Electric Earthquakes - Page 11

korjik · #**301** (**permalink**) 25-June-2008, 02:53 PM

[quote=thomheg;1268298]

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

Yes, but I meant that period, starting 300 mio years ago. Isn't that allowed to call that period 'perm'? If not, I have to apologize and find out, what is the correct way to address that period.

Do you really think, the Alps are sediments of a shallow sea?
There is something else I have found. This is an animation of plate tectonics:
http://www.odsn.de/odsn/services/pal...animation.html
You could see, that those plates are land - all the time. So when exactly did they collect the sediments.
There is another thing to mention about this animation. I guess, it is not quite plausible to assume different speeds of plate movement. A model should try to use even plate movements. That would leave some doubts on the fast movement of India and Japan (didn't you mention an opening of a shallow sea there?)
The Red sea (correction: I mean the persian gulf and the land is the arabian peninsular) is in this picture the remainder of an open sea area, that has closed to a small gap (the red sea). That assumption would require different types of geology on both sides (and wouldn't fit to a triple junction).

That animation shows the motion of the plates. It dosent show transgression or regression in that time period. As a matter of fact if you look closely, all of the areas I mentioned are shown as LAND according to your definition.

thomheg · #**302** (**permalink**) 25-June-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slang

I'm not sure if this claim is true although it may well be. Source?

I try to use this site:
http://www.odsn.de/odsn/services/paleomap/paleomap.html
It's a bit slow. Concentrate on Gibraltar and a time around 15 mio years ago. The plate tectonic model suggest, that Spain shifts around. But to me Gibraltar looks like a hinge.
The main difference between those models is the difference in the hight of water, that covers the ground. The even size of earth means even sea-level (A). The other hypothesis assumes a overall spreading and a decline of the sea level and almost no movement of plates, only spreading (B).
What I see, is that the model of plate tectonics assumes a late connection of Morocco and Spain and the other hypothesis an opening of the Mediterranean sea.
Since the coastline fits (somehow) between north coast of Africa and south coast of Spain, I would prefer model B).
Than I've found something I didn't knew, that is the fact that the mediterranian sea dried out 6 mio years ago. That would fit to model B) too.
This is so, because the assumed form or Rift building is V-shaped. If sea-level falls, a narrow gap could fall under sea-level and could break open later (due to a quake i.e.) and let the water in again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slang

Why not? Is it not possible that two different areas have a similar (but not necessarily identical) geological history? You made a very vague statement. Which similarities can be found, and in which ways do both areas differ, with respect to their geological history? Please also list why those similarities should be impossible.

There are three arcs in this area and they have opposite form on both sides. I tried to compare the mountains at the spots assumed to match. It fits roughly, but I checked only Google earth and my geology books didn't helped me. So that has to be checked (would take a few days).
I just found this:
http://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/Reso...ny/uplift.html
The author seems to be puzzled by the discrepancy of the fossils found in the Rockys and the hight of the area they where found, because those fossils belong to wet and warm climate and low areas. A possible solution: sea-level was higher.

slang · #**303** (**permalink**) 25-June-2008, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomheg

Quote:

Originally Posted by slang

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomheg

According to plate tectonics Spain and Algeria stem from very different locations of Pangea,

I'm not sure if this claim is true although it may well be. Source?

I try to use this site:
http://www.odsn.de/odsn/services/paleomap/paleomap.html
It's a bit slow. Concentrate on Gibraltar and a time around 15 mio years ago. The plate tectonic model suggest, that Spain shifts around. But to me Gibraltar looks like a hinge.

Your base for the entire premise that they come from very different locations is a snapshot from one point in time? Are you serious?

Take a look at this animation, found on this website (Berkeley). It is an animation of the plate movements of the last 750 million years, in reverse. Keep your eye on Spain. To me it seems they were always pretty close. Now, I'm certainly no geology expert, not even close. But this was pretty easy to find. If I'm wrong on this I'm sure someone will show it, and I'll eat crow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomheg

The even size of earth means even sea-level

Almost, rotation of the Earth has some effect I'm sure, but I assume it's negligible on geologic timescale. You assume sea-level doesn't vary with respect to location, and I think that's ok. But.. you also seem to assume that tectonic plates always stay exactly level. In fact they do tip over, marginally. But the effects on a long timescale can not be ignored. It means that seas can be be over parts of land that are now very dry. It means that areas that are sea now may have been dry land before. I'm sure someone with a geology background can pull up the numbers supporting this, personally I think I've already spent enough time on this.

