On May 9, 6:47 pm, Harold Brooks wrote:
In article cff8a1a5-f7fd-4656-8bee-f80f10f37ca8
@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, says...
This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May
2008.
!8 hours since the last one, therefore a storm brewing maybe. It is
certainly heading that way.
From NEIC, based on the ~1500 M5+ earthquakes per year, there are about
480 M5.5+ earthquakes per year, or about 1 every 18 hours. (There have
been 43 5.5 or larger quakes in the last 30 days.)
What did you make of the facts I pointed out to you earlier? A series
of years with less than 8 quakes of 7 M and over per annum.
As for the lower magnitude quakes there does seem to be a relationship
between mascons, high pressure areas and said quakes. If you look at
the world list of quakes greater than 2 M., the relationship is even
more striking.
Please don't make the mistake that some of the dunces on
uk.sci.weather tend to make, that I am insisting one is the cause of
the other.
My take on the matter is more in the nature of harmonics that might be
engendered in the three body problem, where the orbit perturbations
cause a lapse in the system. A sphere of several billion tons, moving
at thousands of miles an hour must have a special problem dealing with
inertia.
Consider what might happen with a gyro-compass were it 2 thousand
miles wide and on an armature 1/4 million miles long.
The mere orbit of the moon is impossibly complex.
On top of that, It has huge mass-concentrations the like of which make
earth's mascons -which as yet are still to be explored; pale into
insignificance.
Which in turn means that the ideas I have put forward should not be
ruled out without some consideration.
May I take it that you would agree that all the earth's weather in
intimately interlinked?
Logically then, a shower in North Wales affects the wind in Barra.
Which is only a small step away from my claim that a severe storm in
the Philippines can affect the weather here in Britain.
It is axiomatic that floods in Britain following long spells of wet
weather here coincide with reports of forest fires in the arid climes
of North America. You have noticed that?
Did you know that the mascon we call the Mid Atlantic Ridge runs
friction a close second in the cause of the failure of man made
satellites?
When I first started looking at these things, one of the first put
downs I received was that there are some 3 million earthquakes each
year. I don't know what parameters the person was using, some quote
from a TV show I imagine. But that merely means they are as common as
waves on the sea shore.
30 million seconds in a year; one wave hitting every shore in ten of
those -every ten of those; on average...
And the waves are intimately linked to the weather are they not?
OK, that is a non sequitur. Merely saying such and such is caused by
so and so does not prove anything.
Saying silly things about a fellow poster for instance, instead of
reasoning with him, is not the way to prove him wrong, even if he says
he agrees with you that he is a kook for example, it merely shows a
paucity of respect for both people and for science.
Ah well, I have said my piece. One thing I have learned whilst airing
my views is that it is a thankless task trying to disabuse an expert
of his fallacies.
Believe what you like. Stay in the dark. Be the master of the cul-de-
sac.
Much good may it do you.
It would be a shame to wake some people.
Or:
It's 21 hours now since the last one:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...quakes_big.php
Stop thinking in terms of averages and do the actual observations. And
while you are at it, ponder on the weight of the moon.
3.5 x 1 Kilo per litre. What is that for a spheroid some 3.5 million
metres across?
A lot.
And it doesn't roll around the earth on averages.
Please do not berate me with statistics in future. They all add up to
proof positive for my argument not yours.
I hope you realise that I am paying you a compliment in writing to you
of these things. I wouldn't even consider it were your name Dawlish or
that other plonker.