Jump to content

Unproven theories


Marcel de Bont
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

On 4/25/2023 at 12:39 PM, 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/

Right after a near 3 day kp 7-8 storm:

 

Seems like we got at least a 6.6 today... plus many 4+ 

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=-89.98069,-383.90625&extent=89.98069,195.46875&map=false

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MissNeona said:

That's because the Earth's crust is constantly shifting from dynamic forces well beneath actual observable depth. Wow, 606k people are subbed to that guy, and evidently never clicked his About section to see the disclaimer. Incredible stupidity at work here, and certainly no science to be found. I am fast losing hope for humanity seeing this.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MissNeona said:

The article I mentioned basically points that there is a statistically positive correlation of increased KP 7 or greater geomagnetic storms with increased detection of Magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes over a period of about 9 days after the solar event.

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

10 hours ago, MissNeona said:

Looking at the data here there doesn't seem to be any significant increase in Mw 4+ quakes as far as I can tell; I haven't downloaded and crunched the numbers, but looks like it's been steady at around 20-40 quakes per day since well before the geomagnetic activity.

They've also got that larger quake listed as an Mw 6.0; for deep and remote quakes there's generally a lot of guesswork and extrapolation involved, so I'd be prone to go with the more conservative estimate there. 

I don't think it's that easy to spot the seemingly existent correlation in the data, and after any single given period of geomagnetic activity it's not a certainty to see elevated levels of seismic activity. For now I'd say the two Mw 7+ quakes that occurred on the same day as the storm would be the best possible indicator, but as mentioned previously it could be coincidence; it is noteworthy though, I believe there's something like ~15 Mw 7+ quakes each year, and for two to occur on the same day when that day had very notable geomagnetic activity would almost certainly crop up as a statistical aberration if one were to consider those factors independent.

Addendum:

I just crunched some numbers from the last 5000 entries of the EMSC list I linked to above, dating back ~4 months, and during that period there were ~40.8 Mw 4+ quakes per day, whereas since (and including) 23/04 (which is when geomagnetic activity picked up) and to yesterday (since today isn't over yet) the number of Mw 4+ quakes has only been 35.2 per day, a decrease.

Meanwhile the number of Mw 5+ quakes has seen an increase from ~4.66 per day to 5.4 per day in the same period, Mw 6+ a slight decrease from ~0.43 per day to 0.4 per day, and Mw 7+ has seen the already noted significant increase from ~0.08 per day to 0.4 per day, a 5-fold increase.

Note that these numbers should by no means be considered as representative of any large-scale correlations at all; for other time periods after geomagnetic activity the numbers could potentially be completely different, this was just to give a quick overview.

Since the data in that list also covers last month, one could look at the same time period (a total of 6 days) starting on when geomagnetic activity picked up then, which was 23/03. There we find that there were no such increases at all, and in fact that decreases from the overall mean were seen at all magnitudes during that specific time period, down to 38.2, 2.6, 0.2, and 0 for Mw 4+, 5+, 6+, and 7+ respectively.

In other words, this is more or less exactly what we'd expect: it's difficult, if not impossible, to look at single instances of seismic activity following geomagnetic activity and try to construe any relationship between the two from that alone. I still think the two Mw 7+ quakes are quite interesting in and of themselves, especially considering that the storm is considered the strongest in quite a few years (which is to be expected, since Solar activity is picking up again now as we head towards maximum), but for now it's probably better to just consider it as a data point that will contribute to an increase in the correlation and leave it at that.

The calculated values:

Quote

2022-12-27 to 2023-04-27
------------------------
Mw 4+: 4978 quakes in total, 40.803 quakes per day
Mw 5+: 568 quakes in total, 4.656 quakes per day
Mw 6+: 52 quakes in total, 0.426 quakes per day
Mw 7+: 10 quakes in total, 0.082 quakes per day
------------------------

2023-04-23 to 2023-04-27
------------------------
Mw 4+: 176 quakes in total, 35.2 quakes per day
Mw 5+: 27 quakes in total, 5.4 quakes per day
Mw 6+: 2 quakes in total, 0.4 quakes per day
Mw 7+: 2 quakes in total, 0.4 quakes per day
------------------------

2023-03-23 to 2023-03-27
------------------------
Mw 4+: 191 quakes in total, 38.2 quakes per day
Mw 5+: 13 quakes in total, 2.6 quakes per day
Mw 6+: 1 quakes in total, 0.2 quakes per day
Mw 7+: 0 quakes in total, 0.0 quakes per day
------------------------
 

 

Edited by Philalethes
typos
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Christopher S. said:

That's because the Earth's crust is constantly shifting from dynamic forces well beneath actual observable depth. Wow, 606k people are subbed to that guy, and evidently never clicked his About section to see the disclaimer. Incredible stupidity at work here, and certainly no science to be found. I am fast losing hope for humanity seeing this.

From a point of view of a non-specialist on Astronomy (but specialist on a completely different human science). Let me bring some insight on what makes “us” (people like me) very often fall very often for bad sources (being said that very often I read a lot of the scientific articles provided).

