earthquake in japan that is not conspiracy theory here is the real thing, it is happening around

asia, first the 1991 philippines had a Vulcano eruption and in 1992 earthquake of 7.9, and

somewhere in 2000-2010 almost the whole Asia had a tsunami, it hit taiwan, singapore and other

more. the latest was Japan, I tell you there will be next be Indonesia, and Singapore and

Malaysia and Taiwan because someone is playing their toy under ground, crippling those Island or

nation that are easy target.

It was an astrologer who claimed that the supermoon caused the earthquake.

So, I guess that those people who cherish their belief in astrology need this claim to be correct, no matter what mental gymnastics one has to undertake to make it appear so.

Perhaps the chain of belief goes something like this:
1. Astrologer announces that supermoon caused earthquake.
2. Smartypants scientists point out absence of correlation.
3. Smartypants scientists don’t know everything.
4. Therefore, there must be something the smartypants scientists have overlooked that explains the connection between the supermoon and the earthquake.

Or something . . .

Actually, there was a large solar flare activity from the sun going on that week, starting about Wednesday before the Earthquake hit.

Citation please?

It was reported that the aureola boralis could be seen as far south as Washington D.C. then. I don’t know if that had anything to do with what happened to Japan (two days later) but there was somewhat of a warning about some communications having interference, etc.

So, if you don’t know if it had anything to do with the earthquake, why mention it at all?

However, this past weekend the moon was gorgeous and huge!

And how often do you ever look at the moon?

The moon always looks large near the horizon.

Briefly, the moon illusion arises because:
1. We do not percieve the world as it really is. What we think we see is a model created by our brains from sensory input. Many experiments of various kinds have shown this to be so.
2. Our brain models the sky as a shallow upturned bowl, so objects in the sky near the horizon are modeled as being very distant, while objects directly overhead are assumed to be much closer. This makes a kind of sense if you consider the clouds on an overcast day – clouds overhead may be less than a kilometre away, while clouds close to the horizon may be several tens of kilometres distant.
3. In order to accommodate the “known” distance, our brain adjusts the size at which we perceive various objects (thus, a distant object that is known to be large will be perceived as large, even if it occupies the same proportion of our field of view as a much smaller object that is much nearer).
4. Because the moon retains essentially the same angular size in the sky all the time (OK, it varies by a few percent between apogee and perigee, but that is too small a difference for us to perceive without a direct side-by-side comparison), our brain models it differently depending on where in the sky it is. When it is high in the sky, it is assumed to be near, and therefore it is modelled as a small object, so it seems to be small. When it is near the horizon, it is assumed to be distant and so is modelled as a much larger object.
5. You can verify this by viewing the moon through a cardboard tube. When it is near the horizon (and therfore seems to be large), it has the same angular size as when it is overhead (and therefore seems much smaller). When you look at it through a cardboard tube, you can tell that its angular size is the same no matter where in the sky it is.

And that, if reason has anything to say about it, is that. Or would be, were it not for the awesome power of Not Reading. Not Reading can easily demolish any argument simply by refusing to take on board what has in fact been said.

What I find intriguing in this whole thread is the fact that the anti-supermoon argument is really so simple and you wouldn’t think it was even all that controversial. “Oh, woops, wrong dates, sorry.” And even the ancillary argument–”Ok, yeah, but if the dates were right, it coulda been a contributing cause couldn’t it?”–is easily, and again you’d think, not particularly controversially answered. “Well, sure, plausible, let’s check…. hm, nope, the data just don’t show any correlation.” Why is it so hard to say “Oh, fine, that’s that, let’s go talk about something interesting”?

To me the persistence and vehemence of the pro-S.M. advocates becomes an interesting phenomenon in itself. Basically it boils down to “You smarty pants scientists think you know so much.” I’m not a scientist, smartypants or otherwise; my training is in literature and history, and from stuff I’ve been working on I sort of get where they’re coming from. Matter of fact, this thread provides some interesting grist for that particular mill. But it is incredible to me how rigid the resistance is even among some of the posters who are clearly neither stupid nor exactly ignorant. You’d think there’d be some capacity to say, “Oh, I see what you’re getting at, guess that hypothesis didn’t work out” and leave it at that. But nope, I see virtually no such reaction. You’d think there’d be more, I dunno, persuadability about something like this. It’s just a factual question about a geo-astronomical interaction and it just is really really clear that the empirical facts don’t support the hypothesis. So what’s the big deal if it comes down on one side rather than the other? You’d think their favorite political candidate or rockstar was being attacked. What is their stake in the hypothesis? It really comes down to a remarkably pure case of “We just don’t like You People to think you know so much about stuff.”

To quote the redoubtable First Science Officer of the Enterprise, “Fascinating.”

#475 Nigel

A theory is essentially a “wild-assed guess” or speculation.

Utter rubbish.

A theory is a logically-consistent and detailed explanation that relates multiple facts or observations to one another. A theory makes precise predictions.

The wild-assed guesses about how the moon might influence the Earth’s tectonic activity are just that – wildly speculative guesses.

You miss the point of what I mean by ‘absolute.’ I do not mean that a supermoon, or perhaps the coming of a supermoon, will ABSOLUTELY cause an earthquake.

Irrelevant.

Nolle claimed that the Japanese earthquake was caused by the supermoon. (That’s what the thread is about, remember). Your comment about many “theories” on how the moon influences the earth was not specific enough to read outside that context.

My response to your comment is entirely appropriate.

