Did you hear about the earthquake in Chile?
Andy (guest) 27 Feb 2010 21:13
Why are there so many powerful earthquakes lately?
Did you hear about the earthquake in Chile?
Forum
» General Discussion / Comments
» Did you hear about the earthquake in Chile?
Andy (guest) 27 Feb 2010 21:13
Indeed, we heard about it. In fact, I anticipated this question and wrote a page about it.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Here are the most powerful earthquakes since 1900:
Chile 1960 05/22 9.5
Prince William Sound, Alaska 1964 03/28 9.2
Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra 2004 12/26 9.1
Kamchatka 1952 11/04 9.0
Off the Coast of Ecuador 1906 01/31 8.8
Chile 2010 02/27 8.8
Rat Islands, Alaska 1965 02/04 8.7
Northern Sumatra, Indonesia 2005 03/28 8.6
Assam - Tibet 1950 08/15 8.6
Andreanof Islands, Alaska 1957 03/09 8.6
Southern Sumatra, Indonesia 2007 09/12 8.5
Banda Sea, Indonesia 1938 02/01 8.5
Kamchatka 1923 02 03 8.5
Chile-Argentina Border 1922 11/11 8.5
Kuril Islands 1963 10/13 8.5
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/10_largest_world.php
Worldwide, there are about 500,000 earthquakes per year. Earthquakes aren't increasing in frequency or magnitude. You are just hearing more about them in "the information age."
Yes & the one in Japan the day before that it was a 7.0. Three major earthquakes in the first 2 months of 2010! I am sure we will see many more disasters in the next months & years to come, much more than before. Have you heard of HAARP? It is all manufactured to scare us to death!
Hi Lori;
On the Chile Earthquake page we link to the statistics from the U.S.G.S.
The number of earthquakes is not rising. The number of earthquakes over 7.0 actually shows a slight drop in the last decade or so (which the geologists consider a statistical fluke). The intensity of earthquakes is not rising.
You can't take a small data set (like the number of earthquakes in first 2 months of 2010) and make sweeping generalizations about the number of total quakes, or that it constitutes a trend. That's a fallacy of logic (called the hasty generalization).
I don't know what is particularly scary about researching the effects of the aurora on radio communications (a.k.a., HAARP, see http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/faq.html )
I do know that HAARP is a joint civilian/military research project, is not classified, but is the target of some really wild conspiracy theories.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Hi how are you? I am a christian number 1, first & foremost. I base my decisions, ideas & outlooks on that. The reason I said that comment about the 3 major quakes in the first 2 months of this year & then went on to say that there would be an increase of earthquakes as time goes on is not my statement but straight from the holy bible itself. In the books concerning the end Jesus said there will be an increase in earthquakes as well as natural disasters. I have been on this earth for 40 years & I have seen a gradual trend of disasters rising especially in the last 2 or 3 decades. You can disagree with me that's fine everyone has their own opinion. As far as what technology our government has, HARRP for example I am sorry but we already know our government lies to us to scare us, couldn't they also lie about how they can manipulate that said technology to benefit them & not mankind? Couldn't they lie to us about that also? We already know they have bombs that can destroy whole cities & biological weapons that can destroy the whole planet, we need to focus on real issues not made up or ancient dates that supposedly end life on earth, as we have seen have been set in the past, all of which were WRONG. If you believe in GOD you have nothing to fear.
Hope you don't mind me jumping in - but Lori, to my knowledge, you hear more about earthquakes now than in the past because of a) more measurements being taken; so more earthquakes are 'recorded,' but said earthquakes probably have happened every other eyar and b) media - the media loves to clamp on to disaster, and with more media outlets, the more you hear about them.
I know a bit of psychology - negative memories are replayed more than positive ones, giving the mind the impression that the negative occurence happened more often. It's like dwelling on the negative; pretty much unavoidable since that's how we're hardwired to survive.
