Isn't it interesting to see how earthquakes are currently occurring more frequently than ever before.

It is also evident when one visits the U.S. Geological Survey's website: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html and view the statistics for earthquakes during the past 5 years. You will note that the number of earthquakes between the 4 to 5.9 magnitude have dramatically increased over the past 2 years. What could be the reason for this? Looking at this objectively - gravitational or magnetic forces must be at work here. If we look at our solar system everything seems normal, but then again we should then see earthquake data remain constant.

On the other hand however, we do know that something massive is causing our outer planets to wobble in their orbits. If this body is really massive and on an elliptical orbit on its way to earth as some people would suggest, we could probably expect earthquakes to occur more frequently as a result of this in the very near future. The effect that this gravitational force will have on earth should also up the frequency of earthquakes in the magnitude 6 to 9 range as it comes closer - theoretically.

My personal oppinion: I believe something massive is approaching us and so far the statistics confirm it. If there really is something on its way to us I recon it would be safe to say that next year we would see the frequency of earthquakes increasing even more dramatically.

Time will tell...

or maybe the earth is just going thru a time of increased tectonic activity..
or maybe the earth has been going thru a period of decreased tectonic activity since humans have been around, and it's starting to return to "normal".
just how much of an effect would a planetary body that is BILLIONS of miles away at it's closest approach have on the earth?
as the more knowlegable folks here like to say- "show us the math". or at least some cool squiggly pictures..

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

If you look a bit further on the site you link to, you'll find the answer.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

I think one needs to look at the activity over a longer period of time. There are going to be times when activity peaks and ebbs, but it's what is happening over the long run that is more telling...by the long run I mean hundreds of years. In the past there have been times of greater activity followed by times of less activity.

How do we know this?

Evidence for this massive body? Something massive heading our way and noone notices it?

Ok, it's your opinion, but if you want others to take it seriously you need evidence.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Welcome to the board astera.

And yet the number of smaller earthquakes is down in 2005, and the total number of earthquakes lower than in the previous three years. Looking at this objectively - one would expect the number of minor earthquakes to also increase if there was some large scale force at work here. Looking at this objectively one would also expect the total number of earthquakes to be higher.
I must echo other posters and ask how exactly we "know" that there is a massive body out there, yet we can't see it.

And yet the number of smaller quakes is down, which would indicate . . . .
So why is the number of earthquakes of 6+ magnitude in 2005 down this year?
Actually the statistics do not confirm it. Ignoring the fact that the statistics show that earthquakes were less frequent in 2005, the only thing those statistics confirm is the number of earthquakes, they do not confirm the existance of some massive gravitational source. Actually if you did a statistical analysis I'm willing to bet that the difference in the number of earthquakes each year is not even statistically significant - indicating a natural fluctuation. That exercise is left to the reader.

__________________
Now while I might be amused by Cthulhians, I don't necessarily distrust them to carry out the functions of government. -- JayUtah

What's it like being a skeptic in the Middle East? Check out my blog.

Interesting earthquake info.

The second to the last question is relevent:

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Oh, I wouldn't say that. There weren't any earthquakes in 2005 at all last year.

if you look at my post on the conspiracy board which is titled look at this thing on the sun in 2012 there is a bit about massive planets or a planet x. how are the outer planets wobbling? show me the link which says it is. and not where some mad man speculates that its happening.

...OR, our ability to detect earthquakes has dramatically increased. A lot of this has to do with detecting quakes in non-populated areas, or remote locations like at ocean plates, Antarctic plates, and deep-quakes. Here's a good debunker site.

I find it interesting that whenever detection methods are used for the first time, and there is a spike in the historical data, there is always someone who exclaims, "Wow- it's an epidemic !!". A really good analogy would be the avian influenza panic now sweeping health communities, as a "pandemic". I even heard a CDC official comment that he thought it was as serious as the 1918 Spanish Flu.
Huh ? Why hasn't comet and near-Earth asteroids caused such events in the past ? Also, the Kuiper-Belt and all of its recent discoveries satisfy most of the "outer planets wobble" effect of which you refer. It was such a minor mathematical problem, that the great majority of astrophysists had agreed that Pluto's existence alone accounted for the disturbance.
+1 to novaderrik. If this object is so massive as to cause effects from such a distance, it would have to be large enough to detect. It's an observational paradox. Unless you're going for a Nibiru / Nemesis "stealth" planet ?
Yes, if you make a positive prediction and have infinite time, you will ALWAYS be proven correct in the end. I just hope those Heaven's Gate guys managed to hitch a ride on the comet-following spaceship...

