I want to add something. The name of this thread is 'electric earthquakes'. So I wanted to research the relation of the em-field to earthquakes.
The arguments against my idea referred to plate tectonics. The quakes happen in most cases near some breaks of the crust, that surround plates.
If those lines would be in fact cracks, than there would be hotter and more liquid material expected, because at those places liquid could raise through the mantle of the earth. Since a liquid could float, we would expect more interaction between liquid rock and the em-field than within solid rock.
Liquid magma could in fact twist around and collect charge, what a solid can't do that easy. We could see this behavior at vulcano eruptions, where we see a lot of lightnings sometimes. That indicates, that magma could be highly charged. If so, the effect described by me would occur preferred at those cracks. But earthquakes at such an area would be an second order effect due to higher conductivity of magma compared to rock.

TH

I don't have to. Leave aside that people who've taken more than a couple of quarters of geology have already done it. By accepting a thread's placement in ATM--by defending your idea--it becomes your job to explain your mechanism. You are intended to have learned the mainstream idea first in order to know what you're arguing against; you manifestly have not.

In an earthquake (I've experienced more than a few in my day), there is one spot where the initial slip starts; this is what is called the epicenter. However, it has effects up and down the fault as well; aftershocks may not be epicentered in exactly the same place--and, indeed, earthquakes may trigger earthquakes elsewhere on the same fault or even on other faults. All of this is very basic information. I advise you to do some homework. For starters, look at pictures of the Loma Prieta earthquake's epicenter, or pictures of fault slippage after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

So give me numbers. What do you expect? Why do you expect it? How does it conform to observations?

But the plates are relatively thin! How thick do you think they are relative to the thickness of the mantle?

Ah, but you see, the pull is not steady. Some plates move differently from others. Plates stick and slip, which is what causes earthquakes in the first place. Further, you've got a clear misconception about how the plates move. The San Juan de Fuca Plate, offshore from me, is not moving at the same speed or in the same direction as the North American and Pacific Plates. Nothing is being "dragged along." Where did you hear that it was?

Nonsense. I acknowledge that of experts, who say that your electric idea is wrong. Since you are proposing that it isn't, it's up to you to explain why plate tectonics, one of the soundest theories in science, is wrong.

No. You don't understand how it works. You want to propose a new idea for what causes earthquakes? You must go in with an understanding of the old one, so you can explain why your idea works and it does not. Good luck; plate tectonics has a ton of evidence. You can start with Wikipedia; your local library will also have a lot of information on the subject. Ask your reference librarian.

Hmm. Do you really want to know what I expect?

I expect that, if you're proposing more than "hey, what do you guys think about this?" you will know enough to speak the basic language of the field--you will know about transform faults, for example. You will know that rain cannot be a cause of earthquakes, because one of the most geologically unstable regions in the world is a desert. (Two of them, actually; the desert of Chile's not exactly stable, either.) I expect that, if you are going to defend an idea--and you have by bringing forth the Argument by Website--you will have some real argument. I expect that, if you don't, you will tell the mods that you have no intention of defending your idea and have the thread closed.

I expect that you will not tell me to do your homework for you. I expect that you will not tell me you don't care about the subject matter relevant to a thread you yourself started. (Seriously--"I want to talk about earthquakes, but I don't want to talk about plate tectonics"?) I expect that you will not have some vague, half-baked word salad that boils down to "I think electricity done it." That is what I expect.

You started it.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Thommyboy, why not come with a descriptive model of your idea with some OOM estimates of what is involved. It will look something like this:

I think that electromagnetic forces are important in the creation of earthquakes, as I have found that there are some EM phenomena related to quakes, as shown in the data from e.g. DEMETER.

What I propose it that:
1. There is created a current system, reminiscent of a solenoid, which generates a magnetic field. I assume that the solenoid has half a circle through the atmosphere and half a circle through the magnetosphere (??). The magnetic field created by a solenoid is directly dependent on the current that is flowing around it. Here is a website where we can calculate the magnetic field from a solenoid.