Fortis · #**304** (**permalink**) 25-June-2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomheg

So what is then quantum gravity? I identified that as thermodynamics. It is not so obvious, since most people think about gravity as a force (that pulls us down). But in GR gravity is not a force. Curved spacetime is a wrong idea too, because spacetime has no form, hence can't be curved. What gets curved are worldlines of objects. It's called Wick rotation, that shifts gravity around an imaginary axis to something like heat.

Let's have a bit of mathematics. Can you write down your action, or a Hamiltonian, or possibly a partition function for your statistical/thermal system? What happens when you apply a Wick rotation to your system? Mathematically?

Quote:

So in a system with gravity you find a gradient of temperature according to the strength of gravitation.

Great. In that case you should find it easy to answer my questions.

thomheg · #**305** (**permalink**) 25-June-2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slang

Take a look at this animation, found on this website (Berkeley). It is an animation of the plate movements of the last 750 million years, in reverse. Keep your eye on Spain. To me it seems they were always pretty close. Now, I'm certainly no geology expert, not even close. But this was pretty easy to find. If I'm wrong on this I'm sure someone will show it, and I'll eat crow.

Difficult to find good data, but I've found this site:
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/Eocene.jpg
They have good maps.
The difference is small. The point is to find out, if Spain and Marroco were connected or not. That is the important point, because these countries are on different plates. If they were connected, than it wouldn't fit to plate tectonics. If they 'float' separate than this would support that assumption.
If the north coast of Africa is similar to the south cost of Spain, than plate tectonics can't explain that. If that area can be interpreted as a rift, than african and European plates were connected, what would render the whole idea questionable, because the main assumption is that of subduction. That can't be a rift. And to me it looks like a rift.

Quote:

You assume sea-level doesn't vary with respect to location, and I think that's ok.

No, I'm trying to compare two hypothesis's: a) plate tectonics and B) growing earth.
Both would cause movements of plates, but they are somehow different. The main difference is the sea level, because on a smaller planet there is less space for the same water. That would make sea-level fall with growth. A) does not have this behavior.
If one wants to find out, which thesis is correct, it would be useful to look for hints of global change of sea-level. Only B) could explain that.

slang · #**306** (**permalink**) 25-June-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomheg

Quote:

You assume sea-level doesn't vary with respect to location, and I think that's ok.

No, I'm trying to compare two hypothesis's: a) plate tectonics and B) growing earth.

For once I agreed with you. Then you say no. Either I lost you or you lost me. Since you are saying no to what you quoted, do you mean to say that sea-level IS different at the same time at different locations? Actually, I do not require you to answer this question. I don't think I want to pursue this further.

thomheg · #**307** (**permalink**) 25-June-2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

Let's have a bit of mathematics. Can you write down your action, or a Hamiltonian, or possibly a partition function for your statistical/thermal system? What happens when you apply a Wick rotation to your system? Mathematically?

Great. In that case you should find it easy to answer my questions.

Sorry, but that was a bit difficult part and not far developed. I derived that this via dark energy:
suppose you have an even rotation of these elements (in may model), than this wouldn't be visible. It's there but you can't see it.
The model is visualized as build of tiny gyroscopes, that have orientation. If that is even; than there is nothing to see. If you start to twist a few, than you get a pattern, because the elements are assumed to send out light cones in the direction of their rotation. The intersection points of those cones are the atoms. If you apply a force to these elements, than they would twist and in the projection into the real space, the atoms would wiggle. It wiggles, because the force is applied by neighboring elements, that are influenced by their neighbors, what is kind of feedback and because the light cones are modeled with kind of screws. That are helix like patterns, that overlap to a ball like structure.
Gravity now curves such relations, because each element deviates the influences of neighboring elements.
The model treats all bodies as free falling. That means they feel no force of gravity. So what is then gravity? It's the influence of all spacelike separated objects (neighbors) on a specific object. The objects influence them due to their property of rotation. The effect is over sums of influences that follow an inverse square law. I call that a vertical statistic (vertical is the direction of time in this model). It is tensorial and addresses a multiplicative relation of elements.
Now Wick rotation is multiplication with i. That is a turn of pi/2 and a twist from multiplicative to summative relation. So Gravity wick rotated is a horizontal statistic with a timelike behavior. That is the statistical behavior of ball-like objects in real space.

