![Region of most recent New Zealand earthquakes [credit: BBC]](https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/nzquake.jpg)
Region of most recent New Zealand earthquakes [credit: BBC]
It seems the earthquake has reduced stress in some areas, but other parts may well have more than before. One expert said “The whole coast appears to have been uplifted”. LiveScience reporting.
The magnitude-7.8 quake that rattled New Zealand, killing at least two people and stranding thousands of people, completely transformed the underlying faults in the region. Six major faults ruptured as a result of the New Zealand quake, a new map reveals.
The Kaikoura earthquake struck the South Island of New Zealand early in the morning on Nov. 14 local time, triggering landslides, tsunamis and hundreds of aftershocks. And thousands of people were stranded when earthquake detritus dammed a river. During the quake, bystanders captured images of mysterious earthquake lights painting the sky in eerie blue and green.
To see how the massive temblor reshaped the landscape, Nicola Litchfield, a geologist with the geoscience consultancy group GNS Science in New Zealand, and colleagues flew over the South Island in a helicopter to take video footage of the region. The team compared before-and-after images of the faults in the area. It turned out the temblor had dramatically changed the earth beneath.
Four faults along the coastline ruptured and extended out into the sea, while another two faults ruptured inland, closer to the epicenter of the quake, Litchfield said. Ground-based GPS stations also reveal major motion at these faults, she added.
“The whole coast appears to have been uplifted from Cape Campbell all the way south to Kaikoura,” Litchfield told Live Science. “The ones right on the coast appear to have very large movements, almost 1 meter [3.3 feet] up and almost 3 m [10 feet] — by the looks of things — sideways as well.”
Now geologists are scrambling to figure out what this means for earthquake risk in the region.
Full report: New Zealand Quake Ruptured 6 Faults | LiveScience
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Press report: Huge quake exposes problems in how New Zealand prepares
The nation’s emergency call number, 111, fails after operators evacuate their building in the capital, Wellington. As ceiling tiles fall around them, operators think they’ve activated a backup system, but in their haste to leave have failed to do so.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-11-huge-quake-exposes-problems-zealand.html
To be always prepared for the worst is not an optimal strategy. I refuse to live in a permanent fear.
To the ignorant life is bliss; to the wise it is tragedy. Who will survive?
Life in paradise comes at a cost.
Reblogged this on Utopia – you are standing in it!.
I think that the fact of only 2 deaths so far from truly immense shocks, also says something. The 111 operators will feel like twits, but they are not to blame that someone better-paid did not fit in a double failsafe….
Curious George says:
November 19, 2016 at 9:25 pm
“To be always prepared for the worst is not an optimal strategy. I refuse to live in a permanent fear.”
This thread is mainly about earthquakes, but disaster may come from many sources. The first impact cannot be foreseen, but the possible social collapse that follows can be many times be averted. The man-in-the-street can do little, but higher up should keep that possibility in mind and be prepared. Some years ago the IMechE issued a related report centred mainly on basic need – food.
One major source of social disruption is total loss of electrical power for a substantial period.
Brett Keane, a threat will occur in late November with another strong jump of the solar wind.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/communities/space-weather-enthusiasts
Brett Keane: more cockup than backup on this occasion 😦
Posted: November 19, 2016 by oldbrew in Earthquakes, Geology.
Oldbrew, the “earthquake lights” described, IMHO, bear a resemblance to ‘electrical supra-natural activity’.
Global terrain is generally and electrically, in a ‘~normal state’ with the atmosphere. However, during a ‘volcanic upheaval event’, crystalline structures are shattered (much like the ‘piezoelectric’ effect, but unlike the, “piezoelectric effect”, its irreversible). This leads to the release of covalent ‘bonding’ electrons and a surfeit at the local surface of a -ve charge that upsets the “‘~normal state’ with the atmosphere” by alteration of the ‘PD’ (Potential Difference) between surface and atmosphere.
‘IOW’ (In Other Words), an ‘electrical imbalance’ between the surface and the atmosphere is introduced/induced by a ‘volcanic upheaval’ event, and as such, constitutes to be a ‘teleconnection’ between the ‘electrical activity’ of ‘Vulcanism’ and an ‘atmospheric reactance’ to it.
“Now geologists are scrambling to figure out what this means for earthquake risk in the region.”
For my part, the region between the North and South “Islands” is a ‘nascent caldera’. Thus, ‘the scramble’. 😦
It grieves me to say that ‘IMHO’ (In My Humble Opinion), NZ may become the modern day equivalent of Atlantis. Nuf said.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says ” NZ may become the modern day equivalent of Atlantis.” You raise a very ugly spectre.
And it is not rising water that’s ‘done it’, but submergence – possibly from a global tectonic shudder. I am presently following a similar event – now I think reliably dated to a narrow 7k-5k bce. Hit here: https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.674567462718062.1073741860.430211163820361/674567472718061/?type=3&theater
Linking to the subject of “preparedness” there is ample evidence of considerable loss of life at that time, but also of survival and picking up again in short time. Evidently a good awareness and knowledge of Earth’s occasional/periodic tantrums. (the 7-5k event is presently dated to circa 5M ago by the ‘establishment’, which also says something….).
suricat says:
November 21, 2016 at 2:04 am
Unfortunately for NZ I tend to agree with your negative scenario, but hope we’re unduly pessimistic.
Worst case sees the South Island becoming a no-go area for human occupation apart from a few odd outposts perhaps.
New Zealand earthquake so strong it lifted sea floor 2 meters
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/18/asia/nz-earthquake-pics/
Submergence does not seem to be the problem here. One of the complications is that uplift of one plate switches to subduction nearby, and vice versa. That takes some figuring…. But we are generally in an uplift phase now, and these phases take tens of millions of years. Our landmass above water shifts, but hasn’t vanished since we split from Australia/ South America/ Antarctica/Gondwana c.80ma. Evidence for a caldera would be welcome – we already have the Taupo one, a real whopper, and active
Ren, please elaborate on the solar wind forecast and date..
Brett Keane says: ” these phases take tens of millions of years”. That is an old assumption – which is wrong. A few thousands can make a difference in certain active locations. The Holocene Max was an era that was very active.
Certain concepts have not caught up with reality. An interesting view here: http://cosmictusk.com/wp-content/uploads/Kloosterman-Usselo-Article.pdf (the author passed away some days ago).
@oldmanK says:
November 22, 2016 at 7:17 am: Oldmank, that is cosmic heavy artillery, not seismology (grin). How is it relevant here?
@ Brett Keane:
My link has two relevant points. 1) the possible ‘cosmic artillery’ that precipitated the Younger Dryas event. Later evidence indicates that it awakened crustal readjustment. At various points during the holocene there is clear evidence of repeated crustal change – certainly at active areas, example the Mediterranean basin.
I have claimed that obliquity changed repeatedly between 2200 and 7500bce as indicated by man-made evidence – beyond the 24-22 deg. The Med saw submergence repeatedly (and probably also the area known as doggerland). Submergence resulted more from ice-load re-adjustment than from rising water. The area south-west of Malta island is a clear case (the evidence is particularly certain here, but long ‘detective’ story).
Point 2) In page 3 of the link under heading “World Views in Collision” the author enters into the subject of change in ‘mainstream’ ideas/thinking. It indicates how the ‘establishment’ is today still stuck in 200 year old mentality (and I add even on obliquity which basics have never been checked since Stockwell near 200 years ago. I put my neck out on that).
Is it ‘coincidental’ that this ‘quake’ occurred within a ‘close timescale’ to a ‘Super moon’ event? I was curious, so I googled a bit and came up with this:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=are+earthquakes+coincidental+to+a+supermoon+event&ie=&oe=#q=super+moon+dates
This gives ‘some’ dates for a ‘Super Moon’ event, but needs more data to ‘co-relate earthquake propensity’ during this scenario. So I googled this, ‘dates of major earthquakes’ and came up with this:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dates+of+major+earthquakes&ie=&oe=
I took the ‘wiki list’, which wasn’t helpful because the list was too old. However, other ‘searches’ than this may turn up the ‘co-relative data’ that’s needed to imply a ‘correlation’ between the ‘Moon’s’ ‘perigee’ and ‘Earth’s sizemic activity’.
Best regards, Ray.
‘One of the adverse effects of the supermoon is a stronger high tide due to the increased gravitational pull’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/supermoon-flooding-high-king-tide-florida-miami-fort-lauderdale-a7418236.html
Partial quote from oldbrew: “–effects of the supermoon is a stronger high tide”. The moving tidal bulge is visually very evident on water, but tidal pull on land has-or should have- similar effect. but water and land may not be in phase.
Tide has a hydrodynamic effect on land (repeated swelling and dry-out), enough to keep faulting ‘on its toes’ and may be a bigger trigger.
need I point out that the Super Moon of this northern winter is the start and the later new moon is the finish of this close approach. The greatest time of quake danger is right after the new moon, when both the sun and moon pull together and both are close…pg
Warnings of deadly earthquakes could be made minutes sooner by measuring tiny shifts in GRAVITY
Small changes in gravity caused by quakes can be picked up instantly
This could save precious minutes before a tsunami or earthquake hits
Current detection systems rely on much slower seismic waves
A sensitive global network of instruments could save many lives
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3961222/Warnings-deadly-earthquakes-minutes-sooner-measuring-tiny-shifts-GRAVITY.html
New Zealand quake: The cut-off tourist town of Kaikoura
The tourists are gone, the town is cut off and the sewage is backing up, but businesses in quake-hit Kaikoura are vowing to struggle on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38076443
oldmanK says: November 25, 2016 at 11:54 am
“The moving tidal bulge is visually very evident on water, but tidal pull on land has-or should have- similar effect”
On this point I concur, though observational evidence between a ‘solid/fluid’ and a ‘liquid/fluid’ must vary.
“but water and land may not be in phase.”
This qualifies my earlier caveat.
“Tide has a hydrodynamic effect on land (repeated swelling and dry-out), enough to keep faulting ‘on its toes’ and may be a bigger trigger.”
I disagree.
The ‘weight of water’ upon ‘any’ land mass is determined by the ‘gravity quotient’, as is the ‘gravity quotient’ of the ‘land mass’ per se.
IMHO the ‘fluidity’ is key to the ‘fracture’ of Earth’s more ‘solid/fluid’ structures (WRT geology) when ‘tidal forcings’ are taken into account.
Would you agree?
Best regards, Ray.
suricat, I was referring to something different. It is the effect of the hydrostatic pressure in the ground, especially in coastal areas and up to some distance near river banks. There is a small land movement linked to tidal level change. Nearby faulting would therefore see a small but continual stress fluctuation. (I have observed this on the Clyde, aeons ago now, to daily maintain a level datum for machinery assembly).
The same may be observed inland with the small variation in the level of the water table with respect to the solid ground – likely due to the phase difference. (Observed, but never properly measured/tested, in an artesean well in a perched aquifer and fitted with level probes for pump start/stop. Pumping rate alters during ~24hrs – or lunar orbit.). That also keeps faulting out of long dormancy. An ongoing project aimed at studying ground movement over years has found a small continual subsidence at high risk areas.
The Reg.: Geo-boffins say ‘quake moved New Zealand by 2 metres at 3km/second
New Zealand’s geoscience agency GNS Science has released videos showing the fault lines that ruptured during the recent earthquakes that moved the nation two metres north.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/27/geoboffin_say_quake_moved_new_zealand_by_8m_at_3kmsecond/
[This is a screenshot from one of the videos]
Interesting link oldbrew. The faulting is a reminder of that seen in Italy recently. The first video in the link is particularly interesting. At one point the guy there indicates the direction of the movement -at some 45deg- which would be a ‘principal stress plane’.
For some beautiful scenes on Mediterranean geology, – and nature- watch this video if you have some free time:
oldmanK says: November 26, 2016 at 7:51 am
“suricat, I was referring to something different. It is the effect of the hydrostatic pressure in the ground, especially in coastal areas and up to some distance near river banks. There is a small land movement linked to tidal level change. Nearby faulting would therefore see a small but continual stress fluctuation. (I have observed this on the Clyde, aeons ago now, to daily maintain a level datum for machinery assembly).”
I’m not aware of the “machinery assembly” that you ‘observed’ on the ‘Clyde’ and doubt that the timescale was “aeons”, but the “hydrostatic pressure in the ground” is ‘relieved’ by the tidal movement of water. However, phase timings between the ‘movement of water’ and the ‘tidal effect’ upon ‘crustal media’ may well be pertinent for discussion.
‘Gravity’ is felt/applied by/to ‘crustal media’ (solid/fluid) in ‘real time’. ‘Gravity’ is also felt/applied by/to ‘water type media’ (liquid/fluid) in ‘real time’, but the ‘liquid/fluid property’ presents a different outcome from the ‘solid/fluid’ case. For clarity, I use the “solid/fluid” remark to represent a ‘geological movement’ of solid crustal material.
It takes a lot of energy to alter the configuration of a ‘solid/fluid’ medium (think ‘Young’s Modulus, see :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_modulus), but much less energy is needed to alter the configuration of a ‘liquid/fluid’ medium. The “hydrostatic pressure in the ground” is the ‘ambient measure’ for the locality and nothing more (if you’re a ‘weather presenter’ :)). Hydrostatic pressure is the ‘local pressure supplied by ‘gravity’ for the locale ‘ observed at the instant it was ‘observed’, but a ‘torque’ quotient that ‘represents lag’ is never reported.
I well understand that ‘hydrostatic pressure’ to Earth’s crustal configuration may alter the ‘configuration’ of/to Earth’s crust, but ‘other forces’ are also in play.
If we look to ‘ocean/sea tidal habit’ we can observe a ‘lag’ between “high tide” and the optimum ‘gravity atractor’ point. This implies that a ‘lag’ exists between the ‘gravity optimum’ and any observation of this ‘peak’. Would this ‘lag’ be due to the ‘inertial value’ of the medium?
I’ve many more queries. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
@suricat: to clear one point, 50yrs ago (=aeons in my life) I was a trainee eng at a yard on the Clyde, at the time manufacturing the crankcase+brg hsing of large bore diesels. Ground level towards the river rose and fell from tide effect requiring continual adjustment. The rise and fall in “ground hydrostatic pressure” lifted heavy machinery out of level and out of alignment.
These links provide some insight into the dynamics.
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms/f/fracture_gradient.aspx
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms/a/abnormal_pressure.aspx
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms/a/abnormal_pressure.aspx
Where these forces are fluctuating faulting in rock may be ‘awakened’. Coastal regions may be more prone, as well as mountainside (leading to landslide). I think quite pertinent to what is observed in NZ.
For Italy see my earlier post. The Med seems to have increased activity (related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpide_belt. )
@oldmanK says:
November 30, 2016 at 7:35 am: IIRC, our Southern Alps are now in their 3rd, called the “Kaikoura” orogeny. Rising up to 7mm/yr overall for c.400 miles. Also similarly but younger in the North Island over some 300 miles. Vulcanism is from subducted melt offset at the Kear-Marshall Boundary, with the epynomous Dr Kear being a Kiwi geologist. Understandably because we live on quite a laboratory, which is right now teaching us a lot more.
oldmanK says: November 30, 2016 at 7:35 am
“@suricat: to clear one point, 50yrs ago (=aeons in my life) I was a trainee eng at a yard on the Clyde, at the time manufacturing the crankcase+brg hsing of large bore diesels.”
This must have been similar work to what transpired at the ‘Paxman’s’ works, Essex, UK, near where I live. Was this ‘maritime’, or railway’ oriented (just curious)? To clear another point, you’ll not live for the duration of an “aeon”. See ‘Wikipedia’ on the subject;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon
where the ‘geological, cosmological and astronomical’ definitions far outweigh the ‘time-scale’ of your ‘life time’, its important to define your level of understanding on this. However, I’m willing to understand that intention was to relate to ‘your life-span’. More ‘clarity’ is needed.
“Ground level towards the river rose and fell from tide effect requiring continual adjustment. The rise and fall in “ground hydrostatic pressure” lifted heavy machinery out of level and out of alignment.”
I don’t dispute that! Only that the “rise and fall” may have included parameters ‘beyond’ the ‘hydrostatic component’.
“These links provide some insight into the dynamics.”
The ‘link/links’ is/are ‘obtuse’ oldmanK, but I think we’re on the same page. Your first two links are OK, but the ‘third’ mimics the second.
IMHO you need to explain the ‘link’ between earthquake propensity and cavities in Earth’s crust (not to mention the influence of gravity fluctuation).
“Where these forces are fluctuating faulting in rock may be ‘awakened’. Coastal regions may be more prone, as well as mountainside (leading to landslide). I think quite pertinent to what is observed in NZ.”
I concur.
“For Italy see my earlier post. The Med seems to have increased activity (related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpide_belt. )”
Again, I concur. However, is this due to Earth’s Moon’s ‘proximity’ to Earth?
Best regards, Ray.
@ Brett Keane: my interest in the link was regarding the present activity in a particular section -in a straight line -all along from the top of Italy to Egypt, active in the last 48hrs. Presently seen here http://seismic.research.um.edu.mt/
@ suricat —- For curiosity’s sake, it was large bore maritime (something i came across recently; I dismantled that after test run https://www.flickr.com/photos/kecko/9240580488 ). (aeon, as a ‘period of time’, and 50yrs seems so today)
Re your observations, agreed. My input was mainly tied to oldbrew’s post re the ‘supermoon’ and its possible trigger effect on seismically active regions. (NZ is interesting but to me the Med is more so and of some concern). For curiosity’s sake see here, 2/3 down under ‘tidal trivia’ ( Amplitude of tides in the earth’s crust: about 20 cm.) https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm (Low cycle fatigue at grain boundaries may apply to the earth’s crust as well — just a thought)
As a matter if interest, so to speak, young Ed Hillary practised on these upright also young ranges while he was training to fly wartime Catalinas as a navigator. Not far away, as a crow on oxygen might fly. And a little further over at Havelock, a Rutherford named Earnest went to school where his dad was teaching, the previous century. Vigourous men for a vigourous region?
oldmanK says: December 1, 2016 at 8:55 am
“@ suricat —- For curiosity’s sake, it was large bore maritime (something i came across recently; I dismantled that after test run https://www.flickr.com/photos/kecko/9240580488 ). (aeon, as a ‘period of time’, and 50yrs seems so today)”
Although my/your input from your link tells me that your region of understanding and interest is perhaps ‘railway’ influenced, I believe its more ‘wide-spread’. Please understand that the ‘general’ understanding of ‘aeon’ spans more than the ‘life time expectancy’ of any human, IMHO the ’50yrs simile’ is human irony.
“Re your observations, agreed. My input was mainly tied to oldbrew’s post re the ‘supermoon’ and its possible trigger effect on seismically active regions.”
As was my input similarly linked.
“(NZ is interesting but to me the Med is more so and of some concern). For curiosity’s sake see here, 2/3 down under ‘tidal trivia’ ( Amplitude of tides in the earth’s crust: about 20 cm.) https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/tides.htm (Low cycle fatigue at grain boundaries may apply to the earth’s crust as well — just a thought)”
Thanks for the link, but the Sol:Earth barycenter is missing, as is the Sol:Galaxy barycenter. However, your link provides food for thought ‘oK’. 😉
I concur that ‘Med’ fault lines are more concerning to me than those in NZ (I live closer to them), but I’d expect any threat to be a reducing one since we’re past the ‘Super Moon’ event that enhanced gravitational activity (for all regions).
TBH, my understanding of “grain boundaries” is limited, but its nomenclature engenders the supposition of ‘less solid boundary regions’. Would these be the ‘surrounding regions of tectonic plates’? If so, IMHO there may be more unstable regions on Earth than ‘Tectonic Plate Theory’ suggests.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: ” Would these be the ‘surrounding regions of tectonic plates’? If so, IMHO there may be more unstable regions on Earth than ‘Tectonic Plate Theory’ suggests.” The surrounding regions of tectonic plates are ‘already failed – and repeatedly’ grain boundaries. That is what I had in mind. However there are, or would be as I expect, more — at the lower latitudes one trigger might be the cycling tidal bulge.
(my ‘region of understanding’/toil is marine[6y] then stm/gas+diesel turbogen [38y])
Look at the flashing points here today http://seismic.research.um.edu.mt/ Grain boundary relaxation. Its ok, unless one’s sitting on it.
oldmanK says: December 3, 2016 at 11:04 am
“…”
That does it! You’ve gained my interest in ‘plate tectonics’ (a subject for which I’ve never displayed anything other than a ‘mild’ interest for in the past). 🙂
Your link implies a raised level of activity for ‘Earthquake propensity’ in and around ‘the Med’. However, this region is a ‘boundary’ between the Eurasia plate, the Arabia plate and the Africa plate. This is ‘new’ to me, but the ‘Arabian plate’ seems to be the ‘minor’ tectonic plate in this ‘abrasive tussle’ for a neutral/central placing within the ‘gravitationally induced (and I include ‘inertial effect’)’ field.
I include ‘gravity’ with/as ‘inertia’ because the two are ‘indistinguishable’ without the/a ‘full vector disclosure’ betwixt the two (IMHO, Einstein also realised this). However, I’m drawn to this;
“That is what I had in mind. However there are, or would be as I expect, more — at the lower latitudes one trigger might be the cycling tidal bulge.”
Do you expect that “cycling tidal bulge” may be catastrophic? I doubt it. Although the region is ‘active’, there’s no reason to suspect that the region is due for a ‘catastrophic event’ (is there?) IMHO. Only ‘modifying events’ that relate to ‘tec plates’ ‘Grinding’ together, but don’t take my word on this, I’m a ‘novice’ on this subject.
Look at the ‘wiki’ page on/about Plate Tectonics;
where you may realise that ‘the Med’ may well become ‘dried’ again!
These ‘forecasting’ models are a ‘pain in the arse’.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says “I include ‘gravity’ with/as ‘inertia’ because the two are ‘indistinguishable’ without the/a ‘full vector disclosure’ betwixt the two (IMHO, Einstein also realised this).” I am not sure I read correctly, certainly it is a complex subject, I would hazard, much more than we think/perceive.
Quote: “Your link implies a raised level of activity for ‘Earthquake propensity’ in and around ‘the Med’.” Let’s take a look (but bear in mind I too am a novice), the Med at mid latitudes appears more active. In upper/lower regions, NZ seems to be awakening, but so is Iceland ( http://www.jonfr.com/volcano/ ). One theory says changing ice loading at the poles could do this. ????. Tidal bulge could trigger; the building of stresses may be from another source.
As to the your important question “Although the region is ‘active’, there’s no reason to suspect that the region is due for a ‘catastrophic event’ (is there?) “, look here: https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.491235337717943.1073741833.430211163820361/491235341051276/?type=3&theater In their respective period they were all built axially orientated to horizon equinox sunrise point. (Herodotus quotes the Egyptians [their source ???] saying ‘-the sun changed its place of rising–‘ – a case of Silence Principle?, that: “What is known by all need not be explained” — he didn’t bother with detail. — that has made me review the established dogma and no longer buy it.) I do not know, I hope not. That earlier link http://seismic.research.um.edu.mt/ was all red by midnight, but no notice of the two earthquakes sensed/recorded also over here – see list for 3/12.
http://newatlas.com/banda-detachment-fault-weber-deep/46660/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=0a5c71d7b7-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-0a5c71d7b7-90385966
This seems to ‘open new vistas’ seismicly
This is also informative, and also throws a light on the recent activity in Italy. It is a long and technical read the parts that relate to present are interesting. We have seen the evidence.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00531-014-1060-3
In figure 2 one can see that the recent activity of 2/3 days ago -and earlier- has re-surged activity further up the Italian peninsula.
oldmanK says: December 4, 2016 at 2:02 pm
Apologies for the hiatus.
“suricat says “I include ‘gravity’ with/as ‘inertia’ because the two are ‘indistinguishable’ without the/a ‘full vector disclosure’ betwixt the two (IMHO, Einstein also realised this).” I am not sure I read correctly, certainly it is a complex subject, I would hazard, much more than we think/perceive.”
Perhaps, but the ‘Relativity’ aspect really does need to be addressed for an understanding of the ‘gravity constant’ and its physical variance. The difference between an Earth ‘Neep’ and ‘Spring’ tide is related/relative to the angular position between the Moon and Sol for Earth.
There are also many other permutations/configurations for this ‘alteration to Earth’s local gravity’ which may ‘tip’ the/a ‘stable angle’ of a Tectonic Plate to produce ‘crustal instability’ at its affected/effective ‘boundary’.
Please think on this ‘subterranean islands concept’. 🙂
“Quote: “Your link implies a raised level of activity for ‘Earthquake propensity’ in and around ‘the Med’.” Let’s take a look (but bear in mind I too am a novice), the Med at mid latitudes appears more active. In upper/lower regions, NZ seems to be awakening, but so is Iceland ( http://www.jonfr.com/volcano/ ). One theory says changing ice loading at the poles could do this. ????. Tidal bulge could trigger; the building of stresses may be from another source.”
Which “another source” would you suggest? “changing ice loading at the poles” is, IMHO, not a viable mediator. However, a ‘changing local gravity gradient’ can ‘IMHO’ alter the ’tilt/rest angle’ of a Tectonic Plate to produce ‘crustal anomalies’ at the extremities of the ‘Plate’s affected boundary’ in the ‘equatorial parametrisation’ region of its ‘forced’ rotational alignment/re-alignment.
There’s no reason to disbelieve that this principle is withheld for ‘all’ latitudes when the ‘Coriolis effect’ is respected (another ‘bum model’).
“As to the your important question “Although the region is ‘active’, there’s no reason to suspect that the region is due for a ‘catastrophic event’ (is there?) “, look here: https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.491235337717943.1073741833.430211163820361/491235341051276/?type=3&theater In their respective period they were all built axially orientated to horizon equinox sunrise point. (Herodotus quotes the Egyptians [their source ???] saying ‘-the sun changed its place of rising–‘ – a case of Silence Principle?, that: “What is known by all need not be explained” — he didn’t bother with detail. — that has made me review the established dogma and no longer buy it.) I do not know, I hope not. That earlier link http://seismic.research.um.edu.mt/ was all red by midnight, but no notice of the two earthquakes sensed/recorded also over here – see list for 3/12.”
IMHO this/your link is better defined by ‘human historical sociology’ rather than ‘Earth’s histological events’. 😦
That’s not to say that ‘sociology’ can’t add to the understanding of Earth’s history by way of its ‘interpretation’. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Kekerengu
The details are being collected…..
suricat says:
December 8, 2016 at 4:16 am
My turn to apologise for the delay.
Re “Perhaps, but the ‘Relativity’ aspect really does need to be addressed for an understanding of the ‘gravity constant’ and its physical variance——–Please think on this ‘subterranean islands concept’.”
That could be another reason for keeping boundary faulting alive. (Even more, from a ‘human historical sociology’ point of view, biblical Enoch did see the land tilt. Speculatively posited to a large shift in centre of gravity–from a nearby passing of a large mass).
Re “Which “another source” would you suggest? “changing ice loading at the poles” is, IMHO, not a viable mediator. “. That idea has been put forward here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95PA00578/abstract Abstract: “Have the ice ages secularly altered the obliquity (axial tilt) of the Earth over geologic time? The waxing and waning of ice caps in response to obliquity oscillations plus mantle adjustment to the weight of the caps alter the Earth’s dynamical flattening. This affects the lunar and solar torques on the Earth so as to secularly change the Earth’s axial tilt.” Note: it is secular, but maybe centuries not many millennia.
But then the tectonic boundaries are very complex. This thread has led me to look at other areas of greater interest to me, the Italian landmass. see here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002TC001488/epdf mainly fig1 and fig 2. The location just under Sicily. Fig1 shows the activity, fig2 shows how the faulting -and compression from convergence- is moving the crust towards the Ionian abyss. I point this because it is an example of ‘human historical sociology’ taking up from where geology stops, (in similar fashion to Brett Keane’s earlier post).
