"Will Hand" wrote in message
...

"Col" wrote in message
...


It's just a coincidence. Think of all the weather/geological coincidences
that could happen, but don't. It's hardly surprising that every so often
a chance alignment of the two effects occurs. In fact it would be far
more surprising if they *didn't*.
But beyond this there is no connection. One event does not cause
the other, neither does some mysterious force cause both events
to occur.

If you think that it does, and what I dismiss as mere coincidence
is the basis for a genuine scientific connection, then by all means
show some real evidence.
But if you cannot, and all you can say is that the two events must
be related simply because they occured together, well that's a
basis for absolutely nothing.
--
Col

Hi Col, it may well be a coincidence, it may not. If Science only relied
on definite evidence from the outcome then very little progress will be
made. Real Science demands an open and enquiring mind to form *reasonable*
hypotheses which can then be pursued. Some hypotheses come to nothing,
others lead to evidence based theories and sometimes scientific proof. But
if hypotheses are never formed in the first place and explored then we
will continue to live in ignorance and belief. I follow hypotheses at work
in my research and in 2002 one came off with a published paper on the
synoptic causality of extreme rainfall events in the UK! Perhaps this
thread should dicuss the reasonableness of links between earthquakes and
hurricanes and how such an idea could be pursued?

I wouldn't disagree with much of that, you are indeed correct in saying
that new ideas come along (like this one) that challenge conventional
scientific thought, and if you 'believe' in them, which is all it is at this
point
then you will find evidence if they are correct.
I do not however appreciate Bjørn's attitude that anybody who supports
the mainstream view is 'arrogant' That in itself smacks of arrogance.
Supporting conventional wisdom, until suitable evidence to the
contrary is obtained is surely the only sensible standpoint to take.
A healthy scepticism, and all that.

I have however given reasons why I believe these events to be mere
coincidence, and therefore why I do not think this to be correct. If it
were,
where are all the other unusual weather events ocurring in the same place
and same time as other major earthquakes, Japan Tsunami, Boxing day
Tsunami and the like?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

"Bjørn Sørheim" wrote in message
...



-----------------
Yes I laugh! You are indeed a laughable stock, all you that can't
relate to new ideas in science. For one thing I can't see what problems
you see with this idea. You don't express any, just tired useless
expressions like 'brain falling out'. Come with a *plausible* explanation
to why widely different physical conditions -pressure,weight here- of the
different layers of the Earth wouldn't have implications for the layers
below and their movement.

It doesn't work like that. When you come up with a new idea that
challenges conventional science, it is not up to the 'establishment'
to disprove your theory or come up with reasons why it shouldn't
work. Rather it is up to you to prove you are correct.
Did Einstein with his new-fangled 'Theory of Relativity' ask the
scientific community to come up with reasons why it was wrong?
No, he *proved* it was correct. And now it's part of mainstream
science and universally accepted.

Thanks to Will and Michael for the support. Note this was Michael's idea
from the start.
I hope *that* is not the problem, but it seems it is...

Weatherlawyer might have more interest in his ideas if he presented
them in a coherent manner.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

"Col" skrev i melding
...

"Bjørn Sørheim" wrote in message
...

-----------------
Yes I laugh! You are indeed a laughable stock, all you that can't
relate to new ideas in science. For one thing I can't see what problems
you see with this idea. You don't express any, just tired useless
expressions like 'brain falling out'. Come with a *plausible* explanation
to why widely different physical conditions -pressure,weight here- of the
different layers of the Earth wouldn't have implications for the layers
below and their movement.

It doesn't work like that.

And what do YOU present to give me any reason to listen to you?
Nothing, so this remark is worthless.

When you come up with a new idea that
challenges conventional science, it is not up to the 'establishment'
to disprove your theory or come up with reasons why it shouldn't
work. Rather it is up to you to prove you are correct.

No, when I seriously put forward a new hypothesis in science,
it must automaticly be adressed by the scientific community or
any other with serious interest in the field for that matter.
Because if not so done the new thoughts will gain weight and an
audience.
So the defenders of the current conventional wisdom have a
standing plight to defend their beliefs with real counter arguments,
it not they will be overrun and forgotten. If they can't come up with
any defence against the new paradigm it will of course slide quietly
into current science.

Did Einstein with his new-fangled 'Theory of Relativity' ask the
scientific community to come up with reasons why it was wrong?
No, he *proved* it was correct. And now it's part of mainstream
science and universally accepted.

Glad you mentioned 'Theory of Relativity' . I would say that theory
was far more revolutionary than what I and Michael are talking about.
Our thoughts only involves some 'old boring' Newtonian mechanics,
so much easier to accept for everyone. Einstein's ideas wasn't that
easily accepted either btw, he never got any Nobel Price for his
work on Relativity. I'm quite shure Einstein wanted couter arguments
against his radical thougts, and I'm shure he had many discussions
with serious people around him. He was indeed a gregarious person
and his wife was also deep into physics and mathematics so he got
good constructive feedback there.

