Eat your heart out as the saying goes

June 5, 2008

Nasa scientists have said they could be on the verge of a breakthrough in their efforts to forecast earthquakes.

Researchers say they have found a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending quakes on the ground below.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9225

My book saying earthquake was electrical was published in 1998

What has been done in the last two and a half years?

Okay, I did the research and found the answer to my own question. Apparently, the jury is still out on finding a reliable method of detecting earthquakes. Here is a more recent article on earthqquake prediction:

http://www.suite101.com/content/recent-advances-in-earthquake-prediction-a311582

Quote from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9225

"Rock 'batteries'
Minoru and his father Friedemann Freund, also from Nasa Ames Research Center, developed the scientific theory behind these earthquake precursors. It boils down to the idea that when rocks are compressed - as when tectonic plates shift - they act like batteries, producing electric currents."

So they are caused by tectonic plates shifting and not electricity then?
The electricity is a result of the plate shift not the cause.

Shelagh

Quote :

What has been done in the last two and a half years?

James) I promote earthquake as electrical at every opportunity. The Internet has many of my statements. And scientists will be getting in a bind.

People eventually will start asking questions - and the NASA report (which I will not post because none of you will try to understand it) made it clear that earthquake, the earth's rate of rotation AND el nino (a climate pattern that occurs across the tropical Pacific Ocean) are causally related.

Can't do that with sliding faults Kimo Sabe

James

I prefer my answer to my question.

Shelagh wrote:

What has been done in the last two and a half years?

Okay, I did the research and found the answer to my own question. Apparently, the jury is still out on finding a reliable method of detecting earthquakes. Here is a more recent article on earthqquake prediction:

http://www.suite101.com/content/recent-advances-in-earthquake-prediction-a311582

dmondeo wrote:

So they are caused by tectonic plates shifting and not electricity then?

I noticed that you didn't receive an answer to your question, David.

Did I expect one ? No not really.

This is certainly a case study in psychology. Sometimes a person will pick pieces of facts (half-truths in many cases) to support their beliefs, and truly believe in the proofs they select. To argue other facts with a person set on their belief is wasted air.

The following were in attendance when NASA announced the relationship between earthquake, the earth's rate of rotation AND el nino (a climate pattern that occurs across the tropical Pacific Ocean).

As you can see it was no casual affair

National Science Foundation
U.K. Department of the Environment
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Meteorological Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
U.S. Department of Energy
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. General Accounting Office
EPA
-- Princeton University
-- University of Arizona
-- University of California San Diego
-- Columbia University
-- Oregon State University
-- Colorado State University
-- University of Wisconsin - Madison
-- University of Washington
-- University of Maryland
-- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
-- California Institute of Technology

Quote :

Minoru and his father Friedemann Freund, also from Nasa Ames Research
Center, developed the scientific theory behind these earthquake
precursors. It boils down to the idea that when rocks are compressed -
as when tectonic plates shift - they act like batteries, producing
electric currents.

In other words, this theory posits the idea that the compression (the cause) that occurs when the plates shift produces the current (effect).

This theory does suggest a connection between electricity and earthquakes, but it does not suggest it causes the earthquake. It suggests the opposite, that electricity might be a result of the pressure applied to the rock.

Ann

Sorry, David, I missed your post. I did not mean to repeat the same point.

Ann

alj

Quote :

This theory does suggest a connection between electricity and earthquakes, but it does not suggest it causes the earthquake.

James) Not causes earthquake - is earthquake


alj - for these people to get this far is in itself amazing. But please keep in mind - you are not educated in physics. It would do you well to ask - not interpret

One does not have to be a physicist to understand the relationship between cause and effect.

Ann

Ann - nonsense - you don't have the education to evaluate cause and effect -

If you Ann, or Alice, Shelagh or Abe were in a class room and countered everything that was said (as you do here) you all would be asked to come to the desk and pick up your drop cards.

Earthquake as lightning (being electrical) was my discovery - and it took 30 years of hard study and research to discover the physics of it

You are acting foolish - and clearly ignorant of even what you (yourself) say

Your own discovery. I thougt it was NASA's

alice

Quote :

Your own discovery. I thougt it was NASA's

James) You don't read too good Alice - read this
http://www.publishedauthors.org/t6576-tsunami-if-earthquake-is-electrical

and read the three posts I made on the first page here
http://www.publishedauthors.org/t6388-earthquake

PLEASE NOTE - ALICE WAS BUSY COUNTERING MOST EVERYTHING

3/22/2011

We need brotherly love in the world, not war ..

Cheers..Joe..

Joe,

We are the Middle East!

James,

I spent 22 years in the classroom, teaching students how to read and write, and that included how to distinguish cause from effect. Being able to distinguish cause from effect is a necessary skill involved in the ability to draw sound conclusions. I read quite well, as do Alice, Shelagh, David, and the others who post here. We are all educated, well-informed people, and are neither ignorant, gullible, nor easily fooled.

("Good," by the way, is an adjective, not an adverb. "Earthquake" refers to a single occurrence of the phenomenon. The plural form of the word is earthquakes - with an "s.")

Ann

In this case,ignorance is bliss. There is no factual exchange here. One party has a theory that he sees proven by information that has been shown out of sync with real science. To counter his theory, NASA information was used to substantiate that earthquakes are caused by one factor and the quake itself might create a force similar to a battery effect. That's the current facts. An earthquake is caused by movement in the earth. Period. That has been written in language that anyone can understand and supported by factual evidence from reliable, scientific sources. End. I can propose a theory that God causes earthquakes to get even with his children for their materialism. I can prove that theory also and will have entire religious denominations worldwide from whom to quote, including scientists. Remember all the earthshaking movements described in the Bible - the quakes in our experience are just one more of God's intents to punish us. I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS AT ALL. I'm just using it as an example.

I found James' posting of interest until he started labeling the people on this forum, who had the courtesy to give his thoughts a read and consideration, poorly educated (not his words). Name-calling is where I bow out.

James has posted some interesting pieces of information. I wish he had continued in the information vein, supported with references, instead of sinking to a name-calling position.

Diane,
your voice of reason and ability to see through the fog is a talent. Taking the high road keeps one from getting sucked into the mud.

Sometimes the mud is funny!
Toying with vacant minds can be entertaining.

Ann

Quote :

("Good," by the way, is an adjective, not an adverb. "Earthquake" refers to a single occurrence of the phenomenon. The plural form of the word is earthquakes - with an "s.")

James) WRONG - In the context that I used it Good is an exclamation and can be used by itself

(re., earthquake) WRONG AGAIN I used the term as a phenomenon, hence singular

James

James wrote:

alice

Quote :

Your own discovery. I thougt it was NASA's

James) You don't read too good Alice - read this
http://www.publishedauthors.org/t6576-tsunami-if-earthquake-is-electrical

and read the three posts I made on the first page here
http://www.publishedauthors.org/t6388-earthquake

PLEASE NOTE - ALICE WAS BUSY COUNTERING MOST EVERYTHING

James,

Ann was referring to this good.

3/22/2011

This has gotten so out of hand ! It's childish ...


Cheers..Joe