Often I find very good explanations like this:

It is an amazing explanation. But it gets frustrating when Dr Buffet just claims at the very end that: magnetic changes never caused a big problem… I mean we are actually aware of the studies about of what happened 42.000 years ago on the last excursion… Neanderthals just went extinct “coincidentally” or maybe because of the influence of sapiens that did not even spread over the same geografical areas?

Or often on the discredit of the correlation of geomagnetic storms and solar events. Well, I’ve actually read entirelly the most cited article (Hongyan Chen et al) on that and others corroborating the idea. Simple explanations that have no relation at all with the authors claim go far from explaining to me that this correlation is false. 

Or explanations that hazardous solar events do not happen often while I’ve actually read Fusa Myiake’s article and others that followed…

I mean, I’m very aware of the uncertainties of science, of good and bad articles, of the important role of a good academical formation before understanding well many subjects (but I’m a neurosurgeon, I have good insight on things we understand well and many things we doubt even being specialists).

When we find explanations by people that take into consideration details of these subjects we “get caught”. I can also perceive the huge problems of doomsday-sources because they very often exaggerate things (but they have been very efficient on providing sources for some claims). Oh the other hand, completelly denying risks does not help the build up of confidence of non-specialists IMHO.

Sorry if any of these arguments seemed rude at any moment, no intention at all, I just wished to give to people with a solid academical formation an insight of what goes on our minds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To try to better understand the earthquake detected activity during the recent geomagnetic storm I created this graphic with the 5 or greater earthquakes, corrected them for best comparison according to the Richter Scale and plotted the sum by day and kp index.

Source fo global earthquakes: CSEM-EMSC

Source of Kp index: GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences

Made by a non-expert.

EarthquakesVersusStorm.jpg.d6c7daf56fd48e3e0458139cea3b78fa.jpg

 

Day (April 2023)       Σ Corrected Mag Kp (Max GFZ) Earthquakes (≥5)
15/4 814335 2,7 5  5,5  5,6  
16/4 609801 1,7 5,1  5,1  5,2  5,3  
17/4 974717 1,7 5  5  5  5  5  5,5  5,2  
18/4 4379179 4,7 6,6  5,6  
19/4 2619262 4,0 5,1  5  6,3  5,6  
20/4 316228 2,3 5,5  
21/4 2498581 3,0 5,3  5,3  5,5  5,2  5,9  5,8  5,3  
22/4 3578122 2,3 5,4  5,7  5,8  5,3  6,3  
23/4 735097 8,0 5,4  5,3  5,2  5,1  
24/4 26611712 8,0 7,1 5 5 5,1 5 5,6 5,3 5,4 7,1  5,2  
25/4 1008257 3,0 5,2  5,4  5,3  5,3  5,3  
26/4 1069200 3,3 5,1  5,1  5,5  5,7  
27/4 583908 4,3 5,2  5,3  5  5,1  
28/4 2657642 4,0 5,1  5,7  5,5  5,5  6  5,6  
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Paulo Scaldaferri said:

To try to better understand the earthquake detected activity during the recent geomagnetic storm I created this graphic with the 5 or greater earthquakes, corrected them for best comparison according to the Richter Scale and plotted the sum by day and kp index.

Source fo global earthquakes: CSEM-EMSC

Source of Kp index: GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences

Made by a non-expert.

EarthquakesVersusStorm.jpg.d6c7daf56fd48e3e0458139cea3b78fa.jpg

 

Day (April 2023)       Σ Corrected Mag Kp (Max GFZ) Earthquakes (≥5)
15/4 814335 2,7 5  5,5  5,6  
16/4 609801 1,7 5,1  5,1  5,2  5,3  
17/4 974717 1,7 5  5  5  5  5  5,5  5,2  
18/4 4379179 4,7 6,6  5,6  
19/4 2619262 4,0 5,1  5  6,3  5,6  
20/4 316228 2,3 5,5  
21/4 2498581 3,0 5,3  5,3  5,5  5,2  5,9  5,8  5,3  
22/4 3578122 2,3 5,4  5,7  5,8  5,3  6,3  
23/4 735097 8,0 5,4  5,3  5,2  5,1  
24/4 26611712 8,0 7,1 5 5 5,1 5 5,6 5,3 5,4 7,1  5,2  
25/4 1008257 3,0 5,2  5,4  5,3  5,3  5,3  
26/4 1069200 3,3 5,1  5,1  5,5  5,7  
27/4 583908 4,3 5,2  5,3  5  5,1  
28/4 2657642 4,0 5,1  5,7  5,5  5,5  6  5,6  

Good visualization; I have a couple of comments on this, though:

First of all, you should probably provide what you are doing to "correct" the provided magnitudes and thus arrive at those sums. As far as I'm aware the values listed on EMSC are already corrected for the various types of quakes to provide a single comparable scale; if you're applying some standardized correction that is lacking from that data it's best mentioning it, and even more so if it's something non-standard.

Secondly, you should probably try doing the same for e.g. last month's storm too (ideally for as many similar events as possible, of course) for at least some comparison; a single instance of values coinciding is easy to misinterpret as a stronger relationship than exists in reality, especially given how humans are generally wired to try to find relationships based on limited instances, making us prone to think we've found a pattern or signal even if it's just random variations in noise, a tendency known as apophenia (such as e.g. the clustering illusion). As I mentioned above there did seem to be some slight increases this storm, but apparently not much last storm, if anything at all; when looking at the above graph it would be very easy to conclude that there's a strong association between the two variables, whereas in reality the actual association could be much weaker. It's ultimately a matter of this being a low sample size of only one storm, and thus that it's almost impossible (except perhaps in extreme cases) to achieve a desired level of statistical signifiance. That also applies to the comparison I made above myself, which of course is not meant to show that no relationship exists (as I've mentioned, I do believe that there is in fact a relationship between the two), as it could equally well be that last storm was the fluke and that there will tend to be a visible association; it was just to show how you're at least not always going to see a big jump in seismic activity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Philalethes said:

First of all, you should probably provide what you are doing to "correct" the provided magnitudes and thus arrive at those sums. As far as I'm aware the values listed on EMSC are already corrected for the various types of quakes to provide a single comparable scale; if you're applying some standardized correction that is lacking from that data it's best mentioning it, and even more so if it's something non-standard.

Great points.

The correction is the standard for Richter scale magnitude, so 10^magnitude.

The detected earthquakes considered is on the table and the source is on top (the last column does not appear on my phone view).

To me it seems very likely there is a good correlation (quite controvert between different papers), it bothers me when it is argued that there is evidence of no correlation.

I’ll try to do the same for other storms. Agree this is too small probably for statistical significance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paulo Scaldaferri said:

The correction is the standard for Richter scale magnitude, so 10^magnitude.

Alright, so not any correction, just computing the relative factors so you can add them; that's sensible, I was just wondering exactly how you arrived at those numbers (useful to plot it myself). I don't know if there are any pitfalls to doing that, but it's probably a useful metric. Maybe it'd be useful to include Mw 4+ quakes too, since some periods have well over 10 times as many such quakes as Mw 5+ ones, so that it could potentially be significant when doing it this way. I didn't check the frequency of Mw 3+ quakes to see if the same goes for that, maybe I'll do that if I find a good historical dataset of quakes dating back further.

4 hours ago, Paulo Scaldaferri said:

To me it seems very likely there is a good correlation (quite controvert between different papers), it bothers me when it is argued that there is evidence of no correlation.

As I said, I also think there is some correlation; but I don't think this single instance of a storm alone proves that, and my point was just that it could be very easy to get misled by the visualization you posted if not careful, since such associations can and do crop up in random and noisy data.

Also, I wonder if using the maximum Kp is really the most accurate in this regard; I see that you did note that it's the maximum, but this could perhaps skew it a bit considering e.g. that this only was the case for a few hours around midnight between those dates. I think it would perhaps be better to use the Ap-index instead when looking at the data day-by-day to avoid those extremes, and also since it might be easier to see the relative differences in geomagnetic activity that way due to how it's a linear scale.

Here I've plotted those two against each other, using the same computation of the sums of the magnitudes as you described, but including Mw 4+ quakes as well; I've normalized those relative values to between 0 and 1 by dividing them all by the maximum value (doesn't change anything about the data itself, just the values on the y-axis):

quakesap.png

I would argue the same as I have above, that it's not so easy to spot the overall correlation in this data, even though it matches up well with the last storm. In many places there is significant geomagnetic activity without much subsequent seismic activity, and there is also the huge Turkey earthquake which followed a period of relatively low geomagnetic activity; you could argue that such huge quakes are outliers, but then again the overall correlation is meant to hold particularly for larger quakes, so even though this one was not preceded by heightened activity you'd at least expect some others to be so if you look back even further (although it is conceivable that geomagnetic activity could trigger more Mw 5+ quakes up to only a certain threshold too, but that's getting into too much complexity for now if you ask me).

Here I've plotted only the Mw 5+ quakes, which yielded a list that goes back almost 3 years:

quakesap5plus.png

Here it seems to be even more difficult to spot any clear correlations by just looking at it, as there are many periods with significant seismic activity without preceding geomagnetic activity, and conversely also periods with geomagnetic activity without subsequent seismic activity. Of course this is to be expected, at least given the type of correlation I'm assuming, which is essentially my point.

The most noteworthy seismic activity here seems to be the two Mw 8+ quakes in July-August of 2021, and also the day of tremendous seismic activity in March earlier that year, 04/03/2021. This latter day defines the maximum here, and saw three Mw 6.x quakes, two Mw 7.x quakes, and one huge Mw 8.1 quake, as well as a great number of Mw 5+ quakes in total (I believe I counted 39 total, way above average), and the activity was elevated the day afterwards too; I'd be curious to know if anyone knows anything about this, although I would suspect that this was not associated with space weather at all.

