Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

earth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 246 posts

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#71

Post by CleaveIt2Beaver »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #36
MobiusHorizons wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wikipedia article was actually pretty interesting on this point. They suggest that 10 is commonly used, but other bases may be contextually relevant. > An order of magnitude is an approximation of the logarithm of a value relative to some contextually understood reference value, usually 10 I guess you could think of it like a _really_ low precision float or something. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_mag…

I suspect the phrase is a cliche often used to sound scientific and sometimes by folks unaware, like how description of growth as “exponential” is a cliche used by non-mathematical discussion.

I agree with this. As a layman, I've always understood "orders of magnitude larger" to just mean "way too big" and "exponential" growth to imply "out of control".

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#72

Post by dekhn »

ordu wrote: post #65
dekhn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't disagree with your description, there is an awful lot of scientific output which is really just fishing for significance (IE, runnings lots of tests without corrections), publication, claim credit for discovering something, and it never actually gets followed-up on to see if the claim generalizes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging I think probably the most important thing is to get scientists…

This problem is mostly a problem of social sciences. In physics it is important to have a theoretic explanation, if there is no explanation then physicists become excited and start to dig really hard. They value theoretic explanations not correlations. In contrast social sciences lack a good theory, they substitute quality of a theory with a quantity of theories. So it is even important correlations often impossible…

it's quite common in medical research, even highly quantitative work. And I've seen it in every field I've worked in, which spans biology, physics, chemistry, typically with a quantitative bent.

I once had an advisor edit my draft over night and submit it as a paper with a bunch of juiced up numbers that weren't true, but made sense to the advisor even if the underlying scripts I ran didn't support it. I complained to them and the paper was withdrawn before publication, and immediately left their group. this was in quantitative biology- hard core bioinformatics with very sophisticated modelling.

But yeah, real experimental physics is hard to fake since reproduction is usually more straightforward than in other fields.

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#73

Post by Enginerrrd »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #33
idlewords wrote: post #16

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…

In fact i hypothesise they've inverted cause and effect. Tectonic movements absolutely have the energy to move the earths magnetic field and the magnetic field blocks cosmic radiation. Something that moves the magnetic field would allow more cosmic radiation There's only a handful of detectors outside of earths magnetic field. Orbiting satellites are even within its field of influence. Comparing this data to the meas…

From the article, that is in fact their explanation. There's just possibly some other data that could point the other way, but it's not heavily emphasized.

There have been other studies that showed weird correlations to ionospheric activity and earthquakes, but only ever in retrospect.

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#74

Post by blueprint »

vanderZwan wrote: post #70
zackees wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Fringe scientists” have been saying that cosmic and solar particles have been causing earthquakes for a long time. It seems counter intuitive but an analogy is very simple: A 15 mph breeze will do almost nothing to push a person, but will exert tremendous force on a sail of sufficient size. Earth, in this analogy, is a really big sail.

The counter-argument is equally simple: a sail is a surface. The earth is a sphere. A sphere made of solid rock the size of a sail will be even less moved by a 15 mph breeze than this hypothetical person.

you're missing the analogy. the surface area of the sail is the entire volume of eg piezoelectrically responsive rocks - so it's a gigantic sail

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#75

Post by user6723 »

The Disaster Prediction App will show you the current state of the sun, it’s effects on Earth’s space weather, earthquake events, and areas of the Earth likely to have large earthquakes in the coming days. There is a space weather portion of the App and an Earthquake portion of the App.

https://9rese.com/disaster-prediction-app/

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#76

Post by 0xr0kk3r »

phreeza wrote: post #17

In other news, the number of sociology graduates strongly correlates with the number of non-commercial space launches in a given year! https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations In all seriousness though, it is pretty easy to find such correlations and I would take them with a huge grain of salt. For example there was a long-running theory that sunspots had a causal relationship to influenza epidemics, which tu…

The article points out that the researchers have a premise grounded in science for their correlation. That's the difference between shouting "correlation doesn't equal causation" and actually understanding how correlation is applied.

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#77

Post by kansface »

lanstin wrote: post #47
aaomidi wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there’s a 15 day delay between them so, I think it’s be harder to have the opposite :D

The article mentions that a thing could change the core magnetic stuff, which deflects cosmic rays, and triggers other changes that in two weeks percolate up to an earthquake. This is a statistical finding, needs a theory to explain. I mean it could be some weird trajectories in a chaotic fluid flow of liquid iron in the core that causes both.

I suppose some earthquakes could be kicked off by changes in fluid flow, but also, 2 weeks of data is enough degrees of freedom to find any relationship you'd like.

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#78

Post by [deleted] »

hughw wrote: post #24
mrb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tectonic plates are nearly permanently in a "sensitive arrangement", as you say. Compressive, shear, and tensional stress is the normal. Plates accumulate more and more stress over time, until a small trigger causes the plates to slip and release all that energy at once (earthquake). In other words, tectonic plates are nearly permanently in a state similar to a boulder delicately balanced on top of a mountain.

Right, the potential energy due to stress in the crust could be released to kinetic energy by a falling feather or some cosmic rays, would be the idea. There doesn't need to be the same energy in cosmic rays as released by the earthquake.

[deleted]

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#79

Post by busyant »

dekhn wrote: post #72
ordu wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This problem is mostly a problem of social sciences. In physics it is important to have a theoretic explanation, if there is no explanation then physicists become excited and start to dig really hard. They value theoretic explanations not correlations. In contrast social sciences lack a good theory, they substitute quality of a theory with a quantity of theories. So it is even important correlations often impossible…

it's quite common in medical research, even highly quantitative work. And I've seen it in every field I've worked in, which spans biology, physics, chemistry, typically with a quantitative bent. I once had an advisor edit my draft over night and submit it as a paper with a bunch of juiced up numbers that weren't true, but made sense to the advisor even if the underlying scripts I ran didn't support it. I complained t…

> I once had an advisor edit my draft over night and submit it as a paper with a bunch of juiced up numbers that weren't true,

I'm stating the obvious here, but that is not a good advisor in any sense. It must have been difficult to leave, but it would be the only reasonable response.

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#80

Post by detrites »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #41
hammock wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the mechanism is true, could this information be used by humans to control earthquakes? There have always been a lot of theories around projects like HAARP that have the capability to send a lot of energy deep into the earth.

I think you vastly underestimate the scale and energies involved in geological processes. HAARP is a ~4 megawatt radio transmitter. That's it. It doesn't have mysterious unknown abilities to send energy deep underground.

Theorising I've seen on this - though, I don't recall where - suggested targeting resonances with HAARP in a similar way to how a human singer can shatter a wineglass, by projecting the crystals frequency, causing it to oscillate itself to pieces.

That is high-watt transmission power may not be required. And further, it was suggested it's not done in isolation by HAARP but cooperatively with various transmitters also transmitting the same frequency at the same target - using standing waves.

It makes sense conceptually as an idea but I'm not sure there if there's any evidence of it?

Post reply on HN