May 8

1:45 I hate to see every time i want to post something the date has changed. I mean, time is flying so fast.

Got to a conclusion with my study regarding the correlation of number of earthquakes and moon distance. Apparently the column i added manually for Moon distance 8 years ago was wrong. I can't remember where it took it from, a calculator from a site, it was showing a correlation but could not interpret the results.

Recently i looked at and realized that correlation is possible, however i only had distances added for 8 years out of 76.

After a few days of work and emotions i added in the table columns with the most updated formulas for calculating the Moon distance, those from Wikipedia. But this time i verified a few instances with Stellarium. Stellarium does not give center to center (Earth center and Moon center) distances but the distance from a point on Earth and the surface of the Moon.

Since Earth is rotating, the distance from a point varies according to the our of the day, by up to 2 times Earth diameter, or 12k kilometers but for the instances i verified, the distance calculated was within those limits.

As base for calculations i used the Julian date or day, used by NASA and Stellarium that starts on 1/1/4713 BC.

There is no doubt the chart is not random (if there are not other mistakes), but it shows a strong correlation, a bit different from the one with the wrong distances. As for why there are more earthquakes in certain distance ranges, i think it has something to do with the pull of Moon on Earth on different points of the ecliptic.

But the way the earthquakes happen both on small distances and long ones can only mean one thing. There are two different types, one that happen at high pressure when the phase change in the magma (under and @100 km depth) is in one direction and ones that happens at low pressure, when the phase change reverses. This way we can have earthquakes in the same magma pocket as long as the pressure and temperature conditions are near equilibrium in that pocket.

I will add here a link to the sheet, not the html but the sheet itself. I guess it can only be opened if you have a google account and you are signed in. So those interested can see how i implemented those formulas in the sheet.

There is one more thing i have to add. If you scroll down in the sheet will see on the left two diagrams showing location (longitude, latitude) and depth of the 431 events >4 between 1940 and 2016 in Romania.

It looks like they are distributed on a well or grape bunch like structure, and not on a line or "fault" as expected when talking about "fractures" of the "tectonic plates".

There could not have been mistakes, for those charts i used the data exactly as downloaded from USGS.

BTW Anybody who  knows a bit of Excel can try and do this for any seismic area. Go to USGS search catalog, choose magnitude, time range, etc., draw a rectangle on a map, and then chose CSV as download format. Then you upload the data in a sheet, draw charts in longitude-latitude-depth coordinates, anything you like.

There is a software called jmol used to represent interactively molecules in 3D big. I plan on finding something similar so i can represent in 3D + magnitude (tiny ball size) an entire seismic area. This way we can all see the distribution and basically the anatomy of the seismic area so we can study it cause it looks like our scientists don't care if it doesn't sell.

If you click on the link above, then click on the static representation and try to stop the rotation with your mouse.

I would think if you could do a time based slider controlled animation of the evolution of a bunch you could probably see how the earthquakes move from one place to another and figure what a seismic area actually is and maybe how it works.

Please note the software is free, done by volunteers. Think of what they have on supercomputers and AI and keep for themselves.

12:45 O aluzie abia mascată...