Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

All the big earthquakes are caused by volcano


sgroclkc

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, sgroclkc said:

I mean the popular earthquake theory.

You mean the scientific explanation?    You obviously don't understand what "psuedo" means.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-earthquake-and-what-causes-them-happen

So, you are saying the USGS, which bases it's information on science, is wrong about what causes earthquakes?

What about the South Carolina geological survey?

https://www.dnr.sc.gov/geology/pdfs/education/Plate_Tectonics_POSTER.pdf

Here's the answers to a university exam:

https://www.coursehero.com/file/19375414/Cheat-sheet-GEOL-101-Test-1/

https://quizlet.com/search?query=geology-101-earthquakes&type=sets

 

Edited by Desertrat56
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
12 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

You mean the scientific explanation?    You obviously don't understand what "psuedo" means.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-earthquake-and-what-causes-them-happen

So, you are saying the USGS, which bases it's information on science, is wrong about what causes earthquakes?

What about the South Carolina geological survey?

https://www.dnr.sc.gov/geology/pdfs/education/Plate_Tectonics_POSTER.pdf

Here's the answers to a university exam:

https://www.coursehero.com/file/19375414/Cheat-sheet-GEOL-101-Test-1/

https://quizlet.com/search?query=geology-101-earthquakes&type=sets

 

Yes, these seismic theories are pseudoscience.

 

Although the theories of Aristotle and several other scientists are not completely correct, it is still the closest to the truth.     

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sgroclkc said:

Yes, these seismic theories are pseudoscience.

 

Although the theories of Aristotle and several other scientists are not completely correct, it is still the closest to the truth.     

I say this often and I will say it one more time.  Take a geolgoy class.   You cannot talk rationally about this subject without it.   You aren't by any chance one of those who promotes the anti-science theories presented in The Ark Experience are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I say this often and I will say it one more time.  Take a geolgoy class.   You cannot talk rationally about this subject without it.   You aren't by any chance one of those who promotes the anti-science theories presented in The Ark Experience are you?

I don't understand relativity at all, but I fully believe that relativity is a scientific theory. Because Relativity, which made specific, verifiable predictions, giving the conditions under which the predictionscould be shown false. It turned out that Einstein’s predictions came to betruewhen tested, thus verifying the theory through attempts to falsify it.  Now the earthquake theory in textbooks violates the scientific law that gas explosion will cause earthquake, which must be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sgroclkc said:

I don't understand relativity at all, but I fully believe that relativity is a scientific theory. Because Relativity, which made specific, verifiable predictions, giving the conditions under which the predictionscould be shown false. It turned out that Einstein’s predictions came to betruewhen tested, thus verifying the theory through attempts to falsify it.  Now the earthquake theory in textbooks violates the scientific law that gas explosion will cause earthquake, which must be wrong.

You make no sense.   I won't bother you any longer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

You make no sense.   I won't bother you any longer.

Every scientific theory relies on the scientific method. A scientist may make an observation and devise a hypothesis to explain that observation, then design an experiment to test that hypothesis. If the hypothesis is shown to be incorrect, the scientist will develop a new hypothesis and begin the process again.

What is a scientific theory?

By Alina Bradford , Ashley Hamer published January 31, 2022 .

Is there any repeatable experimental data to prove that the popular earthquake theory is correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, sgroclkc said:

Every scientific theory relies on the scientific method. A scientist may make an observation and devise a hypothesis to explain that observation, then design an experiment to test that hypothesis. If the hypothesis is shown to be incorrect, the scientist will develop a new hypothesis and begin the process again.

What is a scientific theory?

By Alina Bradford , Ashley Hamer published January 31, 2022 .

Is there any repeatable experimental data to prove that the popular earthquake theory is correct?

OH Good Lord!  So you are so lazy you have not looked this up yourself?   There have been experiments on measuring tectonic movement for a hundred years.

https://www.toppr.com/ask/content/story/amp/tectonic-plates-and-richter-scale-73525/

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/deformation/data/instruments.php

What ever anti-science person got ahold of you, just kick them out of your head.   This is old, verified science and you are being duped to think it isn't.   I am sure you read this somewhere and did not check for reputabilty of the source.   if you really want to learn then type in "What scientific tests were done to determine what causes earthquakes."    I said I was done with you but I can't help myself when your claims are unfounded to such a degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2016 at 9:15 AM, sgroclkc said:

The current popular speculation that plate fractures are caused by earthquakes has not been verified by repeated experiments

I saw the scarp of the Hebgen Earthquake before it was eroded.  The highways had not yet been re-surfaced.  That was very clearly a fracture caused by an earthquake.

