Interesting connection between solar activity, propagation and earthquakes

I believe he actually would have said "I see...".

 

Now that explains why so many computer technicians spend so much time at the penny arcade!

 

Technically speaking, a conspiracy is on the books as a crime involving 2+ people -- so it happens all the time. As for "conspiracy theory" that's code for "thinking without evidence". We should not discourage independent or free-thinking in a free society -- just the lack of evidence part.

I work in an academic research environment, and there are even problems with reputable (expensive/paywall) publishers. Some researchers, trying to prove a point, concocted junk articles and got them published. A recent one that comes to mind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair) was in the humanities, but I seem to recall it being done in the sciences also.

It's a pretty messy process. Academic institutions require faculty to publish a certain amount every year. Academic publishing was a niche filled before the "information wants to be free" era, B&M physical publishing is expensive (especially on obscure articles, limited prints, etc.) and then the university has to buy back access to its own research papers in some roundabout scenarios, students pay ridiculous fees for books (online or not), etc. Professors don't work for free either, and peer review takes their time.

All I can say is that we need to find multiple sources to bolster our claims, and the USGS is not buying the claim that solar activity causes earthquakes:
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/do-solar-flares-or-magnetic-storms-space-weather-cause-earthquakes

But I AM interested in whether earthquakes themselves release detectable radio energy, or whether they might be detected (for example) by beaming VLF/ELF frequencies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency) deeply and studying reception patterns.

73, KD0KZE / Paul

 

It’s been a little while but as I recall so far there have been some documented low frequency magnetic disturbances with earthquakes, but only during the earthquake. And they are weak. The purported precursor signals have turned out to be something else.

Eventually perhaps more will come of looking at such signals. But the idea that there is enough EM energy traveling up to significantly disturb the ionosphere is pretty fanciful, and published purported observations have been investigated and debunked.

 

The ELF work has been done with huge antennas, very sensitive equipment, high power, possible health/environmental hazards, and I don't know if it can penetrate deeply enough to be of much use for earthquakes even as they're occurring (let alone beforehand). I came across some articles on possible effects on the magnetosphere by larger earthquakes, but this research appears to be very preliminary. One would think that alot of deep iron-rich molten material would have to shift position to make much of a detectable dent.

In any case, I think it's telling that if scientists are unsure to what extent an earthquake may affect the magnetosphere that it's all the more unlikely that the ionosphere could influence seismic activity. Billions of tons of shifting rock, tsnumi's, etc. is bound to create more force waves in general than vice-versa. (At least, to my own thinking at present.)

Then you get into the issue of magnetic pole reversals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal#Causes). Also: https://www.space.com/43173-earth-magnetic-field-flips-when.html. It's interesting how little we know on some of these topics. For example, the sun's magnetic poles flip places during solar cycles also.

So I'd give it much greater odds than an earthquake could be detected by means of some sort of EM effect, less odds of it actually being predictable, and very very low odds of ordinary solar cycle activity influencing earthquakes.

73, KD0KZE / Paul

 

Paul - I'm in the same boat with you! Interestingly, it also depends on the discipline - for example, in my area, MOST of top journals don't charge for publication, and authors only have an option to purchase open access for their paper. That helps to safeguard the relatively high level of original research that's published, and easily spot junky journals. For now, we also don't pay to access our papers - my institution has subscriptions with most larger publishers (like ACS, RSC, Elsevier, etc). And I'm getting daily "invitations" to submit a manuscript or become an editor or something else - so annoying...

 

There have also been many well-documented cases of lights being seen near the epicenter of earthquakes, raising the question of whether some small fraction of the energy released could produce electrical discharges of some kind. There's plenty of spare energy available! (and lightning represents less than 1% of the available energy in a thundercloud). We also have lightning around volcanoes.

Earthquake lights remain another of those mysteries like ball lightning - many anecdotal stories with some credible reports, but no proper scientific observations. They have been reported to precede earthquakes.

Mike
AF7ON

 

I get asked to submit "papers" all the time by my charter orgs I belong to... I don't as most of the ones I have read from others are just to support there pet project or make them feel Important...

 

Not to mention having enough willing and qualified people for peer review. Having written a paper or two and been a peer reviewer I can say it’s a problem even in the technology world let alone the sciences.

 

^ wow glad you wrote a paper or two, Hi HI

 

Nothing spectacular, I assure you!

 

'
'
Good analogy, as Science is always magic to the folks not understanding it Hi Hi
Science however is also A Faith with many; as many non scientific method so-called Facts are held to esteem by Academia

 

What so-called facts?

 

Absolutely not, and will never be! Please don't take any personal offence, and I don't want this to divert into discussion of faith by no means - but science has nothing (and should never have anything) to do with faith! As Feynman said, "Religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt". You cannot believe and doubt at the same time, and if you don't doubt, challenge and ask questions - you are not a scientist.