Jump to content

Unproven theories


Marcel de Bont
Go to solution Solved by Philalethes,
Message added by Sam Warfel,

Please use this topic in the future when you have questions about unproven space weather theories. What we mean by that is questions about space weather related things that are not accepted or have yet to be proved by mainstream science. Those topics are only allowed in this thread.

Discussion of virology, pandemics, and vaccines are not allowed on these forums. Just because a topic isn’t listed doesn’t mean it’s okay, these are specifically highlighted for reference.

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

Great idea.

To be the first to jump in: as for the connection between Solar activity and seismic activity, I thought that connection was relatively well established at this point, but I suppose it takes time before something is considered mainstream (and it could be wrong, of course). Take e.g. this 2020 paper published in Scientific Reports, a highly reputable journal with rigorous peer-review, one of the most "mainstream" journals out there:

This is more or less in line with what has been claimed throughout the years, in terms of mechanism as well. There are a lot of papers with similar findings, but that's probably the best in terms of a combination of recency and legitimacy.

I'd be interested to know what the arguments of skeptics against this and similar papers are.

Ill bite, and consider myself a skeptic. 

First off, the effect you described: Piezoelectricity - Wikipedia

To me the strong correlation from the link/study would imply that the Earthquakes might the cause of the increased charged protons, since the SOHO is L1 near the Earth. The Piezoelectric effect would cause the protons to charge from the release of M>5.6 quakes. 

 

The reason for this suggested cause, is because the established knowledge of earthquakes is from local (non-solar) systems like the movement of mantle, tectonic plates and such. So, I would guess that the charged protons would become charged from the nearby (closer) phenomena of the quakes rather than solar activity. I didn't see anything in the study/link you provided with a correlation to solar weather like flares, CMEs or Coronal holes. Maybe I missed it, and this is just my skeptical speculation on the correlation. 

 

1 hour ago, David Silver said:

The hostility seen here in threads usually comes from people with an opinion differing from the research, which I did not expect to find in a forum such as this. 

 

Opinions presented as fact can rub people the wrong way. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Archmonoth said:

To me the strong correlation from the link/study would imply that the Earthquakes might the cause of the increased charged protons, since the SOHO is L1 near the Earth. The Piezoelectric effect would cause the protons to charge from the release of M>5.6 quakes. 

It's always a good idea indeed to turn cause and effect around and see if that sounds reasonable, but this doesn't seem feasible with respect to this data, especially considering the 1-day delay found in the paper I referenced (first the proton density increases at SOHO, and then a day after there is heightened seismic activity). But if you have any data demonstrating that SOHO registers a higher proton density after large earthquakes I'd like to see it; however, considering how SOHO measures protons directionally and how velocity data is included, I believe it's inferred that it's talking about the density of protons heading towards Earth at high speeds rather than the other way around in any case.

Also, I'd just like to add that the paper by no means is suggesting that Solar activity is the sole or major driver of seismic activity at all, only that it is a contributing factor.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A common mistake I see others make in thought experiments pertaining to the solar/seismic connection is one borne of intellectual convenience, primarily. Many attempt to string it together as "there's X, and then it causes Y, which then causes Z, which then" etc. with linear logic relying on too many pseudo-scientific presumptions. This then pollutes the discussion significantly, with parties relying on more conventional debate tactics rather than pertinent facts and information. Since often the basis for input on the discussion slides towards "upholding a belief" rather than for clarity of information, we can safely say that this is not science - it's cherry-picking science to facilitate an ultimately useless and unnecessary debate.

I hope that this change cleans up other topics moving forward. I leave this here as a possible reminder to future posters. Stay curious!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

my name is Ricardo, 53 y.a., spaniard, interested in solar dinamic, evolution, influence, athmospheric, ..., i apologies for my english

Respect solar activity & earthquakes,

"We found clear correlation between proton density and the occurrence of large earthquakes"

maybe are some relation, but, ¿between these or for other effect that induce both? I mind, ¿if both was cause for other influences, as gravitational resonance, that causes disturbances in sun, earth &V planets?

I didn,t found any deterministic factor for this kind of alleged correlations, purely coincidence.

