A Theory of Cometary Associations with Earthquakes

[cjameshuff]

No, gravity alone does NOT keep us in orbit. If there was only gravity everything would form one single mass objectand be "stuck" together.There must also be repelling forces!

Science 101.

I'll second Strange's question...where do you get this stuff? Repulsive forces are absolutely not necessary for things to orbit. Simple inverse squared attractive gravity is sufficient for a very accurate model of the solar system, and certainly does not lead to everything getting "stuck together".

[Kalopin]

It is the case. Ceres was discovered in 1801 and over 120 thousand much smaller asteroids have been discovered since. NEOs by definition would be nearer than the bulk of these. There are no NEOs anywhere close to the size of the larger asteroids. The odds of one having been overlooked are absurdly low.

Besides, to exert tidal forces strong enough to cause earthquake activity, which even the moon can't do, you're talking about a full blown planet, one that would probably be brighter than Venus and which would certainly show up by its effects on the orbits of the other planets.




Electromagnetism is simply not a significant factor in orbital dynamics, apart from weak, very long term effects on dust and small asteroids due to photon pressure...which certainly doesn't cause earthquakes. And as others have asked, pressure waves in what? We're talking about very nearly a perfect vacuum, incapable of transmitting any significant pressure waves, with the solar wind being an even weaker effect than photon pressure. And gravity is certainly not a short ranged force...you've got that completely backwards, it's electromagnetism which is short ranged due to tending to cancel out on large scales, while gravity only adds to itself.

And no, a comet is not a fast moving asteroid. A comet is an icy, volatile-rich body from the outer solar system in a highly elliptical orbit that takes it close enough to the sun to vaporize some of the volatiles, an asteroid is a rocky/metallic body from the inner system. Some asteroids are thought to be remnants of comets, that's the closest you get to your claim being true.

You're missing quite a bit of physics! The Moon is in a stable orbit, not flying through space at thousands of miles an hour against our orbit, and creating great amounts of static discharge, sonic booms, and displacing huge amounts of charged particles. I would estimate an object at the speed of sound traveling halfway between The Earth and The Moon would probably need to be about one-eighth the size of our moon to cause major destruction. However, you must consider varying sizes, speeds, and make-ups to determine effects.

Oh and YES a comet IS a fast moving asteroid. And when they come into contact wit objects that will slow them down, they once again become asteroids!

[Strange]

You're missing quite a bit of physics! The Moon is in a stable orbit, not flying through space at thousands of miles an hour against our orbit

Well, it is orbiting at about 2,000 mph and for some of that time it is "against our orbit".

creating great amounts of static discharge, sonic booms, and displacing huge amounts of charged particles

It would be nice to have some evidence that anything could do this.

I would estimate an object at the speed of sound traveling halfway between The Earth and The Moon would probably need to be about one-eighth the size of our moon to cause major destruction. However, you must consider varying sizes, speeds, and make-ups to determine effects.

Well, back in November a large asteroid passed between us and the moon. I must have missed all the destruction it caused...

[cjameshuff]

You're missing quite a bit of physics! The Moon is in a stable orbit, not flying through space at thousands of miles an hour against our orbit, and creating great amounts of static discharge, sonic booms, and displacing huge amounts of charged particles.

The moon is indeed in stable orbit, at a velocity that is always about 1 km/s (2237 mph) with respect to Earth, while Earth itself is always moving at about 30 km/s (67000 mph) with respect to the sun. The solar wind is traveling outward at about 400 km/s (900000 mph), far above the speed of sound at its density...which is why Earth's magnetosphere forms a shockwave in it. Space being a high quality vacuum, this shockwave takes special instruments to detect.

I'm not the one missing physics here.

I would estimate an object at the speed of sound traveling halfway between The Earth and The Moon would probably need to be about one-eighth the size of our moon to cause major destruction. However, you must consider varying sizes, speeds, and make-ups to determine effects.

