Plate tectonics
Discussion
Rather than bogging down the up to the minute discussion on Japan I thought I'd ask this here.
My understanding is that in the lead up to this quake there were a number of prior shocks that they only now can say were preshocks.
But can they determine that this the end of it or is it possible that an even bigger quake could occur over the next few days and this one get's downgraded to preshock?
Also any sensible discussion thoughts on whether astrological conditions do influence these in any way? Not from a direct cause, as we all know that this is just a release of built up pressure, but could it be the bit that provides the final trigger rather than waiting for just a pressure fault to occur, hence the coincedence?
And the tsunami itself, whilst dreadful, wasn't as high as I expected in my mind given the size of the quake. Had the epicentre been further offshore or in a deeper ocean trench would we have seen a much larger tsunami or conversely a much lesser one if occurring in shallower water.?
My understanding is that in the lead up to this quake there were a number of prior shocks that they only now can say were preshocks.
But can they determine that this the end of it or is it possible that an even bigger quake could occur over the next few days and this one get's downgraded to preshock?
Also any sensible discussion thoughts on whether astrological conditions do influence these in any way? Not from a direct cause, as we all know that this is just a release of built up pressure, but could it be the bit that provides the final trigger rather than waiting for just a pressure fault to occur, hence the coincedence?
And the tsunami itself, whilst dreadful, wasn't as high as I expected in my mind given the size of the quake. Had the epicentre been further offshore or in a deeper ocean trench would we have seen a much larger tsunami or conversely a much lesser one if occurring in shallower water.?
ewenm said:
MOTORVATOR said:
Also any sensible discussion thoughts on whether astrological conditions do influence these in any way? Not from a direct cause, as we all know that this is just a release of built up pressure, but could it be the bit that provides the final trigger rather than waiting for just a pressure fault to occur, hence the coincedence?
What co-incidence are you referring to?
ks about big moons, armaggedon etc without actually looking. Today the moon was some 40,000km off the closest it will come in 8 days time.I was just interested to know what anybody thought of the possibility of influence however small.
Max_Torque said:
I think that maybe, just maybe, the effect of a "close moon" could bring on an earth quake, but only one that would have happened at some near point in the future anyway. It certainly couldn't "create" a quake from nowhere, as the plate stiction and buckling has to build up over a long time, to be suddenly released in a short, high energy event. So that just leaves the question, whats worse, an earthquake today, or one say a week on tuesday?? (the obvious answer being neither!)
I'm guessing if the maybe just maybe was correct then the earlier it happens the better as there is less energy built up in it?davepoth said:
The effect of tide on plate tectonics is not a well researched field (at least it wasn't when I was at university). But it's entirely plausible that it could have an effect -the water moved around by the tides does carry a hell of a lot of weight.
Isn't the whole point that it doesn't carry more 'weight' as the opposing gravitational forces create the bulge?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff