1. Subscriberdivegeester
    reality bites
    variable
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86692
    20 Mar '11 16:48
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermoon

    What is the thinking here that the recent/current Super Moon could have coincidentally provided some incremental tug on the tectonic plates and triggered the recent devastation?
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    20 Mar '11 17:41
    Originally posted by divegeester
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermoon

    What is the thinking here that the recent/current Super Moon could have coincidentally provided some incremental tug on the tectonic plates and triggered the recent devastation?
    Where's the evidence?
  3. Subscriberdivegeester
    reality bites
    variable
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86692
    20 Mar '11 17:52
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Where's the evidence?
    There isn't any as far as I know.

    I'm speculating that given the effect that gravity can have on solid bodies, (Jupiter's moons for example, albeit in extreme conditions) it may be worth considering the possibility that increases in the Moons gravitational pull due to proximity could have an impact on Earth, in some degree.
  4. Joined
    10 Nov '05
    Moves
    30185
    20 Mar '11 19:42
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Where's the evidence?
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022103948.htm
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Mar '11 20:18
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I'm speculating that given the effect that gravity can have on solid bodies, (Jupiter's moons for example, albeit in extreme conditions) it may be worth considering the possibility that increases in the Moons gravitational pull due to proximity could have an impact on Earth, in some degree.
    There may be many things that influence earth quakes, but until there is a discernible pattern it is best not to draw conclusions.
    The Japanese quake was unusually large, so I can understand trying to find a special reason for it, but the New Zealand one was only special in that it struck a city and so as earthquakes go was not statistically significant. As I mentioned in the other recent earthquake thread, there seem to be as many as three >6.0 earth quakes per week on average - at least there were in the month of the New Zealand quake.

    But at the end of the day, earthquakes happen for a known reason (tectonic plates move) and will happen regardless of other influences, so the only possible effect of influences would be magnitude or the exact time of occurrence and I see no real reason to start looking for a cause when all we really have is one massive earthquake. Now if you had 20 large earthquakes that matched up with another phenomena that could conceivably affect earthquakes, then I might be interested, but a statistic of one really isn't good enough.
  6. Subscriberdivegeester
    reality bites
    variable
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86692
    20 Mar '11 21:20
    Originally posted by ElleEffSeee
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022103948.htm
    Very interesting, thanks.
  7. Subscriberdivegeester
    reality bites
    variable
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86692
    20 Mar '11 21:35
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    There may be many things that influence earth quakes, but until there is a discernible pattern it is best not to draw conclusions.
    The Japanese quake was unusually large, so I can understand trying to find a special reason for it, but the New Zealand one was only special in that it struck a city and so as earthquakes go was not statistically significant. ...[text shortened]... ffect earthquakes, then I might be interested, but a statistic of one really isn't good enough.
    I'm not drawing conclusions and I agree that there are many things that cause earthquakes, however I do contest that what the OP proposes is a reasonable hypothesis and worth investigating. "Specialness "doesn't come into it, interesting and dynamic does.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Mar '11 07:371 edit
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I'm not drawing conclusions and I agree that there are many things that cause earthquakes, however I do contest that what the OP proposes is a reasonable hypothesis and worth investigating. "Specialness "doesn't come into it, interesting and dynamic does.
    Of course specialness comes into it. You never asked the question before the Japan quake. You didn't ask it for the many other quakes over 6.0 in the same month as the Christchurch quake.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Mar '11 07:39
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    It is caused by convection currents in the earths mantle.
  10. Subscriberdivegeester
    reality bites
    variable
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86692
    21 Mar '11 08:541 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Of course specialness comes into it. You never asked the question before the Japan quake. You didn't ask it for the many other quakes over 6.0 in the same month as the Christchurch quake.
    What has when a question is asked got to do with "specialness"? (whatever that means).

    Do you have any insight to add to the thread? For example what do you think of the article in the link above?
  11. Subscriberdivegeester
    reality bites
    variable
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86692
    21 Mar '11 09:081 edit
    Some claim of evidence and counter claim here:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0523_050523_moonquake.html

    Whether moon is "full" or not should not be the emphasis; more whether the changing gravatational effect due the changing proximity of moon to earth, can impact the mantle as it does the tides.
  12. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    21 Mar '11 09:59
    Originally posted by ElleEffSeee
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022103948.htm
    What is the effect of the moon's relative proximity to Earth on tides?
  13. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    6873
    21 Mar '11 11:07
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What is the effect of the moon's relative proximity to Earth on tides?
    They are - slightly! - larger. AFAIK the effect is smaller than that of spring and neap tides, but if someone has better figures on that I'm willing to stand corrected.

    In any case, what I'd like to know is whether there was a massive earthquake in the same week as this "super moon" last time it occurred, 18 years ago. And one the time previous to that, and all other times. This is, after all, hardly a rare phenomenon, nor is it unexpectedly sudden. One quake is one thing - a scientific hypothesis needs a pattern, if it is to be taken seriously.

    Richard
  14. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    21 Mar '11 13:09
    From the wiki link above:

    Some studies have reported a weak correlation between lunar activity and shallow, very low intensity earthquakes. However, no evidence has been found of any correlation with major earthquakes.[10][11][12] The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami is the only earthquake of 8.0 magnitude or greater to have occurred within 2 weeks of the 14 extreme supermoons from 1900 to the present date,[13][14][15] suggesting that the claim of a supermoon effect on the incidence of large-scale earthquakes is unjustified.


    Sounds like it doesn't matter much.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    21 Mar '11 14:14
    Originally posted by divegeester
    What has when a question is asked got to do with "specialness"? (whatever that means).
    You wouldn't be asking the question if the earthquake hadn't caused a lot of damage and caused a tsunami.

    Do you have any insight to add to the thread? For example what do you think of the article in the link above?
    Yes. My insight is that unless there are any statistics to back up a link, then it is unlikely there is one. There may be a link between earthquakes and tides, but as I already said, it would likely only affect when earthquakes happen, not whether they do or what magnitude they are. Earthquakes happen for a well known reason.
Back to Top