Science
20 Mar 11
20 Mar 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere isn't any as far as I know.
Where's the evidence?
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.
20 Mar 11
Originally posted by divegeesterThere may be many things that influence earth quakes, but until there is a discernible pattern it is best not to draw conclusions.
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.
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.
20 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'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.
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.
21 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterOf 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.
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.
21 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat has when a question is asked got to do with "specialness"? (whatever that means).
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.
Do you have any insight to add to the thread? For example what do you think of the article in the link above?
21 Mar 11
1 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.