Even more because it provides an accurate date for some events. The paper said “[ 17] Gvirtzman and Nur [1999] suggest that the Malta escarpment fault zone (Figures 1 and 2) also represents the surficial evidence of a lateral break in the subducting system. Indeed, the Malta escarpment is a major Mesozoic discontinuity, as it represents the passive margin of the Ionian basin [Catalano et al., 2001]. However, this structure was not active during the main Neogene phases of activity of the WMSZ, and has been partly reactivated only during the upper Pleistocene.” Not quite, ‘human historical sociology’ says it has been still active -very active- in the Holocene max.
NZ is an eye-opener -as well as the latest Italian experience.
Click on: http://info.geonet.org.nz/display/quake/2016/11/28/Kekerengu+Fault+has+a+Word+to+its+Geologists?preview=/20545983/20545990/Image%201.png
Kekerengu
oldmanK says: December 9, 2016 at 2:53 pm
“”suricat says: December 8, 2016 at 4:16 am
My turn to apologise for the delay.
Re “Perhaps, but the ‘Relativity’ aspect really does need to be addressed for an understanding of the ‘gravity constant’ and its physical variance——–Please think on this ‘subterranean islands concept’.”
That could be another reason for keeping boundary faulting alive. (Even more, from a ‘human historical sociology’ point of view, biblical Enoch did see the land tilt. Speculatively posited to a large shift in centre of gravity–from a nearby passing of a large mass).”
These discussions often lead to a hiatus, I wish I had more time also. 🙂
For some insight into my meaning of “the ‘gravity constant’ and its physical variance” see here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GRACE/page3.php
The ‘GRACE’ project indicated/s ‘massive anomalies’ to the ‘gravity constant’ above Earth, but were/are these ‘massive anomalies’ due to a ‘natural gravity field’, or ‘planetary, Lunar and Solar interference to the telemetry of the project?
Either way, the ‘rugged terrain’ to Earth’s gravity ‘above a point’ on Earth strongly suggests a ‘gravitational friction’ between Earth and any surrounding planets/planetoids/moons within the ‘grasp’ of a gravitational interaction. Could this be why Earth’s ‘moon’ (Luna) always presents ‘~the same face’ towards Earth? Could this just be Barry center altered ‘gravity flux’?
I don’t know enough about the GRACE project to answer this, but its a damned good question IMHO. 🙂
I’ll not discuss “biblical” here, other than to say that ‘Mt St Helens’ ‘swelled’ from subterranean forces before it actually ‘broke open’ (from living ‘social’ memory). 😉
“suricat says: December 8, 2016 at 4:16 am
Re “Which “another source” would you suggest? “changing ice loading at the poles” is, IMHO, not a viable mediator. “. That idea has been put forward here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95PA00578/abstract Abstract: …?
Your quote-marking obscures my understanding of the statement you want to make here oldmanK. I’ll attempt to answer the query that I ‘think’ you want to ask.
Firstly, ‘ice over water’ is ‘hydrostatic pressure’, so no change to ‘crustal pressure’. Secondly, ‘ice over land mass’ adds to ‘crustal mass’, thus, any addition to ‘crustal pressure’ is supplied by ‘ice above land’. However, the movement of ‘magma’ beneath the ‘crust’ is both ‘more dense’ and ‘more dynamic’ and as a ‘electro-magnetically active’ material (ionic), I guess ‘magma’ is the main ‘forcing’ for our dialogue and should/would be the/a main topic for our discussion. Accumulated ice over/upon a landmass can’t (IMHO) alter obliquity, an asymmetrical ‘spheroid’ form, or Earth-like entity can only present a ‘wobble’ to/for its model given these parameters.
Its late, I need to ‘sign off’ for now, but I’ll attempt to address the remainder of your ‘comment’ later.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: December 10, 2016 at 3:12 am
First “These discussions often lead to a hiatus,”. Yes. Science requires research-study-digest and perseverance. A short attention span does not serve. One posts when one can, at least on this site the threads remain open.
Re “Could this just be Barry center altered ‘gravity flux’?” Theoretically that should be so. (A hypothetical example: if the heavy earth core moves with respect to the crust – egg yolk fashion- then surface gravity should also change, vector wise.) I would call it resultant gravity pull direction – eg difference in gravity resultant between sun+moon rise compared to s+m setting.
Elsewhere I was not alluding to circumstances like “other than to say that ‘Mt St Helens’ ‘swelled’ from subterranean forces before it actually ‘broke open’ (from living ‘social’ memory).”, but as in para2 -even the biblical aspect. Same experience around Etna, a couple of years before it blew its side. Personally very unnerving feeling the ground suddenly drop beneath you (an imperceptible ‘heave’ but sudden ‘sigh’, repeatedly).
Agreed with this:” ‘ice over water’ is ‘hydrostatic pressure’, so no change to ‘crustal pressure’”. However there is a lot of land beyond lat 60degN where ice loading may exert effect. Magma -as magnetic, and as viscous fluid- plays its part. However ice loading, where ‘socio/historical’ evidence leads me to consider a much lower obliquity in parts of early Holocene (pre ~2.2k), that would be considerable and of considerable effect. Meaning that “Earth-like entity can only present a ‘wobble’” does not hold based on historical evidence; that the mean wobble position can shift. [from another thread- Scott-Adams: “I endorse the scientific consensus on xxxxxx to protect my career and reputation”. I have no such strings on any dogma]
I do not want to divert attention from what’s going on in NZ, but that experience is proving that a re-assessment may be due. To quote from BK’s link ” The Kekerengu Fault has been speaking to geologists-in-the-making for generations because Victoria University’s third year structural field geology course is held near its northern end. I still clearly remember the Kekerengu Fault back in the early 1990s as a subtle, curious line in the landscape that our professor – Tim Little – stood astride inciting us to notice. Today, the fault has spoken and it is impossible not to notice.” It is not the only voice.
oldmanK says: December 10, 2016 at 3:41 pm
Hmm, yeah. I’ll start with a final response to a comment from your Dec 9 response.
“NZ is an eye-opener -as well as the latest Italian experience.”
I concur. Now to continue with your Dec 10 comment:
“One posts when one can, at least on this site the threads remain open.”
I wish ‘they’ (the threads) did. Many a time I’ve returned to a discourse here to only find that the ‘dialogue box’ was missing from the foot of the page, but I suppose, and understand, that Roger has a limited server space with ‘WordPress’. I’m ‘grateful’ for what we ‘have’ got at this site. Thank you Roger (tallbloke) Tisdale.
“Re “Could this just be Barry center altered ‘gravity flux’?” Theoretically that should be so. (A hypothetical example: if the heavy earth core moves with respect to the crust – egg yolk fashion- then surface gravity should also change, vector wise.) I would call it resultant gravity pull direction – eg difference in gravity resultant between sun+moon rise compared to s+m setting.”
I like your ‘egg yolk’ analogy for the ‘force of gravity’ oldmanK, but a ‘Barry center’ is the antithesis of a ‘gravity well’.
Now you’re taking me back to my ‘student days’ (where I rebelled against convention). Einstein’s ‘accelerating lift’ analogy for a/the ‘superposition’ of ‘gravity’ demonstrates that an ‘equal thrust vector’ to all of the ‘lift’ components are subjected to force vectors identical to a ‘gravity well’. A ‘Barry center’ is ‘a point’ around which ‘all gravity wells’ orbit, thus, maintains ‘zero gravity’ at this ‘point in/of space’. How can this ‘antithesis’ be resolved?
IMHO, I would respectfully suggest that ‘the average percentage point/depth to which ‘gravity is reversed’ for a planet’ is the ‘question to the answer’ of ’42’ (Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy). 😉
42% of the radius length towards the core from the surface seems to be a plausibly valid application for ‘the change in ‘g’ for depth’ for/within a planet, but ‘convention’ flies against this. 😉
‘Convention’ maintains that ‘gravity’ (a ‘gravity well’) is the principle function of a conglomeration of ‘mass’. However, ‘convention’ doesn’t, IMHO, ‘mention’ the ‘null zones’ (Barry centers)’ that ‘gravity’ establishes in conjunction with the kinetic energy involved for/of ‘rotating and orbiting’ bodies. This is a problem for/to them as an establishment that they may need to change on/for their outlook/s.
“”Today, the fault has spoken and it is impossible not to notice.” It is not the only voice.”
No. You and I have ‘spoken’, but are all other ears ‘deaf’? 😦
Best regards, Ray.
Enormous earthquakes occur on both sides of the Pacific: Experts warn that San Andreas could “unzip all at once”
Why is our planet shaking so violently all of a sudden? There have literally been dozens of significant earthquakes right along the Ring of Fire within the past 30 days, and two giant ones made headlines all over the globe on Thursday. First, a magnitude 6.5 earthquake struck off the coast of Humboldt County, California, and that was followed later in the day by a magnitude 7.8 earthquake in the Solomon Islands. But of course these latest earthquakes are just the latest examples of increased shaking along the outer perimeter of the Pacific Ocean.
http://www.sott.net/article/336293-Enormous-earthquakes-occur-on-both-sides-of-the-Pacific-Experts-warn-that-San-Andreas-could-unzip-all-at-once
Is it more than ‘business as usual’?
A quick post (I’ll answer suricat after needed reflection). oldbrew’s post seems to tell that “the dice is loaded”.
Perhaps its time to listen to our ancestors who left us enough to know that ‘forewarned is forearmed’ and that fate favours the prepared, not the panicked. (To be clear, not at street level but organisationally. Nature can be as belligerent as some of our politicos)
@ suricat: Re your quote “A ‘Barry center’ is ‘a point’ around which ‘all gravity wells’ orbit, thus, maintains ‘zero gravity’ at this ‘point in/of space’.” I am not sure I’m getting to the intended meaning. I had assumed ‘Barry center’ is barycentre as per Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
I draw a blank with ” ‘question to the answer’ of ’42’ (Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy) “. Completely alien. However there my mind went to the/Clarke’s ‘space elevator’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
Re quote:” the ‘null zones’ (Barry centers)’ that ‘gravity’ establishes in conjunction with the kinetic energy involved for/of ‘rotating and orbiting’ bodies “, my view is that the null zone is way out from the CG (as in space elevator). Eg. body-weight reduces with height and is zero/null at orbit level. Or am I still on a lost wavelength?
oldmanK says: December 11, 2016 at 2:40 pm
“@ suricat: Re your quote “A ‘Barry center’ is ‘a point’ around which ‘all gravity wells’ orbit, thus, maintains ‘zero gravity’ at this ‘point in/of space’.” I am not sure I’m getting to the intended meaning. I had assumed ‘Barry center’ is barycentre as per Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter”
Yes, its ‘barycenter’ ( my ‘spell check’ didn’t throw up this anomalously spelled deviation). However, the page of wikki that you selected doesn’t address the implication of ‘tidal effect’ to the orbiting bodies.
“I draw a blank with ” ‘question to the answer’ of ’42’ (Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy) “. Completely alien. However there my mind went to the/Clarke’s ‘space elevator’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator”
Its a ‘cult’ thing for some of us Brits.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Hitchhiker's+Guide+to+the+Galaxy&ie=&oe=#q=watch+hitchhiker%27s+guide+to+the+galaxy+tv+series+online
I’m not sure of the ‘link security’ for ‘non Brits’ for this link.
However, “Clarke’s ‘space elevator’” employs a similar principle, but is different (I assume your “Clarke’s ‘space elevator’” was described by none other than ‘Arthur C. Clarke’? A brilliant mind in the category of ‘science-fiction’, but ‘realistic’ in many disciplines. I’ve read many of his publications). It only utilises/uses Earth’s rotation rate to keep the ‘station’ aloft.
This link may help for ‘The Equivalence Principle’ with ‘General Relativity’:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity#Equivalence_principle
“Re quote:” the ‘null zones’ (Barry centers)’ that ‘gravity’ establishes in conjunction with the kinetic energy involved for/of ‘rotating and orbiting’ bodies “, my view is that the null zone is way out from the CG (as in space elevator). Eg. body-weight reduces with height and is zero/null at orbit level. Or am I still on a lost wavelength?”
I’m afraid you’re ‘lost’. The ‘proximity’ of a ‘massive body’ to another ‘massive body’ creates a ‘conjoined gravity well’. IMHO this ‘conjunction’ hasn’t been fully explored for its related ‘forcings’.
A ‘binary’ source of ‘gravity’ creates a region between the ‘gravity sources’ that ‘detracts and reduces’ the ‘gravity value’ between the same two ‘sources’. This would be mostly observed at the ‘barycenter’ between the orbiting ‘binary sources’ that created the ‘barycenter’ per se. At the ‘barycenter’, the ‘opposing gravity well’ reduces/lessens the gravity effect of its ‘counterpoint/opposing gravity well’ by way of its ‘gravitational ‘pull’ (?)’ ‘reducing/taking energy from’ the other body. This leads to what is commonly known as one of the ‘tidal effects’. The ‘gravity one’.
Where/when the ‘gravity tidal effect’ is localised within a body with a fluid core (not unlike Earth), the ‘most dense’ material can’t be expected to lay in/at the geographical centre of the host. It should lay at the barycenter of the hosting planet, which means that where the ‘geographic’ and ‘barycentric’ centres don’t coincide ‘outside of the body of the entity’, ‘core agitation’ should be evident IMHO.
The ‘tidal bulge’ at the ‘far side’ of the/a ‘binary orbit’ is due to the forces of a centrifuge and not gravity related.
“Re quote:” the ‘null zones’ (Barry centers)’ that ‘gravity’ establishes in conjunction with the kinetic energy involved for/of ‘rotating and orbiting’ bodies “, my view is that the null zone is way out from the CG (as in space elevator). Eg. body-weight reduces with height and is zero/null at orbit level. Or am I still on a lost wavelength?”
Er, AFAIK the ‘Earth:Moon barycenter’ betwixt Earth and Moon, in isolation, is somewhere beneath Earth’s surface,
Best regards, Ray.
@ suricat: I think I/we may be getting there. Allow me please to start with two scenarios (and keep NZ events in view).
Scen1.: a ball bearing pulled/attached to two identical elastic strings, held apart. If the bb is let go from any position it will trail to a point midway between the two fixed ends of the strings. A barycentre or null point of the two forces. Important: it is a point of stability.
Scen2: same bb in same force field but not strings; identical point magnets. Same null point position (but different eqn of motion), but there it is a point of instability. A delta-x move and it will accelerate to either magnet. The two magnet points are stability points.