Dear blackcat,
That is true about negativity, we do tend to remember that more & I also agree about the fact that there is more equipment now than ever before & in more places to measure even minor earthquakes. My whole point is that we are at the mercy of the government, media, hollywood, etc. to believe what they throw out there at us, obviously or we would not even be discussing 2012 right?
Hi again, Lori;
I try very hard not to filter the evidence based on any of my biases. This is always a task that must be done carefully.
When we look at the evidence before us, we do not see an upward trend in earthquakes. We may in fact see an upward trend in other "natural disasters" due to climate change in the next few decades. Tropical storms are expected to increase, and rainfall patterns are expected to shift, leaving some areas much drier than before, and some areas much wetter than before. In some cases either of those scenarios could be considered a 'natural disaster', especially if arable farmland is suddenly turned into desert.
The problem with 'seeing a trend' is that frequently our data is biased. This is especially true if the sample comes to us via the news media. I have never seen a headline that said for example: "Sunny weather in Bangladesh, Farmers Joyous!" or "No Earthquake in Sumatra Today!". But you can be sure that if the opposite case is true, that if a tropical cyclone struck Bangladesh and killed thousands ( as one did in 1991 ) or an earthquake hits Sumatra and creates a tidal wave that kills hundreds of thousands ( as it did in 2004 ) that it gets reported. This effect is called a 'selection bias' and can seriously skew our view of events. In order to prevent this we need to work at making sure that we have a representative sample.
Now, take tropical cyclones for example. The "Met Office" in the UK has a nice graph of tropical cyclones by year coded by the 'basin' that they occurred in. Please have a look, and see if you can find a trend.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/tropicalcyclone/tcgraphs/tcactivity/globbas.gif
My point about HAARP is this: It is not a classified project. You can even tour the site, if you decide to fly to Alaska and do that. Their methods, research, and resulting data are all non-classified.
I agree with you that the 2012 date is made up. In fact, it was made up by modern, western people, and not by the ancient Mayans, or ancient Chinese, or ancient Sumerians. I mentioned Coe in another post. In his book ( Coe, Michael D. 1966. The Maya. Ancient Peoples and Places series (1st ed.). Thames and Hudson. ISBN 0500285055,. ) he said "There is a suggestion … that Armageddon would overtake the degenerate peoples of the world and all creation on the final day of the thirteenth [baktun]. Thus … our present universe … [would] be annihilated on December 23, 2012, when the Great Cycle of the Long Count reaches completion." However, the fact that one author mentioned this does not mean that it was the prevailing opinion. In fact, this interpretation was vigorously disputed by other Mayanist scholars at the time, and since 1966 we have learned so much more about the Maya, and this date as an "end date" is not seriously considered by any mayanist scholar that I can find. The 2012 date didn't really enter into the public consciousness until Arguelles started his whole new age thing in the 1970s and 1980s.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Do you think it might have had something to do with the LHC? The earthquake happened just in the same day when beams were inserted to the machine for the first time in 2010. The earthquake in Haiti occurred closely to December's first collisions in low energies.
I worry a little. I know that you don't think the LHC is dangerous, but what is the explanation for all of these disasters lately? Is it all just a big coincidence?
Hi Andy,
No, earthquakes have nothing at all to do with the LHC. They are caused by movement of the tectonic plates, which is happening all the time. The LHC can't cause earthquakes. As I said in my previous post, there are about 500,000 earthquakes per year. They are not increasing in frequency or magnitude. Notice also in my last post that the most powerful earthquake recorded since 1900 was a magnitude 9.5, also in Chile. That was in 1960, long before anyone had ever thought of building the LHC.
Just because two things happen at or near the same time, it does not mean there is any cause and effect relationship between them. That makes about as much sense as saying that you washed your hair and it rained in Bangladesh, so you caused it to rain by washing your hair. As Winters said, you worry too much.
The idea that an atom smasher and the elementary particles it hurls around can affect crustal movement is patently ludicrous.
