Electric Earthquakes

[seasmith]

An EM wedge...heh...or an umbilical cord...to provide an infusion of additional energy?

An electric wedgie ?

[Lloyd]

Well, Charles, discussing HAARP's effects on weather may not be appropriate for this thread, but what about HAARP's effects on earthquakes? I heard a claim that HAARP was responsible for the quake in Haiti, I think in 2010. There was also a claim that the reason for making the quake had something to do with offshore oil drilling in the area. If they were drilling, then a casing must have been there. So could HAARP increase ionization there, similar to in a thunderstorm, enough to help generate a major quake?

[CharlesChandler]

I heard a claim that HAARP was responsible for the quake in Haiti, I think in 2010.

HAARP gets blamed for just about everything these days, but most of the accusations come from people who don't know anything about its capabilities. So they're just thinking that it's this huge energy source that can be directed wherever they want, and which will do anything they want. I don't know very much about it, but I do know that it's EM radiation, in the terawatt range. EM radiation in the infrared can heat objects, while UV radiation is better at photo-ionizing matter. I just don't know how either one of those types of radiation could encourage an earthquake. The effect will be on the atmosphere, or on the surface of the crust, but it isn't going to produce any net electric field either way. So even in the kind of EM theory that I'm entertaining (which pretty much states that everything is electric), I don't see a way. With terawatts of power, you could influence a thunderstorm, because that's what kind of power t-storms have, and degrees of ionization have a dramatic impact on how particles interact within the storm. But you wouldn't be able to steer a hurricane as some people contend. Aside from the fact that a hurricane is several orders of magnitude larger than a thunderstorm, there isn't a good target for the EM radiation. If you beam infrared radiation at a hurricane over the ocean, it isn't going to heat up the surface, and steer the hurricane toward the hotter surface. Rather, the radiation will penetrate the water, and have a little bit of effect over a great depth, meaning not much of an effect at the surface, meaning no effect on the hurricane. And I haven't heard any mechanistic explanations of how HAARP could cause volcanoes or earthquakes. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my take on that.

[ElecGeekMom]

An EM wedge...heh...or an umbilical cord...to provide an infusion of additional energy?

An electric wedgie ?

Oops! Someone goosed the tornado!

Maybe that's why it changed directions and killed that storm chaser!

[kiwi]

I heard a claim that HAARP was responsible for the quake in Haiti, I think in 2010.

HAARP gets blamed for just about everything these days, but most of the accusations come from people who don't know anything about its capabilities. So they're just thinking that it's this huge energy source that can be directed wherever they want, and which will do anything they want.

Hiya Charles

Check it out, although there is no ultimate conclusion, but interesting connection with the Solar Cycles, ... be that provable ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sjQO-2RH3c

[CharlesChandler]

...interesting connection with the Solar Cycles, ... be that provable...

Hey Kiwi!

USGS denies that there is a connection, but this guy shows otherwise:

Tavares, M., 2011: Influence of Solar Cycles on Earthquakes. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts

[Lloyd]

I don't know very much about it, but I do know that [HAARP's radiation is] EM radiation, in the terawatt range. EM radiation in the infrared can heat objects, while UV radiation is better at photo-ionizing matter. I just don't know how either one of those types of radiation could encourage an earthquake.

In this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKL7A-pvFv0, Dr. Agnew and Nick Beggich contend that ELF waves can cause vibrations in the ground that can cause faults to slip, causing level 4.5 or so earthquakes I think Agnew says there that he observed small quakes near Oregon in 1987 caused by ELF waves. I read Beggich's book, Angels Don't Play This HAARP, in the 90s, but I don't remember a lot of the details. He said HAARP is based on Tesla's findings.

[nick c]

Charles, discussing HAARP's effects on weather may not be appropriate for this thread,

Yes, speculations about HAARP are off topic for this thread.

[celeste]

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env275.htm

Below are preliminary values from the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) for 2004 December 1st to 30th.
This period encompasses the 26th December 2004, the date of the Sumatran tsunami.
Even though there was a gain (of +0.000152) on the 26-27th, not all of it is attributable to the tsunami as the daily gain, or negative loss, was trending in that direction anyway.

HOWARD BARNES.
==============
x = the Greenwich meridian (0°) and
y = 90° West.
UT1-UTC = difference between UT1 (mean time; ie. Earth rotation time) and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC; ie. atomic time)
Units used: Arcseconds for x and y. Seconds of time for UT1-UTC.

