Planetary / solar alignments are the main cause of earthquakes

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2036

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's nonsense, there's nothing he said that supports his ideas.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can beat his alignments, such as Elenin, Earth, Sun. EVERY earthquake ever recorded can be aligned with the Earth, sun, and a visible galaxy. Ergo, all earthquakes are caused by the distant galaxies whenever they align with the Earth and the sun.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well at any given time there's an alignment. Literally every imaginable second we are literally aligned with something else. This theory is idiotic.

Gauss's law disproves this.

 

I'll bet his "approximate forecast" is about as good as random guessing. If he was remotely right, the Moon would have much larger influences than anything else, and while I'm sure there's a small factor there given that it's demonstrated through the tides the Moon does affect the planet, the whole thing about the super Moon and earthquakes was already debunked elsewhere.

 

Solar alignments that fit up to par match perfecly. Every one of them is right given a proper aligned perception.

 

My link in post #1 gives a full research paper that you can download.

What confuses me is why Elenin is deemed to have such a massive effect on seismicity. I mean, its core is only 4 km wide. But then the coma is 80,000 km in diameter.

Odd stuff from a Cornell professor. Good idea to transfer it into the preudoscience section.

 

Coincidence?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...earthquake-Was-Raffaele-Bendandi-correct.html

 

Lamont, do you know what Gauss's law is?

Basically it states that within a sphere the gravitational forces can only face outwards, not inwards. For example, an object that is 140 pounds on the surface of the earth is only 70 pounds at X distance under the surface.

Imagine if you were to cut the earth into layers like an onion. The gravitational forces on layer "C" by layer "A" which is above it equals 0.

It is also the principle behind the Faraday cage, by putting an object inside a conducting sphere or box or any shape of any size the electrical field will only face outwards, not inwards so it cannot affect things within the cage.

So if you were to take a rubber ball and put it at the very center of the earth it would weigh practically nothing at all while on the surface it will weigh more.

Essentially the forces of gravity above a shell cancel each other out so they do not affect anything underneath them.

Now, the reason this disproves this hypothesis is simple. There are so many stars, planets, galaxies, and all manner of massive objects in this universe we can essentially assume for these purposes (especially due to distance) that there are an infinite number of them.

You can thus make "shells" of gravity, ie. Shell "1" might be made up of all objects between 1 light year and 4 light years away. Shell "2" might be between 4 light years and 16 light years away, and so on and so forth. There are so many things occupying these shells especially at the distances were talking about that it basically all cancels out by Gauss's law.

Since there are so many galaxies out there that while one may exert a gravitational force on earth there is at least one other galaxy that exerts the same force in the opposite direction so they both cancel out.

That's why this is wrong. Because at these distances the differences between a solid shell of matter (such as the earth's crust) and scattered matter in space (like galaxies) is practically 0.

Thus, because of Gauss's law, even if the galaxies were aligned there would be no abnormal affects on earth.

Also consider this. Earthquakes are caused by tectonic motion. Tectonic plates move horizontally to us. If our sun and earth were aligned with a galaxy, even if that galaxy somehow defied Gauss's law and the inverse square law then it could only pull vertically (up and down relative to the line of alignment). That would not do anything because in order to have an earthquake the plate itself (not the actual fault) must move horizontally not vertically.

Plus, remember that light does not teleport itself from point A to point B. It can only move so fast. So even if the galaxy was aligned, that only means that several million or even billion years ago it was at that point. By now it is completely unaligned with our system.

 

While looking at something to add "doubt" I stumbled upon:

[Source: Infonaic.com]

I couldn't suggest how accurate the information was or is on that particular subject, however the point I was looking at was *if* bombs or earthquakes have shifted the planets spin even a little, it would undoubtedly undermine any long-term predictions proving that even if it had been science, it is most definitely pseudoscience now.

 

Wouldn't the 3rd law disprove that idea?

If an earthquake increases our rotation then that means that the thing it is impacting has to send an opposite yet equal force back onto the plate thus cancelling it out. Net force = 0.

 

It seems strange that we now have an eruption of Etna less than one day after the Romans were expecting problems. And it was said yesterday that Spanish and Italian seismicity are not linked. Yet more coincidences?

 

Etna's eruption is "Mantle" based, it's not triggered by the force of an earthquake but possibly triggered by the conveyor belt principle of how the magma is shifted when a fault has moved. (Incidentally it would be interesting to look at any GOCE output over recent events)

When they say "Seismicity is not linked" they are implying that the earthquakes are caused by separate Faults in two distinct geographically different locations.

You can see this on the image supplied on the Wikipedia under Tectonics:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well, there is a history of earthquakes there. It also wasn't the only earthquake that day, there were 8 separate locations with around 5 mag quakes recorded.

How'd he predict a relatively small quake (that missed his predicted location) but totally missed the two huge quakes in the last ten years?

Yeah, coincidence. The big story is why there was so much damage from the Spanish quake, given it wasn't that big. Likely build up of stress damage unseen, as well as maybe some lax in coding perhaps.

 

I also picked my nose this morning.

Even more coincidences?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Did u find the booger man?

 

Very intresting, would that place japans recent earthquake in line with the redshift defining solar motion through the galaxy at some 38 degrees north.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

What do you mean "in line"? A quick look at Stellarium shows the galactic center being opposite the Japan side of Earth at the time of the 9.0 quake, so why would it be affected then, and not when it was nearest, or exactly perpendicular, or whatever?

This just a new variation of the whole "gravity + alignment = disaster" silliness. Nice headline material, no substance.

 

Because you wrote the equation down incorrectly:

The correct equation is ((10[sup]3[/sup]/gravity) + (Any possible interpretation that could be construed as alignment))[sup]silliness[/sup] = predictions of disaster.

As you can see, gravity and alignment play a relatively small part.

 

AH, I had forgotten that silliness was an exponent.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!