Piezoelectric effect isn't enough to make this kind of forces for several reasons: not all material all piezoelectric & it's necessary certain crystal structure that isn't on inner earth, in any case, earth piezoelectric effect maybe could influence modulating geoelectromagnetic fields but not enough for influence in inverse direction.

Other thing is consider coincident resonances peaks in earth & sun cycles, for example by gravitational influences of solar system, this kind of modulation could induce tensions due to variations on earth rotation/pitching ... but it would be so time soft to induce punctual breakages

I think that if there is some sun influence on earthquakes, other than long range cycles, are due to earth contraction/expansion atmospheric pressure that unbalances distribution of air &V water masses.

BR

 

 

Edited by _00_
gram correction
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2023 at 9:55 AM, _00_ said:

maybe are some relation, but, ¿between these or for other effect that induce both?

That's a very good point indeed, and quite broad in scope; even in situations where causation in the other direction is not feasible (such as in this case, due to the time lag), this doesn't preclude the possibility of some other preceding cause that leads to both effects, in this case to both Solar activity and seismic activity. In fact, proving causation rather than just correlation is generally very difficult, and either requires the ability to do repeated experiments under strictly controlled conditions, or to have an exceedingly good understanding of the mechanisms involved; and even then it ultimately remains a statistical inference (the problem of induction), albeit one with a potential for reaching a very high likelihood (hence the "five-sigma" gold standard in particle physics).

So you're correct that it can't be definitely concluded that there isn't some common underlying cause for both Solar and seismic activity in this case, but the authors do offer supporting evidence for believing Solar activity causes; and also, even if there is an external cause to both, then you would have at least still have evidence for external forcing on seismic activity on Earth.

On 3/24/2023 at 9:55 AM, _00_ said:

Piezoelectric effect isn't enough to make this kind of forces for several reasons: not all material all piezoelectric & it's necessary certain crystal structure that isn't on inner earth, in any case, earth piezoelectric effect maybe could influence modulating geoelectromagnetic fields but not enough for influence in inverse direction.

This does not seem like a scientifically supported conclusion to me at all. While I agree above with the fact that it's difficult to prove causation definitely, dismissing possible and probable causes without much investigation, simply by saying that it "isn't enough", is not a good idea at all. There could certainly be other causes as well or instead, both due to Solar activity and due to other external factors (in addition to internal factors, of course, which most likely affect seismic activity more than anything else), but it doesn't sound like you're basing your dismissal on anything but a hunch, and the history of physics is strewn with hunches that turned out to be completely wrong; in fact, if I were to counter with a hunch of my own, I'd say the inverse piezoelectric effect sounds like a far more likely mechanism than gravitational effects from other planets or due to specific configurations, which to me remains far more speculative, and for which I have yet to find any convincing evidence.

Oh, and one last point: the claim that you'd need certain crystal structures that aren't in the crust (where the vast majority of earthquakes that we measure occur) seems untrue to me, given the fact that 20% of the crust is made of quartz, the archetypical piezoelectric mineral.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2023 at 9:03 AM, Roland Rock said:

I wrote a blog post about the correlation between whale beachings and solar magnetic activity.  I'd love some feedback.  Thanks.  RR

https://ibdst.blogspot.com/2023/03/fact-check-why-are-whales-beaching-in-nj.html

I didn't see the correlation. The graph with solar fields and the whales being stranded didn't seem to line up. The top end per year was 33-34. The low amount is difficult to show any correlation. 

 

Whales being beached is also related to environmental disruption from human activity. 

 

I read the topic on climate change from blog which doesn't address deforestation, oil spills, pollution, chemical spills and the effects of urbanizations on an environment. Your focus on large time frame patterns comes across as dismissive of the impact of human activity. The Sun didn't cut those trees down or disrupt the environment, or cause hundreds of species to go extinct from human activity. I would suggest you read more in climate change, and perhaps the biology of whales. I know this might sound contentious, but you were asking for feedback. 

Edited by Archmonoth
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2023 at 7:23 PM, Philalethes Bythos said:

...

