the Richter Scale (the earthquake scale) is a logarithmic scale.
this means a "magnitude 4" earthquake is 10 times as powerful as a "magnitude 3" earthquake;
a "magnitude 8" earthquake is 10 times greater than a "magnitude 7" earthquake;
and so on.
derek correctly mentioned that there is a lot of difference between a 6 and an 8.
a "magnitude 8" is 100 times [10 X 10] more powerful than a "magnitude 6."
The graph was not ignoring the magnitude, that was plotted on the vertical really in the frequency.
These are the ones that matter. The past century seems to have suddenly had increased frequency within a certain magnitude.
Thankfully we rarely get a nine and six to eight are the ones that create havoc.
No point in messing about with the threes and fours, even England has a little rumble
The graph goes to another link which shows that 2009 had 50 quakes greater than 6. That would be off the graph.
So either undersea quakes are being better picked up, or something is happening.
Rev 11:18
'The time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth'
I don't think it will be that long before God acts, as He must do, to preserve this beautiful jewel that He himself found joy in creating.He left it in man's hand to look after and preserve it well. But man is destroying it, and therefore will only be permitted to go so far, without interference from Him. This scripture has always given me a great sense of tranquillity knowing that Jahweh will only tolerate man made indifference and destruction, up to a point.:read:
Agape,
Grateful:giverose:
Hi Vicky,
Sorry to say it, but the graph, essentially, ignores the significance of magnitude..
Please, look at the graph again.
As ISO says, the Richter scale is logarithmic. This graph is plotted with all the 6-8's normalised to the same base time line. The graph is about frequency of quakes, not the earthquakes relative severity, which is what kills people.
This is why one has to be careful with statistics.
If the graph had plotted the ENERGY of all earthquakes summated, non logarithmically, against time. It would show a difference and be a more honest view.
The graph is misleading and gives a loaded result. You could have 100 6.0 earthquakes on the base line and 1 magnitude 8.0. This would make it appear the magnitude 8.0 was equal to 1 magnitude 6.0, when, in fact, 100 would represent the same energy as the 8.0, given up in shaking the earth.
I seriously doubt that the figures for early earthquakes should be compared to the data rich present.
No one doubts the cyclical nature of quakes.
Who knows how many there were before we could measure them properly? We do not have the data.
regards
Derek
The graph was not ignoring the magnitude, that was plotted on the vertical really in the frequency.
These are the ones that matter. The past century seems to have suddenly had increased frequency within a certain magnitude.
Thankfully we rarely get a nine and six to eight are the ones that create havoc.
No point in messing about with the threes and fours, even England has a little rumble
The graph goes to another link which shows that 2009 had 50 quakes greater than 6. That would be off the graph.
So either undersea quakes are being better picked up, or something is happening.
I think you need to find a different graph then, because in 2004 there was a quake of magnitude nine, as we all know.
For an equivalent amount of energy to be released from the earth and if they were all only of magnitude three, there would have to be 100,000 in one year.
If they were all magnitude four there would be 10,000 in one year.
Magnitude five and in built up areas these start to be killers. To release the amount of energy of that magnitude there would have to be 1,000 mag. 5 earthquakes.
Logs are great you just have to add and subtract.
Year 2009.
At a quick addition of the six, seven and eights there were 328.
6 times 25 = 150
7 times 22 = 154
8 times 3 = 24 (all rounded down)
328
So that is the magnitude of energy released in 2009 using 1 on the richter scale and only counting the quakes of greater magnitude of 5.
I.e. you get a 1 followed by 328 noughts or to the power of 328.
But supposing all those earthquakes were magnitude 5 which can be killers, but you want to find an average, then you would have to subtract the noughts. Mag 5 is one followed by four noughts.
Subtracting four noughts would give you an average of One followed by 324 noughts of magnitude five earthquakes a year.
one to the power of 324.
Do your maths folks.
Either these stats are very wrong or something very strange is happening.
Correct my knowledge of powers if they are wrong.
Hi Vicky,
You get my general drift.
I suspect you make your calculations from an incomplete data set.
In the original graph link, posted by rez, I think you will find the graph conveniently, also excluded anything over magnitude 8!
That was one of the reasons why, to my skeptical nostrils, it was all 'redolent of rodent!" :)
Anyway, I do not think, in the early years of the graph, large aftershocks were computed. So they are not comparing cabbages with cabbages!
I would like to know what seismologists think of such a use of data since a mere layman sees these flaws.
Remember, it takes more than one bad winter to make an Ice Age and one Swallow does not a summer make.