Hi dirty_g,

Whether our astronomers have actually found the correct planet/comet/star is not clear - they have however discovered a body (2003 UB313) larger than Pluto in 2003 and announced it in January 2005. If you would like to read more about this you can go to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_UB313. Now whether this is actually part of our solar system or not is still unclear it seems.

Hope this helps.

Astera

It's a KBO that *might* be larger than Pluto. If it is, then it's some dinky amount like 15% larger. Also, if you really think it might be responsible for causing recent Earthquakes, why hasn't there been any unusual seismic activity for a longer period of time- "Xena" hasn't moved THAT much closer in the last 10-20 years. One would expect to see a corresponding rise in seismic activity as the object moved closer. Also, why in the data from the site you listed is there nothing significant from 2003, the year for which this KBO was catalogued ?

Astera, you fail to provide convincing evidence for increase in earthquake activity. Link you provide interesting link, but no evidence that body have effect on earth.

Even if the number of earthquakes were increasing (and it's not), how would a very distant planet cause them?

its not massive and nothing says it will smash into our planet either. in fact its orbit is further away. if it did go close by would an object as big as this cause the earths spin on it's axis to reverse anyway? A jupiter sized object probably could. But something a touch larger than Pluto?? I dont have a clue but still why would something that big effect a gas giants orbit and make it wobble?

It clearly is part of our solar system.

However, an object roughly the size of Pluto that is in an orbit that keeps it out beyond Neptune is not going to have any impact on Earth at all.

Oh, and welcome to the Board.

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

Well, no... Not even a Jupiter sized object could do that. Heck, the Sun can't even do that. In order to reverse an object's rotation, you have to have a force in opposition to the its current direction of spin. That's not gravity, no matter how massive the other object is. The closest you get is tidal locking (which is why the same side of the moon always faces the Earth), but the object still rotates in the same direction.

And if it was massive enough to have such an effect on the Earth from way out there, imagine the effect it would have on the outer planets; something that has not been observed.

I can't help but notice, astera, that you seemed to have ignored the many points brought up to refute your claim.

Someone misinterpreting this increase in data would be like someone in the 17th century looking through a telescope for the first time, counting the number of visible stars, and concluding that the number of stars in the sky was on the increase.

Perhaps the original poster is a person who doesn't believe in taking unnecessary asterisks.*



*Don't you really dislike reading a paper and finding that the footnote indicated in the body of the text can't be found anywhere?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Welcome to the forum, astera.

You should take some time to consult the following resources -- they're quite informative and should greatly assist in clearing up misconceptions. Claims of some roving planetary perturber in the manner you've described are wholly unsupported by evidence.

A good place to start: The Planet X Saga

As pointed out by N C More above, the USGS has a marvelous section devoted to earthquakes where they address and refute persistent seismic myths. This activity is not on the increase as others have already noted. See here for more.

Further -- there's a section on gravitational and electromagnetic influences here, in The Bad Astronomer's essay debunking astrology. There's a specific list of calculations here in a related entry addressing claims of planetary alignments causing earthquakes. The numbers speak for themselves.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that Mike Brown's team announced the discovery of 2003 UB313 in July of this year, not January.

I hope you find the above helpful.

Another thing missleading about those statistics on the USGS Site, is that they don't differenciate between Tectonic Quakes and Volcanic Quakes.