This does not seem like a scientifically supported conclusion to me at all. While I agree above with the fact that it's difficult to prove causation definitely, dismissing possible and probable causes without much investigation, simply by saying that it "isn't enough", is not a good idea at all. There could certainly be other causes as well or instead, both due to Solar activity and due to other external factors (in addition to internal factors, of course, which most likely affect seismic activity more than anything else), but it doesn't sound like you're basing your dismissal on anything but a hunch, and the history of physics is strewn with hunches that turned out to be completely wrong; in fact, if I were to counter with a hunch of my own, I'd say the inverse piezoelectric effect sounds like a far more likely mechanism than gravitational effects from other planets or due to specific configurations, which to me remains far more speculative, and for which I have yet to find any convincing evidence.

Oh, and one last point: the claim that you'd need certain crystal structures that aren't in the crust (where the vast majority of earthquakes that we measure occur) seems untrue to me, given the fact that 20% of the crust is made of quartz, the archetypical piezoelectric mineral.

The orders of magnitude of piezoelectric physics is quite well studied, as well as the stress necessary in time for its effect to be appreciable, in this sense, we can use the measurements of the piezoelectric effect of an earthquake to determine the electromagnetic fields necessary for it to occur in the other direction... and that those fields occur before the earthquake, something that never happens in these magnitudes, not counting other characteristics of material inhomogeneity, alignment, compensations,...

 

Measurements of electric potential variation by piezoelectricity of granite

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/98GL51179

The dilatancy–diffusion hypothesis and earthquake predictability

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258646104_The_dilatancy-diffusion_hypothesis_and_earthquake_predictability

Preliminary Study on the Generating Mechanism of the Atmospheric Vertical Electric Field before Earthquakes

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361849582_Preliminary_Study_on_the_Generating_Mechanism_of_the_Atmospheric_Vertical_Electric_Field_before_Earthquakes

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, _00_ said:

in this sense, we can use the measurements of the piezoelectric effect of an earthquake to determine the electromagnetic fields necessary for it to occur in the other direction...

That sounds like fallacious reasoning to me. The authors of the paper I referenced above very clearly state that it's likely only going to affect faults which are already greatly stressed, i.e. only work as a trigger; doing what you're supposing here sounds to me like trying to use the full force of an explosion to figure out the amount of force necessary to push a button to trigger said explosion. In the same overview they also mention some pertinent facts about the composition of the crust relating to the inhomogeneity and alignment of the affected quartz. To quote the relevant part:

Quote

Sobolev and Demin studied the piezoelectric effects in rocks generated by large electric currents. Our observed correlation implies that a high electric potential sometimes occurs between the ionosphere, charged by the high proton density generated at higher distances, and the Earth. Such a high potential could generate, both in a direct way or determining, by electrical induction, alterations of the normal underground potential, an electrical discharge, channeled at depth by large faults, which represent preferential, highly conductive channels. Such electrical current, passing through the fault, would generate, by reverse piezoelectric effect, a strain/stress pulse, which, added to the fault loading and changing the total Coulomb stress, could destabilize the fault favoring its rupture. The reverse piezoelectric effect would be due, in rocks, by the quartz minerals abundant in them. Such effect can work, in principle, for all kinds of faults. The piezoelectric effect, in fact, acts to produce a pulse of dilatation or contraction on a particular axis of the crystal, depending on the polarity of the electrical current. For quartz crystals randomly distributed on a fault surface of any orientation, the net effect is a pulse of strain/stress normal to the fault, because the other strain/stress components compensate among them into the bulk rocks. The normal stress can stabilize or destabilize any kind of fault, depending on the sign; however, since it is a transient pulse, it has an effect only in case it is able to instantaneously increase the total Coulomb stress on a given fault above the fracture strength, thus generating the earthquake. It would then represent only a small destabilizing effect over an already critically loaded fault. So, the earthquake cycle would be anyway dominated by tectonic phenomena, but this small external triggering effect could generate the observed slight correlation among worldwide earthquakes.

Here it's also worth noting how they explicitly refer to the correlation as "slight" (but still significant) precisely due to this. I'm not saying that we know for sure that this really is the mechanism, but it seems like a very plausible mechanism in this case for acting as such a trigger, and the argument about having to have a field equal to what you would get out of a large earthquake when it's only "the straw that breaks the camel's back" so to speak (or "the match in the powder barrel" if you will) seems spurious to me; tectonic activity remains the prime suspect responsible for the vast majority of that force.