Alene makes a great point. Andy, you are committing the logical fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Simply put, it is the fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation. You state that the beams were inserted into the machine. The Chilean earthquake happened the same day. Therefore, the LHC caused it. You assumed the LHC to be responsible without bothering to research prior earthquake history in the area. As Alene and Astrogeek state, it is an area historically known for producing powerful earthquakes. In light of this evidence, the involvement of a device over 10,000 miles away is, to put it very mildly, suspect.
Andy Andy Andy you worry way to much. Erthquakes happen because the crust are alwasy moving and where there is big faults well earthquake happen. Did you know all continent move just a few MM a year. Nothing else is causing this its just the crust movement. Are you ready the hoexer web site? They are probably telling you this is do to 2012 well if they do its wrong……I would like to know what is LHC and what does it eat in the winter? <-question with a joke by the way. Its a Fench Canadian expression!!!!
RE LHC and atom smashers, in the 7 reasons section and earthquakes:
There are concerns that millions of collisions/sec will produce strangelets of form USD (up-strage-down) or multiple of those in equal number forming a condensate of 3 types, neural charge (aether), pos charge, and a neg charge. The neg charge stranglet get stable (with the lowest A number for stable condensate and most reactive+dangerous form) when there are 200-500 S quarks in the condensate (like bose-einstein condensates but with dark matter s quark). Now if this is stable, CERN likely knows that it is. So, the only safe thing is to contain it an a magnetic jar (which is what the ring is) via its charge. Supposedly, by feeding this condensate neutrons, you can create energy and the mass of the condensate continues to grow. This is a dangerous kind of energy source since it can consume all baryons of our world if it got loose. Supposedly, they harvested this strange condensate at the 1 TeV collider.
I notice you fail to mention this. Also, micro-black holes are supposed to dissipate when in a high energy quark-gluon plasma. However, the claim is that with a vortex can cool the mixture and allow stable formation. The large number of reactions in a small space could allow combining of microBHs.
Hawking also says, that microBH will radiate energy making them an energy source. However, current satellites cannot see emissions from blackhole (not being fed of course) thereby reducing their mass. He claims particles jump back in time reducing the BH mass and other wild stuff not verified.
My concern is we don't understand enough about concentrated collisions producing large numbers of S C T B quarks and specifically formations of fermi condensates. This is mostly and issue in 2013 when collider reaches 14TeV as planned. Anything over 10Tev should make the Charm, Top and Bot quarks appear.
I suspect they are not just trying to prove the SM AND higgs boson but rather are looking for dangerous energy sources of unlimited capacity but if the break their magnetic bottle, we all die. Why else would they invest so much in it? Perhaps they know the probability of having 200-500 S quarks is too unlikely given the total energy input and the usd decay rate. However, we have models that we assume are correct that we are trying to verify—ie a circle unproven. Scary to me.
Unfold
Re: Did you hear about the earthquake in Chile? by 
Dr strange Feynman (guest), 01 Apr 2010 19:37
Dr strange Feynman (guest), 01 Apr 2010 19:37
I'm seriousely worried by this comment.
I know the LHC has already performed collisions at an energy of 3.5 TeV a few days ago, but is there any possibility what this guy says can be true after a large number of collisions, or perhaps at a higher energy?
Could anyone please address it?
This guys is just another trying to scare you Andy that all he is say. i cant answer what ever he is saying as I never heard of LHC and that sound like some some toke out of a movie again.
There are concerns that millions of collisions/sec will produce strangelets of form USD (up-strage-down) or multiple of those in equal number forming a condensate of 3 types, neural charge (aether), pos charge, and a neg charge.
These concerns are not shared by specialists in the field of high-energy physics: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910333
Would you care to support any of your claims by references to peer-reviewed studies published in accredited scientific journals?
There are concerns that millions of collisions/sec will produce strangelets of form USD (up-strage-down) or multiple of those in equal number forming a condensate of 3 types, neural charge (aether), pos charge, and a neg charge.
Concerns by whom? This comment appears to be mixing terms from various fields of physics in ways that make no sense. What form of condensate? A Fermionic condensate? A Quark condensate? A Bose-Einstein condensate? You realize that all of these occur at very low temperatures, right?