Oh really? Why don't you summarize the calculations you used to arrive at these numeric estimates?

[Hal37214]

I would estimate an object at the speed of sound traveling halfway between The Earth and The Moon

What is the speed of sound in a vacuum?

[Kalopin]

The moon is indeed in stable orbit, at a velocity that is always about 1 km/s (2237 mph) with respect to Earth, while Earth itself is always moving at about 30 km/s (67000 mph) with respect to the sun. The solar wind is traveling outward at about 400 km/s (900000 mph), far above the speed of sound at its density...which is why Earth's magnetosphere forms a shockwave in it. Space being a high quality vacuum, this shockwave takes special instruments to detect.

I'm not the one missing physics here.




Oh really? Why don't you summarize the calculations you used to arrive at these numeric estimates?

Precision guesswork!

[captain swoop]

OK I think this is time to stop. If all you have is guesswork then this thread is over. In your next post I want to see some support for your guesses or the thread is finished

[Kalopin]

What is the speed of sound in a vacuum?

That would be 300 km/s [kilometers per second]. Aren't you going to tell me that there is NO sound in space? Here is a reference http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/...ce_faq.html#34 . Is that legit?

[Kalopin]

I object, your honor, badgering the witness. I have answered and proven my correctness with every post. I am not able to continuously be at the computer, as I do have quite a bit to do. So, I believe that I have given a very good arguement. Although I have a wealth of evidence more to share. I had hoped that I would spark the interest of a good investigative scientist.

I would prefer you leave this thread open for furure comments, if possible. But, I guess, if you still feel that way then the defense rests. I hope I have given enough to warrant an investigation, and I thank all of you for your insight and time.


Thanks again, Tony.

[captain swoop]

So far I don't see any evidence and I don't see you addressing the points raised by other posters.

I urge you to re-read the rules for posting to this forum and most importantly read the advice for ATM Posters linked at the bottom of this post.

[Kalopin]

Well, it is orbiting at about 2,000 mph and for some of that time it is "against our orbit".



It would be nice to have some evidence that anything could do this.



Well, back in November a large asteroid passed between us and the moon. I must have missed all the destruction it caused...

That is why The Moon pulls and pushes on our planet. Imagine a much faster object coming much closer.

I refer you to the link above in post #218. Asteroids are moving too slow to disrupt cosmic energies.

[Swift]

That would be 300 km/s [kilometers per second]. Aren't you going to tell me that there is NO sound in space? Here is a reference http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/...ce_faq.html#34 . Is that legit?

From that link

What is sound? It is a pressure wave. So long as you have some kind of gaseous medium, you will have the possibility of forming pressure waves in it by "shocking" it in some way. In space, the interplanetary medium is a very dilute gas at a density of about 10 atoms per cubic centimeter, and the speed of sound in this medium is about 300 kilometers per second.

You are technically correct.

What is the force exerted on the Earth of 10 atoms/cc moving at 300 km/sec; and yes, I expect a calculation.

Show how a comet has any effect on this. Show how this has anything to do with cosmic rays.

Show a mechanism by which this would cause an earthquake.

[Kalopin]

You all do realise that The Moon does pull on, not just the oceans, but the tectonic plates as well. This keeps them loose and moving and is the direct cause of earthquakes.

[Kalopin]

From that link

You are technically correct.

What is the force exerted on the Earth of 10 atoms/cc moving at 300 km/sec; and yes, I expect a calculation.

Show how a comet has any effect on this. Show how this has anything to do with cosmic rays.

Show a mechanism by which this would cause an earthquake.

Awe, man! That's the amount of atoms in the vacuum of space!, not compressed by a large object moving at high rate of speed. Any object in space has a "magnetopause". This is the limit of that bodies influence, and varies greatly depending on all factors, size, speed, make-up, trajectory, and surrounding effecting objects. Once a large enough object picks up enough speed, it increases the magnetopause. Make sense?