Edited by Philalethes Bythos
typo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, my argument was obvious and sound fallacious as it's, really I didn't read the article quoted, I apologice about,

I don't say that the effect not exists, but data on the article aren't enough to conclude, also it's necessary not only proton density data at 1 million km far, it's is necessary reads or magnetic field & proton density in surface too, in perspective: a normal proton current density vector is about 6.54×10−7A/m2, if earths magnetic field did not deflect the protons total current on Earth surface would be about 83400 A, in whole earth, as comparative: a thunder is between 30-200 kA,

itn't seem plausible that this kind of magnitude affect, of course that is a good idea take data , or compare events (ex. comparing earthquakes&proton densities  https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/browse/significant.php & ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/warehouse/ ), but i not going to do, so many variables that could be envolved to dismiss.

I was interesting in that some years ago and didn't find a significative relation about, not in front other more significant processes involved in that kind of interaction, as inner magnetic fluxes and current.

For me that paper is as this other:

Influence of geomagnetic activity and atmospheric pressure in hypertensive adults

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00484-017-1337-x

it's not what data say, is make data say

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, _00_ said:

I don't say that the effect not exists, but data on the article aren't enough to conclude

Yes, I agree, and so do the authors most likely. I believe the main point of the paper was simply to show the time-delayed correlation; the discussion about possible causes, like the inverse piezoelectric effect, is intended to be more speculative.

3 hours ago, _00_ said:

it's necessary not only proton density data at 1 million km far, it's is necessary reads or magnetic field & proton density in surface too

Well, that would certainly be a good idea to investigate the mechanisms involved closer, but the significant correlation itself indicates that some sort of relationship exists there regardless of what the exact mechanism is. But I certainly agree that looking even closer at the relationship between earthquakes and more immediate geomagnetic activity would be even better, and could probably yield greater insights.

3 hours ago, _00_ said:

in perspective: a normal proton current density vector is about 6.54×10−7A/m2, if earths magnetic field did not deflect the protons total current on Earth surface would be about 83400 A, in whole earth, as comparative: a thunder is between 30-200 kA

That's a very good perspective indeed to get an idea of the currents involved, but there are two things to note here:

  1. The large difference between what the current would be without deflection and what it actually is seems to indicate that these currents can see very significant increases under conditions of the geomagnetic field being temporarily weakened by Solar activity, which after all is what the Dst (disturbance storm time) index measures, i.e. the effect of the ring current on the geomagnetic field due to the protons (and some other ions) trapped there.
     
  2. Lightning is a highly transient phenomenon, and the time a typical strike spends at peak current is in the tens of microseconds, with current typically back to a tenth of the peak current within ~100 microseconds; the ground currents do last longer, and tend to dissipate over the course of a few minutes, but due to the transience of the original flash, as well as its localized nature, I suspect that you won't get nearly the same saturation of ground currents from lightning as you would from Solar particle events. This also gets into what's known as ground-level enhancement (GLE), but due to the amount of confounding variables this typically isn't measured except for above a certain threshold; however, as we can e.g. read in this paper, there is definite GLE registered in as much as ~30% of S2 storms, increasing by ~5% each successive storm level (~35% for S3, ~40% for S4), and while this relationship isn't necessarily linear (it probably isn't) it can be inferred that there's probably a significant amount of GLE happening during S1 events too.

As you pointed out above, looking more closely into the effects of Solar particle events on ground-level enhancement and on electric currents in the ground (both near the surface and deeper underground if possible) is definitely warranted, but based on what we know the evidence seems to suggest that such effects do exist.