Here are the overall seismic numbers for the entire period compared to that short period and that single day (note how the larger quakes count towards the smaller categories too; I added the separate values in parentheses there for clarity):

Quote

 

2020-09-02 to 2023-04-28
------------------------
Mw 5+: 4994 quakes in total, 5.229 quakes per day
Mw 6+: 375 quakes in total, 0.393 quakes per day
Mw 7+: 43 quakes in total, 0.045 quakes per day
Mw 8+: 3 quakes in total, 0.003 quakes per day
------------------------

2021-03-04 to 2021-03-07
------------------------
Mw 5+: 179 quakes in total, 44.75 quakes per day
Mw 6+: 12 quakes in total, 3.0 quakes per day
Mw 7+: 3 quakes in total, 0.75 quakes per day
Mw 8+: 1 quakes in total, 0.25 quakes per day
------------------------

2021-03-04
------------------------
Mw 5+: 39 quakes (Mw 5.x: 33 quakes)
Mw 6+: 6 quakes (Mw 6.x: 3 quakes)
Mw 7+: 3 quakes (Mw 7.x: 2 quakes)
Mw 8+: 1 quakes (Mw 8.x: 1 quakes)
------------------------

And lastly, for good measure, here's a plot for the first time period (including Mw 4+ quakes) using the maximum Kp-index each day instead, just as you plotted above but going further back:

quakesmaxkp.png

Still arguably very hard to see any correlation just by looking at it.

Edited by Philalethes
added last plot, some more data
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Philalethes said:

Maybe it'd be useful to include Mw 4+ quakes too, since some periods have well over 10 times as many such quakes as Mw 5+

Agree, probably will collect more numbers and be more significant.

 

9 hours ago, Philalethes said:

maximum Kp is really the most accurate in this regard; I see that you did note that it's the maximum, but this could perhaps skew it a bit considering e.g. that this only was the case for a few hours around midnight between those dates.

Also agree. I did this way just for simplicity of execution, but for a scientific paper I believe it would be much better to follow 3-hourly since this info is provided.

Maybe strong but short-duration storms could impact a lot less.

9 hours ago, Philalethes said:

Here it seems to be even more difficult to spot any clear correlations by just looking at it, as there are many periods with significant seismic activity without preceding geomagnetic activity, and conversely also periods with geomagnetic activity without subsequent seismic activity. Of course this is to be expected, at least given the type of correlation I'm assuming, which is essentially my point.

I believe in a long term graph it is harder to see correlations, because isolated earthquakes may polute the view.

It could possibly just fuel the process but IMHO it could still be a useful information.

Edited by Paulo Scaldaferri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2023 at 9:03 PM, Paulo Scaldaferri said:

To try to better understand the earthquake detected activity during the recent geomagnetic storm I created this graphic with the 5 or greater earthquakes, corrected them for best comparison according to the Richter Scale and plotted the sum by day and kp index.

Source fo global earthquakes: CSEM-EMSC

Source of Kp index: GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences

Made by a non-expert.

EarthquakesVersusStorm.jpg.d6c7daf56fd48e3e0458139cea3b78fa.jpg

 

Day (April 2023)       Σ Corrected Mag Kp (Max GFZ) Earthquakes (≥5)
15/4 814335 2,7 5  5,5  5,6  
16/4 609801 1,7 5,1  5,1  5,2  5,3  
17/4 974717 1,7 5  5  5  5  5  5,5  5,2  
18/4 4379179 4,7 6,6  5,6  
19/4 2619262 4,0 5,1  5  6,3  5,6  
20/4 316228 2,3 5,5  
21/4 2498581 3,0 5,3  5,3  5,5  5,2  5,9  5,8  5,3  
22/4 3578122 2,3 5,4  5,7  5,8  5,3  6,3  
23/4 735097 8,0 5,4  5,3  5,2  5,1  
24/4 26611712 8,0 7,1 5 5 5,1 5 5,6 5,3 5,4 7,1  5,2  
25/4 1008257 3,0 5,2  5,4  5,3  5,3  5,3  
26/4 1069200 3,3 5,1  5,1  5,5  5,7  
27/4 583908 4,3 5,2  5,3  5  5,1  
28/4 2657642 4,0 5,1  5,7  5,5  5,5  6  5,6  

Converting your (linear) summed magnitude back into logarithmic equivalent gives a different impression

Quakes_Kpindex.jpg.b58cc71b47a3fe6bc15082736b767cfb.jpg

In any case I am not sure that we should necessarily assume that there will be a direct relationship.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 3gMike said:

Converting your (linear) summed magnitude back into logarithmic equivalent gives a different impression

Quakes_Kpindex.jpg.b58cc71b47a3fe6bc15082736b767cfb.jpg

In any case I am not sure that we should necessarily assume that there will be a direct relationship.

Can you elaborate on this calculus?

What I did was put different mag points on their exact weight as suggested by seismologic literature.

