111–120 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Atomic bombs don't simply assemble themselves naturally though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or there's a common trigger event, like, say, a large gravitational wave or a passing cloud of weakly interacting matter(dark matter?) which triggers both increased cosmic ray emissions along with earthquakes. 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.
we should definitely just reverse the shield polarity and be done by the third act. hopefully the robot can learn a lesson about humanity before the end credits.
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…
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.
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…
If this was real, would it not be easier to measure the perturbation of the magnetic field than measure the cosmic rays being let in by the perturbed magnetic field?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if I'd wanted a career in science and didn't have ethics, then they would have been a good advisor because they knew exactly how to ride their wave of falsehood to a professorship at Berkeley. It wasn't hard to leave, I just contacted another professor at berkeley and joined their lab the next day. The new advisor, while fairly dull, was methodic and pedantic and the idea of faking or juicing results would prob…
So, you're basically telling me that there is (or was) a bioinformatics prof @ Berkeley who was fucking with the data. Yeeeesh. I guess my science career was relatively clean. I knew a few fellow students who got screwed over by their advisors in the sense that the advisors demanded an excessive amount of publishable work to graduate. And I saw plenty of personality conflicts, many of which could be lain squarely in…
When I first got to grad school I immediately went to a group that had published a paper "solving parts of protein folding" using a lab-written code. Some 1 year after the paper was written, the PI could not give me that code, "because it had been lost when an SGI was reinstalled". I don't really trust results in papers unless I can see and hold code and reproduce the author's work, or a highly competent scientist implements their own version (I'm no good at reading papers and writing code to implement it, then run through all the steps of reproducing the original paper.)
Another enlightening moment was when a more senior grad student told me: make sure everything you do ties back to medical research, even if the relationship is extremely distant. You can get money from NIH from curing senator's family's diseases (cancer and heart disease).
When I was finally starting to apply for funding on my own through the NIH R01 grant program, I was turned down, without a score (meaning it was worthless and never should be funded). The next year, I was on the study section for that grant section and saw several more experienced PIs submit proposals that were very similar to (likely copied from) mine, and they were funded. I later learned I needed to spend several years reviewing grants before I knew enough to write a successful grant (oh, and make friends with everybody else in the study section, too).
On another study section dedicated to funding moving academic data and compute to the cloud, I turned down several grants because they asked for money for closet (on-prem) clusters. I was not asked to return, because the people I turned down were influential.
Basically, as has been pointed out many times before, the incentive system in academia is perverse and does not help people like me who just want to do high quality research but take our time to get the details right, and not get in competitions with other, more aggressive scientists. Many of us self-select out of science and end up as computer engineers or ML engineers or whatever in industry.
Related : Earthquakes here on earth DO emit light !! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_lights
If there is a link between cosmic radiation and earthquakes (and that's a very big "if"), could it be Cherenkov radiation caused by super-high-energy particles exceeding the speed of electromagnetic radiation in bedrock/soil/whatever (not C, obviously, but the lower speed that the radiation travels through that media)? Basically a colossal natural version of detecting neutrinos by their flashes of light in a tank of water?
[1] https://twitter.com/webcamsdemexico/status/15729247312584622...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We aren't talking about the earth being blown off course though, just that there is a large amount of energy that was previously unaccounted for and that this energy is large enough to trigger an earth quake at vulnerable parts.
Do the back-of-the-envelope computation of how much energy reaches Earth from a coronal mass ejection and see how well your idea holds up. (a typical flare is 10^16 grams of matter moving at about 450 km/sec)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We aren't talking about the earth being blown off course though, just that there is a large amount of energy that was previously unaccounted for and that this energy is large enough to trigger an earth quake at vulnerable parts.
Do the back-of-the-envelope computation of how much energy reaches Earth from a coronal mass ejection and see how well your idea holds up. (a typical flare is 10^16 grams of matter moving at about 450 km/sec)
Moreover, your suggestion seems to indicate that you’re only considering kinetic energy, which would be a very myopic and reductionist take on these matters.