Quote “A ‘binary’ source of ‘gravity’ creates a region between the ‘gravity sources’ that ‘detracts and reduces’ the ‘gravity value’ between the same two ‘sources’. This would be mostly observed at the ‘barycenter’ between the orbiting ‘binary sources’ that created the ‘barycenter’ per se. At the ‘barycenter’, the ‘opposing gravity well’ reduces/lessens the gravity effect of its ‘counterpoint/opposing gravity well’ by way of its ‘gravitational ‘pull’ (?)’ ‘reducing/taking energy from’ the other body. This leads to what is commonly known as one of the ‘tidal effects’. The ‘gravity one’.” –Agreed. A distant object is pulled by the combined forces, up to a point when these become more in opposition, and –etc..
Therefore Quote: “Where/when the ‘gravity tidal effect’ is localised within a body with a fluid core (not unlike Earth), the ‘most dense’ material can’t be expected to lay in/at the geographical centre of the host. It should lay at the barycenter of the hosting planet, which means that where the ‘geographic’ and ‘barycentric’ centres don’t coincide ‘outside of the body of the entity’, ‘core agitation’ should be evident IMHO.” Analysing in sections, as I see it, the ‘most dense’ material position will dictate where the CG of one of the binary-the host- will lie. The lighter material will accrete around it (a stability point-scen2) —according to a gravity gradient as influenced by the other body of the binary.
Quote: “The ‘tidal bulge’ at the ‘far side’ of the/a ‘binary orbit’ is due to the forces of a centrifuge and not gravity related.” Hmm, never thought of this before,–but this refers: http://pumas.jpl.nasa.gov/files/01_25_11_1.pdf
Quote: “Er, AFAIK the ‘Earth:Moon barycenter’ betwixt Earth and Moon, in isolation, is somewhere beneath Earth’s surface,” –link says so. Here scen2 holds. There is a gravity null in between, near the moon. (or SOI see further on –in description) Practical example here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Direct_Abort_Trajectory_-_Lunar_Landing_Symposium,_MSC_Jun66.jpg
Then add another factor that keeps faulting active for latent earthquakes. S+M gravitational pull direction oscillates from equatorial plane. To solstice points for S, more (in freq and amplitude) for Moon.
Gentlemen remember that the Earth rotates, so the center of it’s mass tends to remain fixed, while tidal bulges are being drudge by both the sun and moon. A gravitational barycenter is a theoretical construct, I’m not sure if IT has a real effect…pg
@ p.g.sharrow: This may provide an answer to your observation/question. Spica here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spica
A binary star system. According to the characteristic description each rotate about its centre of mass, but both rotate about the barycentre. Their distortion is similar as per arguments above (however do check Wiki as it is sometimes speculative or downright wrong).
Report re NZ earthquake:
Current estimates are that 80,000 to 100,000 landslides were triggered by ruptures along at least nine faults. About 150 of the landslides blocked river valleys, and nine are being monitored as potential threats for catastrophic flooding due to river damming.
“If the 100,000 estimate is correct, then this would be the largest documented earthquake-related landsliding event ever, slightly larger than one that occurred in China in 2008,” said Clark, U-M associate professor of earth and environmental sciences.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-12-zealand-landslides-satellites-drones-helicopters.html
In the diagram below the line starts and ends at the centre of the two bodies, Earth and Moon.
The other point (green cross) is the barycentre, which is not on the surface but must always lie on the direct line between the two centres, by definition.
Earthquakes get a mention around 3m.40s. here…
oldmanK says: December 13, 2016 at 11:26 pm
“Scen1.: a ball bearing pulled/attached to two identical elastic strings, held apart. If the bb is let go from any position it will trail to a point midway between the two fixed ends of the strings. A barycentre or null point of the two forces. Important: it is a point of stability.”
Er, I may have been a tad ‘obtuse’ by using the word ‘null point’ for a barycentre. The ‘only null’ aspect is that there is ‘no directional gravity’ felt at the barycentre, but as one moves towards either, planet or moon, directional gravity begins to increase proportionately as the/a body is approached. Though, a ‘distance:mass ‘CG’ (centre of mass)’ (ratio) needs to be applied to the ‘standard gravity’ of the body under observation. Otherwise, Earth’s surface would be drawn to the moon, and not ‘only slightly affected’ as is the case.
Scen1 & Scen2 are great ‘scenarios’ for the description of a ‘stable’ (elastic bands) and ‘unstable’ (magnets) ‘equilibrium’, but in this representation, IMHO, they’re confusing. There isn’t much that isn’t confusing with this subject, including the point that centrifugal force exists for all masses outside of the barycentre.
“Quote “A ‘binary’ source of ‘gravity’ creates a region between the ‘gravity sources’ that ‘detracts and reduces’ the ‘gravity value’ between the same two ‘sources’. This would be mostly observed at the ‘barycenter’ between the orbiting ‘binary sources’ that created the ‘barycenter’ per se. At the ‘barycenter’, the ‘opposing gravity well’ reduces/lessens the gravity effect of its ‘counterpoint/opposing gravity well’ by way of its ‘gravitational ‘pull’ (?)’ ‘reducing/taking energy from’ the other body. This leads to what is commonly known as one of the ‘tidal effects’. The ‘gravity one’.” –Agreed. A distant object is pulled by the combined forces, up to a point when these become more in opposition, and –etc..”
Don’t ‘agree’ so swiftly. A ‘centrifuge’ creates ‘gravity’ (remember the ‘equivalence principle’ for the ‘blind elevator, or lift’? It also applies here) which makes it hard to distinguish ‘centrifugal forcings’ from ‘gravity’ when the two are in direct opposition (it would be less/no trouble at ‘the poles’ for Earth’s ‘rotational centrifuge’ subtraction, also the ‘barycentre off-set’ would be less extreme than at ‘equatorial ~zero latitudes’). Thus, the (?) in my response. 😉
“Therefore Quote: “Where/when the ‘gravity tidal effect’ is localised within a body with a fluid core (not unlike Earth), the ‘most dense’ material can’t be expected to lay in/at the geographical centre of the host. It should lay at the barycenter of the hosting planet, which means that where the ‘geographic’ and ‘barycentric’ centres don’t coincide ‘outside of the body of the entity’, ‘core agitation’ should be evident IMHO.” Analysing in sections, as I see it, the ‘most dense’ material position will dictate where the CG of one of the binary-the host- will lie. The lighter material will accrete around it (a stability point-scen2) —according to a gravity gradient as influenced by the other body of the binary.”
I doubt that Earth’s ‘CG’ would be solely dictated by ‘density settlement’ when the ‘core’ is undergoing continual agitation. I’d even hazard/argue a ‘guess’ that Earth’s ‘CG’ is in constant ‘flux’, however, the moon has a transfixed ‘solid core’ and always places the ‘same face’ towards the barycentre (ignoring the ‘~side facings’ induced by ‘solar wind’ during its orbit.
Earth also exhibits ‘over-spin’ in its ‘dance’ with the moon (and ‘others’).
Earth’s ‘over-spin’ induces a ‘-ve’ (negative) gravity to Earth’s ‘naturally inherent gravity for its mass’ (the ‘-ve’ centrifugal force) dependant upon the ‘latitude’ of its ‘forcing’ (the peripheral radius of an ‘oblately spherical mass in axially spun centrifuge’ at constant ‘RPM’ [revolutions per minute] determines the ‘centrifugal force’ [centrifuge] and the ‘centripetal force’ [gravity] required to contain the mass), but to what degree?
Taking the theoretical ‘constant gravity’ as a ‘base’ we could ‘improve’ upon this and ‘search anomalies’ to find an ‘exceptions model’ to improve our understanding of the recent ‘earthquakes’. This isn’t easy without a definitive resolution of/for observations.
“Quote: “The ‘tidal bulge’ at the ‘far side’ of the/a ‘binary orbit’ is due to the forces of a centrifuge and not gravity related.” Hmm, never thought of this before,–but this refers: http://pumas.jpl.nasa.gov/files/01_25_11_1.pdf
This/that link is to an ‘audio visual aid’ for ‘classroom teaching’! The ‘slinky coils’ (360 degree helix gradients) all exhibit an ~identical ‘tensile elastic response’, but the ‘slinky coils’ at ‘the top’ of the vertical configuration absorb the ‘weight’ of all the ‘slinky coils’ beneath them and express greater ‘tensile stress’. However, the ‘slinky coils’ ‘below’ these levels exhibit less ‘tensile stress’.
Its really an experiment/test to show how a material ‘may/may not’ react under everyday conditions for engineers. It isn’t pertinent in/to our dialogue because only ‘Earth’s gravity’ is directly involved.
“Quote: “Er, AFAIK the ‘Earth:Moon barycenter’ betwixt Earth and Moon, in isolation, is somewhere beneath Earth’s surface,” –link says so. Here scen2 holds. There is a gravity null in between, near the moon. (or SOI see further on –in description) Practical example here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Direct_Abort_Trajectory_-_Lunar_Landing_Symposium,_MSC_Jun66.jpg”
Er, ‘the/that data’ (in your link) isn’t common to ‘barycentric data’, its common to ‘Earth-centric data’ IMHO.
“Then add another factor that keeps faulting active for latent earthquakes. S+M gravitational pull direction oscillates from equatorial plane. To solstice points for S, more (in freq and amplitude) for Moon.”
IMHO you are becoming more aware of the significance for/of ‘planetary alignments’. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
p.g.sharrow says: December 14, 2016 at 12:21 am
“Gentlemen remember that the Earth rotates, so the center of it’s mass tends to remain fixed, while tidal bulges are being drudge by both the sun and moon. A gravitational barycenter is a theoretical construct, I’m not sure if IT has a real effect…pg”
‘Relativity’ explains your ‘disambiguation’ problem p.g.sharrow.
Earth-centric observation of/for gravitational anomaly ignores ‘external forcings’, but a ‘wider view’ (that incorporates Earth’s satellite) increases the ‘span’ of understanding (thus another ‘perspective’ for ‘relativity’). Please look at/to the ‘barycentric’ forcings to better understand my comments, the ‘two perspectives’ are not ‘the same’.
The ‘Earth-centric’ observation displays a ‘constant Earth centrifuge’ with a ‘widely variant tidal activity’ configuration, and the ‘barrio-centric’ observation displays a ‘variant Earth centrifuge’ with a ‘~no variant tidal activity’ configuration. Surely, this speaks volumes?
‘Tera’ (Earth) is a ‘binary object’ that shares its orbit around ‘Sol’ (the sun) with ‘Luna’ (the moon). Both Tera and Luna are subjected to ‘~the same’ gravitational influence induced by Sol, but the geometric configuration between Tera and Luna influences the impact that Sol may impart to the ‘Tera:Luna’ system.
I could ‘repeat’ what I said above, or just leave it as ‘nuf said’. Please ‘ask’ if my comment is inadequate in some way.
Best regards, Ray.
Hi suricat:——Prelude. My examples are an attempt to deconstruct the problem into sections that may be easier to analyse. So:
You were not obtuse. I got your meaning – I think. Allow me please another example. A homogeneous fluid mass in free space. Its own gravity forces it into a sphere with the collective CM/barycentre in middle. Introduce solid heavy pellet into the fluid. It will be pulled to CM point; at a ‘no directional gravity’/null point. Even with an irregular shape, the heavy core will reside at the CM. Vice-versa a heavy core dictates that/how the lighter material accretes around it. Take it a step further, then any rotational momentum of the whole will be about its CM. (As an academic twist, a Malteser chocolate ball with heavy outer skin and light internal fluid mass, a heavy pellet inside will not stay at the centre but moves to some point on/near the outer skin.). My point is the Earth core remains the centre of ITS rotation, (what you referred to as the ‘geographic’ — as per oldbrew’s video).
The ‘system’ barycentre then is the centre of rotation of the Terra-Luna dance. It is within the earth’s crust but different from ‘centre of rotation’ of earth. To extend the argument further the ‘centre of rotation’ of the Terra-Sole is a barycentre near the sun- or within it-(as discussed in other thread).
Quote: “I’d even hazard/argue a ‘guess’ that Earth’s ‘CG’ is in constant ‘flux’”. I would also GUESS so. Since the inner core masses and outer masses are both substantial and fluid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RadialDensityPREM.jpg ) then both may move with respect to each other and to their common CM (ex: two ball of equal mass, one inside the other and held apart by weightless springs).
Re the link with the ‘slinky’ thing (that I ignored), I found interesting the data and how it treated the various forces. Since all is in equilibrium there is more that one way to go about an analysis (memory of maths exercises).
Quote “Er, ‘the/that data’ (in your link) isn’t common to ‘barycentric data’, its common to ‘Earth-centric data’ IMHO.” What I meant to show here is the variation of ‘experienced gravity pull’ existing between the two centres of mass, Earth and moon. As it applies to forces on earth continental crust, it is not position relative to the common barycentre that matters, but the position relative to each CM. Which are continuously changing.
Quote “IMHO you are becoming more aware of the significance for/of ‘planetary alignments’”. Yes (and that is a honey-pot to a fly). NZ is a eye-opener. My first attraction to this site resulted from years of archaeological research (as an interest) that at one point told of abrupt and periodic destructions. I had come across a piece from a mediaeval Arab historian Maqrisi ““the master Egyptian priests said: based on observing the motions of the celestial bodies, we identified the time intervals of Earth’s cataclysmic and extinction cycles”. I have since kept an eye half open for any hint or lead.
7.9-Magnitude Earthquake Hits Papua New Guinea, Tsunami Threat Over
AFP: December 17, 2016
‘Earthquakes are common near Papua New Guinea, which lies on the 4,000-kilometre-long Pacific Australia plate, which forms part of the “Ring of Fire”, a hotspot for seismic activity due to friction between tectonic plates.’
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/tsunami-alert-after-7-9-magnitude-papua-new-guinea-earthquake-us-geological-survey-1638950
—
Similar magnitude to the NZ ‘quake (7.8).
oldbrew says: December 14, 2016 at 1:18 pm
“Current estimates are that 80,000 to 100,000 landslides were triggered by ruptures along at least nine faults.”