Edited by Philalethes Bythos
typo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far so good. I don't want to play backseat to this nor say nothing - it should be commended that we have gotten this far without so much as a fart in the direction of disorganized discussion. I have been around the internet and would hedge my bets on complete discrediting of all semblance of civility and adulthood on just about any other website. But, here we are. I will now take a figurative deep breath and stop worrying so much about humanity. Sample size of 2.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

March 2023, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Volume 128, Issue 3

Further understanding of the global electric circuit and the instantaneous energy forcing from space to ground level may help clarify some topics here. This important space weather science continues to evolve. Not only during major geomagnetic shocks, but regularly the Southward Bz allows electrons from plasma to rain into the atmosphere along magnetic field lines, with minor to more significant results.

Quote

The results of these observations reveal, for the first time, the immediate and direct cusp ionosphere response to the IP shock, which is critical for understanding the global response of the magnetosphere following an abrupt change in Interplanetory Magnetic Field (IMF) and solar wind conditions.

Quote

IP (interplanetary) shock drives magnetohydrodynamic waves that transform the magnetosphere into a new compressed steady-state configuration to balance with the increased solar wind pressure. A sudden change in the magnetic field geometry associated with SI results in perturbed VLF chorus wave activity, which could give rise to this enhanced energetic electron precipitation along the magnetic field lines.

Quote

the equatorial dayside ionosphere shows upward (downward) motion depending on the upstream component of the IMF turning southward (northward). The middle and high latitude ionospheres have seen an increase in TEC (total electron content) following an IP shock, which is thought to be associated with intensified energetic particle precipitation. The magnetosphere-ionosphere convection mechanism is controlled by both electric and magnetic fields. This vertical plasma motion identified in the HF spectrum may be due to two mechanisms: (a) an apparent downward movement of the ionosphere due to an increase in ionospheric density, and (or) (b) a change in ionospheric vertical motion related to a change in the magnetospheric electric field. Previous studies have found that HF radars do observe a sudden increase in downward vertical motion of the ionosphere which is primarily contributed by the change in the ionospheric refractive index following a sudden ionospheric density enhancement .

 

  • Like 2
  • Cool 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
2 hours ago, Isatsuki San said:

I have a question for this theory, if earthquakes are supposedly caused by geomagnetic activity, I want to know why there is no record of a great earthquake in 1869, the year of the great solar storm, the carriptong event?

As per the discussion so far in the thread I would say it's more accurate to say that the hypothesis is that earthquakes can potentially be triggered by geomagnetic activity, rather than caused solely by it; of course you could say that triggering is part of the cause, but the point is rather that the literature suggests that we're primarily talking about earthquakes that are already on the verge of being triggered. It's essentially like a "jolt" where already unstable configurations would be the only ones to potentially collapse; in this respect it could hypothetically also end up resulting in configurations more prone to collapse.

Going by this there's no reason to expect large quakes to necessarily occur after geomagnetic activity, since there's no guarantee that any large quake is on the verge of triggering (and not even any guarantee that the geomagnetic activity would trigger it even if there were). As far as I'm aware we have poor data on seismic activity going back to that time, so for all we know there could even have been a significant increase in e.g. magnitude 5 and 6 earthquakes, or even larger quakes well outside populated areas that we are much better at detecting now than then.

I think it's interesting that two mag. 7+ quakes occurred so shortly after this storm, but it's fully possible to ascribe this to coincidence too, and there have been several recorded mag. 7+ quakes this year already that were not associated with any preceding geomagnetic activity at all, most noticeably the Turkey quakes in the beginning of February, one of which almost reached mag. 8; there wasn't any significant geomagnetic activity to speak of around that time as far as I know, and there have been many mag. 7+ quakes over the past year for which that's true.

It's really more about a noticeable time-delayed correlation in the data, not a guaranteed single-cause explanation. For complex systems with a ton of variables it's extremely difficult to pinpoint exact causes, and there's still no one who is reliably capable of predicting earthquakes, so the best we can do for the time being is look at long-term trends in the data and see if we can make out any patterns.

Edited by Philalethes Bythos
typo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

As per the discussion so far in the thread I would say it's more accurate to say that the hypothesis is that earthquakes can potentially be triggered by geomagnetic activity, rather than caused solely by it; of course you could say that triggering is part of the cause, but the point is rather that the literature suggests that we're primarily talking about earthquakes that are already on the verge of being triggered. It's essentially like a "jolt" where already unstable configurations would be the only ones to potentially collapse; in this respect it could hypothetically also end up resulting in configurations more prone to collapse.