10^magnitude 

So earthquake mag 6 is 10 times more intense than 5, as the scale is supposed to represent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Paulo Scaldaferri said:

Can you elaborate on this calculus?

What I did was put different mag points on their exact weight as suggested by seismologic literature.

10^magnitude 

So earthquake mag 6 is 10 times more intense than 5, as the scale is supposed to represent.

What you did was reasonable in order to obtain a sum. All I have done is convert those linear values back into an equivalent Richter value. So now we can compare logarithmic Richter scale with logarithmic Kp index. The use of a linear scale for quake strength exaggerates the significance of the Apr 24 events. There were a total of 10 quakes that day, but the result is dominated by the two 7.1 events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an active viewer of real-time data, routinely studying events and surrounding phenomenon through various sensors and information made available to the public, I don't feel there is much support for the relationship between EQs and, strictly speaking, geomagnetic disturbances of space weather. The narrative is often made without structured and definitive data. The narrative of counter-arguments has been strawmanned; you cannot prove something, therefore it is fair to challenge unproven statements or hypotheses. 

On 4/28/2023 at 4:10 AM, Paulo Scaldaferri said:

When we find explanations by people that take into consideration details of these subjects we “get caught”. I can also perceive the huge problems of doomsday-sources because they very often exaggerate things (but they have been very efficient on providing sources for some claims). Oh the other hand, completelly denying risks does not help the build up of confidence of non-specialists IMHO.

This is where a "bad guy" projection begins; there is no denying that your body responds to the environment in nuanced ways. However, the alarmist nature of narratives that call attention to this interaction are entirely hyperbolic. Nobody is here to tell you that you should never think about your sense of magnetism or anything like that, but rather that you should not view such interactions with anxiety and stress. That is the fearmongering doing its thing, and getting you to relinquish your freedom of spirit and discovery to usually one figurehead who speaks softly with not too many syllables. Do not take the convenient route in discovering the universe, as such pitfalls await.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Paulo Scaldaferri said:

Problem is Kp is not logarithmic. Not even linear, maybe using AP… but kp is more common place for everyone

Yes, you are correct. The Help section on this website describes it as quasi-logarithmic.

Ultimately, whatever scales / indexes you use it is going to be extremely difficult to demonstrate correlation. NOAA / SWPC indicate that Kp7 represents a variation in magnetic field strength in the range 200 - 330 nT. The British Geological Survey indicates magnetic field variations at Earth's surface between 22,000nT and 67,000nT, so even a Kp7 storm represents an influence of less than 1%. Also note that the influence is concentrated at higher latitudes - hence aurora appearing mainly around the poles. Therefore, not all earthquake zones will be equally affected.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Christopher S. said:

As an active viewer of real-time data, routinely studying events and surrounding phenomenon through various sensors and information made available to the public, I don't feel there is much support for the relationship between EQs and, strictly speaking, geomagnetic disturbances of space weather. The narrative is often made without structured and definitive data.

The two studies mentioned so far (the one I posted first, this, and the one that was posted later, this) do demonstrate statistically significant time-delayed correlations in the data; given the delay, as was briefly touched upon earlier, one would either have to posit some third factor that somehow causes both Solar/geomagnetic activity and seismic activity within the bounds of that correlation, or accept that the former has a slight causative effect on the latter, which is what seems most reasonable to me.

The point of my posts above has primarily been to show that it's not really something you can easily eyeball in either direction, neither to prove nor disprove it, as it mostly crops up as a clear pattern in the data over long periods of time. The latter article is very convincing with regards to geomagnetic activity in particular, covering over 60 years and showing clearly that the probability is higher for geomagnetic storms to occur before large quakes, particularly shallow ones rather than deep ones. I would at least definitely not say that the data is poor or lacking.

To address why it can be fully possible to discover a significant relationship between the two when it's almost impossible to see based on looking at smaller chunks of data, let's e.g. say that geomagnetic activity over a certain threshold raises the probability of quakes over a given magnitude and a certain depth by some very small percentage within a certain time period afterwards, let's say only a single percent for the sake of example. Someone who is a "believer" in a much stronger relationship than really exists might try to point out every single time the variables coincide and be reluctant to address all the times they don't, while someone who is a "disbeliever" might conclude that it's just all coincidence given how it would look very much like that if the increase is so small; to actually detect the increase in this case there isn't really any alternative than to look at large amounts of data and use statistical methods to conclude whether or not the null hypothesis is tenable.

But I definitely agree with the general sentiment you're expressing in the latter half of the post, which is also what I've tried to express so far. A lot of people seem to be highly prone to exaggerating both risks and how strongly variables like the ones in question are associated, typically much more so than others downplay the evidence for a connection. I think it would be best to stick with observations and data and find out more precisely what the relationship might be rather than to exaggerate or downplay it out of hand.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Philalethes said:

The two studies mentioned so far (the one I posted first, this, and the one that was posted later, this

That is the point. What is needed to prove something. Those 2 studies were very well designed and “proved”, or better, found a positive correlation.