Our 'fluid' crust has been around a long time, lets not have an 'ants perspective'. :)
edited for spelling
I think you need to find a different graph then, because in 2004 there was a quake of magnitude nine, as we all know.
For an equivalent amount of energy to be released from the earth and if they were all only of magnitude three, there would have to be 100,000 in one year.
If they were all magnitude four there would be 10,000 in one year.
Magnitude five and in built up areas these start to be killers. To release the amount of energy of that magnitude there would have to be 1,000 mag. 5 earthquakes.
Logs are great you just have to add and subtract.
Year 2009.
At a quick addition of the six, seven and eights there were 328.
6 times 25 = 150
7 times 22 = 154
8 times 3 = 24 (all rounded down)
328
So that is the magnitude of energy released in 2009 using 1 on the richter scale and only counting the quakes of greater magnitude of 5.
I.e. you get a 1 followed by 328 noughts or to the power of 328.
But supposing all those earthquakes were magnitude 5 which can be killers, but you want to find an average, then you would have to subtract the noughts. Mag 5 is one followed by four noughts.
Subtracting four noughts would give you an average of One followed by 324 noughts of magnitude five earthquakes a year.
one to the power of 324.
Do your maths folks.
Either these stats are very wrong or something very strange is happening.
Correct my knowledge of powers if they are wrong.
I think you need to find a different graph then, because in 2004 there was a quake of magnitude nine, as we all know.
For an equivalent amount of energy to be released from the earth and if they were all only of magnitude three, there would have to be 100,000 in one year.
If they were all magnitude four there would be 10,000 in one year.
Magnitude five and in built up areas these start to be killers. To release the amount of energy of that magnitude there would have to be 1,000 mag. 5 earthquakes.
Logs are great you just have to add and subtract.
Year 2009.
At a quick addition of the six, seven and eights there were 328.
6 times 25 = 150
7 times 22 = 154
8 times 3 = 24 (all rounded down)
328
So that is the magnitude of energy released in 2009 using 1 on the richter scale and only counting the quakes of greater magnitude of 5.
I.e. you get a 1 followed by 328 noughts or to the power of 328.
But supposing all those earthquakes were magnitude 5 which can be killers, but you want to find an average, then you would have to subtract the noughts. Mag 5 is one followed by four noughts.
Subtracting four noughts would give you an average of One followed by 324 noughts of magnitude five earthquakes a year.
one to the power of 324.
Do your maths folks.
Either these stats are very wrong or something very strange is happening.
Correct my knowledge of powers if they are wrong.
hi, dear sis vicky :hibye: i am still puzzling over the math in your post. :dontknow:
for one thing, 1 to the power of anything is ... 1!
1 X 1 X 1 X 1 ... X 1 = 1 ( i think you meant to say "10 to the power of 324.")
and i am still lost to understand how you arrived at those numbers (powers of 328 and 324)? :dontknow:
actually, i think i do know. but, if so, it would be an incorrect methodology. ;)
it appears that you are co-mingling logarithmic numbers with ordinary numbers; treating them as if they hold the same properties, which of course they don't. please correct me if i am wrong. :giverose:
not that any of this matters to our relationships with god and christ. :grouphug:
I have to agree with Derek on this.
For a start the so called composite sign may or may not be correct anyway. If it is it correct it cannot be now. If the sign did include earthquakes it also includes wars and a whole host of other things. The second world war occurred over forty years ago which all the evidence suggests is a biblical generation so we must discount that war. Unless their is going to be another tribulation bigger than the second world war along with all the other signs within a forty year period we must think again. The biblical evidence for seismos` is that its not just an ordinary earthquake anyway but a whirlwind. Its tied in with Elijah` ascension into heaven which was also a symbolic ascension. It prefigured Jesus going into heaven. Stands to reason that if there is a future fulfillment of this prophecy other than the first century one, then its to do with the two witnesses and Jesus` return.
As regards earthquakes growing in intensity in the last few years I seriously doubt that is the case. I also seriously doubt that the idea of man being to produce earthquakes at will is anything other than a conspiracy theory.
Hi all,
Another potential trap for the literalist is in the exposition of the 'End Times' prophecy at Rev 6:8.
New International Version
I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.
It is unlikely actual wild beasts, in this world of depleted wildlife, or any major predators will have a significant role in killing people in the end times (if these times are future?)!
Human 'wild beasts' beat animals in killing every time!
It is not even certain there will be enough old world vultures left to eat the remains of the dead at Armageddon.
Diclofenac has destroyed most of the 'Old World' vulture populations.
