, we are creating empty voids in the earth by removing its natural lubricant, is it possible that it could contribute to the severity of earthquakes?

reply to post by woogleuk


In the Netherlands we are suffering (mildly I must add) from lowering of ground because of oil and gas-winning, picture yourself some brick houses showing tears in the brickwork from this phenomenon. It is in the very least a likely scenario that our continued emptying of oil-pockets is eventually gonna come back to haunt us. When looking at the pressure that was existend in the blowout well in the GOM, I can see the earth coming down when the upward pressure in such a pocket is relieved.

reply to post by faceoff85


I agree that sampling is a statistical tool, but sampling needs to be somewhat proportional to the total amount of information...

I understand the doom and gloom lifestyle we humans like to live in but I have to say, what if we are just cycling back to the early phase of the earth's activity? We have no ways of knowing because we lack this information...

reply to post by Magnum007


I understand your point. But then the interesting question we want answered is: How bad of a phase are we returning to? is it survivable?

To see people taking extreme stanpoints on both sides is to be expected and VERY nesecary, for that I thank you for your input as you also contribute in this fashion. But to go as far as to say this is normal just doesn't sit well with me. It would be like saying its normal to have almost all of earth turn into volcanic ground, complete with molten lava and the rest, because the earth has seen in before...

We need to differentiate between natural phenomena wich may be normal to our planet but not to us compared to everyday occurences wich we have seen and will continue to see on our earth...

Again your input is invaluable as some of us have the tendency to jump to conclusions. For that we need level-headed people who put us back on both our feet...