New Study Shows Strong Solar/Seismic connection.

[Monster_Voice]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3?fbclid=IwAR0NC8M6TKujoVMDDlPfdcTWBoJ8m5tAZOkB4DkXHx2jmxlBnwjQNtkgwrk

For those of you who do not understand what this is saying, this is not claiming solar events cause seismic activity. It is only showing that there is a solid and strong positive correlation between solar events and the release of seismic energy.

The key word here being release... Tectonic energy is stored energy that builds over time, an Earthquake is simply the sudden release of that energy. Nothing is created or lost... we understand this quite well. What we do not understand is what triggers these massive releases. Are all Earthquakes triggered by solar events? No... that's as absurd as believing that there is no connection.

I read through some of the posts on here regarding a Seismic-Solar connection, and I was quite disappointed. All I saw were people expressing how much they do not understand while trying to claim they do. Nothing was discussed, nothing was learned.

If you claim to be intelligent, or would like to be viewed as intelligent whether you are or are not, do not speak in absolutes. Knowledge and intelligence are not interchangeable, one is concrete the other is dynamic. One is limitless, the other limits both. If you are puzzled by what I just said, would you rather have artificial knowledge or artificial intelligence? Knowledge is artificial by default as it is only as true as long as it's true. Intelligence is the ability to understand this.

If you claim to be in the pursuit of science, then by default you should understand what you know is only what you know now. Once you have taken what you know now as an absolute, you are no longer capable of intelligence. Knowledge is not little bricks you use to build up a wall with which you defend yourself from conflicting views, but rather knowledge is the bricks an intelligent mind uses to create the path that leads the mind to future knowledge.

If you resign yourself to an existence where only anything is possible you could never grasp that infact everything is probable.

Do not let your ego do as Einstein's did. We now know the greatest mind we had ever known found itself to be it's only limitation. If you do not know the story of "spooky action at a distance" I recommend you waste no time here until you understand that even the supposed smartest man in the world was made a fool of by no one but himself.

 

[Archmonoth]

2 hours ago, Monster_Voice said:

The key word here being release... Tectonic energy is stored energy that builds over time, an Earthquake is simply the sudden release of that energy. Nothing is created or lost... we understand this quite well.

Energy can be transformed into spin, momentum, lightening etc. Every transformation in the conservation process losses energy, until there is no energy. What do you think energy is? 

2 hours ago, Monster_Voice said:

What we do not understand is what triggers these massive releases. Are all Earthquakes triggered by solar events? No... that's as absurd as believing that there is no connection.

The flow of the mantle underneath smashes tectonic plates together. How would solar events move the plates? Without a narrative, there is nothing to test or observe, its just speculation. I could speculate that a giant man named Atlas is holding the Earth up, or that Loki is having poison dripped into his eyes, causing the Earth to move. Absurdity is boundless. 

2 hours ago, Monster_Voice said:

If you claim to be intelligent, or would like to be viewed as intelligent whether you are or are not, do not speak in absolutes. Knowledge and intelligence are not interchangeable, one is concrete the other is dynamic. One is limitless, the other limits both. If you are puzzled by what I just said, would you rather have artificial knowledge or artificial intelligence? Knowledge is artificial by default as it is only as true as long as it's true. Intelligence is the ability to understand this.

How do you know when something is incorrect? I could speculate all day, but my speculation isn't knowledge, for example. 

2 hours ago, Monster_Voice said:

If you claim to be in the pursuit of science, then by default you should understand what you know is only what you know now. Once you have taken what you know now as an absolute, you are no longer capable of intelligence.

Knowledge isn't absolute, but it is something. Until a new something comes along, you use what you got. 

2 hours ago, Monster_Voice said:

Knowledge is not little bricks you use to build up a wall with which you defend yourself from conflicting views, but rather knowledge is the bricks an intelligent mind uses to create the path that leads the mind to future knowledge.

You are conflating knowledge for certainty. 

2 hours ago, Monster_Voice said:

If you resign yourself to an existence where only anything is possible you could never grasp that infact everything is probable.

Proof of contradiction shows that when certain things are true, other things are false. (or unknown) If you are on plane flying to see your family, you can't be driving a car on the ground, they exclude each other. Proof of contradiction as an idea is older than science, and can be used to separate speculation from observation. 

2 hours ago, Monster_Voice said:

Do not let your ego do as Einstein's did. We now know the greatest mind we had ever known found itself to be it's only limitation. If you do not know the story of "spooky action at a distance" I recommend you waste no time here until you understand that even the supposed smartest man in the world was made a fool of by no one but himself.

 

Quantum Chromodynamics has come a long way since Einstein. Are you up to speed on current theories like Double Copy Theory? There is a lot to learn, and more to learn everyday, but the method of learning needs the ability to cut speculation from invariant observation. 

[Compuw22c]

Archmonoth, do you have any constructive posts you can point to?  Genuinely asking, because you seem to pop up in every thread I think has a LOT of merit just to dump on every line of the post.

Alternative viewpoints are usually good, but your entire post history seems more troll-like than anything else.

Monster_Voice, I think you might be onto something (I have no expertise aside from deep electronics, electromagnetism, and a newly discovered interest in heliomagnetism).

Check out this guy's Youtube videos.  Data driven, not sensationalized, and make sure to watch the very last video he posted to see why I take so much offense to Archmonoth's troll-ish behavior...  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV2ovLto5SHsW7UnSWOG6hg

[Drax Spacex]

2 hours ago, Compuw22c said:

...seems more troll-like than anything else.