The 4.0 through 4.9 catagory is in the range of Volanic Quake whis range from 0.1-2.0 typicall in swarms (20-400 a day) 2.0 - 3.4 (Gass/Steam/Lava flow emmision, landslides, 3.5-4.3 (Minor eruptions, larger steam/gass emisions), 4.4-5.2 (St. Helens like Eruptions, Mt Axial), 5.3-6.5 (Pompay like Eruptions), 6.6-8.8 (Catastophic eruptions, Like Yellowstone and Mt. Mazzma, ot hotspot fissue rips)

Considering there are 16 active vocanoes along the ring of fire right now as opposed to the normal 10-12, it makes sense the 4.0-4.9 group is showing higher activity. And the others groups not showing any major increase. Most likely it's from the increased. Seamount Volcanoes (Sub surface canoes) are now being monitored where there not just a few years ago. SeaMt Axial, about four miles off the coast of Newport, Oregon is highly active right now, typicall a few 4.0 eruptions a year.

Yes this means there are two Volcanos active on the US main land, within about 160 miles of each other, SeaMt Axial in Oregon Waters, and St. Helens in WA, St. There are three active Alaskan Volcanoes, plus Hawaii, brings the active US cano's to a total of 6! Right now we have more active volcanoes then any other country. Man I sould of been a vocanologist!

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

The actual term most often used is vulcanologist. But, like the rest of us, you probably don't have the right ears.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I must say I am quite surprised by the number of responses I got to my post in just one day and I would like to respond to some of the comments made.

As I have said, we do not currently have proper physical evidence for the existence of Planet X, but that does not mean that it does not exist. When we have a lack of information it does not imply that we can ignore the issue all together. We do have pieces of the puzzle, but some are missing - that means there had to have been a complete puzzle at some stage in the past or in the future. For planet X several ancient cultures do have records of this celestial body - this is a fact and a piece of the puzzle that we have already found. We also have records of the effects of this body on earth both through records that have been kept by ancient cultures and physical evidence that can be found on earth today (by this I mean that there are enough evidence to support the fact that the earth experienced a big deluge a few thousand years ago and fossil records also show that this was something that happened suddenly - i.e. the animal had food in its mouth when it was suddenly buried in mud, ice etc.) What we are missing is knowledge on where exactly Planet X is at the moment, its size, its mass and the actual orbit.

Coming back to earthquakes: I find it funny that some of our posters would compare the information that shows an increase in frequency of 4 to 6 magnitude earthquakes "during the past 2 years" to someone who comes from the 17th century and looked through a telescope for the first time. Now surely, I am certainly aware that the good people at the USGS have been installing seismic equipment on a continual basis since the (1900's) - see the links given above. This still does not account for the fact that during the last 2 years - and please note: not the last 200 years - we see a dramatic increase in earthquake frequency for magnitude 4 to 6 and even volcanic activity - as mentioned above. Should I read in what you are saying that during the past two years the USGS has upped the rate at which seismic equipment is installed to account for the increase in the frequency of 4 to 6 magnitude ranges? Also the table of 13 years of historical data that is provided above to refute the fact that earthquakes are increasing are unfortunately somewhat outdated. It only contains complete data up to 2002. Also the statement that was made by the USGS about the increase in earthquakes that could be accounted for by more equipment being installed was made in 2001 it seems - see links above. Once again, I am pointing out dates ranging from 2003 to 2005.

Interestingly enough I have also found that some mistakes have slipped into the tables on USGS's website. On the 28th of November we had a total of 133 magnitude 6.0-6.9 quakes for the year. Then we had another 6+ quake in the Mariana Islands region and the following day the total number of 6.0 to 6.9 was down to 132 - so instead of adding a quake one was subtracted. I wrote the USGS about this, but did not get a proper reply on this. I follow this on a daily basis since October and I am not sure if there are any other errors going into these tables. So the actual total number of 6.0 - 6.9 earthquakes should be standing on 140 if no other mistakes were made for Dec. 7th.

I live in South Africa - and we are not positioned close to any major fault lines, yet here too, we had a noticeable increase in seismic activity during the past 2 years (magnitude 2 - 4). Also the large earthquake (6.8) in the Tanganyika region a few days ago in Central Africa is also not situated on, or close to any major fault lines. I have to ask myself: "Is this just coincidence or are there some gravitational forces at work that we are not aware of?"

Maybe I sound like someone from the 1700s, but I would rather keep an open eye and an open mind than to just sit back and say that because most people believe otherwise I should probably just join their train of thought. Once again, time will provide us with the information and evidence we lack.