2. What is driving the current through the solenoid? The current must be driven by an EMF (as induction will not work, like Tusenfem explained before in this thread. I assume that (atmospheric electric field / the sun / cosmic rays / a billion hometrainers) is delivering the EMF. An estimate of the voltage driving the current is XXXXXX

3. Naturallly, the voltage drives a current through the solenoid dependent on the resistivity, like the simple equation V = I R shows. Estimates of the resistivities for the air and the ground are XXXXX

4. In order to make the magnetic field of the solenoid do something to the Earth, the field strength must be adequate, one can use magnetic energy or pressure or .... in order to break up part of the rock or loosen the tension that has been build up near two tectonic plates.

5. etc. etc. etc.


That is something that we are expecting from you. I made the start for you, now you come with the details, please, I cannot look into your mind and find out what you are thinking.

And what exactly do you think that "the ring of fire" is????????????

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

[quote=tusenfem;1253374]

Yes, there were very low frequencies reported prior to an earthquake. No obvious reason was found, so the reason was estimated to be the earthquake. That couldn't be true, since the quake happened later.
The relation is more about a magnetic system and induced currents, that create closed loops in the form of lightning. That closed loop is estimated to act as a solenoid and 'catch' magnetic disturbances not related to the first, but occurring at that time. With the breakdown of the current the field discharges in a selfconducting effect, concentrating it's energy within a small area.
I would apply Faradays law:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...farlaw.html#c1
The A is very large, since I'm talking of hundreds of kilometer in width and some in hight. The induced voltage is by means of this law very high (as you could see in lightning).
Lava seems to be charged as you could see in various observations of lightning at vulcano eruptions, but does not seem to easily discharged (otherwise it wouldn't reach the surface charged).
So an induced Lorentz-force would gain a strong mechanical impulse in such an area, what we usually call an earthquake. that effect is more likely, but not restricted, to faults or cracks of the earth crust, because there is lava. Since lava (or magma) seems to carry and keep charges, it would be much more effected by a magnetic pulse.

The correct numbers you could find out, since I'm not a geologist, but you are.

Thomas Heger

The question was about "calculate how far a falling body moves over time knowing all the forces without integrating". You indicated Doug Sweetser as a source to answer the question.
My point is: in the thread I linked, Sweetser has proved himself unable to distinguish time-dependent and time-independent equations in mechanics.
So, my rather pertinent question is: what makes you think that Sweetser is a good source?



This is about physics, and whether you like what he does is utterly irrelevant.



Doesn't it bother you that he failed to support his claims in the thread I linked?



I examined some of his claims, and I found his arguments lacking.
He thinks that he can get physically meaningful results from juggling with symbols.



I suggest you focus on the topic of this thread.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

I think this quote about sums things up.

and that is significant, because the are looking for EM PRECURSORS of earthquakes, which naturally happen BEFORE the quake.

Induced currents require a changing magnetic field and are generated through curl(E) = -dB/dt. So, I guess what you want is to split the Earth with currents?

Like I told you before and you can read in lots of literature about lightning: lightning is not a "loop" it is a one-way street, one path from cloud to surface.

What kind of magnetic disturbances do you think it will "catch"? Where do they come from?

And then the bolded does not make any sense at all. The current that is flowing IS the discharge between the cloud and the ground, and what is "self-conducting"? (I have an impression that you are mistaken here and want to say self-induction or something of the kind).

No, the current in lightning is very concentrated, not hundreds of km in width (not even in height, question: how high are the clouds above the surface of the Earth?). The current I, NOT A (in the page you linked to A is the area of the windings of the solenoid) is very high in lightning, I guess there everybody will agree with you.

What induced voltage? My god man! First you need to write down clearly your model. Is the current flowing through the windings of your solenoid, or through the kernal? What is it that you are describing?

Lave is not charged, that would be rather difficult. Lighting that may or may not occur during volcano eruptions (here is a very striking picture of lightning at a volcano eruption) is cause by the gases that are spewed out, which are so hot they can ionize the atmosphere either through collisions or through tribo-electricity. This does not happen because lava is charged.