Thanks to Will and Michael for the support. Note this was Michael's idea
from the start.
I hope *that* is not the problem, but it seems it is...

Weatherlawyer might have more interest in his ideas if he presented
them in a coherent manner.

Could be, but that doesn't give less value to his basic ideas.

rn Sørheim

so youre in the country you most hate, you call them racists and nutters
1000 times a month on usenet.

pot, kettle , black, NUTTER

On 25/08/2011 5:38 PM, Dawlish wrote:
: I do think Denver is out of the danger zone!

Mainstream science provides some very plausible explanations. You are
welcome to believe in this stuff, as is W, or Will, but few would
agree with you that earth movements' pricipal causes are atmospheric
baroclinic changes and gravity changes, for good reason. I think few,
least of all me, would dismiss the possibilities; it's just that the
relationships and outcomes simply don't support those causes having
the effects you propose Bjorn. I also said nothing about "brains
falling out". The quote was not mine, so please don't attribute it to
me. The last earthquake of that magnitude here was on May 31st 1897
and there is no way it would have coincided with a hurricane on that
date. Here's some info:

"Bjørn Sørheim" wrote in message
...

"Col" skrev i melding
...

"Bjørn Sørheim" wrote in message
...

-----------------
Yes I laugh! You are indeed a laughable stock, all you that can't
relate to new ideas in science. For one thing I can't see what problems
you see with this idea. You don't express any, just tired useless
expressions like 'brain falling out'. Come with a *plausible*
explanation
to why widely different physical conditions -pressure,weight here- of
the
different layers of the Earth wouldn't have implications for the layers
below and their movement.

It doesn't work like that.

And what do YOU present to give me any reason to listen to you?
Nothing, so this remark is worthless.

I have presented a case elsewhere on this thread as to why I consider
your hypothesis to be wrong.

But that wasn't even the point I was making. I was saying that the
scientific method doesn't revolve around current thinking attempting
to disprove any new theories, rather it's the job of the new theory to
disprove the current thinking.

When you come up with a new idea that
challenges conventional science, it is not up to the 'establishment'
to disprove your theory or come up with reasons why it shouldn't
work. Rather it is up to you to prove you are correct.

No, when I seriously put forward a new hypothesis in science,
it must automaticly be adressed by the scientific community or
any other with serious interest in the field for that matter.
Because if not so done the new thoughts will gain weight and an
audience.

Incorrect.
It will be met with whatever response the scientific community
deems fit. This may be dismissal, ridicule, sceptisism, interest,
indifference or any number of other responses.
There is no onus on anyone to formally 'defend' current thinking
against whatever hypothesis somebody might dream up, though
they may wish to do so. The onus is on the person making the
claim to prove it.

So the defenders of the current conventional wisdom have a
standing plight to defend their beliefs with real counter arguments,
it not they will be overrun and forgotten. If they can't come up with
any defence against the new paradigm it will of course slide quietly
into current science.

Before 'conventional wisdom' has even a chance to defend itself
with counter-arguments, your new paradigm needs to have some
arguments beyond coincidence....

Did Einstein with his new-fangled 'Theory of Relativity' ask the
scientific community to come up with reasons why it was wrong?
No, he *proved* it was correct. And now it's part of mainstream
science and universally accepted.

Glad you mentioned 'Theory of Relativity' . I would say that theory
was far more revolutionary than what I and Michael are talking about.
Our thoughts only involves some 'old boring' Newtonian mechanics,
so much easier to accept for everyone. Einstein's ideas wasn't that
easily accepted either btw, he never got any Nobel Price for his
work on Relativity. I'm quite shure Einstein wanted couter arguments
against his radical thougts, and I'm shure he had many discussions
with serious people around him. He was indeed a gregarious person
and his wife was also deep into physics and mathematics so he got
good constructive feedback there.

I'm sure he got arguments against it, but you are missing the point
as usual. He didn't sit back and wait for 'weak' arguments against
him to prove him right, he made a far more positive step and simply
proved his ideas correct in the first place.


Weatherlawyer might have more interest in his ideas if he presented
them in a coherent manner.

Could be, but that doesn't give less value to his basic ideas.