Other interesting papers that show this subject is far from “closed”:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258471897_Influence_of_Solar_Cycles_on_Earthquakes

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=111468

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lihua-Ma/publication/225611006_Possible_triggering_of_solar_activity_to_big_earthquakes_Ms8_in_faults_with_near_west-east_strike_in_China/links/54fc14a60cf270426d0f8c42/Possible-triggering-of-solar-activity-to-big-earthquakes-Ms8-in-faults-with-near-west-east-strike-in-China.pdf
 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergey-Pulinets/publication/228096611_A_nonlinear_background_removal_method_for_seismo-ionospheric_anomaly_analysis_under_a_complex_solar_activity_scenario_A_case_study_of_the_M90_Tohoku_earthquake/links/62d56b4a53aaaf748a064ced/A-nonlinear-background-removal-method-for-seismo-ionospheric-anomaly-analysis-under-a-complex-solar-activity-scenario-A-case-study-of-the-M90-Tohoku-earthquake.pdf
 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lucilla-De-Arcangelis/publication/226074068_Statistical_properties_and_universality_in_earthquake_and_solar_flare_occurrence/links/5694ce0708ae820ff073a744/Statistical-properties-and-universality-in-earthquake-and-solar-flare-occurrence.pdf
 

It does not look as someone still need to “prove” a correlation, as it has been done many times, but actually to the scientific community to be more confident on the studies over time.

In terms of confidence on evidence, it took us doctors far less to make correlations on smoke and lung cancer, cholestherol and strokes, high blood pressure and heart disease, and the list goes on forever… and a good one the sun and skin cancer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Paulo Scaldaferri said:

It does not look as someone still need to “prove” a correlation, as it has been done many times, but actually to the scientific community to be more confident on the studies over time.

I think it's fine to remain skeptical, and that it can still be considered unproved, although I personally agree that there seems to be clear evidence for some connection existing. There are still not a lot of good papers demonstrating it, but some of the ones that are out there are very convincing, although not all; of the papers you list above not all of them are as clear-cut as the two discussed previously if you ask me, but the second one (this) really stands out in my opinion, as they're using some of the better contemporary statistical methods for time-series data to really separate out the variables, and they're of course making sure to avoid overfitting the model by separating out test data from the training data. They also state explicitly that, despite all the Solar activity variables improving the prediction, the model is far from predictive overall, since the majority of causative factors for earthquakes are not well-modeled and the influence of Solar activity is found to be small (but non-zero).

The one discussing the potential connection to the direction of the faults for Mw 8+ quakes in relation to Solar activity also addresses an interesting topic, but the sample size for such large quakes is rather low, so I'd be very careful when it comes to drawing conclusions there.

Also, although I personally agree that there seems to be convincing evidence for a correlation, I don't think it's fair to compare it to some of the medical correlations you just listed; the evidence in most of those cases is far clearer and based on much more and better data too.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 4/29/2023 at 11:19 PM, ToMorrow said:

I'd be interested to see earthquake data compared with coronal hole streams and changes in HMF polarity.

if you are comparing seismic activity with solar energy or Sun's activity, then, this may provide you only half data probably.

the seismic activity takes place most probably at two space weather conditions.

1- when there is a huge solar attack comes to Earth.

2- When there is a huge dark energy attack on earth.

In case of solar attacks, only the dry belt, like Turkey, afganistan, pakistan belt & similar areas will be affected. In case of dark energy attack the green or water belt will be affected. Also notice that, there are possibilities that most of the dark energy attacks will invite seismic activity in the volcanic plates or nearby areas only. Solar attacks will invite seismic activities in the areas of less moisture and thick plateau.

WhatsAppImage2023-06-07at15_17.11(1).jpeg.d9cff4fa1261c2b5864c9aba18d01bff.jpegWhatsAppImage2023-06-07at15_17_11.jpeg.b199fbbf2e93b9126bb66d725eec64fc.jpeg

Currently, this is hard to conclude in this year and the next. Current time is facing both the attacks equally and with the same intensity and hence, the magnitude of Earthquakes is not very high (As expected), though the avg is higher than ever. The dark energy attacks will be prominent after 21st June and more powerful after 6th of july 2023. that time if solar attacks are controlled, most of the volcanic plates in the pacific ocean will have earthquakes with higher magnitude.

Like as shown in below pictures, the name of the countries were forecasted on 2nd may 2023 and they have received earthquakes with in next 10 days time as shown in the report of 11th may 2023. These all are the volcanic plates and the quakes were invited by the pressure of Dark energy. If you explore more tweets, you will find the country wise predictions given for turkey earthquakes also.

I had a little discussion with Frank Hoogerbeets  also, as they are focusing on planets conjunction, which has been followed largely by Indian astrologers for last thousands of years. but the root cause of the same cant be calculated only by seeing the conjunction. the conjunction can only be used to check, if there is a passage created for a solar flare or the dark energy to penetrate the solar space towards Earth.

(the forecast  tweet was in Indian language, to translate, you may take help from google.)

