51–60 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“There may or may not be an earthquake somewhere in the world, including oceans, in 15 days” is not a very useful warning though, if not harmful.
It would be better than anything else we have at the moment
The key claim in the paper ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.12310.pdf ) is that there are detectable changes in cosmic ray activity around 15 days before major seismic events. One posited mechanism is that stuff happens deep in the earth that affects the magnetic field first, and then kicks off some big earthquake. But they don't rule out loopier ideas (like sunspot activity driving changes in the Earth's dynamo that the…
It's fine to form a hypothesis from old data ... but it's not a theory yet until that hypothesis is challenged by (and isn't falsified by) future data :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Catastrophe as in many possible earthquakes, if the hypothesis is correct?
>Catastrophe as in many possible earthquakes, if the hypothesis is correct? No, wiping out the entire electrical grid and all electronics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/b8592914-c53a-4c84...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“There may or may not be an earthquake somewhere in the world, including oceans, in 15 days” is not a very useful warning though, if not harmful.
It would be better than anything else we have at the moment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea is loopy because the energy that reaches the earth from even a massive solar flare is orders of magnitude less than the energy released by a major earthquake, and that is orders of magnitudes less than the energies that drive the dynamo in the Earth's core. It's possible for a falling leaf to hit a mountain in just such a way that it dislodges a boulder balanced on top, but you need to tell a pretty compelli…
Consider how an atomic bomb requires relatively little energy input compared to what is released. Combined with how very little practical observation we have of what's really going on in the Earth's core. It is certainly possible some phenomena is in play with Earthquakes.
> Dr. Homola states, “In the scientific world, it is accepted that a discovery can be said to have been made when the statistical confidence level of the corroborating data reaches five sigma, or standard deviations.”
> Homola continues, “For the observed correlation, we obtained more than six sigma, which means a chance of less than one in a billion that the correlation is due to chance. We therefore have a very good statistical basis for claiming that we have discovered a truly existing phenomenon. The only question is, is it really the one we were expecting?”
This is not what p-values mean! P-values are not at all the chance of a result being erroneous. It's an unfortunately widespread misconception among people who should know better.
The key claim in the paper ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.12310.pdf ) is that there are detectable changes in cosmic ray activity around 15 days before major seismic events. One posited mechanism is that stuff happens deep in the earth that affects the magnetic field first, and then kicks off some big earthquake. But they don't rule out loopier ideas (like sunspot activity driving changes in the Earth's dynamo that the…
This is good research. >One thing that troubles me in the paper is that the researchers appear to have gone looking for precursor patterns in an ad hoc way, with no physical theory in mind, just trying different binning techniques and delays until they got a signal. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact this is how most science is done. This is pure experiment - try things and see what comes up. You're conflating…
Pedantically speaking, it is not an experiment, it is an observation. Experiment is a kind of study where you control independent variable. In this case no cosmic radiation nor seismic activity were not manipulated by scientists. It is the reason why they speak about correlation but not causation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment#Observational_studi...
> He emphasizes that the Earth’s magnetic field, a result of eddy currents in our planet’s liquid core, alters the trajectory of primary cosmic radiation’s charged particles. > Therefore, any substantial earthquakes linked to disturbances in the Earth’s dynamo flows would alter the magnetic field, thus impacting the path of primary cosmic radiation. The fallout of these alterations would be apparent in the changes in…
Of course. That's one reason among many of thinking this is all bullshit.
The key claim in the paper ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.12310.pdf ) is that there are detectable changes in cosmic ray activity around 15 days before major seismic events. One posited mechanism is that stuff happens deep in the earth that affects the magnetic field first, and then kicks off some big earthquake. But they don't rule out loopier ideas (like sunspot activity driving changes in the Earth's dynamo that the…
Not that I believe any of this, but it seems we're just pulling stuff out of our asses so I figured I'd give it a shot.