A Lorentz force, F_L = q (E + v x B) is the one you mean works on charges. Which charges do you want to work on? How do you visualize this? And how can a "force gain an impulse"? It might create an impulse (through the acceleration of a charge, F = m a, and impulse p = m v, oops but then you have to integrate, in which you do not believe), but definitely cannot gain it. And how much power is there needed for such a thing?

I am definitely not going to look for any numbers, it is your model (and an incomplete and shaky one at best) and you need to show us what you think can happen. YOU need to make it clear to us, how it works.

An no, I am not a geologist, I am a plasma-astrophysicist/space physicist.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

Yes, it does. I flatter myself that I know a relatively large amount about it for an amateur, but then again, they teach the basics in elementary school back home, because, well, there are an awful lot of earthquakes. It's important information, if you're going to study earthquakes.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

OK. I answer in the other thread I've opened.

Plate tectonics was not high on my list to know about. Various reasons. First we don't have many earthquakes here in Germany.
Second, it is one of those things, you have learned some time and dimly remember and -well- if you'd need that information, you know, where to find it.
Even now, I think, that most of the concepts known and believed in geology are guesses and believes, because it couldn't be what couldn't be.
So everybody is musing around, what is ok for me, since that is not really my business. I had the idea, to give a kind of hint to those, that might be involved in that kind of science, that direction of causes could be possible too.
In fact I guess, the mechanism is even more complicated. The mentioning of rain and a significant correlation of earthquakes to weather suggests, that in one step of this mechanism the conductivity of something is involved. Mainly it could be the earth-surface resistance and the air itself, but higher levels could be involved to.
On the other hand the phenomema had a low frequency, what disallow charged particles in the air as relevant.
Something had to generate those low frequency energetic fields. Somehow the weather got some influence and somehow plate-tectonics. Sounds like a real weird puzzle and I could only guess and I did. But that is perfectly ok and needed, because you need a hypothesis first, before you could falsify it.
That's why I love that kind of puzzles. And no piece is allowed to be left over. Now you try..

But your kind of solving puzzles shouldn't involve scissors and glue!

Thomas, we are no longer in the middle ages, for goodness sake, we have accurate measurements, probes, satellites etc. etc.

To draw you a picture that you might understand. What you are claiming here is the same as me saying that any persons who owns or works in a bar just mixes random liquor together and calls it a Tequila Sunrise, because that is a name (s)he heard mention related to a cocktail.

You keep bringing this up, although in this post of yours, with links to wissenschaft.de, the second link describes how rain PREVENTS earthquakes. To quote:

A nice point you seem to ignore.

Well, is seems that you don't even understand the simple page on Faraday's law, where you intrepreted A as current (probably thought it was A for Ampère) whereas it is A for Area.

Why would "charged particles in the air" not be important when "the frequency is low?" And what frequency do you mean? What is an energetic field?

Could you please express yourself clearly for once? English is not your mother tongue but still you might put some effort in comprehensive writing.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

I've developed a technique to find things out. I called it 'cut and go physics'.
Mainly it's about setting up hypotheses and try to disprove them. Than it's about finding analogies, where ever you could get them. There is always someone, that has already done a big chunk of your work. So the aim is, to find these analog solutions. You set up a mechanism in the way I have described it. You take all the pieces of the puzzle and try to put them together. No piece is allowed to be left over.
You chose the most -well- likely and try to disprove it. You'd get to a solution by finding analogies and plug the principles of those analogs into your problem. Now that is checked. If it fails, try something else, until something does not fail.


Usually I'm quite polite, but you seem to try how to raise my blood preasure. Of cause I meant an area, because I wrote about with and height. How could I come to Ampere by that? (How did you?)

Mainly because the charged particles had not enough time to get discharged and recharged.
Low frequency does not fit to a static field. Particles would fit to static field, but not to low frequency.

Is my English that bad?

Your "cut and go physics" produces any amount of word salad you want, but has no connection to reality.
You can't take solutions out of context and use them as you like.
Many solutions are only valid in their niche and not general solutions like a mathematic method.
You can use calculus for many problems, but not the solution of a differential equation for another problem. The analogy has to be proven to be valid otherwise - word salad with mathematic dressing.