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

201–210 of 246 posts

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

#201

Post by mjhay »

nearbuy wrote: post #158
mjhay wrote: post #57

I think it's telling that none of the authors are geophysicists, and they definitely aren't statisticians either. The causality they're claiming just does not have any physical plausibility. > 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 co…

Unless I'm missing something, that statement appears to be correct. They don't say their result isn't erroneous. They say there is statistically only a very tiny chance that the correlation is due to chance. If the correlation is caused by an error in their experiment, their statement is still correct, since the correlation was not due to chance.

>They don't say their result isn't erroneous. They say there is statistically only a very tiny chance that the correlation is due to chance.

Again, a p-value is not the chance that a result is erroneous - the statement you made is 100% mathematically incorrect. That was a major point of my previous post that you missed. It's a common misconception that the authors of this work are victims of. The linked PDF from the American Statistical Society explains things in more detail.

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

#202

Post by mustacheemperor »

nearbuy wrote: post #158
mjhay wrote: post #57

I think it's telling that none of the authors are geophysicists, and they definitely aren't statisticians either. The causality they're claiming just does not have any physical plausibility. > 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 co…

Unless I'm missing something, that statement appears to be correct. They don't say their result isn't erroneous. They say there is statistically only a very tiny chance that the correlation is due to chance. If the correlation is caused by an error in their experiment, their statement is still correct, since the correlation was not due to chance.

At the top of the second page of that pdf:

>P-values do not measure the probability that the studied hypothesis is true, or the probability that the data were produced by random chance alone.

It was very informative for me. Worth reading.

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

#203

Post by nearbuy »

mjhay wrote: post #201
nearbuy wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm missing something, that statement appears to be correct. They don't say their result isn't erroneous. They say there is statistically only a very tiny chance that the correlation is due to chance. If the correlation is caused by an error in their experiment, their statement is still correct, since the correlation was not due to chance.

>They don't say their result isn't erroneous. They say there is statistically only a very tiny chance that the correlation is due to chance. Again, a p-value is not the chance that a result is erroneous - the statement you made is 100% mathematically incorrect. That was a major point of my previous post that you missed. It's a common misconception that the authors of this work are victims of. The linked PDF from the…

You misread me. I said that no one said a p-value is the chance the result is erroneous. They said nothing about errors whatsoever in the quoted statement.

Apologies for the double negative in my last comment.

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

#204

Post by nearbuy »

mustacheemperor wrote: post #202
nearbuy wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm missing something, that statement appears to be correct. They don't say their result isn't erroneous. They say there is statistically only a very tiny chance that the correlation is due to chance. If the correlation is caused by an error in their experiment, their statement is still correct, since the correlation was not due to chance.

At the top of the second page of that pdf: >P-values do not measure the probability that the studied hypothesis is true, or the probability that the data were produced by random chance alone . It was very informative for me. Worth reading.

Without getting nitpicky to the point where it's impossible to say anything at all without complaining it's not a perfectly complete and true statement, their statement still seems correct to me. Especially given that this is a statement for non-statisticians and they can't exactly go on a 5 minute tangent to explain exactly how p-values work.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate if they phrased it: "which means a chance of less than one in a billion of seeing a correlation this strong if it's due to chance", but I think few readers would even notice the difference.

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

#205

Post by toast0 »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #168
detrites wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The HAARP conspiracy theories are fun and date back to the old days of conspiracy theories when people wore tin foil hats and worried about government mind rays. Not at all based in reality or sensible but at least those conspiracies were harmless and non-political. Anyway... no there's no evidence. But i do miss these classic conspiracy theories! Anyone remember the X-Files episode featuring HAARP?

So, the thing is tin foil hats do protect against the government mind rays; but aluminum foil hats don't. And too many people are wearing aluminum foil hats, and then the government mind rays work, and then they spout different conspiracy theories, planted by the government mind rays. And those conspiracy theories get traction, because they're spouted by people in metal hats.

It all comes back to the mind rays.

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

#206

Post by toast0 »

detrites wrote: post #67
CaveTech wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really isn't? There is no specificity, it also doesn't state that earthquakes _only_ happen after solar activity. So this is equivalent to saying "There could be an earthquake somewhere at any time in the future".

With distributed ray detectors and suitable modeling of inner earth processes, assuming that the premise is correct - seems it may have potential to work? Ie, maybe able to generate the level of specificity required. EDIT: Also there aren't that many places on earth at high risk of earthquake that also have poor construction, etc. Meaning any advance warning, that a significant quake may hit somewhere , can trigger "…

You'd have to get a theory of why the rays correlate to earthquakes to have a usable model.

Realistically, if you live in a place with poor construction and relatively large earthquake risk, the sensible thing is to always have your emergency kit ready to go. Chances are, you have other infrastructure issues anyway, so keeping a week or so of emergency rations and water available might come in handy more often than somewhere that has tigher building codes (and enforcement). It would likely be hard for everyone to prep within the same two week window anyway. But, if it was quite specific and accurate, relief organizations could begin staging and start traveling to be closer and quicker to respond.

Doesn't seem like it's anywhere close to that from descriptions in this thread.

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

#207

Post by aemreunal »

idlewords wrote: post #6

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…

Reminds me of: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

(There seems to be a lot of death-related stats in there, so beware if that's triggering)

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

#208

Post by siilikuin »

idlewords wrote: post #6

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…

>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

Isn't this the fundamental mystery about all science, in a way? You have to start with some kind of hypothesis, and that hypothesis likely comes from looking over various kinds of data and doing mysterious mental convolutions on them.

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

#209

Post by nasalspirant »

sbierwagen wrote: post #127
01100011 wrote: post #60

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.

>gravity wave LIGO, the gravity wave detecting interferometer, has arms 4 kilometers long. Along that distance, it can detect a change in length one ten thousandth the diameter of a proton. With an instrument that sensitive, it can just barely detect a handful of gravity waves a year, out of the thousands? that occur in the observable universe. Gravity waves are subtle things.

Also, gravitational* waves. Gravity waves are something else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave

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

#210

Post by gus_massa »

phkahler wrote: post #97

Could nuclear reactions inside the earth emit radiation that is picked up by these detectors? I think probably not. But if so, imagine molten nuclear fuel coming together and creating extra energy that soon after produces earthquakes.

It's more complicated, but oversimplifying each nuclear reaction produces gamma rays with a different energy, so you can use that energy to identify the source. (It's like the color of light.)

Also, I think most of those detectors are directional.

Post reply on HN