The use of the term 'aether' here shoots up red flags, flares, and smoke. In classical Greek, aether was the material that fills the region of the Universe above the terrestrial sphere. It was used as a theoretical medium for the propagation of light waves for a while, up until Einstein. Nowadays in physics there is no concept considered exactly analogous to the aether. The closest would be 'dark matter'.
The neg charge stranglet get stable (with the lowest A number for stable condensate and most reactive+dangerous form) when there are 200-500 S quarks in the condensate (like bose-einstein condensates but with dark matter s quark).
This is bizarre. Is there a reference for any of this in peer-reviewed literature? A search on "strangelets quark condensate" turns up some very strange sites, all claiming (of course) that the LHC will cause these weird effects.
I notice you fail to mention this.
We 'fail to mention' all kinds of unverified claims.
Seriously, we can't take any of this simply based on your word. You're going to have to cite some peer reviewed literature. I have a feeling that what you've posted above is simply techno-babble.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
"The use of the term 'aether' here shoots up red flags, flares, and smoke. In classical Greek, aether was the material that fills the region of the Universe above the terrestrial sphere."
Of course, the physics of the light world is very well understood since we can see it experimentally and in simulation so well. We understand that EM fields exchange energy with electrons/protons and hold together the world of the "light" encoded in the theory of QCD.
The use of the term "aether" was a meant to point out the "all knowingness" so used purposefully outside the physics terminology. We think we know more than the ancient greeks about dark matter since we have a computing grid. We are so full of ourselves since our predictions work so well out to 18 decimal places. But, still we are human not gods. Our theories outstrip our ability to measure and calculate due to the grand interconnectedness, but these theories may not be the darkside reality especially in the realm of the very dense matter condensates. Condensate wave equations are not easy to compute or understand.
We only have theories of dark matter and they are mostly are condensates of neutral charge (layman's "aether"). I use the term since we really cannot probe this domain too well as dark matter is so small, massive, and if without charge, so transparent.
Yet dark matter is spread thinly in space and our matter of light slides benignly right through it. The point is we have just models, simulations of horrendous complexity in the dark side.Pos and neu charged fermi dark matter condensates are of no threat BUT NEG charge condensates are the ultimate POWER and the darkest DEATH if loosed and CERN says so.
There are no peer groups not shot down outside of CERN and those in CERN are held to non-disclosure. It is the "negative charged strange condensate" calculations by the Chinese (you know what study it is) showing the most likely condensate to be NEG charged form at A=200-500, with pos charge 2nd most likely, and neutral charge condensate third by QCD theory. There is no peer review since most all are beholding to employment or the power of CERN. No one may speak out safely greater than Hitler's wrath and is to oppose their true objective of infinite power source and a mass bomb. Engineers know to just keep their noses down in their compartments like the technicians of little Eichmann's world.
Now, condensates like low temperature, and Bose-einstein condensates of our matter of the light are extremely unstable. The world of light is not the stable world of condensates. But dense matter is the world dark form stable condensates at much higher temperatures. There are no atoms there.
For condiensate formation, the collisions must be rapidly cooled. There is a probability for this beyond our ability to calculate and it is in a collision pattern cooling vortex with lots of strangelets (>1000) to combine. How likely? How cold? nobody knows.
Condensates are the predominant form of stable dense matter. Yes, and when they get too big the wave equation falls apart and they fission, divide, and grow/densify again if properly fed our light matter of only U and D triples. The net charge of the condensate must stay negative to continue to be dangerous.
RE: http://bit.ly/diLxWT "“Disaster Scenarios” at RHIC R.L. Jaffea, W. Buszaa, J. Sandweissb, and F. Wilczek"
Each of these people become hugely famous and wealthly with CERN's existence, they are highly interested parties of foxes watching the henhouse of the whole planet. But, lets just look at the key words: ("we argue that",likely, unlikely, the "theoretical" (ie imperfect sims/calculations of what we think happens ) :
"We argue that four separate requirements are necessary for this to occur: existence of large stable strangelets, metastability of intermediate size strangelets, negative charge for strangelets along the stability line, and production of intermediate size strangelets in the heavy ion environment…..we know of no plausible suggestion for why the third or especially the fourth might be true. Given minimal physical assumptions the continued existence of the Moon, in the form we know it, despite billions of years of cosmic ray exposure, provides powerful empirical evidence against the possibility of dangerous strangelet production."
