I thnk it's the sun

E

Eyes On Fire

Registered Member
Hi everyone new here. I just wanted to find a place to share my theory without being called crazy lol. I beilieve the sun is causing all these earthquakes. I have been doing some research and I believe I've found a way to predict these events. It is a work in progress though.

Anyway did any of you notice that after the filament on the sun snapped it was soon after that Japan and chile both had major earthquakes withing a day of each other and around the same time as the solar event? I know alot of people don't believe the sun could be useful tool in predicting quakes but I really want to hear your thoughts. who thinks it's possible and who doesn't. I've predicted some and got them right just not always the locations right. Anyways tell me if you think it's possible or not. At this point I need some perspective. Thanks
 
Do you have any evidence other than Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
 
Yes, some actual evidence would be nice, simple things like, for example:
a correlation between the 11 year solar cycle, and the frequency and intesnity of earthquakes.
Or...

Some form of causal mechanism, otherwise this thread has but one destination.
 
Trippy said:
Yes, some actual evidence would be nice, simple things like, for example:
a correlation between the 11 year solar cycle, and the frequency and intesnity of earthquakes.
Or...

Some form of causal mechanism, otherwise this thread has but one destination.
Click to expand...

Really, why? I feel it could stay here, go to pseudoscience, or to the cesspool. Or politics. 4 possibilities.
Or did opening post present a hypothesis with no drawing a line from point A to point B? And it somehow violates someone's sensibilities?

I actually heard someone speculate this before. Probably more than once. There may be some merit. Somewhere.
I'd say keep it around for just a while... someone may say something semi-enlightening.
 
Giambattista said:
I actually heard someone speculate this before. Probably more than once. There may be some merit. Somewhere.
I'd say keep it around for just a while... someone may say something semi-enlightening.
Click to expand...

And you heard someone speculate on this - so what? People speculate about all sorts of nonsense all the time. :shrug:

How about considering it this way: Both solar activity and earthquakes have been recorded and studied for a VERY long time. Does it not stile you as odd that during all those decades not a single scientist has proposed a connection and no papers on the subject have been published?
 
Read-Only said:
And you heard someone speculate on this - so what? People speculate about all sorts of nonsense all the time. :shrug:

How about considering it this way: Both solar activity and earthquakes have been recorded and studied for a VERY long time. Does it not stile you as odd that during all those decades not a single scientist has proposed a connection and no papers on the subject have been published?
Click to expand...

No. It doesn't seem odd. People miss shit all the times. Scientific paradigms come and go.

Yes, it was speculation. That's about it. I'm so sorry I deigned to mention someone else actually saying something about it. :xctd:

Here's a stupid link. Only dodo-heads will click on it.
http://planetinfluences.com/

Not sure how much it applies, it was the only thing my limited temporal budget would allow me at this time.
 
http://planetinfluences.com/Detail.html#Seismic_and_sunspot_activity

Seismic and sunspot activity are connected and tend to develop at the same rate. The two graphs for 1900 to 1950 (Figure 2) demonstrate this and show a similar smoothed curve for both activities.

These two graphs were originally produced by my high school students in 1964, and it was this school project that formed the beginnings of the book.

Comparisons over a period of one sunspot cycle of 10-11 years show the same trend.

The seismic graph has more variation because of changing planetary forces, and the seismic disturbance occurs when the rocks are under maximum pressure.
Click to expand...

There's a graph and whatnot at the link.

Nevermind. We'll see if this works..
figure_2.jpg


I'm sure the defenders of Science from Pseudo that reside on this forum will be able to handily shoot this crazy idea down...
 
Giambattista said:
No. It doesn't seem odd. People miss shit all the times. Scientific paradigms come and go.

Yes, it was speculation. That's about it. I'm so sorry I deigned to mention someone else actually saying something about it. :xctd:

Here's a stupid link. Only dodo-heads will click on it.
http://planetinfluences.com/

Not sure how much it applies, it was the only thing my limited temporal budget would allow me at this time.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you've been right about ONE thing so far - that WAS a very stupid link. Two pages of it was all I could stand.

So... as your brilliant idea, please explain how solar flare activity creates ANY changes in gravitational effects.
 
Read-Only said:
Well, at least you've been right about ONE thing so far - that WAS a very stupid link. Two pages of it was all I could stand.

So... as your brilliant idea, please explain how solar flare activity creates ANY changes in gravitational effects.
Click to expand...

Wee! Shoot the messenger!

Seriously, I don't think you should confuse me with the original poster! I was merely stating that I had heard someone else say such a thing, and decided to show that at least someone has put what appears to be serious effort into the idea. I'm sure the author of this particular piece, Mr. Glasby, isn't the only one.

I was only helping the conversation, since people were so anal about no evidence to back up the argument being presented.

So... as NOT my brilliant idea after all. Not my idea period.

As I said, I'm sure there are plenty of people who can shoot this crazy idea down.

I'm just a messenger. That's it.
 
Giambattista said:
Wee! Shoot the messenger!

Seriously, I don't think you should confuse me with the original poster! I was merely stating that I had heard someone else say such a thing, and decided to show that at least someone has put what appears to be serious effort into the idea. I'm sure the author of this particular piece, Mr. Glasby, isn't the only one.

I was only helping the conversation, since people were so anal about no evidence to back up the argument being presented.

So... as NOT my brilliant idea after all. Not my idea period.