What? not the original ‘six’? We need ‘data,data,data’ on this event!
This event could be the ‘correlative ‘Rosetta stone” that links ‘planetary movement/alignment’ with ‘Earth’s climate’, geological event pro-genesis and its possible prediction for any future event (be it chaotic or not).
Best regards, Ray.
oldbrew says: December 14, 2016 at 6:45 pm
“In the diagram below the line starts and ends at the centre of the two bodies, Earth and Moon.
The other point (green cross) is the barycentre, which is not on the surface but must always lie on the direct line between the two centres, by definition.”
Many thanks for the artistic representation oldbrew. They say ‘a picture paints a thousand words’, but here its true!
However, I know the ‘scale of distance’ is ‘out of whack’, but I’m beginning to disbelieve my own ‘received instruction’ for the Terra:Luna barycentre (assuming the graphic is ~scaled). This is to do with ‘the math’ for the summation of two identical ‘scalars’. The ‘summation’ of such produces a ‘linear product’ which places ‘The Barycentre’ well outside of Earth’s atmosphere???
Please advise.
Best regards, Ray.
Barycentre calculation formula here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#Two-body_problem
The NZ-Italy connection is interesting. NZ is the antipodean counterpoint of Spain which is the western end of the Alpide belt. Land-land at antipodal points is rare – about 8% from memory.
(image at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antipodes_equirectangular.svg)
Christopher Harrison (Antipodal Location of Continents and Oceans, Science 1966, ResearchGate) calculated 14% chance that over 90% of land masses have ocean at their antipodes is a coincidence.
A similar distribution has persisted over hundreds of My through continental drift. An early mode was to have most of the land mass at the southern end. That broke up and land headed north, somewhat maintaining the antipodal relationship as it went. Now we have most of the land in the NH with SH split into three. Three points on a circle have gaps on the opposite side.
My guess is that continental tidal stress is minimised by having a flexible ocean at the antipodes and the Earth, through countless tidal nudges, has jiggled its way to a ‘rough resonance’, or through several over its lifespan.
oldbrew says: December 19, 2016 at 9:33 am
“…”
Thanks again, this re-aligns many thoughts. My recollection of the days when we didn’t have satellite data has led me into the trap of ‘old science’ where moon gravity was expected to be 1/3 that of Earth, thus, WRONG. I still believe that there are ‘two’ barycenters, each related to their relative body and the distance between them relates to hysteresis.
However, I still can’t get away from the ‘CG’ (centre of gravity) problem for ‘G force’.
A region of mass within a ‘massive object’ is subjected to ‘massive forcings’. Do these ‘massive forcings’ progress between ‘gravity/hydrostatic pressure’ as the region moves towards the CG, and (more importantly) does the ‘gravity quotient’ reduce as the hydrostatic pressure increases towards the CG?
This uncertainty has driven the publication of many paperback Sci-fi novels that support a ‘hollow Earth’ theory. It would be nice to lay this to rest. 😉
It would also be nice to know of the science that can obfuscate/repudiate the scenario where a region ‘at’ the CG is being ‘pulled apart’ by the/its surrounding mass whilst ignoring any hydrostatic pressure.
IMHO these conundrums, though they may seem obscure and trivial, are ‘part and parcel’ for a better understanding for/of seismological geology in general.
Best regards, Ray.
More thoughts oldbrew to your response/reply at, oldbrew says: December 19, 2016 at 9:33 am
Your ‘linked’ calculation for a barycenter makes no inclusion for the individual ‘spin’ of/for one, or both, bodies. It only relates to ‘gravity’ per se and makes no mention of any forcings due to a/either body’s rotation.
Earth’s ‘rotation rate’ produces a forcing of ‘~three inches per second squared’ at Earth’s equatorial regions from Earth’s ‘centrifugal energy’ in ‘counterpoise’ against Earth’s ‘gravity’. These ‘off-sets’ are NOT mentioned in your link.
There’s more, but I’ll get back later.
Best regards, Ray.
A quick comment. suricat says: “Earth’s ‘rotation rate’ produces a forcing of ‘~three inches per second squared’ at Earth’s equatorial regions from Earth’s ‘centrifugal energy’ in ‘counterpoise’ against Earth’s ‘gravity’. These ‘off-sets’ are NOT mentioned in your link.”
Human body-weight can/is a good indicator here. We should weigh less at the equator than at the poles. Has anyone ever noticed a difference? That difference in ‘g’ was noticed on the moon.
Do you weigh differently at the North Pole than what you do at the equator?
Yes you do, because at the equator the centrifugal force due to the spinning of the Earth is at its maximum, and vanishes at the poles. [by Dr. Sten Odenwald @ NASA]
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11511.html
oldbrew, he didn’t say if it is before or after lunch.
The aftermath of a coastal 7.8 quake, as life adjusts…..
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworld/audio/201828065/uplifted-marine-life-on-the-kaik-ura-coast-after-the-quake
suricat: The masses of the two bodies are not altered (except possibly in shape) by rotation.
Moon mass / Earth mass = 0.0123
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
Average Earth-Moon distance = 384,000 km. approx.
0.0123 x 384,000 = 4723.2 km.
Pretty close (~99%) to the average barycentre distance of 4671 km. from Earth’s centre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
oldmanK says: December 21, 2016 at 6:58 am
“Human body-weight can/is a good indicator here.”
What does “can” relate to? Did you mean ‘can be/is’? Data transmission and data acquisition requires that both ‘transmission’ and ‘acquisition’ is understood by both the ‘transmitter’ and the ‘acquitter’ for any data correspondence. As it happens, it isn’t!
The related apparatus would be a ‘spring balance, or, load cell,’ or some other means for a ‘mass measurement’ without incorporating any ‘mass comparison’ method (even some ‘mass comparison’ methods are subject to inaccuracy from hydrostatic pressure change for ‘density difference’ of compared mass compositions [Aristotle]).
“We should weigh less at the equator than at the poles. Has anyone ever noticed a difference?”
Yes, but the principle isn’t so ‘straightforward’ as you want it to be. ‘Gravity’ (per se) is ‘greater’ at equatorial regions due to the ‘greater mass’ below the surface due to Earth’s ‘oblate’ configuration, but this gets ‘off-set’ by Earth’s rotational moment.
‘Gravity’ (per se) is ‘less’ at polar regions due to the ‘lesser mass’ below the surface due to Earth’s ‘oblate’ configuration, but ‘isn’t’ ‘off-set’ by Earth’s rotational moment.
“That difference in ‘g’ was noticed on the moon.”
The moon only rotates at the rate of ‘1 rev per ~28 days’, what’s your point? Configuration and specific data can’t be ‘relocated’ to ‘elsewhere’ without screening the data that’s either useful, or, irrelevant (this doesn’t apply to a ‘universal law’)!
oldmanK says: December 21, 2016 at 2:04 pm
“oldbrew, he didn’t say if it is before or after lunch.”
He probably didn’t mention ‘bowel habit’ either, but ‘both sides of the coin’ always need to be researched. 😉
Best regards, Ray.
@ suricat:
Going straight to the point, it is ‘easy speak’ that is understood from context – no doubt-. Where clarity is essential I tend for ‘science speak’ hoping then that it is understood.
Quote “Yes, but the principle isn’t so ‘straightforward’ as you want it to be. ‘Gravity’ (per se) is ‘greater’ at equatorial regions due to the ‘greater mass’ below the surface due to Earth’s ‘oblate’ configuration, but this gets ‘off-set’ by Earth’s rotational moment.”
I beg to differ here. The mass of the earth is the same for ‘all around’. It is surface distance to centre of mass that matters. Gravitational pull varies with the reciprocal of that distance^2. Due to oblateness, equatorial radius>polar radius, so gravity pull is somewhat less. That pull is further decreased due to centripetal force. But we hardly notice over 24hrs.
Re the other matter, I had the luxury of choosing which end of the matter to consider, intake or exhaust.
I wish to discuss a bit further the barycentre thing from earlier, but just got told that that has to wait.
Since its the eve of Christmas Eve, Best Wishes and Peace to All.
Season’s Greetings to all. Meanwhile, our geologists are having a feast, researching their hearts out…
http://info.geonet.org.nz/display/quake
https://www.nzgeo.com/earthquake
Geonet on their site claim to have all their data, freely available. Paid for by my taxes so merry Xmas and enjoy…..Good hunting!
oldbrew says: December 22, 2016 at 9:57 am
“suricat: The masses of the two bodies are not altered (except possibly in shape) by rotation.”
I concur for recent Earth history, but a more ‘expanded time line’ (~4.3 BYA) places a ‘proto Earth’ in collision with an orbiting mass labelled ‘Theia’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theia_(planet)
On that point, there is much speculation for the ‘origin’ and ‘outcome’ of/for this event, but IMHO its more logical that Theia struck a ‘glancing blow’ to a proto Earth, causing a ‘greater distribution/wider dispersion’ of the ‘lighter masses’ within the ‘local’ barycenter system and an ‘overly energetic rotational moment’ to the, previously labelled, ‘proto Earth’ body. I don’t want to add further argument on this point, only to state my POV for the ‘collision’.
Following ‘that collision’, all heavy masses ‘retained’ by ‘barycentric gravitational influence’ came together as a ‘planet : moon’ system configuration, currently known as ‘Terra’ (Earth [formally the ‘Proto-Earth’]) and ‘Luna’ (the Moon [formally ‘Theia’]) system.
The ‘less massive debris’ circulating the barycentre would, more logically, be ‘mopped-up’ by ‘Luna’ as it orbits the, now, Earth-centric system. However, should ‘Luna’ not exhibit an appreciable ‘spin/rotational’ component, the ‘less massive (lighter) compounds’ of the ‘accretion disc’ resulting from ‘the collision’ would conglomerate at the ‘far side (the outer regions of the barycentre)’ of the orbiting ‘moon’ (Luna).
This leaves us with the consideration that ‘Luna’ is the ‘vacuum cleaner’ for the ‘Earth : Moon’ ‘barycentre’ (we’re still not up to ‘present day’ observation), with the ‘far side’ of the ‘moon’ becoming the preferred site for the settlement of the ‘lighter debris’ from the ‘collisional debris’ generated by the ‘Proto-Earth/Theia’ event (the ‘orbiting moon’ accumulates debris as it orbits, the now, ‘Earth’ barycentric centred locus).
Should this hypothesis be true, the ‘C of G’ (centre of gravity) for Luna (in isolation) would be offset from its centre of volume with a bias towards the Terra ‘C of G’. Thus, like a helium balloon, the lighter mass conglomeration at the far side of Luna ‘floats’ the far side ‘away from the barycenter’ and Luna ~always presents the same ‘face’ towards ‘Terra’ (Earth). This is now present day observation, however, the forensic trail may well lead elsewhere.
I’ve had a heavy ‘head cold’ (man flue) and haven’t posted as regularly as I’d have liked to, but;
oldbrew says: December 26, 2016 at 1:02 pm
This surely speaks volumes for Earth’s scars and their healing processes.
NB.
The ‘ring of fire’ shows ~no Vulcanism activity at central Pacific longitudes, but Vulcanism activity at central Atlantic longitudes is well in evidence and understood to cause ‘ocean bed growth’. Are the Pacific Ocean latitudes ‘shortening’, whilst the rest of the planet ‘flows’ in a ‘plastic state’ to fill the/any ‘density disparity’ between them???
A thought to ponder, perhaps? I’m no geologist, but this would IMHO place the Pacific Ocean at/as the probable ‘point of impact’ for the ‘Theia’ hypothesis. Would it not?
A belated season’s greeting to all. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
oldmanK says: December 23, 2016 at 9:34 am
“Going straight to the point, it is ‘easy speak’ that is understood from context – no doubt-. Where clarity is essential I tend for ‘science speak’ hoping then that it is understood.”
I concur, but when an ‘easy speak’ remark is replied to I find it best to respond in ‘easy speak’. The ‘science’ tends to emerge later. 😉
“Quote “Yes, but the principle isn’t so ‘straightforward’ as you want it to be. ‘Gravity’ (per se) is ‘greater’ at equatorial regions due to the ‘greater mass’ below the surface due to Earth’s ‘oblate’ configuration, but this gets ‘off-set’ by Earth’s rotational moment.”
I beg to differ here. The mass of the earth is the same for ‘all around’. It is surface distance to centre of mass that matters. Gravitational pull varies with the reciprocal of that distance^2. Due to oblateness, equatorial radius>polar radius, so gravity pull is somewhat less. That pull is further decreased due to centripetal force. But we hardly notice over 24hrs.”
I don’t see where we differ, we both seem to say the same logic with alternative phrasing???
However, I’ll add a conundrum.
Assuming a ‘simple case’ of a ‘singular planetary mass’, what would the value of the ‘gravity constant’ be at the ‘centre of mass’?
The answer is ‘zero’ because the centre of mass only experiences ‘hydrostatic pressure’ from the mass surrounding the/its ‘centre of mass/gravity’.
Is the ‘centre of mass/gravity’ being ‘pulled apart’ by the ‘gravity from the surrounding mass’?
No it isn’t, the ‘hydrostatic pressure’ is too great for this to happen.
The conundrum! What ‘region/point of a massive object’ should be the ‘focus/set point’ for the “reciprocal of that distance^2” that you mention? IMHO this is the ‘surface’ of the mass and not the centre (this seems to be the way of the ‘barycentric mechanics’ for orbiting masses and IMHO offers insight into the machinations of/for the subterranean behaviour of ‘gravity’ [amongst other thoughts]).
I’m ‘puzzled’ by your mention of a “24hrs” period. Please expound.
“Re the other matter, I had the luxury of choosing which end of the matter to consider, intake or exhaust.”
I well understand that, but the ‘consideration’ of ‘both ends’ can reveal a ‘hysteresis’ between the ‘uptake and output’ of a system’s energy transport. No worries.
“I wish to discuss a bit further the barycentre thing from earlier, but just got told that that has to wait.”
An ‘edict’ from ‘her indoors’ I’ll wager. 🙂 Good management!
All the best for the year to come.
Best regards, Ray.
