Earthquakes continue to rock the Samoan Island area

 

Indonesia shaken by 7.9 earthquake

 

Typhoon hits Vietnam

So Balta are the two quakes related? And are they related to the 9.3 on Boxing Day 04?

Its amazing that one earthquake/tsunami leads to 100 deaths, and another one a few years back leads to a couple hundred thousand deaths, when both of the earthquakes were massive.

 

I know everything doesnt always play out the same, its just funny(and in this case certainly not haha funny) how the world works sometimes.

Its amazing that one earthquake/tsunami leads to 100 deaths, and another one a few years back leads to a couple hundred thousand deaths, when both of the earthquakes were massive.

 

I know everything doesnt always play out the same, its just funny(and in this case certainly not haha funny) how the world works sometimes.

This quake was probably a factor of a few thousand times less intense than the 2004 event(s).

So Balta are the two quakes related? And are they related to the 9.3 on Boxing Day 04?

They are essentially unrelated, although it's always possible that the slight effect of passing seismic waves from one event could trigger a second at a long distance. But that only is really going to be possible if the fault is already primed to go. In that case, it could just have easily been set off by the tides. Or a passing butterfly. Whatever.

 

The Samoa quake is completely removed from the area that broke in 2004 and is a totally distinct system. The Indonesia quake is almost certainly related at least in a technical sense; it takes years after a quake as big as the 2004 event(s) for seismic activity to return to normal (aftershocks go down exponentially with time after a big event) and the technical definition of an aftershock is that it is an earthquake that occurs within 2 rupture-lengths of the initial event before seismicity has returned to normal background levels. The rupture length in 2004 was from India down through Sumatra, like 1000+ KM, so basically every event there for the next 10 years could be considered an aftershock in a technical sense.

 

The other way to think about it...the 2004 event(s) involved substantial motion and reorganizing of the current stress fields. Those events will have changed the stress state in many areas nearby, and thus, made some more primed for failure. This one probably relates in that sense.

I don't know who Tsunami is, but Earthquake and Typhoon are a formidable duo.

I don't know who Tsunami is, but Earthquake and Typhoon are a formidable duo.

 

IRS and Dibiase are where its at!

Agreed. Money Inc. all the way (except vs. the Headshrinkers - I've got a soft spot for Captain Lou Albano).

They are essentially unrelated, although it's always possible that the slight effect of passing seismic waves from one event could trigger a second at a long distance. But that only is really going to be possible if the fault is already primed to go. In that case, it could just have easily been set off by the tides. Or a passing butterfly. Whatever.

 

The Samoa quake is completely removed from the area that broke in 2004 and is a totally distinct system. The Indonesia quake is almost certainly related at least in a technical sense; it takes years after a quake as big as the 2004 event(s) for seismic activity to return to normal (aftershocks go down exponentially with time after a big event) and the technical definition of an aftershock is that it is an earthquake that occurs within 2 rupture-lengths of the initial event before seismicity has returned to normal background levels. The rupture length in 2004 was from India down through Sumatra, like 1000+ KM, so basically every event there for the next 10 years could be considered an aftershock in a technical sense.

 

The other way to think about it...the 2004 event(s) involved substantial motion and reorganizing of the current stress fields. Those events will have changed the stress state in many areas nearby, and thus, made some more primed for failure. This one probably relates in that sense.

 

Interesting. So theorhetically, we could still be setting up even bigger quakes than what we just saw. I was also curious if you thought this meant we could see more volcanic activity in the region because of these quakes, or if the quakes were a result of that?

Agreed. Money Inc. all the way (except vs. the Headshrinkers - I've got a soft spot for Captain Lou Albano).

 

 

TAKE THIS TO THE SQUARED CIRCLE THREAD!!!!!

 

 

Interesting. So theorhetically, we could still be setting up even bigger quakes than what we just saw. I was also curious if you thought this meant we could see more volcanic activity in the region because of these quakes, or if the quakes were a result of that?

So...the subduction in the area is what leads to volcanoes and earthquakes...but typically there is no specific connection between individual earthquakes and individual eruptions, unless something gets fractured/shattered while at pressure. The answer is almost certainly no.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/0...akes/index.html

 

4 large quakes(16 in total, the rest were considered moderate) in less than 11 hours, tsunami warning issued then lifted.

Edited October 8, 200916 yr by KyYlE23