Glad you've actually worked out what they are....
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

"Dawlish" skrev i melding
...
On Aug 24, 7:05 pm, "Bjørn Sørheim"
wrote:


Yes I laugh! You are indeed a laughable stock, all you that can't
relate to new ideas in science. For one thing I can't see what problems
you see with this idea. You don't express any, just tired useless
expressions like 'brain falling out'. Come with a *plausible* explanation
to why widely different physical conditions -pressure,weight here- of the
different layers of the Earth wouldn't have implications for the layers
below and their movement.
Thanks to Will and Michael for the support. Note this was Michael's idea
from the start.
I hope *that* is not the problem, but it seems it is...

Bjørn Sørheim

P:S: I do think Denver is out of the danger zone!


Mainstream science provides some very plausible explanations.

No, you are dead wrong there. Since the 'invention' of plate tectonics,
or its acceptance in the 60s, the most lacking feature of this backbone
of geology is precisely its lack of explanation of WHY the plates moves
- or why they move when they move. Mostly the first. There are at least
5+ competing theories concerning why they move, some hillarious to me.
So better theories are indeed needed. This discussion must also be seen
in the light of this lack of credible explanation.

You are
welcome to believe in this stuff, as is W, or Will, but few would
agree with you that earth movements' pricipal causes are atmospheric
baroclinic changes and gravity changes, for good reason. I think few,
least of all me, would dismiss the possibilities; it's just that the
relationships and outcomes simply don't support those causes having
the effects you propose Bjorn. I also said nothing about "brains
falling out". The quote was not mine, so please don't attribute it to
me. The last earthquake of that magnitude here was on May 31st 1897
and there is no way it would have coincided with a hurricane on that
date. Here's some info:

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/geology/quake.html

I read through that. I found no information about meteorological
phenomena there. Pure geology/seismology as expected. But the
author/authors are not idiots because of that, of course.

To make one thing clear. I have never written or implied anywhere
in this thread or previous threads concerning this matter discussed
here, that an earthquke _needs_ a hurricane or any other weather
phenomena to occur or be released. In fact, if the Earth were without an
atmosphere I would think there would be *about* just the same amount
of earthquakes as we observe here and now.
But NOTE: They wouldn't happen at the exact time as on a planet
with atmosphere.
The tensions in the plates and at the faults do build up generally by quite
other forces than are caused by meteorological phenomena.

But the often occuring forceful activity in the atmosphere is at times the
needed
force that can release this tension - prior to what would be the case
without
an atmosphere. Tropical and extra-tropical hurricanes is of course the
prime example of what can cause a release. Through the much lower pressure
over a plate or a fault, and through the imense collective rotating force of
wind
and waves.

The events haven't even occurred at exactly the same time and as yet,
there has been no hurricane. in response, I challenge you to link such
events in a statistically relevant way. There is no research that I'm
aware of, or can find, that would support you.

As I have written before on this; It was not my idea, I'm not a
scientist in this field really, so I doubt I will take the time.
I challenge other closer to the subject to look into this, but of course
these
are very interesting questions...

For others to say that "It may be coincidence, it may not", implies
far more possibility that any evidence shows and that is not the
workings of a scientific mind. It is the workings of a mind that wants
to believe in something, without really examining the odds against it
being found to be correct. By all means formulate hypotheses. Humans
do every day of their lives, unconsciously, as a hypothesis is a
possibility, but most humans dismiss the possibilities and accept the
null hypothesis when the outcomes simply don't fit what they think may
occur. Presently, the odds of such links between hurricanes and
earthquakes being found to be significant are very high, I'm afraid;
far too high to attract my belief, for sure. I think that is exactly
what this thread should - and is - discussing; the chances of there
being a link.

If you only adhere to old thinking you would say that, you need to
look at some new possibilities.

Bjørn Sørheim

In article 81bf5c1a-69ec-41ab-9e46-107cd68ca706
@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, says...

Mainstream science provides some very plausible explanations. You are
welcome to believe in this stuff, as is W, or Will, but few would
agree with you that earth movements' pricipal causes are atmospheric
baroclinic changes and gravity changes, for good reason.


I don't think anyone is suggesting that atmospheric loadings are the
principle cause of seismic events, rather that they influence their
timing.

Atmospheric loading can vary the downward forces acting on the earth by
several 10's of tons per square meter and I would not suggest that such
forces were insignificant. It is quite conceivable that such changes
could place a fault beyond its rupture point. The converse is obviously
just as plausible. It could well relieve the pressure on a fault.

Of course, the moon produces far greater loadings upon the Earth, and
can move the ground by over half a meter twice a day. Seismologists have
already found connections between volcanic activity and the Earth tide
and I'm sure that some shallow earthquakes have been connected to the
Earth Tide.

In fact, I'm quite sure that the Sun would have a greater effect than
atmospheric loadings also.

