Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Physltest] [Phys-L] Re: earthquakes



A better study w/ somewhat the same result (neg. for "large" quakes.)


http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:3MXpAxzY9dQJ:www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/~lin/lin_c.files/Tide-tao.pdf+correlation+full+moon+earthquakes&hl=en
<http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:3MXpAxzY9dQJ:www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/%7Elin/lin_c.files/Tide-tao.pdf+correlation+full+moon+earthquakes&hl=en>

bc

p.s. use info above to find PDF version.


Leigh Palmer wrote:

John Denker notes:



At least some earthquakes must
increase the earth's moment of inertia. For starters, the Himalayas
were produced by processes that include a series of earthquakes.



I think that there is a hanging sequitur here. Can you expand this
argument, please?

Unless the Himalayas were formed by the action of centrifugal force I
don't see how they could provide evidence for your claim. I believe
earthquakes are powered almost entirely by gravity. Centrifugal terms
have been largely accounted for in the oblate figure of Earth's
surface.

Incidentally, did everyone notice that this earthquake happened at full
moon? Earth was also near perihelion at the time, but the Moon was near
apogee.

Leigh



_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l