Mathematics is what I don't have very much. I only show some connections to known theories and leave it to the reader to proceed there. In general, I think there are already enough mathematical models. Maybe I construct some later. For now I'm engaged in this thread and in geology.
.

Jerry · #**308** (**permalink**) 26-June-2008, 12:28 AM

I skipped a lot of pages, so forgive me if anyone has already pointed out the obvious:

With the possible (not probable) exception of gravity, everything to do with an earthquake is electromagnetic: A slip-dip fault is an exaggerated stress point between EM boundries and so on. Very, very complex; but if you could work out all of the proper field mechanics, earthquakes would breakdown into basic EM physics, just as biomechanics would. Tough road.

dgavin · #**309** (**permalink**) 26-June-2008, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomheg

No, I'm trying to compare two hypothesis's: a) plate tectonics and B) growing earth.
Both would cause movements of plates, but they are somehow different. The main difference is the sea level, because on a smaller planet there is less space for the same water. That would make sea-level fall with growth. A) does not have this behavior.
If one wants to find out, which thesis is correct, it would be useful to look for hints of global change of sea-level. Only B) could explain that.

Incorrect, the repeated Ice-Age Glaciations of the planet explain far better then either of these, the cycle of rising and falling sea-levels.

You need to toss that one out of both models, because you can't prove that sea level changes we not due the known Glaciation/Melting cycles.

The other thing to consider is that when the Expanding Earth was more mainstream, many expeiments tried to measue the expansion rate, and the failed at that repeatedly.

There is also the fact that with GPS, and other Radar based Satelites used for Deformation detection, have never shown any evidence for expansion either.

The oldest known Oceanic Crust is only 200 million years old. The Continetial crust is over 20 times older then that in areas. An expanding earth would have oceanic crust almost as old as the continental crust.

The earth Started out Very hot, and cooled off over time. Hot things Expand, cooling things contract (with the exception of water ice). Some paeleomagnetic research has shown that at one point, the earth was 102% of it's current size, this evidence fits with a slowly cooling and contracting Planet and patently contridicts results expected in a growing earth.

Back to Electric earth quakes. Again I'm not discounting electrical events coinciding with Earthquakes, however by what phsical mechanism could a discharge of an oscilating EM force, reduce the friction at a fault zone enough to trigger an earthquake?

thomheg · #**310** (**permalink**) 26-June-2008, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

I skipped a lot of pages, so forgive me if anyone has already pointed out the obvious:

With the possible (not probable) exception of gravity, everything to do with an earthquake is electromagnetic: A slip-dip fault is an exaggerated stress point between EM boundries and so on. Very, very complex; but if you could work out all of the proper field mechanics, earthquakes would breakdown into basic EM physics, just as biomechanics would. Tough road.

In fact nobody pointed that out (except me). All I've heard is, that this is impossible. But how do you think it's obvious?

thomheg · #**311** (**permalink**) 26-June-2008, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

Incorrect, the repeated Ice-Age Glaciations of the planet explain far better then either of these, the cycle of rising and falling sea-levels.

That would explain some change. But ice ages have a totally different chronology. The growth is effective over millions of years and ice ages occur in the ten thousands. A steady fall of sea level can't be explained with glaciation at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

The other thing to consider is that when the Expanding Earth was more mainstream, many expeiments tried to measue the expansion rate, and the failed at that repeatedly.