Going by this there's no reason to expect large quakes to necessarily occur after geomagnetic activity, since there's no guarantee that any large quake is on the verge of triggering (and not even any guarantee that the geomagnetic activity would trigger it even if there were). As far as I'm aware we have poor data on seismic activity going back to that time, so for all we know there could even have been a significant increase in e.g. magnitude 5 and 6 earthquakes, or even larger quakes well outside populated areas that we are much better at detecting now than then.

I think it's interesting that two mag. 7+ quakes occurred so shortly after this storm, but it's fully possible to ascribe this to coincidence too, and there have be several recorded mag. 7+ quakes this year already that were not associated with any preceding geomagnetic activity at all, most noticeably the Turkey quakes in the beginning of February, one of which almost reached mag. 8; there wasn't any significant geomagnetic activity to speak of around that time as far as I know, and there have been many mag. 7+ quakes over the past year for which that's true.

It's really more about a noticeable time-delayed correlation in the data, not a guaranteed single-cause explanation. For complex systems with a ton of variables it's extremely difficult to pinpoint exact causes, and there's still no one who is reliably capable of predicting earthquakes, so the best we can do for the time being is look at long-term trends in the data and see if we can make out any patterns.

From most articles I’ve read I totally agree. It is being recognized as an important risk factor.

This is a very common interpretation we do all the time in my area of knowledge (medicine).

It could some day be recognized as a tool, not needing to be an exact and always positive correlation.

The main arguments against are:

- strong storms not leading to quakes

- quakes not ocurring in 11-year cycles

- quakes that are not related to any known storms

- storms do not point to quake locations

Those arguments seem pretty biased to me and make me think if the same articles I’ve read have really been taken seriously as they seem pretty well-designed.

Edited by Paulo Scaldaferri
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paulo Scaldaferri said:

Maybe this is the moment to remind of the recurring quake theory that is still so controversial.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7712061/

That's definitely an excellent article that does seem to indicate that there's a connection.

In contrast to that I'd strongly advise avoiding sensationalist and catastrophist channels like the one you just posted, because those people do not do a good job of reflecting the actual data, and make up a lot of connections that aren't really there to make the relationship seem stronger than what it seems to be in reality. They are more concerned with rationalizing their own exaggerated claims than being reasonable; if earthquakes happen right after geomagnetic storms they'll never doubt the connection for a second, and if earthquakes happen under prolonged calm geomagnetic conditions they'll quickly start reaching for untenable explanations. At least that's been my limited experience with that and similar channels like it, and there's a certain attitude in general associated with such that I don't think has a place in scientific discourse, but perhaps people who have excellent powers of discernment can watch and listen to those people and sift out the occasional gem from all the filth.

Personally I'd prefer sticking to more scientifically minded discussion, using primarily sources like the one above, or at least ones that aren't incessantly trying to prove something they don't really know whether is true or not in the first place.

Edited by Philalethes Bythos
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

That's definitely an excellent article that does seem to indicate that there's a connection.

In contrast to that I'd strongly advise avoiding sensationalist and catastrophist channels like the one you just posted, because those people do not do a good job of reflecting the actual data, and make up a lot of connections that aren't really there to make the relationship seem stronger than what it seems to be in reality. They are more concerned with rationalizing their own exaggerated claims than being reasonable; if earthquakes happen right after geomagnetic storms they'll never doubt the connection for a second, and if earthquakes happen under prolonged calm geomagnetic conditions they'll quickly start reaching for untenable explanations. At least that's been my limited experience with that and similar channels like it, and there's a certain attitude in general associated with such that I don't think have a place in scientific discourse, but perhaps people who have excellent powers of discernment can watch and listen to those people and sift out the occasional gem from all the filth.

Personally I'd prefer sticking to more scientifically minded discussion, using primarily sources like the one above, or at least ones that aren't incessantly trying to prove something they don't really know whether is true or not in the first place.

Great, I was not aware of that. I was trying to find a smmary of the recent quakes (as I noticed 2 mag 7) and this video appeared. Thanks for the hint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you also agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.