Peace to all
Derek
I am not saying these figures are proving we are in the end times, but if they were figures for global warming they would make us run around saying doomed.
I am asking what is going on or are they a total fabrication?
The rare mag nines were considered Derek.
and yes it is 10 to the power of......
I will recheck my workings and will also be gone for some time as I am having computer problems.
I think you need to find a different graph then, because in 2004 there was a quake of magnitude nine, as we all know.
For an equivalent amount of energy to be released from the earth and if they were all only of magnitude three, there would have to be 100,000 in one year.
If they were all magnitude four there would be 10,000 in one year.
Magnitude five and in built up areas these start to be killers. To release the amount of energy of that magnitude there would have to be 1,000 mag. 5 earthquakes.
Logs are great you just have to add and subtract.
Year 2009.
At a quick addition of the six, seven and eights there were 328.
6 times 25 = 150
7 times 22 = 154
8 times 3 = 24 (all rounded down)
328
So that is the magnitude of energy released in 2009 using 1 on the richter scale and only counting the quakes of greater magnitude of 5.
I.e. you get a 1 followed by 328 noughts or to the power of 328.
But supposing all those earthquakes were magnitude 5 which can be killers, but you want to find an average, then you would have to subtract the noughts. Mag 5 is one followed by four noughts.
Subtracting four noughts would give you an average of One followed by 324 noughts of magnitude five earthquakes a year.
one to the power of 324.
Do your maths folks.
Either these stats are very wrong or something very strange is happening.
Correct my knowledge of powers if they are wrong.
hi, dear sis vicky :hibye: i am still puzzling over the math in your post. :dontknow:
for one thing, 1 to the power of anything is ... 1!
1 X 1 X 1 X 1 ... X 1 = 1 ( i think you meant to say "10 to the power of 324.")
and i am still lost to understand how you arrived at those numbers (powers of 328 and 324)? :dontknow:
actually, i think i do know. but, if so, it would be an incorrect methodology. ;)
it appears that you are co-mingling logarithmic numbers with ordinary numbers; treating them as if they hold the same properties, which of course they don't. please correct me if i am wrong. :giverose:
not that any of this matters to our relationships with god and christ. :grouphug:
Good morning brother iso:
Thank you so much for that last sentence, coz you had me "ascared" for a minute, there!!! Brainrash :funnyface::D
Carry on everybody and hope you figure it out:giverose:
sis
Hi Vicky,
Well, if individual 9s were considered on the graph they would count as one in frequency (perhaps their after shocks above 6 counted as well?).
It was the legend on the graph that said Earthquakes between 6 and 8, not me!
I took it as it said, they had used a discriminatory 'window' to suit their objectives. As you also believed the legend said the graph was disregarding earthquakes below six.
Climate change is a multifaceted science and not based on one suspect 'hockey stick' graph. :)
I think we have thrashed Rez's graph enough now, just like the proverbial Dead Horse! :)
Hope you get your computer fixed.
Derek
I am not saying these figures are proving we are in the end times, but if they were figures for global warming they would make us run around saying doomed.
I am asking what is going on or are they a total fabrication?
The rare mag nines were considered Derek.
and yes it is 10 to the power of......
I will recheck my workings and will also be gone for some time as I am having computer problems.
edited for readability
No they falsified the graphs
Found the originals and they removed the 6-8 Richter earthquakes they did not deem important. There were around
194 in 2007, not something climbing to the 30-40 mark.
That is what I was questioning, not Logarithms, how to calculate Ph or other Red Herrings.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/e...graphs.php
Thanks, so your not impressed with the graph! :)
Join the club!!!;)
No they falsified the graphs
Found the originals and they removed the 6-8 Richter earthquakes they did not deem important. There were around
194 in 2007, not something climbing to the 30-40 mark.
That is what I was questioning, not Logarithms, how to calculate Ph or other Red Herrings.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/e...graphs.php
Hi Folks
The real question is, Is an INCREASE in earthquakes a sign of anything?
No, except more earthquakes...
... because Jesus did not predict an increase in earthquakes.
He could have done, as with "increasing of lawlessness"... but he did not predict an increase in earthquakes.
So you have to question the idea of whether the first part of Mathew 24 was meant to be a "composite sign"... or rather, whether it was Jesus saying, "Hey... these things are all going to happen... before the REAL STUFF kicks off."
(I'm paraphrasing Jesus here, you understand :D )
(Oh, there's also the small issue that this stuff all happened prior to 70AD, anyways :funnyface: . it was for the Jewish generation who heard Jesus, not for us.)