[Phys-L] Re: earthquakes +- critical thinking

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@REDSHIFT.COM>]

BW is reinterpreting the statement   10 or a 100 = one big one  is wrong.

a number of human initiated small quakes "may" relieve the strain so no
big one for a time.  As long as there is relative plate movement
continual small quakes are necessary.

bc, who thinks "take the place of" is equivalent to equals.

Brian Whatcott wrote:

> At 10:57 AM 1/2/2006, you wrote:
>
>
> > Regarding John Denker's complaint about the TDC program on tsunamis:
> >
> >
> >
> > > The Discovery Channel has been running programs about tsunamis.
> > >
> > > Near the end of one program, they interviewed some big-shot
> > > professor who wanted to reduce the risk by triggering small
> > > earthquakes.  He stood on the beach and said into the camera that
> > > you would need 10 or maybe 100 magnitude-3 earthquakes to take the
> > > place of onemagnitude-8 earthquake.
> > >
> > > I muttered something like "what an idiotic thing to say."  One of my
> > > relatives, who had been watching the program, said she didn't
> > > believe him; specifically, she didn't think he had any way of
> > > actually triggering the earthquakes.  I said that's not a strong
> > > argument;  that's just your opinion against his;  you can't *prove*
> > > there is no possible triggering mechanism.
> > >
> > > My point is that there's a much stronger argument -- an irrefutable
> > > *physics* argument -- that *proves* the proposed scheme cannot
> > > possibly work.
> > >
> > > This makes an amusing exercise ... definitely not a plug-and-chug
> > > exercise ... definitely not an ACT "science reasoning" question
> > > (i.e. 40 questions in 35 minutes).  So, what's the proof?
> > >
> > > ====
> > As I recall, a change of one unit by one earthquake magnitude point
> > corresponds to a factor of 10^1.5 in released elastic strain energy.
> > This means that a magnitude 8 quake releases about 10^7.5 times as
> > much elastic strain energy as a magnitude 3 quake.  I thus have a
> > hard time seeing how only 10^2 - 10^3 magnitude 3 quakes could have
> > much effect in defusing a potential magnitude 8 quake by dissipating
> > the built up strain energy involved.
> >
> > David Bowman
>
>
> David's argument is tantamount to stating that it is categorically
>  impossible for some small stimulus often repeated to avoid or defuse
> some very large effect,   This is so open to counter-example that I will not
> need to list such out of scale cause and effect scenarios.
> (Big shot professors don't get to be big shot professors by stating
> the obvious,
>  far less by proposing the ridiculous, I take it?  :-)
>
>
> Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l