[Swift]

Awe, man! That's the amount of atoms in the vacuum of space!, not compressed by a large object moving at high rate of speed. Any object in space has a "magnetopause". This is the limit of that bodies influence, and varies greatly depending on all factors, size, speed, make-up, trajectory, and surrounding effecting objects. Once a large enough object picks up enough speed, it increases the magnetopause. Make sense?

Not even a tiny little bit. Show some piece of evidence that a comet has a magnetic field. If it doesn't have a magnetic field, then it can't have a "magnetopause".

By the way, if your mechanism had some basis in reality, why doesn't the solar wind cause earthquakes? Why, when we have a large solar flare, and large numbers of charged particles are accelerated and strike the Earth, which does have a magnetic field, don't we get lots of earthquakes?

[Swift]

You all do realise that The Moon does pull on, not just the oceans, but the tectonic plates as well. This keeps them loose and moving and is the direct cause of earthquakes.

Absolute nonsense. There is no evidence the moon causes earthquakes (if you think otherwise, then show some evidence, like a correlation between lunar position and earthquakes).

Article from about a year ago about the complete lack of correlation between the huge Japanese earthquake and the moon.

The Moon was at apogee on March 6, and will be at perigee on March 19. When the earthquake in Japan hit last night, the Moon was about 400,000 km (240,000 miles) away. So not only was it not at its closest point, it was actually farther away than it usually is on average.

So again, this earthquake in Japan had nothing to do with the Moon.

[Tensor]

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you since the thread reopened. I still don't really see answers to my questions, and your answer raise more questions. Here are your new statements

As for #55, I contend that if the moon can exert such forces, then it stands to reason that another large enough object will do the same. This is the most accepted theory on The Moons' formation. The Earth is steadily slowing its rotation due to the friction of the tides caused by the moon and also because of the reaction of this exchange of energies.

I hypothesize that our Moon has collided with the planet on more than one occasion.

And your evidence for this?
and previously

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that NEOs such as comets can disrupt Earth's weather patterns,

And such evidence is....what? Oh, and by evidence, we need actual peer reviewed or arxiv submitted papers. Not some on-line blog or mythical news story. Or something that someone on-line interprets old stories as what they believe as evidence. Those aren't particularly good evidentiary sources.

#1. Your new comments have nothing to do with providing evidence that Near Earth Objects (NEO) disrupt weather patterns. Either provide the evidence or withdraw the assertion.

I'm sure you all know of the correlations discussed between Comet Elenin and last years earthquakes. These are proven mathematical numbers, just coincidence?

In addition to the thread that Rhaedas provided, there is also this thread . It was pointed out that according to the paper used to claim that there is a correlation, that there were 90 earthquakes listed in the paper of magnitude 4.9 or greater. That's about one every four days for 2010. However, according to the USGS, in 2010, there were ~2850 earthquakes of magnitude 4.9 or greater. That's about 8 per day. I can give you a correlation for just about anything, if you give me 32 examples over a four day period. That doesn't mean that there actually is a correlation.

#2 Your new comments have nothing to do with providing any evidence that the correlations are nothing more than chance. Either provide the evidence or withdraw assertion. Note the requirement for evidence.

In addition, from post #19:

There were several questions about seeing the object that cause your alleged impact crater. Why are there no major accounts of this object, from places other than the accounts near where it landed? And object making that big of a crater would have been quite obvious before impacting.

Although there are still several accounts available that discuss lights across the skies

And your proof that those lights across the sky had anything to do with the earthquakes, other than by assertion, is what, exactly?

#3 Note I asked for proof the lights had anything to do with earthquakes, other than your assertions. Since your comments don't provide such proof, do you have such proof?

From post #20 the physical evidence of the satellite view of the topography, the hundreds of, what I believe to be, meteorites, impactites, and even encased body parts from the natives and animals near the crater.

