Recent Earthquakes

[cottonfoo]

JohnnyJones said:

How do you know?

Where is he then? What a weird question.

[cottonfoo]

Pooh said:

As far as I am concerned the Alps are at the North of Italy so I misunderstood that part of your post.

He's referring to the Alps on NZ's South Island.

[Martial Arts Man]

I met up with a friend of mine last night whose mother is one of those truther/conspiracy nutters.

Guess who/what she is blaming for the quake?

The CIA. Seriously.

[Negative Creep]

Has anyone found a way to blame climate change yet?

[jmorgan]

Martial Arts Man said:

I met up with a friend of mine last night whose mother is one of those truther/conspiracy nutters.

Guess who/what she is blaming for the quake?

The CIA. Seriously.

Tell them it was haarp and you had evidence on your computer but it was erased remotely....

[MilnerR]

Negative Creep said:

Has anyone found a way to blame climate change yet?

Of course they have!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/07/disa...

[Jimbeaux]

Puggit said:

According to today's Daily Soovy, it's due to the moon being closer than usual.

(I kid you not!)

That is not so far fetched. If the moon controls tides, what else might it effect at some point?

[Derek Smith]

Jimbeaux said:

Puggit said:

According to today's Daily Soovy, it's due to the moon being closer than usual.

(I kid you not!)

That is not so far fetched. If the moon controls tides, what else might it effect at some point?

A bit far fetched if you realise that the Moon was near apogee at the time of the earthquake, some 240,000 miles from Earth. The moon will be at 220,000 at perigee.

So no immediate evidence of connection.

[carmonk]

Derek Smith said:

Jimbeaux said:

Puggit said:

According to today's Daily Soovy, it's due to the moon being closer than usual.

(I kid you not!)

That is not so far fetched. If the moon controls tides, what else might it effect at some point?

A bit far fetched if you realise that the Moon was near apogee at the time of the earthquake, some 240,000 miles from Earth. The moon will be at 220,000 at perigee.

So no immediate evidence of connection.

Indeed, it was actually further away from the earth than average. Even when it's at its closest, the only possible effect is that it might fractionally bring forward a quake that would have happened in the next few days anyway.

[F93]

They're on the same edge of the Pacific plate, but that's where the similarities end.

Japan's was caused literally by subduction of the Pacific plate under the Eurasian plate. While orderly subducting, a large slip occurred that rippled through the Eurasian plate with immense force.

Christchurch was strike-slip caused by the fact that the South Island of NZ is slowly being twisted different ways at each end. Essentially the land is being pushed very hard from two sides, causing it to 'pop'. This is why, despite the fact that it was only 6.3 magnitude compared to Japan's 8.9 magnitude, Christchurch experienced one of the highest peak ground acceleration ever recored, of 2.1 G. This is also why it was fairly shallow, on 3 miles under ground, compared to Japans 15 miles.

They're really, not linked. If they were, then the entire Far East would have gigantic earthquakes. I mean, really? New Zealand is several thousand miles away from Japan, a minor shallow quake that has nothing to do with subduction can't influence a massive chunk of land getting stuck then sliding underneath Japan.

[Derek Smith]

MilnerR said:

Negative Creep said:

Has anyone found a way to blame climate change yet?

Of course they have!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/07/disa...

Was anyone else shocked to the core when they discovered that the author of the article had a book coming out?

[MilnerR]

Derek Smith said:

Was anyone else shocked to the core when they discovered that the author of the article had a book coming out?

[youngsyr]

Derek Smith said:

Puggit said:

Derek Smith said:

And not only that, why do we use the definite article before Moon? It is not required as it is a proper noun.

But I didn't capitalise, therefore I was write to use the definite article - it is 'the moon'

I would have said: Very clever, but you failed to answer any of my questions.

But the point remains. Earth doesn't require the but Moon does. Very odd.

The reason why you need a definite article in front of moon to denote the Earth's moon is because the moon gives its name as a count noun for any moon. That is to say that you can use "a moon" to denote one of any type of moon, be it Titan, Europa or the Moon, "two moons" to refer to any two moons in the universe, etc.

The article "the" is used with singular only, and uncountable nouns when both the speaker and hearer would know the thing or idea already. You therefore use the definite article to denote that you are talking about a specific moon (the one that orbits the Earth that the listener is familiar), rather than any unidentified moon.

Examples of other count nouns are dog, chair, book. You can talk about a dog (an unidentied specific dog), the dog (an identified specific dog), two dogs (two identified dogs), some dogs (unidentified group of dogs), dogs (meaning all dogs), but not dog.

Earth, on the other hand, is a proper noun, not a count noun, so you do not need the article. Note that you can use Luna (the latin based term for the Moon) as a proper noun for the moon, and as it is a proper noun like Earth, you don't need the article.

Edited by youngsyr on Sunday 13th March 22:49

[Mr Whippy]

Derek Smith said:

A bit far fetched if you realise that the Moon was near apogee at the time of the earthquake, some 240,000 miles from Earth. The moon will be at 220,000 at perigee.

So no immediate evidence of connection.

It could well have a rather large impact. Water weighs a lot, and a lot of it moves around at a certain frequency and amplitude around the earth.

If there are patterns it could well help along resonances that at certain points help faults get moving and releasing stored energy a bit sooner than otherwise!?


No idea if this is the case or not, but all that stuff moving around on top of loose wobbly plates has got to do something!?

Dave

[hornet]

jmorgan said:

Tell them it was haarp and you had evidence on your computer but it was erased remotely....

We need a new internet law, Icke's Law perhaps? Something along the lines of "A natural disaster will be blamed on HAARP within x hours of occuring".

[Derek Smith]

youngsyr said:

The reason why you need a definite article in front of moon to denote the Earth's moon is because the moon gives its name as a count noun for any moon. That is to say that you can use "a moon" to denote one of any type of moon, be it Titan, Europa or the Moon, "two moons" to refer to any two moons in the universe, etc.

Thanks for that.

And 'Once in a blue Moon'?

It is odd that Earth slips into a nether region between the two stools: 'Heading back towards the Earth' sort of thing is very common.

I have a Japanese daughter-in-law who makes the occasional 'mistake' due to learning the language correctly. She will say, for instance, in reply to 'How tall is that person': 'Six feet'.

But then we come to the problem of describing lenghts of objects. Which is correct, 'a ten feet ladder' or 'a ten foot ladder' and why.

[Dangerous2]

Derek Smith said:

Puggit said:

Derek Smith said:

And not only that, why do we use the definite article before Moon? It is not required as it is a proper noun.

But I didn't capitalise, therefore I was write to use the definite article - it is 'the moon'

I would have said: Very clever, but you failed to answer any of my questions.

But the point remains. Earth doesn't require the but Moon does. Very odd.

it's because whilst the earth has 'the moon' there are many other moons in our solar system and we want to be clear that we are referring to the moon, and not, say, europa.