We do not currently have proper physical evidence for the existence of a Dragon in my garden. Does that mean I should nonetheless be carefull?

As there are records about dragons...

Have a link to that information?

Maybe we should also look for the whereabout of that dragon...
Its size would also be interesting. I would not be scared about a 2 cm dragon.

An open mind is a good thing. But you should look at the informations that enter your head.
Not every source is reliable. For my part, I would rather listen to those who studied Geology and Astronomy for years and have a lot of experience in their field, than listen to someone like Nancy.

Don't be too dissapointed if no evidence shows up to back up that Planet X story.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

No. The Tanganyika region is in the middle of the (western branch of the) Great Rift Valley, one of the major fault lines in the world, and the place were Africa is slowly being torn apart geologically.
A simple map can be seen here, and some more info is here or here. So this is neither coincidence or unknown gravitational forces ,but plain old plate tectonics and normal seismic activity in a region that is prone to earthquakes and volcanic activity.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

If we have no evidence of a thing, then, until such evidence is provided, for all practical purposes, the thing to our knowledge does not exist.

Likewise, we do not currently have proper physical evidence for the existence of an elf in the backyard of a certain BAUT poster, but that does not mean that they do not exist.

However, the likelihood of the existence of the elf and the mythical "Planet X" are the same.

What issue? The premise is that there is some issue here. But the presenter also admits there is no evidence to support the premise of the issue. If there is no evidence, there is no issue.

What puzzle? See above re "issue".

It is not good to confuse ancient myths with facts. Most of us here take a.dim view of claiming they are the same.

Ancients myths are not reliable records of celestial events. There was no big deluge a few thousand years ago. There were local floods about 5000 to 10000 years ago associated with the end of the last ice age. That's all. Please don't perpetuate the myths about the quick-freeze mammoths. That's pretty old.

Begging the question. An object for which there is no evidence is now identified as the prime suspect for events which have no documentation.

The connection was the increased sensitivity of the instruments used. The more sensitive your measuring instruments, the more things you are going to notice/record compared to when you were using less sensitive instruments (e.g., eye/telescope).

You're ignoring the various other factors and effects that should have been noted. Plus the fixation on 4 to 6 seems to indicate a preferential treatment of the data: highlight those which support your "case" and ignore those that don't. Sorry, that's not science.

If this is so, congrats!, the USGS is run by people, who as we know, are infallible.

Data please. BTW, the area of the United States which will probably have the next big earthquake is also situated far from any major fault lines: New Madrid, Missouri. It was the site of the most powerful earthquake in recorded American history. Funny that astronomical records of the time don't indicate that there was any kind of anomalous body passing by.

In short, your generalizations on and speculations about recent South African earthquakes carry no weight.

Belief has nothing to do with it. Information about the Earth's tectonic system and the various real bodies in the solar system have everything to do with it.

No it won't. Scientific investigation based on objective evidence analyzed with sound math will provide us with reliable conclusions about what's what on Earth and in the solar system. Idle speculation will remain just that, idle speculation.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

My bad - on the other hand though, the USGS is not showing this region situated on a major plate division when you go here or here. Then the question is, is this really "one of the major fault lines of the world?" I beg to differ. Sure this may be a faulty region, but compared to interaction between the Pacific and Indian plate or the Pacific and the North American plate this ons just falls way short. So maybe it would be better to term it one of the minor fault lines of the world? Yes?

Just out of interest sake Maksutov - do you believe in evolution then?

I did not say that we have no evidence at all - I said we do not have enough evidence yet.

Also interesting that when the amount of time increases that passed between where we are now and what happened in the past, the easier it apparently becomes for someone to pass fact off as myths.

How sure are you of your facts when you say this and on what evidence to the contrary, do you base your statement?

Exactly, so if you see something out of the ordinary happening - then you ask the question why? Every reaction should have an action associated with it. I would like to know what the action is. When you see earthquakes occurring more frequently than compared to taking the averages of the past 10 years - especially including the past 2 years you can choose to just sit back and "believe" that all this is just normal plate tectonics - or you could ask why.