( Mean Time )
( v. )
( Polar Motion )(Atomic Time) UT1
DATE ______ x _____ y _____UT1-UTC ____gain
2004/12/01 .19738 .29342 -.488389 --
2004/12/02 .19599 .29117 -.488527 -0.000138
2004/12/03 .19396 .28871 -.488687 -0.000160
2004/12/04 .19212 .28639 -.489137 -0.000450
2004/12/05 .19046 .28436 -.489806 -0.000669
2004/12/06 .18881 .28242 -.490669 -0.000863
2004/12/07 .18738 .28036 -.491675 -0.001006
2004/12/08 .18611 .27844 -.492754 -0.001079
2004/12/09 .18436 .27687 -.493800 -0.001046
2004/12/10 .18218 .27458 -.494698 -0.000898
2004/12/11 .18028 .27249 -.495325 -0.000627
2004/12/12 .17843 .27051 -.495677 -0.000352
2004/12/13 .17655 .26851 -.495880 -0.000203
2004/12/14 .17472 .26644 -.496098 -0.000218
2004/12/15 .17315 .26424 -.496476 -0.000378
2004/12/16 .17187 .26216 -.497079 -0.000603
2004/12/17 .17030 .26040 -.497909 -0.000830
2004/12/18 .16928 .25879 -.498905 -0.000996
2004/12/19 .16859 .25729 -.499987 -0.001082
2004/12/20 .16743 .25574 -.501015 -0.001028
2004/12/21 .16590 .25400 -.501904 -0.000889
2004/12/22 .16442 .25207 -.502584 -0.000680
2004/12/23 .16297 .25011 -.503048 -0.000464
2004/12/24 .16142 .24851 -.503328 -0.000280
2004/12/25 .15984 .24722 -.503356-0.000028
2004/12/26 .15820 .24630 -.503242 +0.000114
2004/12/27 .15635 .24532 -.503090 +0.000152
2004/12/28 .15453 .24392 -.502939 +0.000151
2004/12/29 .15281 .24236 -.502848 +0.000091
2004/12/30 .15103 .24081 -.502926 -0.000078

Time for Charles Chandler to return to this data?

If we merely assume that Earth is spinning in an external magnetic field, then building up of pressure before an earthquake, leads to more compressive ionization (that is a radial flow of charge from earth's core to surface). Then we have a release of pressure at the Earthquake. A relaxing of compressive ionization, leads to a radial current flow in the opposite direction. A radial current in an object sitting in an external magnetic field does change its spin.

As already addressed earlier in this thread, if it was merely the shifting in land mass that altered Earth's rotation, that would have been seen as a more sudden change in angular momentum on the earthquake date alone, not this pattern of buildup and release. As stated by keeha, the tsunami can also be ruled out for the same reason.

Since changes in Earth's rotation (rate and direction) have been observed for other earthquakes too, maybe there is some useful information here that I am missing.

[CharlesChandler]

Another interesting line of reasoning...

[ElecGeekMom]

Newbie question:

If the value in the gain column is negative, does that mean you observed the planet's rotation speed increase over the previous day's value?

Or vice versa?

[celeste]

Newbie question:

If the value in the gain column is negative, does that mean you observed the planet's rotation speed increase over the previous day's value?

Or vice versa?

I'm still hoping someone else answers this post, AND addresses what we are seeing (and what is wrong with the mainstream view).

For now let me spew some mainstream dogma: The Earth's spin, and the orbital motion of the moon around the Earth, are mainly left over from the solar system formation. From this point, we transfer angular momentum from the Earth's spin to the Moon's orbit, by tidal acceleration (this is what causes the long term spinning down of Earth). We also have short term spinning up of Earth due to earthquakes, because earthquakes cause land mass to collapse towards earth's spin axis, and conservation of angular momentum dictates that earth should then spin up.

Anyone want to comment before I show a number of problems with the mainstream assessment?

[CharlesChandler]

I'm still researching this, but one thing that I found indicated that long-term data will be necessary to actually identify what, if any, the acceleration actually was.

Jan 17, 2005: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ke-that-s/

This rotation change is a prediction from a model, and the data [collected by ground- and space-based position sensors] is being analyzed to see if the predicted change actually occurred. The data comes in every day, but it will take a few weeks for the most accurate data to be received and analyzed.

The length of the day changes all the time in response to many different processes such as changes in the atmospheric winds or ocean currents. Changes in winds have by far the greatest effect on the length of the day: their effect is actually about 300 times larger than that predicted to be changed by this earthquake.

So when they immediately announced that the Earth's rotation had changed, that was just a model prediction.

[CharlesChandler]

I forgot to mention that the same paper said that the rotation was accelerated by the sudden subduction, which had the effect of a figure skater pulling her arms inward. By the conservation of angular momentum, the same velocity at a smaller radius creates shorter revolution periods. But sudden subduction isn't what happened. Rather, the buckled continental crust flattened out again when the traction at the fault failed. This essentially produces the same effect. Under tectonic pressure, if the continental crust buckles upward, the elevation of that crust increases its distance from the center of the Earth, and therefore would have slowed the Earth's rotation down. Then the rupture allows the crust to flatten back out again, restoring the revolution rate. I'm just not sure that it's all of what they say it is. I agree with Celeste that if there was a change in rotation rate, it would be more likely due to EM effects than to Newtonian forces. But before we proceed, we need to certify exactly what happened. Conjecture based on the mainstream's model predictions might be a wild goose chase. (They're good at that.)

[Aardwolf]

I forgot to mention that the same paper said that the rotation was accelerated by the sudden subduction,...

Considering that the rotation of the Earth is constantly decreasing I suspect their modelled fantasies are nonsense. In fact in 2005 a leap second was added to UTC; the first one for 7 years.

For the record, in my opinion subduction is a myth anyway, and the constant deceleration of the Earth is as a direct result of Earth expansion and is further evidence to support that theory.