That's an assertion. How do you know the view of topography, alleged meteorites, impactites (sp?), are from those lights and not from a different event? And, what evidence is there of encased body parts being tied to lights in the sky? And, how do those lights explain the January and Febuary 1812 events?

and finally

and several accounts of meteor showers prior to and during the earthquakes.

And your proof that those meteors had anything to do with the earthquakes, other than by assertion, is what, exactly?

#4 Note I asked for proof the meteors had anything to do with earthquakes, other than your assertions. Since your comments don't provide such proof, do you have such proof?

From post #20 The topography indicates an impact crater about five to ten miles in diameter. This is a complex crater, from a meteor consisting mainly of ice, sand, dust, smaller rocks and some boulder sized, coming in at a low trajectory from the south/south-east impacting through a frozen lake with soil horizon consisting of only gravel sand, dirt, and over vast water-wells, considerably dampening the blow [my theory, my opinion)

Note, I said by proof the meteors had anything to do with earthquakes, other than by assertions. This is nothing but an assertion. And, how do those meteors explain the January and Febuary 1812 events?

[Kalopin]

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you since the thread reopened. I still don't really see answers to my questions, and your answer raise more questions. Here are your new statements



I hypothesize that our Moon has collided with the planet on more than one occasion.

And your evidence for this?
and previously



#1. Your new comments have nothing to do with providing evidence that Near Earth Objects (NEO) disrupt weather patterns. Either provide the evidence or withdraw the assertion.



#2 Your new comments have nothing to do with providing any evidence that the correlations are nothing more than chance. Either provide the evidence or withdraw assertion. Note the requirement for evidence.

In addition, from post #19:

There were several questions about seeing the object that cause your alleged impact crater. Why are there no major accounts of this object, from places other than the accounts near where it landed? And object making that big of a crater would have been quite obvious before impacting.




#3 Note I asked for proof the lights had anything to do with earthquakes, other than your assertions. Since your comments don't provide such proof, do you have such proof?



That's an assertion. How do you know the view of topography, alleged meteorites, impactites (sp?), are from those lights and not from a different event? And, what evidence is there of encased body parts being tied to lights in the sky? And, how do those lights explain the January and Febuary 1812 events?

and finally



#4 Note I asked for proof the meteors had anything to do with earthquakes, other than your assertions. Since your comments don't provide such proof, do you have such proof?



Note, I said by proof the meteors had anything to do with earthquakes, other than by assertions. This is nothing but an assertion. And, how do those meteors explain the January and Febuary 1812 events?

Look in post #20. I didn't multi-quote so the answers ended up within the quote, sorry, my bad. As for the rest of your questions, wanting proof. I also want proof. That is what this thread was started for to try and prove this right or wrong. YES, these are all my assertions, my hypothesis, what I think, how I feel. Sorry, but I am not alone. And all this is based on real science. These forces and interactions have all been proven. Thes are the same forces that keep everything in the perspective orbits.

[Kalopin]

Absolute nonsense. There is no evidence the moon causes earthquakes (if you think otherwise, then show some evidence, like a correlation between lunar position and earthquakes).

Article from about a year ago about the complete lack of correlation between the huge Japanese earthquake and the moon.

The Moon produces continental drift, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_t...Earth-rotation .Go down to driving forces related to Earths rotation, no.1. I hope this clears that up.

[geonuc]

By the way, "mid-plate tectonics"? The fault lies in the middle of The North American plate, against the direction of the edge of the plate, and just ends on either side.This has been quite confusing to seismologists.

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you not aware that geologists believe a rift started to form in the middle of the North America plate, but failed? The New Madrid fault is thought to be a feature of that rift. This is the mainstream view. If you're not familiar with it, I suggest you remedy that before concluding a comet caused the 1811 earthquake.

[Strange]

The Moon produces continental drift, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_t...Earth-rotation . I hope this clears that up.

It may have a small effect there. We know it produces tides. But there is no good evidence it causes earthquakes. And something much smaller and much further way (i.e. your comet) will have a much smaller effect (trillions of times smaller).