I didn't know, that this was popular once.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

There is also the fact that with GPS, and other Radar based Satelites used for Deformation detection, have never shown any evidence for expansion either.

There is some evidence: that is the incline of the solar year. It's very slow but measurable. I heard, that this is due to the influence of the moon. But that is wrong, because angular momentum is strictly conserved (friction or not).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

The oldest known Oceanic Crust is only 200 million years old. The Continetial crust is over 20 times older then that in areas. An expanding earth would have oceanic crust almost as old as the continental crust.

A rift is assumed to be V-shaped. It opens at the bottom and spreads at the top. Since the bottom is deeper, water would float there. So that model would expect water where there are spreadings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

The earth Started out Very hot, and cooled off over time. Hot things Expand, cooling things contract (with the exception of water ice). Some paeleomagnetic research has shown that at one point, the earth was 102% of it's current size, this evidence fits with a slowly cooling and contracting Planet and patently contridicts results expected in a growing earth.

The problem with the assumption of earth crust once been molten is the occurrence of some minerals. Some light elements are within the earth and some heavy on the surface. A totally molten earth wouldn't allow that. As you showed above, the crust is very old. How could than the earth have been bigger?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

Back to Electric earth quakes. Again I'm not discounting electrical events coinciding with Earthquakes, however by what phsical mechanism could a discharge of an oscilating EM force, reduce the friction at a fault zone enough to trigger an earthquake?

Well, that's the unhappy part of this story. If plate tectonics is somehow wrong, than it can't possibly be a cause for anything. The process of movement (either by plate tectonics or by growth) would cause quakes due to opening of new cracks and of form fitting processes like shear movement. But that would be a relatively slow process, that only sometime cause severe damage. There are a lot of earthquakes, that are not related to faults. In these cases I would think of an relation to em-forces, because the patterns fit: mountains, rivers and weather influence the possibility to connect for those fields to the earth. In faults is more liquid and more charged material expected. That would be a preferred target, too.The mechanism of the quake I think is due to a Lorentz force that is applied in a Hall effect.
There is another (speculative) effect, coming from my own model (this why the test of the growing earth hypothesis is important). That model connects gravity, radiation and matter in a specific way. It's an angle I called theta. If you shift that angle, radiation 'materializes', what is a bit surprising effect. That angle is the same theta as in SRT and is effected by gravity. So matter could be kind of 'beamed' into our earth' crust and cause that to expand.

dgavin · #**312** (**permalink**) 26-June-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomheg

That would explain some change. But ice ages have a totally different chronology. The growth is effective over millions of years and ice ages occur in the ten thousands. A steady fall of sea level can't be explained with glaciation at all.

I didn't know, that this was popular once.

There is some evidence: that is the incline of the solar year. It's very slow but measurable. I heard, that this is due to the influence of the moon. But that is wrong, because angular momentum is strictly conserved (friction or not).

A rift is assumed to be V-shaped. It opens at the bottom and spreads at the top. Since the bottom is deeper, water would float there. So that model would expect water where there are spreadings.

The problem with the assumption of earth crust once been molten is the occurrence of some minerals. Some light elements are within the earth and some heavy on the surface. A totally molten earth wouldn't allow that. As you showed above, the crust is very old. How could than the earth have been bigger?

Well, that's the unhappy part of this story. If plate tectonics is somehow wrong, than it can't possibly be a cause for anything. The process of movement (either by plate tectonics or by growth) would cause quakes due to opening of new cracks and of form fitting processes like shear movement. But that would be a relatively slow process, that only sometime cause severe damage. There are a lot of earthquakes, that are not related to faults. In these cases I would think of an relation to em-forces, because the patterns fit: mountains, rivers and weather influence the possibility to connect for those fields to the earth. In faults is more liquid and more charged material expected. That would be a preferred target, too.The mechanism of the quake I think is due to a Lorentz force that is applied in a Hall effect.
There is another (speculative) effect, coming from my own model (this why the test of the growing earth hypothesis is important). That model connects gravity, radiation and matter in a specific way. It's an angle I called theta. If you shift that angle, radiation 'materializes', what is a bit surprising effect. That angle is the same theta as in SRT and is effected by gravity. So matter could be kind of 'beamed' into our earth' crust and cause that to expand.