Another one: NZ 5.5 magnitude quake
‘The tremor, which hit at a depth of 15km, 35km to the east of Seddon at 3:34pm, appears to have caused little damage barring a few frazzled nerves and some spilt paint.’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11774381
Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes increasing across the planet [2015 report]
‘A 1998 report by a scientist from the Beijing Astronomical Observatory… “Earthquakes occur frequently around the minimum years of solar activity.” As reported on NewScientist.com and numerous other science sites, including Space.com, the sun has recently entered into its lowest (minimum) activity levels in four centuries, coinciding with an increase in global seismic activity.
“Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment,” Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. “We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years.’
http://www.sott.net/article/295794-Volcanic-eruptions-and-earthquakes-increasing-across-the-planet
Re the quote>” “We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years.’” That is a very wrong estimate. Of the last 9300 years the period 8200 to 4200 BP (=6200 and 2200 BCE) was far worse than the rest. That is strongly indicated from archaeology and not from any estimate of today’s favoured observations.
As per my link in the suggestion-23 post, 3195 and ~5200bce show clearly in the Ice-rafting proxy (there are several others that show these two dates). 3195 is particularly well correlated. The earth has been quiet since 2000bce – only minor hiccups in comparison. The geological upheaval of 5200 appear to have left humanity in denial of such events.
IMO science is looking for a needle in a/one haystack, while ignoring the rest of the field, and I would add, while insisting on wearing blinkers instead of sight correcting specs.
oldmanK: it doesn’t help to find the needle when they insist on looking in the wrong haystack.
oldbrew: yes it appears so. But from my limited knowledge of noisier personnel I don’t expect otherwise. They parrot the common squawk but understand none of it. (Incidentally looking over the several proxies I noted for further attention in relation to my interest, there is one from CO2, here https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.689655294542612.1073741862.430211163820361/689655301209278/?type=3&theater There is a hint of response to events from CO2 but it certainly is not itself a driver. The various proxies indicate abrupt events — and at a lower CO2 than today).
A happy, prosperous and productive New Year to all!
Guys, I’ve tried to show how a/the ‘barycenter’ can interfere with ‘inertial equilibrium/balance’ for ‘~static inertial masses’ in a/the simple ‘two body system’ such as that for an Earth/Moon scenario and any impact this mechanism may impose upon seismic activity.
I’ve made no comment on ‘density disparity’ within Earth’s Core because, AFAIK, these densities are unknown.
This ‘unknown’ also leads to the unpredictability for a ‘quake prediction’ as to whether the ‘quake’ is at the ‘leading edge’, or ‘trailing edge’ of a ‘tectonic plate’.
I’ll add one more detail. ‘Mass’ requires a ‘force’ to provide a ‘vector’ for/to a ‘stationary mass’. This law impels a ‘lag’ for a tidal mass WRT the barycenter ‘null point’ between orbiting masses. However, ‘inertia’ is probably for another thread.
Best regards, Ray.
From the Talkshop 5 years ago…
M.A. Vukcevic: Earthquakes and Geomagnetic Storms
‘This is an ongoing ‘live’ project (started on 02/03/2011, prompted by the N. Zealand earthquake) to establish if there is a link between the geomagnetic activity (magnetic storms) and acceleration of the earthquake’s occurrence. It is not claimed that geomagnetic storm is a primary cause of any earthquake. However if conditions for an earthquake are ‘ripe’, then solar storm could be a trigger (not the cause) for it, and bring it forward for few hours or days.’
– – –
Could a series of such storms have a ratchet effect?
From suricat: “I’ve made no comment on ‘density disparity’ within Earth’s Core because, AFAIK, these densities are unknown.” I gave a link -and comment-for that on Dec 17, from wiki, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RadialDensityPREM.jpg There is substantial change radially.
oldbrew has referred to an old thread — it is interesting. Marked for a slow read.
However there is a nut still to crack -for me certainly-. Why have the last 4000yrs of earth seismicity been quiet – relatively, and the previous 4k seismically terrible?
oldmanK says: January 3, 2017 at 3:42 pm
“From suricat: “I’ve made no comment on ‘density disparity’ within Earth’s Core because, AFAIK, these densities are unknown.” I gave a link -and comment-for that on Dec 17, from wiki, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RadialDensityPREM.jpg There is substantial change radially.”
I question the accuracy of that image. The ‘Earth:Moon barycenter (null gravity node)’ would generate a lot of ‘fluid mixing’ within Earth’s ‘fluid core material’. This should become evident in my later link.
“oldbrew has referred to an old thread — it is interesting. Marked for a slow read.”
Vukcevic is an established ‘thread poster’ here, but I find his interests more in the realm/region of ‘electrostatic/electromagnetic’ interaction. However, bearing this in mind, he’s a ‘good read’.
“However there is a nut still to crack -for me certainly-. Why have the last 4000yrs of earth seismicity been quiet – relatively, and the previous 4k seismically terrible?”
I thought this was a ‘given’ from our previous dialogue, but the ‘inertial effect’ seems to be missing from the ‘gravitational teleconnection’ between Earth’s rotation and our Moon’s changing orbit. These are ‘tidal effects’ and are best described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#Tidal_evolution
We need not worry about ‘tidal locking’, eh!
I still ponder upon the point of the ‘barycenter radius’ within Earth’s radius as the Moon increases its altitude. Perhaps this is why the last 4k years are quieter than previous ages?
Best regards, Ray.
BBC: Why the Moon is getting further away from Earth
‘The Moon continues to spin away from the Earth, at the rate of 3.78cm (1.48in) per year, at about the same speed at which our fingernails grow.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12311119
4000 x 1.5 = 6000 inches (500 feet) in 4000 years
suricat says: January 4, 2017 at 2:07 am
Quote: “The ‘Earth:Moon barycenter (null gravity node)’ would generate a lot of ‘fluid mixing’ within Earth’s ‘fluid core material’. This should become evident in my later link.” Speculating some on this ‘fluid mixing’ – yes,, if the denser core remains separate from lighter outer material, and at the same time tends to move/sink to a continuously moving barycenter point due to earth rotation wrt moon position. (It is why the hen regularly turns the egg -so the chick inside floats about and does not sink to the bottom).
Re “Perhaps this is why the last 4k years are quieter than previous ages?”. The question remains. The onset-exit of the Dryas period were abrupt. Something else is dictating major events, and with them major earthquakes. The orbiting moon is a likely trigger — or one trigger–, but what ‘loads the gun’? Innocent looking ancient proxies do point to enigmatic events, but the suddenly raised shoreline gives it meaning.
oldbrew says: January 4, 2017 at 9:19 am
“4000 x 1.5 = 6000 inches (500 feet) in 4000 years”
Er, no. The 1.48 inches mentioned in your link is the current rate of the Moon’s orbital radius increase.
At 4000 Y.B.P. this ‘1.48”/year’ ‘rate’ would be ‘greater’ than this. The ‘gravity teleconnection’ reduces with an increase of distance between the two bodies on a logarithmic level/scale. As the Earth and Moon become more ‘distant’, the ‘Earth/Moon barycenter’ is placed in direct proportion ‘linearly’ to their ‘mass quotient’. Thus, as the bodies move apart, the barycenter is modified to ‘linearly’ represent the ‘ratio’ of the ‘Earth:Moon mass’. IOW, the barycenter is modified in direct proportion with the distance between the two bodies that generate that barycenter.
What was the average ‘orbital distance’ of the Moon 4000 Y.B.P.?
‘LOD’ (Length Of Day [the ~24 hr. one]) isn’t data verified, ‘tidal maxima and minima’ isn’t data verified (enough of/from/by ‘proxy’) and an Earth to Moon distance observation ‘isn’t data verified’ either.
OK, so the Moon was moving away from the Earth a bit quicker 4000 Y.B.P., but that probably isn’t so far away from your calculation. However, the question posed by oldmanK is why a ‘step change’ in seismic activity is apparent at the ~4000 Y.B.P. period.
Best regards, Ray.
Irwin Shapiro, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
“The best possible explanation for the Moon is observational error – the Moon doesn’t exist.’
“The Moon is bigger than it should be, apparently older than it should be and much lighter in mass than it should be. It occupies an unlikely orbit and is so extraordinary that all existing explanations for its presence are fraught with difficulties and none of them could be considered remotely watertight.”
– – –
Dr. Robin Brett, NASA Scientist
“It seems much easier to explain the nonexistence of the moon than its existence.”
– – –
http://redice.tv/news/the-moon-an-unexplained-phenomenon
NB I’m not suggesting the Moon is an illusion, but it seems like an oddball in various ways.
oldbrew says: January 6, 2017 at 9:40 am
That was really helpful oldbrew [/sarcasm].
What, other than Lunar gravity flux, could differentiate seismic activity between 4000 Y.B.P. and ‘co-relate’ the recent seismic activity in the south island of New Zealand? Is this a manifestation of ‘BFO’ (Beat Frequency Oscillation) in the ‘gravity field’?
PS. The proponents that Vukcevic writes about are, in the most, ‘superficial energies’ that apply forces ‘to the structure’ from an exotic influence. This begs the question, is ‘gravity’ an ‘internal’, or an ‘external’, force?
You don’t need to answer this. I’m way ‘off thread’ with this comment. 😦
Best regards, Ray.
http://www.space.com/35252-earth-and-moon-from-mars-photo.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=socialfbspc&cmpid=social_spc_514630
Is it then an ancient rubbish tip?
Ray: re ‘What, other than Lunar gravity flux, could differentiate seismic activity between 4000 Y.B.P. and ‘co-relate’ the recent seismic activity in the south island of New Zealand?’
Without answering the question, we know plate tectonics must be in a different state now than a few millennia ago.
oldmanK says: January 7, 2017 at 6:57 am
“Is it then an ancient rubbish tip?”
That’s an apt and pertinent question for an archaeologist to make. 🙂
In the sense that a ‘midden’ (ancient rubbish tip) reveals clues as to how people lived before our time, the Moon also falls into this category in that it cleaned up any ‘superfluous debris’ from the theorised ‘Proto-Earth/Theia’ collision IMHO.
I like your analogy, but question as to whether non-archaeological-types would be able to follow this line of logic. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: January 8, 2017 at 7:20 am “the Moon also falls into this category in that it cleaned up any ‘superfluous debris’ from the theorised ‘Proto-Earth/Theia’ collision IMHO.”
Actual my post was prompted by that thought, the result of oldbrew’s earlier post.
Re: ” but question as to whether non-archaeological-types would be able to follow this line of logic.”. I have found out one needs a much broader outlook in research to really make any progress, otherwise we become like blinkered asses tethered to a ‘wall ring’ (an old app to ‘park’ the cart’n’donkey.) (look out for next post in “5,000-year-old calendar rock found in Sicily excites archaeologists “).
oldmanK says: January 8, 2017 at 9:03 am
I’m only too happy to help with ‘cogitation’ on any subject that I’m able to help with. Your thoughts are your thoughts alone, but if dialogue with me has altered your ‘thoughts, or understanding’ of any subject, these properties are ‘your property’ and I relinquish any claim to ‘property rights’ for any subject that we’ve discussed.
“(look out for next post in “5,000-year-old calendar rock found in Sicily excites archaeologists “).”
My ‘interest’ is still ‘piqued’. See you there.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat: I make absolutely no claim to any ‘property rights’ here. While I do harbour a soft spot for the Moon (for a kid growing up in the countryside the moon was a companion/guardian and an eternal ‘wattless’ lantern during summer nights that were more alive than the day), oldbrew’s post brought home how meagre my knowledge – science wise- was of the ‘old man’ [moon>male].
Those mysterious anomalies of the moon beg the question – geological and archaeological – “was the moon associated with earthquakes in the distant past?”. I do not recall reading of such a connection. Except for one thing. The moon was associated with a boat, a ‘quffa’ (coracle-like), perhaps being a harbinger of flooding or inundations.
oldmanK says: January 9, 2017 at 4:35 pm
“suricat: I make absolutely no claim to any ‘property rights’ here. While I do harbour a soft spot for the Moon (for a kid growing up in the countryside the moon was a companion/guardian and an eternal ‘wattless’ lantern during summer nights that were more alive than the day), oldbrew’s post brought home how meagre my knowledge – science wise- was of the ‘old man’ [moon>male].”
This was my effort to make you feel ‘comfortable’ here, but it just goes to show how/where a ‘clash’ between cultures can be seen; “oldbrew’s post brought home how meagre my knowledge – science wise- was of the ‘old man’ [moon>male].” speaks volumes for the old ‘man in the Moon’, but says nothing about ‘Luna’ the female goddess aspect from the ‘Roman, Latin’ origin. I guess the ‘masculine’ connection is Celtic (and I’m way off thread).
“Those mysterious anomalies of the moon beg the question – geological and archaeological – “was the moon associated with earthquakes in the distant past?”. I do not recall reading of such a connection. Except for one thing. The moon was associated with a boat, a ‘quffa’ (coracle-like), perhaps being a harbinger of flooding or inundations.”
That’ll be its ‘tidal’ effect upon ‘weather outlook’. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
oldbrew says: January 7, 2017 at 10:43 am
“Without answering the question, we know plate tectonics must be in a different state now than a few millennia ago.”
Without a doubt, but what of the lack of ‘growth’ in the mid-Pacific region?
The mid-Pacific region – within the ‘Ring of Fire’ – displays little or no ‘expansion’ to the ‘ocean floor’.
Other ‘vast bodies of water’ on Earth display an ‘expansion’ to sea-bed structure. Why isn’t this so for the sea-bed structure beneath the Pacific Ocean?
IMHO its because the ‘scaring’ from the hypothetical Theia/Proto-Earth incident is still ‘healing’. The Earth/Moon ‘dance’ isn’t finished yet. What are your thoughts?
Best regards, Ray.
Ray – ‘Other ‘vast bodies of water’ on Earth display an ‘expansion’ to sea-bed structure. Why isn’t this so for the sea-bed structure beneath the Pacific Ocean?’
Depends where you look.
‘The East Pacific Rise is a site of major seafloor spreading in the Ring of Fire. ‘
http://nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ring-fire/
This might be a clue, I don’t know:
‘If you were to drain the water out of the Pacific Ocean, you would see a series of deep ocean trenches that run parallel to corresponding volcanic arcs along the Ring of Fire. These arcs create both islands and continental mountain ranges.’