[Kalopin]

Not even a tiny little bit. Show some piece of evidence that a comet has a magnetic field. If it doesn't have a magnetic field, then it can't have a "magnetopause".

By the way, if your mechanism had some basis in reality, why doesn't the solar wind cause earthquakes? Why, when we have a large solar flare, and large numbers of charged particles are accelerated and strike the Earth, which does have a magnetic field, don't we get lots of earthquakes?

All objects contain a magnetic field, even you, believe it or not. Just some stronger than others. What would make you believe that smaller objects can't be magnetic? Do you own any magnets? Do you have larger objects than that tiny magnet that aren't magnetic? There is a great amount of electro-static build-up in a fast moving object through the coldness of space. Just the slightest temperature differences can produce strong electro-magnetic forces.

The solar wind is charged particles of force with very little mass. believe me, if there was a strong enough coronal mass ejection, it would disrupt and cause catastrophe.

[Kalopin]

It may have a small effect there. We know it produces tides. But there is no good evidence it causes earthquakes. And something much smaller and much further way (i.e. your comet) will have a much smaller effect (trillions of times smaller).

Again, with the size. This NEO could be any size large enough, close enough, with enough charged particles.
Maybe we haven't found one, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't change the effects it may cause.

[Strange]

All objects contain a magnetic field, even you, believe it or not. Just some stronger than others. What would make you believe that smaller objects can't be magnetic? Do you own any magnets? Do you have larger objects than that tiny magnet that aren't magnetic? There is a great amount of electro-static build-up in a fast moving object through the coldness of space. Just the slightest temperature differences can produce strong electro-magnetic forces.

Why do you just keep on introducing new, random mechanisms?

The solar wind is charged particles of force with very little mass. believe me, if there was a strong enough coronal mass ejection, it would disrupt and cause catastrophe.

Perhaps it could. But we are not talking about them, we are talking about a little comet a very long way away.

[Strange]

Again, with the size. This NEO could be any size large enough, close enough, with enough charged particles.
Maybe we haven't found one, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't change the effects it may cause.

We are supposed to be talking about your 1811 comet. Not some fictional NEO of fantastic size carrying a massive electric charge. Your comet. Which is small. And far away. And had no effect.

[Kalopin]

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you not aware that geologists believe a rift started to form in the middle of the North America plate, but failed? The New Madrid fault is thought to be a feature of that rift. This is the mainstream view. If you're not familiar with it, I suggest you remedy that before concluding a comet caused the 1811 earthquake.

Yes, I am very aware. They believe pressure from within the plate produced the fault. They are wrong. There is NO uplift, NO subduction zone. Just a fault from seemingly nowhere! This has baffled many seismologists, as I am sure you are aware.
Did you enlarge the photos and give a little study? This impact was directed straight towards Reelfoot Lake. Draw the line down to North Mississippi, and you will be over the impact crater.

[Kalopin]

Why do you just keep on introducing new, random mechanisms?



Perhaps it could. But we are not talking about them, we are talking about a little comet a very long way away.

I did say, many forces.

NO, you are discussing a tiny comet, far away. I am proposing a large comet up close.

[Kalopin]

We are supposed to be talking about your 1811 comet. Not some fictional NEO of fantastic size carrying a massive electric charge. Your comet. Which is small. And far away. And had no effect.

Yes, although it was considered quite a large comet. I agree this comet would have had little effect as a NEO.
But I am not claiming it was just a NEO, but that a large enough piece broke away and impacted Northern Mississippi to cause this earthquake. So totally different set of circumstances.

How do I know it happened. I have strong enough evidence or wouldn't claim it.

[R.A.F.]

There must also be repelling forces!

Why "must" there be??

[R.A.F.]

I hate to tell you, but a comet IS a fast moving asteroid! That's how most start and finish.

Velocity is irrelevant. so you can "hate" telling me things not evidenced all ya want.