Comments on: Mid-continent earthquakes are often aftershocks of centuries-old tremors

By: complex field

complex field — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:35:19 +0000

So, how does one distinguish between an earthquake and an aftershock?

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:56:14 +0000

You have it wrong there gecengece. There is no evidence of subduction. Subduction is like oil on water and you say the oil will go under the water. Have a look at Neal Adams’s videos on the subject and you will see it makes much more sense than the continental drift story. Expansion is happening on all the planets and their moons.
I have a theory about the moons origin that is linked the the expansion theory and it looks like we will have a second moon soon.

By: terry

terry — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:16:14 +0000

great article, but really Richard Guy? Did we not pay attention to the lesson on subduction?
and @jay, he’s being mocked because it’s a completely stupid theory that looks to be completely made up. There’s absolutely no evidence for it period. Not sure where and how you made a connection to global warming, but how nice for you.

By: gecengece

gecengece — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:12:39 +0000

oes that mean the Earth

By: jay

jay — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:45:20 +0000

I see that Mr Ed Yong gives short shrift to the postulations put forth by Mr Richard Guy.
Yet the global warming “crisis” is based on much flimsier evidence than Mr Guy presents and the same lock-step thinkers who pooh-pooh Mr Guy will be hooraying Mr Gore and his band of no-nothing thieves

By: Wirawan

Wirawan — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:38:55 +0000

IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME TO HAVE GOOD NEW SCIENCE INFORMATION AVAILABLE RIGHT AWAY. THANKS FOR POST THIS AND I WAITING FOR NEXT POST.i-wirawan

By: mad the swine

mad the swine — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:43:32 +0000

Um, dick guy, sea level is rising, not falling. Does that mean the Earth is shrinking?
“Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1][2] and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4[3] to 3.1 ± 0.7[4] mm per year (1993-2003). ” (from teh wiki)

By: Atlas slugged

Atlas slugged — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:23:21 +0000

If the earth is expanding, then the rest of the universe must be contracting?

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:13:39 +0000

Expanding Earth theorist! Huzzah! Another checkbox in my collection of woo. The usual collection of creationists and alt-med people turned up ages ago but this is special…

By: Richard Guy

Richard Guy — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:24:40 +0000

Tom Parsone of the USGS is perfectly right. You cant forecast mid-continent earthquakes. The truth is that you cant forcast earthquakes. Earthquakes are unpredictable by their very nature. They are a manifestation of expansion of the planet on which we live. As such they occur anywhere, everywhere and anytime on the face of the earth as long as the earth continues to expand. We have to realize that river valleys are earthquake expansion points or faults or rifts: call it what you may. The New Madrid Fault line is by no means inactive just take a look at the plethora of annual tremors on the USGS maps and see for yourself. So when we say that earthquakes along the New Madrid fault are aftershocks of the 1811-1812 earthquake we miss the point. What we should be saying is that the fault is still actively expanding. That is what causes the quakes. Engineers dont know much about earth expansion even though bridges across the Mississippi keep falling into the river with loss of lives. We have to realize that the earth is enigmatic and hides many secrets from us.
My concern is that we dont understand why earthquakes occur because we dont understand that the planet is expanding. Planet earth was once the size of the Moon but it is today 7800 miles across and growing. It will continue to grow to perhaps twice that diameter. We keep missing the point because we stick to old concepts. We have been taught these concepts and they are all wrong. e.g.
Darwin studied raised beaches all across the Pacific and on the South American Continent. He was intrigued by how high the beaches had raised out of the sea. A obvious observation but his interpretation of that observation was wrong. It would never have occured to him that the opposite was true: the sea had retreated from the land leaving the beach behind. Darwins observation still rules earth science today. Other theories have been based on that observational mis-interpretation namely “Isostatic Rebound” The moot question therefore is; did the land rise from the sea or did the sea recede from the land? Geologist would welcome acceptance of Earth Expansion it would solve many puzzles; no doubt because they have been taught flawed theories. Once we accept earth expansion we will understand earthquakes; Once we get to that stage we will have to look at the receding seas for the final peg in the coffin of the “Isostatic Rebound” theory. Our seas have been receding as long as the earth has been expanding. Your guess of that time I leave to you. You can read more at: http://www.widemargin2000.com or you can email me at: richard_guy72@yahoo.com. You can also see my videos on http://www.youtube.com and my articles on Google under the key words. “Receding Seas”