#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Options

# Physics Forums discussion

edited September 2015

WebHubTel wrote:

After only a few hours, the dudes at Physics Forums decided to shut down the thread I started with an iron fist.

"Thread closed. Non-published theories about climate change / global warming are not allowed at this site. "

And then I got a personal email with the title "RULES VIOLATION"

I would prefer you not to invoke the name of Azimuth in situations where it's likely your discussions are going to be banned. It doesn't help burnish our image. It does exactly the opposite.

There are several ways to see why your discussion on Physics Forums was likely to be banned. The first was the title: "Do lunar forces have more of an effect than we know?" A better title would have been about some specific effect, not one throwing open the door to a huge range of speculations.

But the real problem, I believe, is phrases like this, which you included in your post:

"Something has to give here because the scientific establishment can't..."

and

Could this be a shift in thinking that rivals the adoption of plate tectonics theory?

People who have to keep crackpots from taking over discussions - and the people running Physics Forums must be constantly dealing with this problem - develop quick ways of spotting them, similar to the methods I described in the crackpot index. Complaining about "the scientific establishment" and proclaiming the massive significance of ones work - these are typical of people who feel embittered and embattled. They're not things professional scientists let themselves say, so they don't help you win a fair hearing. Note that none of this has to do with the quality of the actual ideas: it's about presentation.

• Options
1.

I was thinking about one of my few forays over to Physics Forums, where I commented on quakes and lunar gravitational forces. This didn't go over so well, as indicated.

which takes from this PNAS paper written by USGS scientists:

Fortnightly modulation of San Andreas tremor and low-frequency earthquakes

"Significance -- The sun and moon exert a gravitational tug on Earth that stretches and compresses crustal rocks. This cyclic stressing can promote or inhibit fault slip, particularly at the deep roots of faults. The amplitude of the solid Earth tide varies over a fortnightly (2-wk) cycle, as the sun and moon change their relative positions in the sky. In this study, we show that deep, small earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault are most likely to occur during the waxing fortnightly tide—not when the tidal amplitude is highest, as might be expected, but when the tidal amplitude most exceeds its previous value. The response of faults to the tidal cycle opens a window into the workings of plate tectonics."

This is a chart representing the salient features of their argument. Stress builds up over time but the lunar tidal influence provides forcing excursions on ~two-week periods that can cause an earthquake.

What a difference a year makes. It might be OK to discuss this now.

Comment Source:I was thinking about one of my few forays over to Physics Forums, where I commented on quakes and lunar gravitational forces. This didn't go over so well, as indicated. But now this: [Spring tides trigger tremors deep on California’s San Andreas fault](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/spring-tides-trigger-tremors-deep-california-s-san-andreas-fault) which takes from this PNAS paper written by USGS scientists: [Fortnightly modulation of San Andreas tremor and low-frequency earthquakes](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/07/13/1524316113) > "Significance -- The sun and moon exert a gravitational tug on Earth that stretches and compresses crustal rocks. This cyclic stressing can promote or inhibit fault slip, particularly at the deep roots of faults. The amplitude of the solid Earth tide varies over a fortnightly (2-wk) cycle, as the sun and moon change their relative positions in the sky. In this study, we show that deep, small earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault are most likely to occur during the waxing fortnightly tide—not when the tidal amplitude is highest, as might be expected, but when the tidal amplitude most exceeds its previous value. The response of faults to the tidal cycle opens a window into the workings of plate tectonics." This is a chart representing the salient features of their argument. Stress builds up over time but the lunar tidal influence provides forcing excursions on ~two-week periods that can cause an earthquake. ![quake](http://imageshack.com/a/img922/6429/xviueJ.png) What a difference a year makes. It might be OK to discuss this now. 
• Options
2.

Yes, this is very interesting.

Comment Source:Yes, this is very interesting.
• Options
3.

http://www.nature.com/news/moon-s-pull-can-trigger-big-earthquakes-1.20551

"Satoshi Ide, a seismologist at the University of Tokyo, and his colleagues investigated three separate earthquake records covering Japan, California and the entire globe. For the 15 days leading up to each quake, the scientists assigned a number representing the relative tidal stress on that day, with 15 representing the highest. They found that large quakes such as those that hit Chile and Tohoku-Oki occurred near the time of maximum tidal strain — or during new and full moons when the Sun, Moon and Earth align."

Confirming results of the USGS study.

Comment Source:http://www.nature.com/news/moon-s-pull-can-trigger-big-earthquakes-1.20551 > "Satoshi Ide, a seismologist at the University of Tokyo, and his colleagues investigated three separate earthquake records covering Japan, California and the entire globe. For the 15 days leading up to each quake, the scientists assigned a number representing the relative tidal stress on that day, with 15 representing the highest. They found that large quakes such as those that hit Chile and Tohoku-Oki occurred near the time of maximum tidal strain — or during new and full moons when the Sun, Moon and Earth align." Confirming results of the USGS study. 
• Options
4.

Interesting!

Comment Source:Interesting!