Huge 7.3 magnitude undersea earthquake strikes near the Philippines
The Independent (UK) – Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:04 UTC
http://www.sott.net/article/339148-Huge-7-3-magnitude-undersea-earthquake-strikes-near-the-Philippines
Quake measured at a depth of 617 km (380 miles), according to the US Geological Survey
– – –
That’s a long way down.
==============
Volcanic earthquake…
An earthquake of magnitude 3.5 occurred in the northern caldera of Bárðarbunga volcano in Vatnajökull glacier shortly before noon yesterday. A few aftershocks followed, the largest of which measured 2.3 magnitude.
The Icelandic Met Office, which reported the seismicity, stated that there were no indications of volcanic activity in the area, ruv.is reports.
http://www.sott.net/article/339109-Earthquake-of-magnitude-3-5-recorded-at-Bararbunga-volcano-Iceland
oldbrew says: January 10, 2017 at 8:59 am
“Ray – ‘Other ‘vast bodies of water’ on Earth display an ‘expansion’ to sea-bed structure. Why isn’t this so for the sea-bed structure beneath the Pacific Ocean?’
Depends where you look.”
Yeah, look at the ‘mid line structure’. The Pacific body of water ~only displays activity at its ‘edges’ (I got this from your ‘displayed link’ in oldbrew says: December 26, 2016 at 1:02 pm [https://youtu.be/Ed0tGlfJHiY]).
From this I deduce that a massive tectonic plate is embedded below the Pacific Ocean. The ‘why’ and the ‘how’ is open to speculation, but could this be a remnant of ‘Theia’ (and thus the logic behind the ‘ring of fire’)?
Best regards, Ray.
Ray – I don’t know enough about plate tectonics theory to discuss it much, but the idea seems interesting on the face of it.
What about the supposed supercontinent cycle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle
This link may indicate why ocean crust is below sea level (denser) while mountain ranges are buoyant on magma, being effectively lighter (like the froth on the head of a Guinness). http://nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/crust/
To speculate some on the origin of the moon, the earth/moon may be a form of binary system, both formed from same accretion material – around a common barycentre. While the earth condensed into a smaller diameter, with heavy material collecting at centre/mass and thus speeding up in rotation to conserve momentum, the moon collected from the lighter stuff, where it was, thus retaining same rotational speed, ie one turn/orbit.
[mod] 2nd para should be on the moon thread 🙂
oldbrew says: January 11, 2017 at 9:25 am
Then you’re as ‘flumixed’ as I am. However, reading your link, the ‘super-continent cycle’ looks like a droplet of water that falls into a body of water, but with the constraint of ‘a solid’ structure over ‘a fluid’ structure (which are both constrained by gravity).
Best regards, Ray.
The second para in my earlier post (though relates to the moon thread and draws/considers info from it) is aimed at suricat’s Theia/Proto-Earth comment vis-a-vis the ‘ring of fire’ – and also other active tectonic boundaries (in the Med, for which there is evidence going back into prehistoric times) that have been showing increased activity recently.
The point being that a simpler explanation (like Occam’s razor) may be the best fit so far, not only to explain the moon and the dynamics of the earth/moon dance (its size, geological make-up, orbit around earth; it relationship and changes relative to plane of ecliptic; etc), but may also lead to an understanding of seismic events on earth (and on moon itself known from instruments left on it https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/15mar_moonquakes ).
Ray said: ‘I deduce that a massive tectonic plate is embedded below the Pacific Ocean. ‘ — Now this…
Release of water shakes Pacific Plate at depth
January 11, 2017
‘In the Jan. 11 issue of Science Advances, a team of seismologists from Washington University, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Carnegie Institution for Science analyze the data from 671 earthquakes that occurred between 30 and 280 miles beneath the Earth’s surface in the Pacific Plate as it descended into the Tonga Trench.
Analyzing data from several seismic surveys with both ocean bottom seismometers and island-based seismic stations, they were surprised to find a zone of intense earthquake activity in the downgoing slab, which they call a seismic belt.
The pattern of the activity along the slab provided strong evidence that the earthquakes are sparked by the release of water at depth.’
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2017-01-pacific-plate-depth.html
‘the most exciting part of the research is the evidence of water 180 miles beneath the surface.’
Moonquakes and Earthquakes
http://cseligman.com/text/moons/moonquakes.htm
oldbrew says: January 12, 2017 at 9:06 am
“Release of water shakes Pacific Plate at depth
January 11, 2017”
This isn’t ‘water’ IMHO, its ‘steam’!
‘Opal’ is a mineral that is able to ‘evaporate’ its H2O content at atmospheric pressure. This gives Opal it’s ‘bad luck charm’, because, as Opal evaporates H2O its ‘physical volume’ decreases and it can fall out of its setting in a piece of jewellery.
IMHO the depth of the ‘quake’ is in a region that the ‘gaseous’ H2O, released by ‘converted hydrates’ at lower depths, undergoes a change of state to a ‘liquid’ form, thereby producing a ‘vacuum’ at the depth mentioned.
This ‘vacuum’ ‘is/could be’ the mediator for the observed ‘quake’ IMHO.
Best regards, Ray.
oldbrew says: January 12, 2017 at 9:58 am
TBH, this guy doesn’t make any comment on the ‘barycentric’ phenomenon in your link oldbrew. Why (and why the link)?
Best regards, Ray.
Link says: ‘though both theory and observation demonstrate that deep lunar earthquakes can be caused by the effect of the Earth on the Moon (though only near perigee), they also show that there is no observable or expected effect of the Moon on Earthquakes.’
oldbrew says: January 14, 2017 at 10:39 am
“…”
No. The ‘link’ said that Lunar effects co-relate with apogee and perigee, but it said nothing of/about Earth’s affectation in its summation.
The ‘barycenter’ is below Earth’s surface, thus, its effect is more ‘subliminal’ (for the want of a more subjective noun) :).
Best regards, Ray.
Ray – I was just quoting what was said. If we go back to the start of that part:
‘Query: What is the effect of the Moon on earthquakes?
Although there are a number of popular myths connecting earthquakes and the Moon, careful (statistically valid) studies show that there is no correlation between earthquakes and the time of day, the position of the Moon in the sky, the phase of the Moon, or the distance of the Moon from the Earth. On the Moon there is a relationship between the distance of the Moon from the Earth and “moonquakes”.’ [their italics]
oldbrew says: January 21, 2017 at 9:30 am
Your philosophy is ‘out of kilter’ oldbrew.
“Ray – I was just quoting what was said. If we go back to the start of that part:
‘Query: What is the effect of the Moon on earthquakes?
Although there are a number of popular myths connecting earthquakes and the Moon, careful (statistically valid) studies show that there is no correlation between earthquakes and the time of day, the position of the Moon in the sky, the phase of the Moon, or the distance of the Moon from the Earth. On the Moon there is a relationship between the distance of the Moon from the Earth and “moonquakes”.’ [their italics]”
The “Query:” is the wrong half of the equation oldbrew. The “Query:” should be ‘which atractors’ soak gravitational energy from the Earth/Moon ‘barycenter’.
Yes. For the Moon, with the barycenter ‘outside of the/its mass’, the ‘main’ active atractor is ‘distance’.
However, for Earth the barycenter resides ‘within the/its mass’ and the ‘distance atractor’ is much more constrained by ‘other atractors’.
I have little interest for/on ‘Moon quakes’. What do you say about ‘Earthquakes’ and the ‘atractors’ that may predict their ‘paths towards entropy’ by way of the/a ‘gravity/centrifuge function/value’?!
Don’t answer that without showing how ‘inertia’ inverts most/many of the above hypothesises. ‘Inertia’ is the property of a ‘massive/mass’ object and/that gave/gives rise to ‘the kinetic theory of gasses’. Its ‘reaction’ is always ‘lagging energy transfer (for the ‘kinetic system’)’ WRT EM radiation and the much slower ‘chemical energy transfer’ systems. These ‘systems’ possess ‘indifferent exchange rates’ for ‘energy transfer’ dependant on/upon ‘atractor forcing’ and (a new meme) ‘atractor acceptance’ (this isn’t ‘new’ to the practise/practitioner of the understanding of ‘spectroscopy’).
I see this as going in a direction that I don’t want to go towards. Let’s ‘leave it here’?
I don’t think I’m ‘taking the piss’ when I say that ‘I think we should form a ‘think tank’ that may ‘come to grips’ with the current issues for science ‘per se’ that ‘don’t make sense’ (that was Rodger’s aim [I think]).
I’M HERE, BUT WHERE IS TISDALE!
Your thoughts on ‘The Meaning of Life’ (etc.) may be interesting oldbrew, but ‘WHERE IS ROGER’ with his ‘classical’ logic input!?
Without the interaction of Rog, I’m out of here!
Ray.
Ray – ‘WHERE IS ROGER’ – on his travels at the moment.
– – –
I found a USGS FAQs site which was a bit more sympathetic to the lunar effect on earthquakes idea.
‘Many studies in the past have shown no significant correlations between the rate of earthquake occurrence and the semi-diurnal tides when using large earthquake catalogs.
Several recent studies, however, have found a correlation between earth tides (caused by the position of the moon relative to the earth) and some types of earthquakes.’
http://www2.usgs.gov/faq/categories/9827/3354
For earthquakes in general see here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/kHduaB?cfem=1
There are interesting titbits.
oldbrew says: January 24, 2017 at 8:59 am
“Ray – ‘WHERE IS ROGER’ – on his travels at the moment.”
Hurmpf, when I am ‘doing so’, I maintain contact with a ‘dongle’ (or ‘other services’). Guess I’ll just have to hope that your ‘philosophy’ of ‘engineering applied science’ is up to muster oldbrew.
“I found a USGS FAQs site which was a bit more sympathetic to the lunar effect on earthquakes idea.”
From the little that I ‘read’ (‘pt’ [past tense]) there, the site seems to ignore the ‘Earth rotation axis : center of gravity well’ ‘displacement problem’. Let me attempt to explain.
The ‘displacement problem’ WRT ‘the center of a masses rotation’ and the ‘center of a masses gravity well’ is described by the distance between between the two. Where the ‘two centers’ converge there is no ‘displacement problem’, but where they ‘diverge’ (don’t share a common ‘point in space’ [IOW region within a massive object]), gravitational anomalies are observed. What/how do/are these ‘anomalies’ present/presented?
By turbulence below the surface of the ‘dominant mass’!
This is common to ‘applied engineering science’ oldbrew. Do you need further explanation?
Best regards, Ray.
oldmanK says: January 24, 2017 at 11:51 am
“For earthquakes in general see here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/kHduaB?cfem=1
There are interesting titbits.”
Thanks for the link oldmanK. This may be useful for ‘temporal’ activity. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Ray – the problem seems to be in finding observations that support the idea that the Moon is a serious factor in some, or any, earthquakes. For example, Seligman (linked earlier) says:
‘So there have been lots of studies, all of which (save for the occasional random chance “false positive”) show no statistical correlation between (1) the position of the Moon relative to perigee (there should be more quakes when it’s closer, but there aren’t), (2) the phase of the Moon (the solar and lunar tides add up at full and new moon, so there should be more quakes then, but there aren’t), (3) the position of the Moon in the sky (rising or setting, tidal forces might compress the crust, while overhead or underfoot, they might stretch it; the effects are unknown, but if significant should yield non-random results; and they don’t), (4) and so on and so forth.’
Maybe they’re approaching the issue in the wrong way, I don’t know.
oldbrew says: January 25, 2017 at 10:04 am
“Ray – the problem seems to be in finding observations that support the idea that the Moon is a serious factor in some, or any, earthquakes. For example, Seligman (linked earlier)”
I concur.
“Maybe they’re approaching the issue in the wrong way, I don’t know.”
I concur.
The ‘elephant in the room’! Why is Earth’s inner core ‘solid’ when its ‘outer core’ is ‘fluid’???
IMHO its because the ‘center of the gravity well’ (the barycenter) for the ‘Earth : Moon system’ doesn’t coincide with Earth’s ‘center of mass’! This produces ‘turbulence’ at/near the ‘barycentric’ region.
We do see fluidity in the ‘outer core’ (a region near to Earth’s barycentric effect) with ~no effect to ‘surface crustal activity’. However, as Earth’s Moon recedes further to greater altitudes, barycentric effect can only ‘increase’ its influence to more ‘crustal’ structures IMHO.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: January 26, 2017 at 3:44 am
“The ‘elephant in the room’! Why is Earth’s inner core ‘solid’ when its ‘outer core’ is ‘fluid’???”
Perhaps I need to ‘elucidate’ on the ‘elephant’ more for better understanding.
The ‘center of gravity’ (gravity well) for the Earth:Moon system is situated at the ‘barycenter’ of the ‘Earth/Moon’ (ignoring other influences) binary system. I’ve simplified this ‘model’ for greater ease of understanding, but in a more ‘complete form’ it may possibly be used to predict ‘sun spot activity’ on Sol (I relinquish any ‘right’ to this model, or any model that may be realised from my dialogue, that can’t be determined by a ‘patent application’ [IOW, the idea is ‘open’ for my part {AFAIK}]).
Now, if you consider the ‘center of gravity’ as the bottom of a ‘tumble drier’, you get some idea of the effect that occurs below Earth’s surface WRT ‘tidal influence’ (re-‘gravity influence’).
The center of Earth’s ‘gravity well’ is evident at ~1,000 miles beneath sea level! This isn’t anywhere near Earth’s ‘center of mass’, but ‘is’ the point around which Earth’s gravity ‘tumble drier’ operates. See this vid:
Now read again the wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
Does this help you readers to understand the dynamic involved here? If not, please ask.
The ‘bones of it’. Stretching and ‘compression’ (relaxation) generates ‘heat’ within any solid structure. I’m not ‘miffed’ by the ‘solid inner core’s’ construction because this region of Earth’s interior is least compromised by gravity’s influence in the ‘Earth:Moon’ configuration as presently exists. However, ‘orbital mechanics’ change.
I’ll leave it to ‘the reader’ to decide any possible outcome.
Best regards, Ray.