Now look at these priests of science, it's pure faith. They know the world of light beautifully and are caught in the perfection of the the theory of light QCD etc. However, they can't unify gravity which is from the world of the dark which cannot really be studied well. Dark matter passes right through the world of the light matter. They extrapolate into the world of the dark hence the above wiggle words: "we know of no plausible suggestion" and " against the possibility"
The fact is this exactly: THEY DON'T KNOW..it is highly highly likely but not for sure. It is well worth the risk for the priests of science since they think they are so good at what their theories predict. I admire them greatly as well. The universe they encode is incredibly beautiful and elegant humming of chords if you could only be intoxicated as they are when you truly see it. This understanding fills you with unimaginable joy of discovery BUT ALSO HUBRIS.
Here is the key flaw: Cosmic rays hit the moon spread out in space and time. Forming 200+ strangelets in close proximity is about zero probability. This is not the case in the colider. Strange quarks are strange because they decay slowly. This slower decay means a low but finite possibility of stable condensate formation. The millions of collision events up the probabilities. Strangelet decay as well unless they form a large enough condensate and this requires a vortex of lower temperature (incalculable probability) and 200+ strangelets in close proximity (unlikely too). BUT THE PROBABILITY IS FINITE. But if the search is for an energy source, this could be engineered to be more likely. Some say LHC is a strange condensate factory but that is on a need to know basis.
Also, it's a fact that neg charge strange condensates densify our matter. Also, if bottled, they are an infinite energy source. They are also an unstoppable mass space weapon but not for use on earth. They can be contained with our technology and provide us with unlimited power but not without the most severe risk. So, could CERN really be a strange condensate factory or not? YES but not openly.
PS Micro-black holes are not an issue as gravity is a very weak force (10^-40) at tiny scales and they pop before they merge. These attractions are very very very tiny and they do leak out into the world of the light. mBH are a medea distraction away from strange condensates which are not explained to the public at all.
This is a very strange post, and I'm still trying to parse it… however, given that there were 33,963 traffic fatalities in the U.S. in 2009, I assume that you never get into a car or cross the street.
Seriously, your claim appears to be that nobody knows what will happen, that maybe the people at CERN are trying to create your 'strange condensate'?
You appear to speak with certainty on these topics, such as your claims about the nature of 'dark matter', but your words make very little sense to me. Especially since it is my understanding that currently nobody knows what dark matter is… yet you make claims about what its nature is. I'm not a particle physicist, I'm an amateur astronomer. I will say that I can read most papers on particle physics and glean some understanding, even if complete understanding eludes me… but your post above seems like babble to me.
Your comparison of CERN to Hitler is very offensive, by the way.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
There are no peer groups not shot down outside of CERN and those in CERN are held to non-disclosure.
So as I suspected, no peer-reviewed references, just a bit of conspiracy-speak.
“Disaster Scenarios” at RHIC R.L. Jaffea, W. Buszaa, J. Sandweissb, and F. Wilczek"
Each of these people become hugely famous and wealthly with CERN's existence
Oh really? I very much doubt it.
BUT THE PROBABILITY IS FINITE
Scientists never claim 100% certainty about anything. The probability is finite that my house will suddenly sink 100 miles through the Earth's crust. But I don't lose any sleep worryng about it.
"You appear to speak with certainty on these topics, such as your claims about the nature of 'dark matter', but your words make very little sense to me. Especially since it is my understanding that currently nobody knows what dark matter is…"
You are right. My hubris points to the idea I know how it works. Exactly my point.
You cannot unify what does not exist on that domain. Gravity is the sum effect of offsets on all particle formations within the probability cloud. WE see this as random. We are unable to ever compute or know it.