Even with all the evidence you need before you, a person could still be deceived or believe in something based on the evidence alone. In the end it boils down to what is true and what is false. If one sets out to prove something false as being true - it can easily be done providing even evidence for the claims that are made. Just look at all the conspiracy theories out there today - many of these provide ample proof for both sides of the story. The big question is: How does one discern the Truth from Lies; Myth from Facts; Right from Wrong?

Actually, you said:

Emphasis mine. Now... if we don't have proper evidence, then what is there to discuss? Perhaps you could clarify your use of the word "proper," or, if it was used in error, provide what "physical evidence" you believe supports your idea, or both.

It's also pretty easy to lose context in such a long span of time. Is The Lord of the Rings a tale about the ancient history of the Earth, or even another planet, or is it just a fantasy story written for entertainment? The answer is easy today, but what about in 5,000 years?

What I mean is that we do not have a picture of the planet yet or a claim of its discovery in recent years, and if someone has discovered it - they still need to make it public. Maybe the information is out there but being kept from us? - also a possibility. What we do have are records from people before us about a Planet X - we also know that these peoples were from different parts of the world and that they had knowledge and technology to their disposal - see pyramids - and even to the extent that we would struggle or even fail to reproduce their creations with technology currently available to us. It is also a fact that the creators of the pyramids had in-depth knowledge on our solar system and the relationship between celestial bodies. Now maybe some may think that this is just myth, but in this case the evidence is right here with us in our time and in our world. Looking at this objectively and in context I would be very skeptical in passing everything off as myths only, just because these people "could not have had the technology in that time".

Exactly, I agree. The problem is that when we die and our children has to carry the information forward it becomes more and more difficult to discern between whether this information is fact or myth as time passes, but it still does not mean that when more time passes the more likely it will be that the information we view is actually mythical. If it was true 5000 years ago, it still remains true today and it will still remain true in 5000 years time, even if nobody knows about it in that time.

Actually, we have quite a lot of data that, well, doesn't disprove PX - this is difficult to do since there's no single consistant claim about it - but does delimit its characteristics in a way that makes it clear that the current claims (Lieder, Sitchkin) can't be true.

All this assuming that our physics hold up, of course, but this has to be the default assumption until anything more substantial than mythology and drugged dinos are trotted out as "evidence". Ancient cultures believed all sorts of stuff, and particularly the greek philosophers are known for not letting facts get in the way of a neat theory.

There are some theories that there's a fairly large body orbiting *way* out, knocking bodies in the Oort cloud inwards from time to time, to show up as long-period comets. This body has and will remain far outside our part of the solar system, however, so it can't have had anything to do with any ancient myths.
This is just *begging* for some clarification.

I apologise if I seem a bit cranky, but this is a very old and thoroughly discounted hypothesis. It doesn't even deserve the name of theory - what little evidence we have points squarely against it.

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

Certainly, some ancient cultures have records of various things they saw in the sky... the known planets, comets, eclipses, meteor showers, and a few supernovae. I have never heard of a Planet X appearing in these records however. Could you cite your sources of this information?

Animals have died suddenly all throughout Earth's history, due to local disasters such as floods or volcanoes, which have also happened all throughout Earth's history. However I have never seen or heard of evidence of a grand deluge in the past few thousand years nor any point in history, even through I have discussed the matter with people who believe in such things. What evidence do you have that supports the idea of a "big" event happening?

Yes, only 2 years. But is this the start of a trend or just a statistical fluke? For instance, if I win 2 games of poker, would you say I'm on a significant winning streak?



Now, just considering the idea of this planet wandering around the solar system... Consider that Jupiter's gravity does not significantly affect Earth, at least not in the way of tides or quakes or anthing noticable. That means if this Planet X is farther away than Jupiter, it would have to be many times more massive, thus bigger. In which case we ought to have noticed it not only from it reflecting the sun's light but from its gravitational effect on other planets. Or if it's smaller than Jupiter, then it has to be closer than Jupiter. In which case again we ought to have noticed it already. Gravity can't just affect Earth without affecting everthing else in the solar system. And a planet can't just hide in empty space.

Since we have not seen it nor seen its effects, I have an extremely hard time believing it exists.