Trolls generally employ a hit-and-run strategy.  A troll will often be a new member with a recently created an account who seems to be less interested in learning about space weather than in promoting alternative theories.

After the troll has stirred up the pot a bit, including personal attacks, then they usually disappear, or they create a new login and continue their mayhem under a new identity.

[Quilloz]

2 minutes ago, Drax Spacex said:

Trolls generally employ a hit-and-run strategy.  A troll will often be a new member with a recently created an account who seems to be less interested in learning about space weather than in promoting alternative theories.

After the troll has stirred up the pot a bit, including personal attacks, then they usually disappear, or they create a new login and continue their mayhem under a new identity.

So where would you place OP here? Is Archmonoth right in calling out him out for posting something that is something suspicious0bservers has been promoting as a world-ending event or not?

[Christopher S.]

1 hour ago, Quilloz said:

So where would you place OP here? Is Archmonoth right in calling out him out for posting something that is something suspicious0bservers has been promoting as a world-ending event or not?

If we're going to place anyone anywhere, I'm placing you in the troublemaker boat with a few others for not even reading the abstract of the article and yet still choosing to denounce the topic(your behavior is anti-discussion, anti-academic) and do all of this within an ad hominem attack.

 

 

This represents a measured start in the direction of actually investigating a proposed phenomena(or many). Maybe you can learn to read, and then you can figure for yourself if something is BS? Or, are you one of those folks who just goes with the flow, and parrots reaction culture? Either way, you've stepped out of line.

Forgive me for just trying to keep people like you from creating a toxic atmosphere in this forum, but you and Arch need to stop what you've been doing. Just my opinion.

 

On-topic, I was literally just mulling over some weird occurrences and the correlation to seismic activity in my area and came here as I normally do to, of course, look for data. This is quite literally exactly what I was looking for, and it's also new. I can give this a read and maybe make a fair determination if this is BS or not? I'm actually humble enough to say that I can't disprove an entire paper without exact science or a counter-hypothesis - which is more effective than going "wahh conspiracy theory".

[Quilloz]

1 hour ago, Christopher S. said:

If we're going to place anyone anywhere, I'm placing you in the troublemaker boat with a few others for not even reading the abstract of the article and yet still choosing to denounce the topic(your behavior is anti-discussion, anti-academic) and do all of this within an ad hominem attack.

 

 

This represents a measured start in the direction of actually investigating a proposed phenomena(or many). Maybe you can learn to read, and then you can figure for yourself if something is BS? Or, are you one of those folks who just goes with the flow, and parrots reaction culture? Either way, you've stepped out of line.

Forgive me for just trying to keep people like you from creating a toxic atmosphere in this forum, but you and Arch need to stop what you've been doing. Just my opinion.

 

On-topic, I was literally just mulling over some weird occurrences and the correlation to seismic activity in my area and came here as I normally do to, of course, look for data. This is quite literally exactly what I was looking for, and it's also new. I can give this a read and maybe make a fair determination if this is BS or not? I'm actually humble enough to say that I can't disprove an entire paper without exact science or a counter-hypothesis - which is more effective than going "wahh conspiracy theory".

Well excuse me for asking questions and assuming I think this is a conspiracy (I don't, I actually think this is interesting). I was even going to call out Arch for instantly assuming this was tied into a conspiracy.

I'm not hating the science on display here, as I actually think this is worth looking into. My issue is when people either instantly assume it's some ploy (like what Arch did, which is why I asked in the first place as I thought he jumped the gun) or uses science as the basis for their conspiracies, hence the S0 mention as he uses this as his bread and butter for for his interoperation of doomsday. I personally do want to see more of this as the studies unfold.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Quilloz

[Archmonoth]

8 hours ago, Compuw22c said:

Archmonoth, do you have any constructive posts you can point to?  Genuinely asking, because you seem to pop up in every thread I think has a LOT of merit just to dump on every line of the post.

Sure, if you read my responses to the poster, I am engaging them about the ideas of doubt, intelligence and proof, all of which are abstract and require many replies to come to a common ground. For example: "How do you know something is correct? What do you think energy is?" The original post has a lot to unpack.  

8 hours ago, Compuw22c said:

Alternative viewpoints are usually good, but your entire post history seems more troll-like than anything else.

I'm sorry you think so. I express my opinion, claim not to be an expert, and try to learn. I don't consider all viewpoints equal, in my opinion. 

 

3 hours ago, Christopher S. said:

On-topic, I was literally just mulling over some weird occurrences and the correlation to seismic activity in my area and came here as I normally do to, of course, look for data. This is quite literally exactly what I was looking for, and it's also new. I can give this a read and maybe make a fair determination if this is BS or not? I'm actually humble enough to say that I can't disprove an entire paper without exact science or a counter-hypothesis - which is more effective than going "wahh conspiracy theory".

Most of my reply to the topic is about what constitutes intelligence, certainty, proof, systems of falsification, and how learning happens. I engaged with the topics in the post, the tone of the poster, and tried to determine if what they consider fact/speculation. The tone of the original post, is not about seismic theories, it's about how science doesn't have the answers and knowledge needs to be expanded. My reply is an attempt to determine what they think knowledge is. I wasn't trolling them. 

 

I am in defense of knowledge, and don't consider science as something equal to speculation.

 

In the original post, they have a bunch of undefined terms, and are presuming much about some unknown person/group. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Archmonoth