This may lead to an explanation of the ‘earth solid core’ — due to extreme pressure.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/diamond-vise-turns-hydrogen-metal-potentially-ending-80-year-quest
oldmanK says: January 28, 2017 at 7:56 am
“This may lead to an explanation of the ‘earth solid core’ — due to extreme pressure.”
With all due respect oldmanK, the caption below the first graphic in your link says “Using two diamonds, scientists squeezed hydrogen to pressures above those in Earth’s core.”. Thus, ‘metallic hydrogen’ isn’t in question. That’s not to say that some other ‘pressure chemistry’ isn’t in play.
Sorry for the delayed response, the laptop’s cooling fan broke and I’ve been ‘overly’ busy with other matters as well.
It seems I’ll need to start again with ‘Earth as a singularity’.:(
Earth’s rotation generates a ‘centrifugal force’ (of ‘~three inches/sec/sec’ at the equator) in counterpoise to Earth’s ‘standard gravity quotient/vector’ (of ~thirty two feet/sec/sec) AT EQUATORIAL SEA LEVEL (old money on my part [I’m more ‘used/accustomed to’ these values].
(Why do I use ‘caps’ for ‘AT EQUATORIAL SEA LEVEL’? I do this because this is relative to ‘r’ (radius) in rotation mechanics and becomes important when we, later, add Lunar influence to this ‘isolated Earth model’ and change the ‘center of gravity well’ from Earth’s polar-centric ‘center of rotation’ to Earth’s binary ‘barycentric center of rotation’ with its ‘Lunar’ counterpart [the Moon])
Everyone knows that the ‘gravity constant’ for Earth is ~32ft/sec/sec at Earth’s surface (old money), but who would realise that this value is ‘wrong’ at subterranean depths (later).
‘In isolation’, Earth has no ‘tides’, its evolution is ‘static’ and no changing gravitational effects can be observed other than those displayed by ‘a mass in a rotational continuum’. Now let’s describe how a ‘binary mass’ could/would alter the proposed ‘Earth mass in a rotational continuum’.
First of all, the addition of an ‘orbiting binary’ changes the position of the ‘center of mass’ (gravity well). The ‘center of mass’ ‘IS’ ‘the center of the gravity well’, becomes the ‘collective’ ‘binary mass’ of the couplet, and thus, the ‘barycenter’ becomes the new ‘center of mass’ (this analysis/description is from an ‘external’ point of observation).
We now have a changed POV for our observation. However, what goes on ‘inside’ the ‘mass’ that generates the ‘gravity well’ and can describe our external observation?
IMHO, as gravity encounters mass a transition into hydrostatic pressure occurs as observation proceeds into/towards a/the ‘gravity well’ (center of mass). This ‘reversal/reduction’ of the ‘gravity constant’ WRT ‘”The” gravity constant’; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
which is a calculated ‘surface (and above) measure’ that is rendered impotent at mass depths below its ‘point of reference’ (the surface), seems unreported. However, ‘”The” gravity constant’ observed in a direction away from the surface of the center of mass is well documented (because we find it easy to observe). So, how does ‘gravity’ ‘change’ with depth below Earth’s surface?
IMHO ‘weightlessness’ is achieved, not at Earth’s center of mass, but at the Earth/Moon barycenter.
Your thoughts?
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: February 8, 2017 at 10:43 pm
“IMHO ‘weightlessness’ is achieved, not at Earth’s center of mass, but at the Earth/Moon barycenter.”
Murphy’s law. As soon as I pushed the ‘post’ button I knew something was amiss. ‘Weightlessness’ is achieved ‘somewhere along the line’ between the ‘Earth’s center of mass’ and the ‘Earth/Moon barycenter’ (allowing for inertial delay) for the/a ‘binary system’ in isolation.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat, your second statement is the better one. i would propose a step further.
Considering the earth alone, weightlessness is at the/its ‘centre of mass’ (where the pull away from centre is neutral; by analogy the highest tensile stress point in a solid rotating disc). Then -for an instantaneous moment- superimpose the gravitational pull of the moon.
This may help some; https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-the-orbit-of-the-Moon-affect-my-weight Since distance matters a lot, a slight move -dl/dx-(pull prop to 1/l^2) away from Earth CoM creates great pull, bigger than the moon’s at its position. (and similarly weightlessness at the centre of mass on the moon would be somewhere similar.
oldmanK says: February 10, 2017 at 7:59 am
If you’re thinking along the lines of your linked ‘quora’ page I’ve failed to connect my logic. 😦
“(where the pull away from centre is neutral; by analogy the highest tensile stress point in a solid rotating disc)”
Er, no! That would be the periphery of the/a ‘solid rotating disc’. this is where the force of ‘centrifuge’ is ‘greatest’ and tests the ‘tensile strength’ of the ‘solid rotating disc’ to its maximum.
However, this isn’t a centrifuge I’m trying to describe about ‘rotational forces’ per se, its about the ‘center of gravitational pull’ (the ‘gravity well’) and how ‘other forces’ interact with it.
“Then -for an instantaneous moment- superimpose the gravitational pull of the moon.”
There are no “instantaneous” actions for ‘physical observation’, everything has its ‘timing/timeline’. Let’s not go there!
“Since distance matters a lot, a slight move -dl/dx-(pull prop to 1/l^2) away from Earth CoM creates great pull, bigger than the moon’s at its position. (and similarly weightlessness at the centre of mass on the moon would be somewhere similar.”
I don’t see how. The ‘barycenter’ is ‘WAY’ outside of the Moon’s massive body, but ‘WITHIN’ Earth’s massive body. Should we consider a ‘primary’ C of G for each ‘conjoined’ massive body, then compute the ‘conjunction’ as ‘secondary’ to the ‘primary’?
‘FWIW’ (for what its worth). ‘Earth’s’ ‘barycenter in isolation’ doesn’t coincide with the ‘Earth/Moon’ ‘barycenter in isolation’. This is my main query.
I’ve lots more to ask, but I’ll leave it here for now.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: February 11, 2017 at 1:14 am
Let’s take a different tack on the matter (something I never thought about before but very interesting).
Earth alone model. A ‘point mass’ on the crust experiences weight. The resultant vector of all the mass pulls towards the CoM. As it sinks the pull reduces as mass behind now pull the other way. Pull is zero at CoM. (in the disk analogy, the periphery experiences centrifugal force–which is transmitted inwards in tensile- to reach a peak at the centre. Perhaps not so good an analogy; it is inverse, a peak, where in case of gravity/weight it tends to zero).
Add the moon. Its gravity pull displaces the null point. But gravity is proportional to 1/distance^2 so its effect against the now unbalanced earth pull at very close range, is minimal. This link has some good graphics: http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/14357/earth-moon-system-barycenter
The barycentre is a ‘mass x distance’ thing (moment); proportional to distance, a different animal behaviour. A good link: https://repository.lib.fit.edu/bitstream/handle/11141/768/Motion%20of%20the%20Earth-Moon%20System.pdf?sequence=1
Why my use of ‘instantaneous’? Because the moon effect on a particular point on earth’s crust rotates as the moon orbits – and as the earth rotates-. (so does the barycentre)
There is an earthquake connection. The moon’s gravitational effect has more influence on the crust than on the core; and the barycentre may not figure here at all.
oldmanK says: February 11, 2017 at 6:41 pm
I disagree. Once again this is ‘orbital mechanics’ and not ‘subterranean mechanics’. Please let me try again.
“A ‘point mass’ on the crust experiences weight.”
No. “A ‘point mass’ on the crust experiences” both ‘hydrostatic pressure’ from the atmospheric overburden and a ‘gravity quotient’ equal to Earth’s gravity minus the Earth centrifuge at that point, and minus any Archimedes density quotient that ‘may/may not’ keep it there. This isn’t ‘weight’ per se, its a ‘balance of forces’.
“The resultant vector of all the mass pulls towards the CoM.”
I concur, but where is this?
“As it sinks the pull reduces as mass behind now pull the other way.”
I concur, but you omit the ‘increase’ in/of ‘hydrostatic pressure’ as a ‘trade-off’ for gravity as the ‘point under observation sinks’.
“Pull is zero at CoM.”
I concur, but where is the ‘CoM’ (Centre of Mass)? You surely must concur that the ‘greatest/highest hydrostatic pressure’ exists at the ‘CoM’?
“(in the disk analogy, the periphery experiences centrifugal force–which is transmitted inwards in tensile- to reach a peak at the centre. Perhaps not so good an analogy; it is inverse, a peak, where in case of gravity/weight it tends to zero).”
There is so much wrong with this statement that I refrain from comment.
“Add the moon. Its gravity pull displaces the null point. But gravity is proportional to 1/distance^2 so its effect against the now unbalanced earth pull at very close range, is minimal.”
Orbital mechanics again I’m afraid.
“The barycentre is a ‘mass x distance’ thing (moment); proportional to distance, a different animal behaviour.”
No. I believe you’re thinking of ‘centrifuge’ when you mention “(moment)”. ‘Gravity’, per se, is the product of a ‘massive entity’ and has no ‘work related’ properties!
“Why my use of ‘instantaneous’? Because the moon effect on a particular point on earth’s crust rotates as the moon orbits – and as the earth rotates-. (so does the barycentre)”
No ‘K’. There was always a ‘before’ and an ‘after’ with ‘on-going’ scenarios. Any ‘dynamical situation’ has a ‘history’ and a possible ‘outcome’. Any ‘instantaneous’ proclamation is ‘suspect’. 😉
“There is an earthquake connection. The moon’s gravitational effect has more influence on the crust than on the core; and the barycentre may not figure here at all.”
Disagree. The ‘barycenter’ is the ‘orbital track’ for the Earth/Moon orbit around Sol, thus, is the ‘orbital mass’ in toto.
WRT “The moon’s gravitational effect has more influence on the crust than on the core;” I also disagree. Barycentric forcings below Earth’s surface should confirm this.
Best regards, Ray.
suricat says: February 12, 2017 at 1:17 am
So we disagree some. But lets try to agree on basics. >> going point by point:
Agreed on hydrostatic effect, however it does not detract from basic gravitational laws. It is a ‘condition’ when a mass of coalesced material has volume. It is due to the ‘volume’ that exists a ‘gravity well’, with weightlessness ( but greatest hydrostatic pressure) at CoM. But for argument’s sake lets use the academic advantage of a ‘point mass’, without volume, and therefore without Archimedean/hydrostatic repercussions of the surrounding medium.
So in considering the CoM versus barycentre dilemma, I suggest ignore the hydrostatic dynamic.
Barycentre position: rule Mt.Rt=Ml.Rl (t for terra,l=luna, R=rad to baryctr) applies. Therefore the greater Rl is, the greater Rt; >> the more baryctr moves away from CoM.
But with gravity the greater Rl is, the lower is the influence of the moon’s mass, Ml, on our imaginary point mass, compared to the effect of Mt, and so the nearer the latter gets to the CoM to reach weightlessness.
Ignore for arg-sake centrifugal considerations. The centrifugal effect on the crust is known to be small, so nearer barycentre (or CoM) it is quite irrelevant.
The CoM is always opposite the moon from baryctr. But a point on the crust, furthest from CoM, experiences cyclic stresses as the earth rotates on its CoM – the source/trigger/(incentive?) of earthquakes.
@ suricat: Hydrostatics is an essential part – as you say- and ultimately determines why crust is effected earthquake-wise more than core IMO. But establishing how the dynamic laws apply is a better start.
(testing site/thread here as well -still works)
Additional: found this at/from SIS; plenty of material on Global tectonics http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php
OK, the ‘dialogue box’ exists at my time of writing, but whether or not it will exist when I ‘post my response’ remains in question. I’ll refer you to: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/11/19/new-zealand-quake-ruptured-6-faults/comment-page-1/#comment-121813
I reiterate, the ‘dialogue box’ occasionally ‘disappears’ from the ‘web page’ here. This is disruptive to a dialogue continuum.
In an effort to improve my understanding of the ‘machinations’ involved with ‘wordpress.com’ I’m activating my quiescent ‘blog’ with the same site to better understand how the ‘hosting site’ operates. However, I ‘see’ your latest ‘link’ and will peruse its content now that my time is more open since the support of a close friend with ‘agoraphobia and nervous debility’ was diagnosed with ‘lung cancer’ (now in remission) has ended.
It seems I need to respond to erl happ first here: https://darteck.wordpress.com/
Wish me luck 🙂 .
Best regards, Ray.
A wordpress help site offers this, don’t know if it works:
Hold the ALT keyboard button and tap the Spacebar. Then tap the ‘M’ key (for Move). Then tap a directional arrow key (doesn’t matter which one). Then move the mouse and the dialog box should snap to the mouse.
oldbrew says: February 19, 2017 at 9:44 am
Thanks for that insight oldbrew, but I’ve spent my life diagnosing problems and providing ‘fixes’ during my career. For my efforts I’ve been ignored, used, and abused, within my employment environment and its high time I began to ‘enjoy’ my retirement instead of enduring it. I’ll not initialise my ‘Word Press’ account, instead, I’m going to re-think my direction for retirement activities.
That’s not to say that I’ll not post a response here again, I’m just saying that ‘I’m taking a sabbatical’ to reflect on my future ‘life interest’ direction. 🙂
Best regards, Ray.
Good Morning suricat. Welcome to the club of the ‘used and abused’ in retirement. Those to whom acknowledgement and fame are/were not presented to them on a silver platter but find it in surviving the odds in life (and perhaps made a decent career out of it).
Looking back, I think I’d prefer it this way. As Frank Sinatra crooned “I did it my way”.
oldmanK says: February 23, 2017 at 6:21 am
I concur oldmanK, thank you and a ‘high five’ (to coin an Americanism). 🙂
Whoosh, I’m gone (for another)! 🙂
Best regards, Ray Dart. 🙂 🙂
just to be clear oldmanK, the ‘Americanism skit’ is directed to ‘oldbrew’ and not yourself (where is tallbloke?).
I find it inappropriate to post comments here when/where ‘my host’ is ‘absent’!
Best regards, Ray.
suricat, no problem – for sure.
http://info.geonet.org.nz/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=21200993
There are now IIRC over a hundred faults recorded, by about 55 scientists and their students. A whole new picture emerges……
[…] big earthquake that struck New Zealand last year may have been the most complex ever, say […]