Here comes more hubris:
- Gravity is not unified with QM in this physical matrix.
- Gravity is spooky action at a distance.
- God does not play dice.
- Physical matrix maintains the rules QED and QCD
- QM perfectly maintains the unitary property (all probabilities summed add to unity) over all the interactions of matter to hold it together
- The actual locations of particles within QED are NOT RANDOM
- A higher source controls all particles by a global quantum calculation over all particles to create General Relativity by solving it backwards
- Each observer choices are combined in a universal solution to where a particle should be
- Observers move through an experience space by choices
- Consistent experiences over all observers are combined into specific universes out of a multi verse
- the Light is the adjustment of particle probabilities to specific exact locations
- a high energy, dangerous grid, of fantastic power is needed to localize particles
- playing with the dark energy grid is dangerous
- Dark matter is the foundation within the universe to stabalize its shape+content
- there are no accidents, nothing is random,
- free will is a mild illusion, we choose the path of experience
- the physical universe is not the grand machine,
- the matrix is an information storage device and our choices project into it
- observer is the driving force
All pseudoscientific nonsense.
I doubt you can provide any support for the least metaphysical of your previous statements.
I bet you're one of the ones who stare at themselves in a mirror and say "Derpderp" over a matter of two to three hours until something bright and shiny catches your attention.
Dark matter (including other anomaly's) are purely theoretical at best.
It's completely moronic to even assume that you know exactly how the universe works considering that our universe is completely unpredictable, everything is random.
We're not here for a purpose, the ideal that we're here for a reason or because the universe wanted us to be here is the perfect fallacy created by man, much like religion (not to spark a religious debate).
As a species with the capability of looking at the sky and wondering what's beyond us, we crave relief by believing that we're here for a reason and we plead for something to believe in at every turn.
Let's assume for a moment that the universe itself is alive. So what? It doesn't change anything.
Let's assume that everything is random and the universe itself is simply a death trap. Well, so what? This doesn't change anything either.
Rather than claiming to know the exact purpose of our universe, many of us should be doing something worth-while.
The one key thing that everyone can agree on is that it's all about balance.
However the balance of life is a perfect contradiction because life is bound to death, with or without a purpose.
Something worth-while would be to explore the miracle of our existence (not assume that we know why we're here). Travel through the wonderland of ancient history, sacred geometry and even new discoveries (rather than assuming that we know why the ancients created what they did) and simply experience the essence of life rather than trying to destroy it for our own sadistic amusement.
People can claim to know the universe, but the truth behind our universe continues to elude us even when we think that we have it all figured out.
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
Well, 'purely theoretical' would apply to the attributes of dark matter. We have no idea what it is, but we know something is there. It would probably make more sense to call it "dark mass" than "dark matter", but the name has stuck, and so we're stuck with it.
Ideas range from miniature black holes, to WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) to some kind of field effect. Maybe in a decade or so we'll get enough data out of the LHC to make an educated guess. Until then nobody really knows what it is.
However, just because "nobody knows" does not make one idea more or less likely than the others. What makes our friend's idea nutty is that it is… well… nutty. "A higher source controls all particles by a global quantum calculation over all particles to create General Relativity by solving it backwards" ??? Sounds like an argument for God based on uncertainties in our observations… in other words, a "God of the Gaps" argument.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Precisely what I was hinting at.
I've seen a lot of talk from people who claim to know this and that, but I don't really think that anyone except for a handful of amateur astronomers and so forth have really stepped back and looked at the big picture, despite what we know now, that's child's play compared to what we don't know.
So the nutty professor up there is… nutty.
Perhaps someday we can all wear pink tutu's together and hold hands while singing a song in a new language, or maybe even an ancient language that resurfaced.
Never quite understood why people always bring the "God" argument to the table when "God" is as elusive as a four year old running in circles and trying to poke an imaginary friend with a stick.
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
/forum/t-222867/did-you-hear-about-the-earthquake-in-chile#post-