Yes, the Expanding Earth theory was once Mainstream, before the 1960's it was the only model that explained some of the planets behaviors.

Continental Drift back then was considered the not so mainstream.

However Expanding Earth completely discounted Subduction. Once Subduction was proven via measurments, the exploring of the subduction zone trenches, and that Magma that fed volcanoes at subduction zones has rare earth elements only found in the subducting oceanic plates, shows up on the continetal plates at those volcanoes. . .

A better Theory was built, Plate Tectonics. It incorporates the sea floor spreading of Expanding Earth, the moving continents of Continetal Drift, and Plate Subduction.

Thats why I had suggested you do a comparitive history of both.

So really when you are arging against Plate Tectonics, you are also arguing against some of the Expanding Earth. They both have the exaxt same sea floor spreading.

The major difference in them, Tectonics has plates being able to Subduct, so no expansion. Expanding Earth didn't. Hence the Earth Expanded.

No matter how hard they tried they could not measure any expansion, and once subduction was found, they took the parts that did work, and made Tectonics from those.

Plate Tectonics also doesn't need to be modified to account for the Earth Impactor making the moon Theory, where as Exapnding Earth as you pointed out, discounts a molten Earth at any point.

Modern measurements, and siemological Mantle imaging all support Plate Tectonics.

If the trigger of your Electric quake model is the Hall Effect, then you should be able to quantify the amount of the Hall Effect needed to trigger any historical earthquake.

Thats really all people have been asking, is that you start throwing hard data and Math at your model.

thomheg · #**313** (**permalink**) 27-June-2008, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin

A better Theory was built, Plate Tectonics. It incorporates the sea floor spreading of Expanding Earth, the moving continents of Continetal Drift, and Plate Subduction.

Better can still be less wrong. It is only a relative statement, a theory is better. I disagree with the whole way of reasoning. A theory could only be the final step of a long way of putting observations together and striking out impossible mechanisms. To set up a model and compare it to some observations could lead to assumptions, that are based on believes. If I would find a mathematical model with some similarities to some observations, than this would mean nothing, except than that would be a candidate for a description.
The thing to find out is how things function. One could only guess and test those assumptions. And all observations must fit into a model, not only some, since there is no such thing as a relative truth.
The mathematical model is a description and not one about the mechanism. To get to something like that, one must narrow the possibilities. That could be done by statistical analysis of observations. This would lead to possible correlations. The multi relation behavior of nature leads to few possible solutions.
First we should ask a few simple questions, that narrow the rang as far a possible. In case of quakes i.e. if there is a relation to em-phenomena or not. This could be done by statistics or by measurements. Then we could check cross relations to plate movement and test, if that is related to quakes. Than we could compare the occurance to other measurements like gravimetry or magnetic anomalies. That is in a way a binary search, that attempts to stepwise refine a model. And much later, as a final step one could formulate a numerical descriptions. But to start with that is useless. I'm quite certain, a lot of physicists would disagree and think the mathematics is the most important part, but I wouldn't agree on that. It's important to find out how things function and than model that functionality. Otherwise one would do pure mathematics and that is the business of the mathematicians.

dgavin · #**314** (**permalink**) 27-June-2008, 02:23 AM

Well many of have been asking for hard data, statistical data, or even math for a very good reason.

It's called research. It's your ATM claim so it's up to you to provide the data and supporting math. I find it odd that you didn't jump on the chance to at least compute out the suspected force a hall effect might need to trigger an earthquake.

You have made quite a few claims about Electric Earthquakes, and then about the growing earth hypothosis.

It's all about the data.

If you want your idea to be taken seriously then provide the data of a specific event, or events that is backing it up, or leading to your conclusions.

Gillianren · #**315** (**permalink**) 27-June-2008, 02:47 AM

How many times do you have to be told that subduction has been measured before you'll acknowledge it? Why won't you look it up for yourself?

thomheg · #**316** (**permalink**) 27-June-2008, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgavin