[Seismology] Massive earthquakes may be triggered by shifts in suns magnetism

[PB666]

http://spaceweathernews.com/studies-suggest-sun-triggers-massive-earthquakes/

Theory is in the verification phase.

Edited September 27, 2015 by PB666

[AngelLestat]

poor "scientists", trying to publish this paper without even a theory (or maybe they had, but is not mentioned in the article) of how this "not even measurable" force at earth distance may cause that. I wonder what it would be the reaction of the community.

If I would be in their position, I would just make a comment like.. "hey.. look, what weird coincidence of this data relation.." and nothing more until I have a real theory to explain that. Publishing by other hand..mmm bold move.

[cantab]

I've not heard of New Concepts in Global Tectonics before, but this is how they describe themselves:

Aims include:

1. Forming an organizational focus for creative ideas not fitting readily within the scope of Plate Tectonics.

2. Forming the basis for the reproduction and publication of such work, especially where there has been censorship or discrimination.

3. Forum for discussion of such ideas and work which has been inhibited in existing channels. This should cover a very wide scope from such aspects as the effect of the rotation of the Earth and planetary and galactic effects, major theories of development of the Earth, lineaments, interpretation and prediction of earthquakes, major times of tectonic and biological change, and so on.

4. Organization of symposia, meetings and conferences.

5. Tabulation and support in case of censorship, discrimination or victimization.

In talking about "censorship" and "discrimination" relating to science they basically come across as a bunch of cranks. Topics in the June issue of their 'journal' include the Expanding Earth and things that seem related to the "electric universe" ideas.

[PB666]

poor "scientists", trying to publish this paper without even a theory (or maybe they had, but is not mentioned in the article) of how this "not even measurable" force at earth distance may cause that. I wonder what it would be the reaction of the community.

If I would be in their position, I would just make a comment like.. "hey.. look, what weird coincidence of this data relation.." and nothing more until I have a real theory to explain that. Publishing by other hand..mmm bold move.

And who taught you that?

[peadar1987]

Ugh, electric universe guff. No thanks.

[AngelLestat]

And who taught you that?

About what? that it should be too weak?

Also taking into account cantab´s quote from that organization, then it should be ok, they are publishing their results to that site, or due to request and encouragment of that site. Which is not the same than publishing to the open scientific community.

[PB666]

About what? that it should be too weak?

Also taking into account cantab´s quote from that organization, then it should be ok, they are publishing their results to that site, or due to request and encouragment of that site. Which is not the same than publishing to the open scientific community.

Strength of a paper is dependent on:

Novelty

New data and the power within that data (statistics)

Corroborating data (different lines of observation or experimentation that show that lines are consistent, not flukes).

Contriving theories is not generally a consideration unless its in a Journal devoted as such.

I have seen many many manuscripts get published that are nothing more than technical descriptions. I have seen quite a few rejected that are too theoretical and do not provide adequate data.

"open scientific communities" - the best journals IMHO and the only journals I will publish in are field-specific peer reviewed journals. Such journals have an editorial board and staff that elicit referees and keep the quality of the journal high and low quality publications out (as best as possible, its difficult to make something foolproof because fools are damn clever). Try to keep your ................... to the quality or weaknesses of the paper, particularly the methodological approaches and statistics as the saying goes don't waste good theory on bad or incomplete data.

[Vanamonde]

Folks, if you disagree with a discussion, please either post your reasons or skip to the next thread. Cluttering up the forum with jokes or replies meant to ridicule others just makes the forum a more argumentative and less friendly place.

[Camacha]

http://spaceweathernews.com/studies-suggest-sun-triggers-massive-earthquakes/

Theory is in the verification phase.

http://www.wikihow.com/Lead-a-Discussion

[AngelLestat]

Strength of a paper is dependent on:

Novelty

New data and the power within that data (statistics)

Corroborating data (different lines of observation or experimentation that show that lines are consistent, not flukes).

Contriving theories is not generally a consideration unless its in a Journal devoted as such.

I have seen many many manuscripts get published that are nothing more than technical descriptions. I have seen quite a few rejected that are too theoretical and do not provide adequate data.

.

I never published any papers, but I read many papers and I also read advices for those who publish.

Is true that you dont need to provide a theory, but if you want to relate different statistics without apparent relation, it would be much better receive if you have something else to support that relation, in case you dont.. the academic community is also integrated by people... so their responses can come in many flavors.

Also at earth distances.. you are talking more about solar wind than "magnetic fields".

Edited September 27, 2015 by AngelLestat

[PB666]

I never published any papers, but I read many papers and I also read advices for those who publish.

Is true that you dont need to provide a theory, but if you want to relate different statistics without apparent relation, it would be much better receive if you have something else to support that relation, in case you dont.. the academic community is also integrated by people... so their responses can come in many flavors.

Also at earth distances.. you are talking more about solar wind than "magnetic fields".

For every theory that is notable in the public space there are 1000s of publications. The is something you should know about statistics, is called the dependency correlation relationship, its very basic statistics. Correlations do not prove a dependency. For example magnetic storms and massive earthquakes could be codependent on some other factor. So what happens in statistics is once a researcher shows a relationship, that researcher has to go and collect more data and data along other avenues to show why. One thing they might look for is a parameter(s) that has a stronger r value.

You can read more on this in Zar, Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd edition, 261 to 361, notably page 261-262, 306-308.

I should point out that the solar winds are twisting plasma, charged particles, and as we know this creates magnetism. Thes are generally agreed to be a apart of the suns magnetic feild even though they are dissociated from the sun.

The question better asked is when do the strongest field lines crosses earth magnetic field and does this specifically correspond to a period of higher earyhquakes. What is the gauss ratio?

Edited September 28, 2015 by PB666

[YNM]

I... Have a lot of trouble with this.

1. Data of sun observation are plenty. Which one did they take ? Magnetograms ? LASCO C2/C3 (well, coronagraph) ? Some UV lines ? Sunspot (Wolf) numbers ?

2. Magnetic field strength pretty much goes along inverse cubic law.

3. What about geomagnetic reversal ?

4. If they did take sunspots, does the earthquake data goes along inverse butterfly pattern ? Or some other patterns ?

[Aanker]

In medicine at least, the probability of causality is determined by Hill's criteria (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria).

Here are a few of them:

Strength. As proven by statistical analysis, results correlate significantly (p<0.05).

Consistency. The results have been verified repeatedly through multiple independent works.

Temporal relation. Cause->Effect.

Proportionality. We expect an increased amount or magnitude of the cause to proportionally lead to a greater or more frequent effect.

Probable mechanism. There is an understood theoretical mechanism potentially underlying the data.

And so forth and so on. We'll start with these. How many have we cleared?

[PB666]

In medicine at least, the probability of causality is determined by Hill's criteria (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria).

Here are a few of them:

Strength. As proven by statistical analysis, results correlate significantly (p<0.05).

Consistency. The results have been verified repeatedly through multiple independent works.

Temporal relation. Cause->Effect.

Proportionality. We expect an increased amount or magnitude of the cause to proportionally lead to a greater or more frequent effect.

Probable mechanism. There is an understood theoretical mechanism potentially underlying the data.

And so forth and so on. We'll start with these. How many have we cleared?

On the strength argument, don't forget that criteria may have been implimented, for example in this case what constitutues a large earthquake. If the criteria are drawn along subjective boundaries then the data distribution may require a correction. So it could be true that withbproper correction they have cleared none.