As I said, I'm sure there are plenty of people who can shoot this crazy idea down.

I'm just a messenger. That's it.
Click to expand...

True - and I can accept that. ;)

And it looks like the OP cut and ran...
 
Solar Activity Versus Earthquakes
Since I am not an expert in geophysics, I do not know offhand what is known about the correlation between solar activity and earthquakes. A search of the ADS Physics/Geophysics Abstract Service of professional articles about physics and geophysics that contain the words "earthquake", "solar", and "cycle" yields four papers (all published between 1987 and 1990) that study the correlation between the solar cycle and earthquakes. An additional search for the words "earthquake" and "sun" yields one more applicable paper (published in 1983). Two papers do not find any correlation between the solar cycle and occurrence of earthquakes in Southern California. Two other papers (sharing a (co)-author) find such a correlation in Italy, with more earthquakes during solar maximum than during solar minimum. The fifth paper claims correlation between solar flares and strong earthquakes. A similar search of the ADS Astronomy Abstract Service yielded no hits.

What is striking about this result is that so few papers dealing with this topic have been published in major publications, and none since 1990. If there were a strong and easily visible correlation between earthquakes and solar activity, then I'd expect this to have been noticed and to be a current topic of investigation. The small number of studies suggests that there is at best a very weak correlation between solar activity and earthquakes.
Click to expand...

http://www.nso.edu/PR/answerbook/sunspots.html#q128
 
.

i don't toatly think so,
the earth quackes, are because of teh earth plates teknoniks,
not the sun, but the sun may be a help in shifting the poles
 
Giambattista said:
Really, why? I feel it could stay here, go to pseudoscience, or to the cesspool. Or politics. 4 possibilities.
Or did opening post present a hypothesis with no drawing a line from point A to point B? And it somehow violates someone's sensibilities?
Click to expand...
Staying here without any supporting evidence? No.
The thread isn't about politics, and moving it to psuedoscience rather than the cesspool (which is what I had in mind) at least gives it the opportunity to develop into a valid discussion.

Giambattista said:
I actually heard someone speculate this before. Probably more than once. There may be some merit. Somewhere.
I'd say keep it around for just a while... someone may say something semi-enlightening.
Click to expand...
As have I, a number of times, and I know of at least one individual who claims to have a working predictive model, hence not locking the thread and sending it straight to the cesspool.
 
Giambattista said:
http://planetinfluences.com/Detail.html#Seismic_and_sunspot_activity

There's a graph and whatnot at the link.

Nevermind. We'll see if this works..
figure_2.jpg


I'm sure the defenders of Science from Pseudo that reside on this forum will be able to handily shoot this crazy idea down...
Click to expand...

So here's my first question regarding the graph and the link.
Why plot it like this, when a standard 2d scatterplot would demonstrate the matter so much better,
Why is it that only one of the peaks in seismic activity coincides with a peak in solar activity?
If the positions of the planets in the sky is important, and the amount of alignment, then why not graph something like the average angular separation between the planets and demonstrate the correlation? The ephemerids are freely available from (for example) NASA.
 
Giambattista said:
http://planetinfluences.com/Detail.html#Seismic_and_sunspot_activity



There's a graph and whatnot at the link.

Nevermind. We'll see if this works..
figure_2.jpg


I'm sure the defenders of Science from Pseudo that reside on this forum will be able to handily shoot this crazy idea down...
Click to expand...


The charts are interesting.

Each of the smoothed lines are near identical moving averages, showing an upward and increasing trend. Both charts are in rising channels and appear cyclic. The increase does not look linear, which tells me it might be an unstable growth curve - which makes sense as earthquakes last data are outliers.

Anyway there is correlation with the growth rate, but not with 10 year cyclic activity / ie. more sunspots more earthquakes. The only thing this data suggests is that earthquakes and sunspots will continue to increase over the next 50 years. And in short term, that sunspots will decrease in the next 10 years, and then be back up again.

But this is all really old data. Where is 60s through 10? With geological data is seems silly to even look at less than a few hundred years but I assume we don't have that option.

Anyway, if anyone sees these graphs as a puzzle - they are wrong. These graphs are a mystery with many ambiguities.

So without a doubt sunspots and earthquake increase are correlated over those 50 years. (according to the data,. and the SMA)
 
Trippy said:
So here's my first question regarding the graph and the link.
Why plot it like this, when a standard 2d scatterplot would demonstrate the matter so much better,
Why is it that only one of the peaks in seismic activity coincides with a peak in solar activity?
If the positions of the planets in the sky is important, and the amount of alignment, then why not graph something like the average angular separation between the planets and demonstrate the correlation? The ephemerids are freely available from (for example) NASA.
Click to expand...

Addendum:
Also, consider the following.
figure_2.jpg

Where the author has this to say about it:
The graph (Figure 3) shows the decline of cycle number 23, and indicates that the new sunspot cycle, number 24, is about to start. Seismic and human disturbances are likely to increase as we progress towards sunspot maximum, which is expected to be in 2011 or 2012.
Click to expand...
The graph ends in 1960.
Solar Cycle 23 began sometime around 1997-1998.

I can provide similar charts (and in some cases causal mechanisms) that demonstrate that:
1. The declining number of pirates in the world is responsible for global warming.
2. Eating chocolate causes car accidents.
3. Storks really do deliver babies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top