WhatsApp Image 2023-06-07 at 15.17.10.jpeg

  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2023 at 1:53 AM, David Silver said:

@Philalethes Bythos this is not an “unproven theory”, it is basic science albeit somewhat “new” to a mainstream audience. Science is constantly proving hypotheses with new data. The mainstream level of awareness or ignorance of the topic does not affect its truth or the validity of the scientists. In fact, we as internet chatters are barely qualified to comment on the decades of research and work done by these actual scientists…In other words, I don’t know anything about this topic, but I trust the data of people who do this for a living, and find no reason to start a fight with you personally about this topic I don’t understand. Disagreeing and becoming emotional would be highly illogical. Thanks for making me aware of an interesting aspect of space weather.

…The same is true of the bioelectric nature of human bodies and the biosphere of Earth, and how these are affected physiologically by geomagnetic disturbance. This science of chronobiology, or heliobiology, is not new, fringe, or unproven; it is a work in progress, basic science. 

I enjoy this forum, and have learned a lot through participation here. As someone on the autism spectrum with a hypersensitive constitution, I came here seeking help, but also friends, like-minded nerds, who may share my hyperfocus on learning about ALL aspects of space weather. I understand wanting to keep the forum grounded in reality and avoid the Qanon territory fearmongering of Suspicious Observers, and also avoid rambling nonsense in general. And hey, it’s your forum to do whatever you please. But I hope this new tight ship will be a place that still welcomes new science abstracts and data from space weather scientists, even if it is not a subject moderators are personally interested in or informed about yet. 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. Being nice is usually a good default. Challenging your assumptions is a healthy practice. Learning something new about space weather is fun.

yes. you are right. there is a lot to learn. we must remain open to other ideas. blocking or removing any post (which follows the decorum of the platform) may not be a good idea. We all are exploring science in our ways. findings should be testified. this may help people in future.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chyren S said:

2- When there is a huge dark energy attack on earth.

[...]

The dark energy attacks will be prominent

[...]

the pressure of Dark energy

[...]

or the dark energy to penetrate

This sounds like nonsense to me, unless you're privy to some occult knowledge that every other Solar physicist and space weather enthusiast on the planet is blind to. You're going to have to at the very least provide us with how this "dark energy" is measured, something I suspect you can't, and if you can't then you have no business talking about how it's correlated with any other variables.

1 hour ago, Chyren S said:

the magnitude of Earthquakes is not very high (As expected), though the avg is higher than ever

I don't believe that's true at all; please provide the data you're using to make this claim.

1 hour ago, Chyren S said:

the name of the countries were forecasted on 2nd may 2023 and they have received earthquakes with in next 10 days time as shown in the report of 11th may 2023

Almost no people here are able to read whatever language that is (Hindi, I suspect), and it's not possible to translate an image directly using common translation tools, you'd have to find some online service that does both optical character recognition of that language and then translates it, or do the two yourself, people here are unlikely to go through that just to read it; the responsibility is on you to translate it and post it in English.

1 hour ago, Chyren S said:

If you explore more tweets, you will find the country wise predictions given for turkey earthquakes also.

I did briefly check out your Twitter account, and what I saw was that you seem to spam "predictions", and every "prediction" you list virtually every single seismic hotspot in the world, and then you try to make it out as if you're actually "predicting" anything.

Here's a prediction of mine: somewhere in the world, sometime today, there will be an earthquake of magnitude 5 or larger; lo and behold my predictive powers.

Maybe I'm just negatively biased because you seem to be posting a lot of nonsense about things you don't seem to understand very well, but I don't see any proof at all that you're able to actually predict anything here.

1 hour ago, Chyren S said:

Frank Hoogerbeets

A proven charlatan who relies on the exact same methodology: spam "predictions", get 99% of them wrong, cheer loudly when he gets one right due to pure chance. I'm not even averse to discussing the potential effects of planetary alignments on Solar activity, but so far I haven't seen any evidence to suggest any measurable or predictive effect, and most of what he says is just pulled out of thin air.

1 hour ago, Chyren S said:

Indian astrologers

Astrology is not a scientific discipline, and there's zero evidence of its efficacy in predicting anything whatsoever. Until you can provide some clear evidence to the contrary, it remains pseudoscientific nonsense.

15 minutes ago, Chyren S said:

we must remain open to other ideas. blocking or removing any post (which follows the decorum of the platform) may not be a good idea.

There's an old saying: keep your mind open, but not so open that your brain falls out.

15 minutes ago, Chyren S said:

We all are exploring science in our ways. findings should be testified. this may help people in future.

The problem is that you're not providing and theoretical basis for anything you're saying, and you aren't really making any accurate predictions at all; in addition you're saying a lot of provably wrong nonsense. The aim of the scientific method is to be as objective as possible, so saying that "we are all exploring science in our ways" can be quite misleading in that regard.