First, there are no real theories about how the moon might affect earthquakes – all there are are wild guesses.

Second, if the moon does influence earthquake occurrence, it is by an amount that is trivial compared to all the other factors that influence earthquake occurrence. Otherwise there’d be a strong correlation.

I’m referring to the effect that the moon has on the earth and on earthquakes.

What effect?

As far as we can tell, it is either zero, or as near to zero as makes no odds.

That’s the argument here, which you ignorantly decided to overlook.

Nope, I addressed that issue directly. I said: “If there is a link between the moon’s position and earthquakes, it is trivial beside a pile of far more significant factors.” (475)

The question is, “Does the supermoon play a role on earthquakes”?

And we already know the answer – Jessiessica has (in several comments) provided definitive data to answer that. The answer is no.

Not, “Will a supermoon absolutely cause an earthquake”?

But Nolle claimed that the supermoon did cause the earthquake.

He didn’t say “it was a contributing factor”, he claimed it caused the earthquake.

And I’m not merely referring to this one instance but the history of earthquakes occurring closely to the coming of a supermoon.

Except the actual data show that they do not occur with any more frequency near a supermoon than otherwise.

Nor am I saying that there IS a link between the two- simply that there is no proof of either.

Utter nonsense. There is plenty of evidence that there is no link.

If there were a link, one would expect earthquake frequency to increase near the time of a supermoon. It does not. The end. No correlation, no link. Move along, there’s no phenomenon to investigate.

I do not need to prove that the sun will or will not rise tomorrow because it has been rising for as long as the human race has existed. That’s the truth proven by history and science. Is it absolute that the sun will rise tomorrow? No. Like you said yourself, it is chance.

I said no such thing. It is the laws of physics.

My point there was about the nature of proof. You seemed to be asking for absolute proof, but my point was that such a demand is unreasonable because it is impossible to prove absolutely an empirical proposition.

And there is a chance that the sun may not rise tomorrow.

No, there isn’t. At least, there isn’t unless something were to happen to the Earth that would be so dramatic we would not be here to argue about whether or not the sun is rising.

But is there an absolute link between the earth’s rotation and the sun rising? Yes.

And is there an absolute link between the supermoon and earthquakes? Probably not. Certainly, the evidence we have indicates that all other possible causes of earthquakes are worth prioritising for investigation ahead of the occurrence of supermoons.

The supermoon hypothesis, and that’s giving it more credit than it deserves, does not do what a theory should. It has not got a model to describe what happened other than supermoondidit, and it makes no predictions for what could happen other than supermoonwilldoit. In other words it isn’t a theory; it is wild-assed guessing.

…we are having on the 19th of this month not only the full moon, but within an hour the closest approach of the moon to the earth until the year 2016. The next day is the equinoctial tides. So you’re bringing together three of the maximum tide raising forces. We know about the ocean tides. But there is also an Earth tide. And there is a tide in the ground water. All of these help to release sudden, built up strain, and cause earthquakes… what I call a seismic window, this top seismic window in years is developing between the 19th and 26th of this month. And this was 7.0 monster and it says geologist had warned about it. And a week earlier, the they were talking about the tides, not to worry about the really tides coming up. I think there is worry here too…

here’s the link

http://www.getxnews.com/2011/03/supermoon-bad-moon-rising-predictions-astrology-scientific-evidence-and-memes-of-an-imminent-monumental-global-disaster/

A theory is essentially a “wild-assed guess” or speculation. You miss the point of what I mean by ‘absolute.’ I do not mean that a supermoon, or perhaps the coming of a supermoon, will ABSOLUTELY cause an earthquake. I’m referring to the effect that the moon has on the earth and on earthquakes. That’s the argument here, which you ignorantly decided to overlook. The question is, “Does the supermoon play a role on earthquakes”? Not, “Will a supermoon absolutely cause an earthquake”? And I’m not merely referring to this one instance but the history of earthquakes occurring closely to the coming of a supermoon. Nor am I saying that there IS a link between the two- simply that there is no proof of either.

I do not need to prove that the sun will or will not rise tomorrow because it has been rising for as long as the human race has existed. That’s the truth proven by history and science. Is it absolute that the sun will rise tomorrow? No. Like you said yourself, it is chance. And there is a chance that the sun may not rise tomorrow. But is there an absolute link between the earth’s rotation and the sun rising? Yes.

1. The “single greatest force” that we know of is not gravity. Jump off a building and you’ll find that rather than succumbing to gravity and continuing to fall until you reach the centre of “our earthly planet”, you’ll come to a rather abrupt halt as soon as you come into contact with the pavement below you. That’s electromagnetic force, and it kicks gravity’s ass.

LOL!

And, in turn, the Strong Nuclear Force is way, way stronger than electromagnetism.

2. The ocean is not an element, and it is not the most abundant substance on our planet.

True. And it set me to wondering. The most abundant substance on Earth is perovskite (it’s what much of the mantle is made of). The most abundant element in the Earth’s crust is oxygen. I’m not sure what the most abundant element in the earth as a whole is.

You don’t need any solar data to predict an earthquake in California. All you need to do is find out where the fault lines are for the tectonic plates in that region. And what do you know? California is home to a fault line.

Dead fish also do not necessarily corellate with earthquakes, and as said upthread, animals sensing earthquakes is myth.

The Ponzi scheme is also well-constructed. Doesn’t mean it works. Just like astrology!

Blah blah blah the rest is argument from credulity, argument from authority, and argument from ignorance. (And repetition of points too)