AND:  how on earth would you design an experiment to test that idea?  Cause an earthquake and see if it produces a fracture?  How?  In Oklahoma disposal wells, the pressure blows out along an existing fault, causing it to slip and generate an earthquake.  But what made that original fault?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2016 at 9:15 AM, sgroclkc said:

all the big earthquakes are the same as volcano gases explosion but different from the earthquakes caused by meteoritic impact.

On May 22, 1960, the Valdivia Earthquake (Chile) reached an index of 9.4-9.6, the largest earthquake ever recorded.

On March 27, 1964, the Turnagain Earthquake (Alaska) reached an index of 9.2.

These are the two most-powerful earthquakes ever recorded and neither was caused by volcanoes or meteorite impact.  Both were over-thrust earthquakes.

 

A friend of mine from Hawaii was taking a nap on the beach at Hilo with his girlfriend.  She noticed that the water had receded from the shore, exposing fish.  She commented to him.  He opened his eyes and saw what was happening and had time for only one word:  "Run!"  Luckily, they both made it to high ground.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2016 at 7:49 PM, Parsec said:

Otherwise the vibrator trucks cited in your link should create earthquakes as well.

Not to mention the Budweiser Clydesdales going for a gallop.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

OH Good Lord!  So you are so lazy you have not looked this up yourself?   There have been experiments on measuring tectonic movement for a hundred years.

https://www.toppr.com/ask/content/story/amp/tectonic-plates-and-richter-scale-73525/

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/deformation/data/instruments.php

What ever anti-science person got ahold of you, just kick them out of your head.   This is old, verified science and you are being duped to think it isn't.   I am sure you read this somewhere and did not check for reputabilty of the source.   if you really want to learn then type in "What scientific tests were done to determine what causes earthquakes."    I said I was done with you but I can't help myself when your claims are unfounded to such a degree.

I have checked this website. There is no laboratory experimental data to confirm the theory of plate tectonics.You can directly publish the data of the laboratory and the names of Nobel laureates. Because if a laboratory experiment proves a new scientific fact, the scientist will win the Nobel Prize immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, sgroclkc said:

I have checked this website. There is no laboratory experimental data to confirm the theory of plate tectonics.You can directly publish the data of the laboratory and the names of Nobel laureates. Because if a laboratory experiment proves a new scientific fact, the scientist will win the Nobel Prize immediately.

I doubt that plate tectonics could be proven in a laboratory.

Using GPS readings taken at various stations around the globe, continental drift can be measured.  That is probably the closest you're going to get to proving plate tectonics.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
27 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

I doubt that plate tectonics could be proven in a laboratory.

Using GPS readings taken at various stations around the globe, continental drift can be measured.  That is probably the closest you're going to get to proving plate tectonics.

Doug

There are a lot of equipment that have been monitoring tectonic activity for almost a hundred years.   Fault lines are identified and monitored, and guess what, the earthquakes happen on and near the fault lines.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

There are a lot of equipment that have been monitoring tectonic activity for almost a hundred years.   Fault lines are identified and monitored, and guess what, the earthquakes happen on and near the fault lines.  

Once in awhile a new fault emerges.

When I lived in Idaho (1969-1973) there was an earthquake at Troy, Idaho in which a blind fault suddenly became exposed at the surface.  The scarp was about six inches high.  It gave the appearance of being a new fault,, but it was probably there all along.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2022 at 12:17 AM, sgroclkc said:

认为地震是由板块构造引起的理论,这是无法证伪的。这是典型的刻意编造的伪科学。波普尔在科学和伪科学的主张形式上看到了一个相应的区别:科学主张是可证伪的--也就是说,它们是主张,如果主张是真的,你可以列出哪些可观察的结果是不可能的--而伪科学主张符合任何可想象的可观察的结果集。这意味着,你可以做一个测试,证明科学主张是错误的,但任何可能的测试都不能证明伪科学主张(例如,地震是由板块构造引起的理论)是错误的。科学是可检验的,伪科学不是。

As this is an English speaking site we ask that our members post only in English. This also applies when linking to offsite articles, videos and other media.

You can run this sort of thing through a translator prior to posting it here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.