Edited by Philalethes
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

This sounds like nonsense to me, unless you're privy to some occult knowledge that every other Solar physicist and space weather enthusiast on the planet is blind to. You're going to have to at the very least provide us with how this "dark energy" is measured, something I suspect you can't, and if you can't then you have no business talking about how it's correlated with any other variables.

I don't believe that's true at all; please provide the data you're using to make this claim.

Almost no people here are able to read whatever language that is (Hindi, I suspect), and it's not possible to translate an image directly using common translation tools, you'd have to find some online service that does both optical character recognition of that language and then translates it, or do the two yourself, people here are unlikely to go through that just to read it; the responsibility is on you to translate it and post it in English.

I did briefly check out your Twitter account, and what I saw was that you seem to spam "predictions", and every "prediction" you list virtually every single seismic hotspot in the world, and then you try to make it out as if you're actually "predicting" anything.

Here's a prediction of mine: somewhere in the world, sometime today, there will be an earthquake of magnitude 5 or larger; lo and behold my predictive powers.

Maybe I'm just negatively biased because you seem to be posting a lot of nonsense about things you don't seem to understand very well, but I don't see any proof at all that you're able to actually predict anything here.

A proven charlatan who relies on the exact same methodology: spam "predictions", get 99% of them wrong, cheer loudly when he gets one right due to pure chance. I'm not even averse to discussing the potential effects of planetary alignments on Solar activity, but so far I haven't seen any evidence to suggest any measurable or predictive effect, and most of what he says is just pulled out of thin air.

Astrology is not a scientific discipline, and there's zero evidence of its efficacy in predicting anything whatsoever. Until you can provide some clear evidence to the contrary, it remains pseudoscientific nonsense.

There's an old saying: keep your mind open, but not so open that your brain falls out.

The problem is that you're not providing and theoretical basis for anything you're saying, and you aren't really making any accurate predictions at all; in addition you're saying a lot of provably wrong nonsense. The aim of the scientific method is to be as objective as possible, so saying that "we are all exploring science in our ways" can be quite misleading in that regard.

Seems you are angry dear. I have just started. allow me some time to post my findings. We can have discussions. If you go through the twitter account, posts (old n new) you will find that we have been the only one, who have been able to forecast pandemics (all waves), cyclonic seasons, earthquakes, weather changes, temperature fluctuations and upcoming ice age. i am not saying that i am right or somebody is wrong. its just that what i know can help the world in future. if you find it illogical or nonscientific by any means, you have all right to react like this.

if not, we can be in the same team. trust me, m not a cult and not a follower of any religion. M just an engineer. I like to know the world, the way it is. i just dont believe in something because this is given by some big name. if i understand it logically and mathematically, i accept it. thats the way science works. thats the way YOU work. m at your side.....

allow me a few days to post something. whatever i have written in my "about", ill provide you details of the same. M not the best one. Best is yet to come. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Chyren S said:

you are angry dear

Pointing out that you're posting nonsense is not "anger" in any way, shape, or form. And you still haven't explained how to measure this "dark energy" of yours; I'm still waiting.

30 minutes ago, Chyren S said:

If you go through the twitter account, posts (old n new) you will find that we have been the only one, who have been able to forecast pandemics (all waves), cyclonic seasons, earthquakes, weather changes, temperature fluctuations and upcoming ice age

More nonsense; sounds like you're suffering from delusions of grandeur.

30 minutes ago, Chyren S said:

i am not saying that i am right or somebody is wrong.

Yes, you are claiming that you're right, that's exactly what you're doing when you claim to be able to forecast the above; but the evidence to support those claims is absent.

30 minutes ago, Chyren S said:

what i know can help the world in future

I strongly doubt it, given that you seem to be making it all up.

30 minutes ago, Chyren S said:

m not a cult and not a follower of any religion

A lot of the empty rhetoric you're employing demonstrates very clear similarities to such.

30 minutes ago, Chyren S said:

I like to know the world, the way it is.

Then stop making things up and start posting evidence.

30 minutes ago, Chyren S said:

i just dont believe in something because this is given by some big name. if i understand it logically and mathematically, i accept it. thats the way science works. thats the way YOU work.

What an incredibly dishonest and baseless accusation. As if that's even remotely close to anything I do. I try to rely as much as possible on the actual facts and evidence, and the theoretical underpinnings of what humans have gathered so far. In sharp contrast to this there's nothing "logical" or "mathematical" about anything you've posted so far, and from what I can tell it betrays a lack of even basic physics knowledge. You've e.g. claimed that the Solar system revolves around the center of the galaxy in a few thousand years despite how we have extremely precise parallax measurements of the distance to the galactic center and very good measurements of the speed of the Solar system around it, demonstrating clearly that it takes over 200 million years. It's statements like those that show that you don't seem to care about how science works or what's true, you seem to believe whatever you want to believe.

30 minutes ago, Chyren S said:

allow me a few days to post something

I would strongly urge you to stop posting this type of stuff until you've at least learned the basics, and if you won't heed that warning I would at the very least implore you to stop posting nonsense and start posting facts and evidence to support any statements you make.

Edited by Philalethes
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.