It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Solar Activity and Earthquakes

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:08 AM
It's good to have the actual data on hand, and as we can all see there is no correlation between past solar activity, and past earthquakes...


What if something else that we are unaware of is causing the sun to affect earthquake activity? Something remote, something unseen, or perhaps an unstudied cosmic phenomena?

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:13 AM
Looking at the bigger picture, I am curious to see a connection in the data you provided, but in reverse!

If you take time as a constant, reverse it for either, you will see that a good portion of the data matches.

As observed in the first to second quarter of the 2001 Energy - Kp Index graph.

Not a serious contribution under the laws of physics known to us, but a curious observation.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Skellon]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:46 AM
Phage! I agree with you! I don't think the earthquake activity has anything to do with earthquakes.

I believe the earthqhakes are being cause by increased instability in earths weather patterns, due to weather modification.

The constant fluctuation between high pressure and low pressure causes the surface of the earth to rise and fall.

God has built in a warning system, but lost souls can't see the signs.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:49 AM
Excellent job!!!! Now this is what I call a scientific, unbiased look at a good question. Thank you for your hard work - I appreciate being able to analyze the facts rather than having to guess which "expert" is right.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:56 AM
reply to post by Phage

You really should take a look here. Not only the author Pierre de Châtillon talk about the real causes of climat change but he found ("rediscovered" fits better) a way to predict climate changes. In short, the cause of global climate changes not only on earth but in the solar system too, is due to an unknown known energy that he calls Astroether and it is everywhere in the emptiness of space. Where planets/stars alignments occur, there are fluctuations of this energy flow that bring climate/behaviour changes. He claims that the governments know about it and use this knowledge to control people and to plan wars. Because it affects human behaviour/mind (such depression, irritability, anger,...), they could for example, plan a war without too much protest. I know his theory for a few years now and its really interesting and should be taken seriously. What do you think?

[edit on 8-4-2010 by _damon]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:35 AM

At the peak of the recent geomagnetic storm the magnetometer at Boulder, Colorado recorded a fluctuation of about 125 nanoteslas. That is .125 microteslas, 1/480th of the strength of the magnetic field at the equator and 80,000 times less powerful than that refrigerator magnet.

"raises hand"
I have a question.
The measurement, at Boulder, does that reading apply to the location of the data gathered only, or is it applied to the entire globe, and if so, how is that calculation reached?


(add) Where I'm going with this in thought is, does the effect need to be calculated?, does the local reading need to be adjusted to provide a more accurate overall global variance?

[edit on 8-4-2010 by HappilyEverAfter]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:38 AM
Nice work on this, Phage! I'm a newbie and your posts always seem to catch my eye. Maybe it's due to all the fans you have. I swear, you're input is requested more than anyone on the threads I read here at ATS. So many, almost too much of the "Let's see what phage thinks about this" or "We need Phage to weigh in" and "Phage is a god and I want to lick his B*lls". Regardless, I have much respect for you...Just don't expect me to beg for you to chime in on a thread.

Forgive me for being the FNG...posting while running around the house getting ready for work.

I see somewhat of a correlation between the low sunspot numbers and spikes in quake activity, which surprised me. Now, with this solar minimum we're coming out of, wasn't the sunspot number unusually low through 2009? Why does it appear that your data set stops at 2008? What about the last year and a half? That's over 10% of the current sun cycle missing, which is predicted to be a doozy.

Maybe I'm missing something?!?! If so, help me read the graph you provided.

Appreciate your hard work bringing attention to a much debated topic. S+F for sure!!

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:21 AM
Phage I am posting again here because I would really like to see what you and others think about this. Why are gravitational anomalies coinciding so well with earthquake zones??
I am once again adding this link to see if anyone has ideas or an explanation...
(it is in PDF format and I don't know how to embed it directly here)

Gravity anomalies map from National Geospatial Intelligence Agency

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:27 AM
reply to post by Phage

I agree there is no relationship with solar activity. The binary sun is the cause of this gravitational stress. Note the inverse on your graphs, i.e. that low solar activity gives more quakes. It is clear there is an unknown celestial body if consensus rejects the binary sun existence. However, more and more scientists are coming on board in favour of its existence. Sorry to say it, but a binary is a brown dwarf. I fear there's far more to come. Especially if it's incoming. The binary, I mean.


posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by mclinking

Binary sun??!!?? I thought this was thread was more of a scientific approach. Who are the respected scientist you mentioned that lean towards a brown dwarf idea?
I'd be interested in seeing their findings.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 10:54 AM
Thanks for the work you put into this, Phage.
Seems that if solar activity has an affect on EQ activity, it is minimal at best... or perhaps it is merely a contributing factor and not a catalyst in and of itself.

Or perhaps there is no relation at all.
At any rate, thanks.


posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:30 AM
Ok Phage, I can't say I necessarily agree with your conclusions based on the data...

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that I find your test lacking in scope.

For a proper test to be conducted, first you would have to determine a potential mechanism for solar wind or solar activity to affect the plates. Then you would have to devise a scheme under which stresses caused by said mechanism would trigger an earthquake.

I do agree that a direct causal mechanism is refuted by your test, but it does NOT refute a potential correlation. There are too many potential variables necesary for earthquakes to occur for this to be the case.

As an example, there has to be enough stress built up in a certain way for an earthquake to occur.

Then if solar wind bombardment somehow puts pressure on the tectonic plates, it has to manipulate them in a way to trigger an earthquake.

I think the only way a valid test could be formed would be to take earth orientation in relation to periods of solar wind bombardment, study the believed stresses on various faults at the time and develop a formula for potential earthquakes based on earth oreintation during bombardment, stresses in fault in relation to them and then to predict an earthquake based on said formula and see if it occurs.

So, in other words, you would have to look at periods when they actaully correlate and study the variables of the potential cause before you can rule out any effect based on lack of correlation whenever earthquakes and solar bombardment occur.


posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:33 AM
Thanks for the work you put into this...
I am sure this thread will be used as reference material in the future!

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:40 AM
When we look here, we see 35 +M5 quakes in the last 7 days, Im not sure that is the Norm of things, but one of the quakes are pretty deep compared to the others, have a look...(Yellow)


MAP 5.0 2010/04/08 08:58:21 -5.074 105.054 211.5 SUNDA STRAIT, INDONESIA
MAP 5.0 2010/04/08 04:26:09 -27.511 -175.929 42.0 KERMADEC ISLANDS REGION

MAP 5.5 2010/04/07 20:32:40 -27.104 179.499 492.3 KERMADEC ISLANDS REGION
MAP 5.9 2010/04/07 14:33:04 -3.772 141.934 33.9 NEW GUINEA, PAPUA NEW GUINEA
MAP 5.1 2010/04/07 10:04:41 52.148 -173.406 83.6 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA

You see a 5.1M in Alaska too, did some guy predict one up there after the one in Mexicali ???

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:42 AM
Based on the first 2 images, it looks like the Sun's solar activity is gradually decreasing. Interesting.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by Chamberf=6

Well John Githgow brings up good information sort of. Jaden brings up a good insight as well to counter the OP hypothesis between the solar outputs and earthquakes. I'm Moving on to military made instruments me thinks. I'm leaning towards a seismic weapon possibly in the works for many a many years. Wouldn't put it past the current Oligarchy. I would be spending money on such "Weapons" if I had trillion of dollars at my disposal. Without a doubt.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by Your_Number_One_Fan]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by Chamberf=6

Below is one link, as up to date as you could get!

'Every day and in every way, we learn a little more'


posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 11:57 AM
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter

Yes, different locations will show different degrees of activity. It depends on the latitude and altitude. The higher the altitude the weaker the magnetic field (and the fluctuations). The higher the latitude the greater the magnetic field. High latitude areas will show much greater fluctuations.

The Kp index is a globally adjusted value which takes into account these differences.

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by mclinking

Ok and thanks for the article link. How is this supposed to be affecting Earth, though? The article said its distance from the sun is in the range of Saturn or Uranus. And why can't they give more than just an estimate of its distance?

[edit on 8/4/2010 by Chamberf=6]

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by Phil C Hickus

The dataset I used did not include the sunspot number for 2009. That is why I did not include it.

In 2009 there were 45 earthquakes greater than 6.5, with a combined energy of 313. Comparable to 2000 and 2008.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in