--
Alan LeHun

On Aug 24, 7:01*pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Bjørn Sørheim wrote:
Today as I'm shure many of you know two earthquakes occured
in the US, one right at the Kansas/New Mexico border with magnitude
5.3, *later in the afternoon, (UTC), a 5.8 magnitude in Virginia near
Wahington DC! These are magnitudes that I personally have not seen
in these areas, but they might occur at _long_ intervals as is known.

But what is strikingly apparent is that at this PRECISE
instant the worst hurricane since 2008 (which was Ike) is born in the
Carribean and is fast approaching the US east coast. Just north
of Hispanola at the moment. Name: Irene.

If someone were to tell me these three events were not related, I
don't know what I would do *- probably just laugh?!??

Bjørn Sørheim

-----------------
Time for a bit of a laugh then mate!-
- Show quoted text -

Quite. This is the most bonkers thread I have read on this
group for years. Do hurricanes cause earthquakes or vice versa?
Nobody seems to know. I put it all down to the civil war in Libya.
You can't tell me that such a momentous event has no repercussions
globally, possibly throughout the galaxy. That and the approaching
opposition of Jupiter. Them satellites! And a pile-up on the B269.
Kinobvious innit. The whole world is connected in ways that we don't
even know we don't know about you mark my words mate oh Jeff mine's a
Hophead an' a packet o' peanuts cor 'oos that bird.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

"Stephen Davenport" wrote in message
...

On Aug 23, 9:18 pm, "Bj rn S rheim"
wrote:
Today as I'm shure many of you know two earthquakes occured
in the US, one right at the Kansas/New Mexico border with magnitude
5.3, later in the afternoon, (UTC), a 5.8 magnitude in Virginia near
Wahington DC! These are magnitudes that I personally have not seen
in these areas, but they might occur at _long_ intervals as is known.

But what is strikingly apparent is that at this PRECISE
instant the worst hurricane since 2008 (which was Ike) is born in the
Carribean and is fast approaching the US east coast. Just north
of Hispanola at the moment. Name: Irene.

If someone were to tell me these three events were not related, I
don't know what I would do - probably just laugh?!??

Bj rn S rheim


Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

In any case, Irene had formed before these earthquakes not at that
"precise moment".


Stephen.

I once spent some time working as a forecaster in Ancona on the Italian
Adriatic. One February, after a ridge of high pressure, an unusually deep
depression crossed the Italian peninsular, and just as it did so there was
an earthquake at Ancona. I was impressed by the coincidence of timing. I
wondered if it was possible that offshore oil-drilling had left the
subterranean strata in such a critically unstable state that the slightest
fillip – like the lifting of about 5% of the weight of the atmosphere off
the surface – could cause a movement. Then I thought, “what, through 2
miles of solid rock, I don’t think so�. So I concluded it was most likely
coincidence, though I’m still intrigued by the timing. I had a 98-room
hotel all to myself for 4 days, but that’s another story!

Ian Bingham,
Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

In message , Ian Bingham
writes


"Stephen Davenport" wrote in message
...

On Aug 23, 9:18 pm, "Bj rn S rheim"
wrote:
Today as I'm shure many of you know two earthquakes occured
in the US, one right at the Kansas/New Mexico border with magnitude
5.3, later in the afternoon, (UTC), a 5.8 magnitude in Virginia near
Wahington DC! These are magnitudes that I personally have not seen
in these areas, but they might occur at _long_ intervals as is known.

But what is strikingly apparent is that at this PRECISE
instant the worst hurricane since 2008 (which was Ike) is born in the
Carribean and is fast approaching the US east coast. Just north
of Hispanola at the moment. Name: Irene.

If someone were to tell me these three events were not related, I
don't know what I would do - probably just laugh?!??

Bj rn S rheim


Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

In any case, Irene had formed before these earthquakes not at that
"precise moment".


Stephen.

I once spent some time working as a forecaster in Ancona on the Italian
Adriatic. One February, after a ridge of high pressure, an unusually
deep depression crossed the Italian peninsular, and just as it did so
there was an earthquake at Ancona. I was impressed by the coincidence
of timing. I wondered if it was possible that offshore oil-drilling had
left the subterranean strata in such a critically unstable state that
the slightest fillip – like the lifting of about 5% of the weight of
the atmosphere off the surface – could cause a movement. Then I
thought, “what, through 2 miles of solid rock, I don’t think so�.
So I concluded it was most likely coincidence, though I’m still
intrigued by the timing. I had a 98-room hotel all to myself for 4
days, but that’s another story!

Ian Bingham,
Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

A question that comes to mind is how long does it take for the change in
the loading on the surface by the atmosphere to propagate down to the
depths at which initial earthquake ruptures occur?

Also, why does lowered air pressure in the tropical Atlantic trigger
earthquakes in Virginia and New Mexico? Shouldn't one expect the
earthquake to occur when the hurricane strikes Virginia?
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley