Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Solar Activity and Earthquakes

page: 3
64
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 

You're right. My comparisons are very general in nature but I was addressing the very general perception that people have; that increasing solar and geomagnetic activity causes increasing earthquake activity. The data does not support that perception.


[edit on 4/8/2010 by Phage]




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


Not THIS binary. Our binary is hypothetical. Try Andy Lloyd's site re the Dark Star. Try a search on Andy. He appears on TV interviews, is highy-respected in scientifc circles. If you can't, I'll look for a link.

mclinking



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
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.


Thank you so much.
I was very curious about that, trying to calculate its power and or measurable influence,
I didnt know the answer so... I asked.
Thanks again!



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I made an observation, not sure how substantial, but humor my hypothesis if you will.

In this image, specifically the June portion:



Let's say that hypothetically the Kp index's effect on seismic activity had a delayed reaction. In your graph, again, specifically the June portion. In this portion of the graph the Kp index spikes, shortly there after, approximately a week give or take, you get a spike in earthquake energy. I am going to postulate and call into play that the volatility of specific faults at the given time of the Kp index spike are a factor in this hypothesis.

So if you slid the Kp index string ahead by a week or so to show that the spike's actual effect on given faults was delayed hypothetically, they, for the most part pretty well are right on time with one another.

Just another notion to throw into the mix.

[edit on 4/8/2010 by UberL33t]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by UberL33t
 

I had considered that but it doesn't really work. Here's that seven day shift:

Not really a better match. Where's the earthquake activity in April to go along with the geomagnetic activity? And if there is a connection, shouldn't the level of geomagnetic activity have something to do with the number of quakes? Shouldn't greater geomagnetic activity cause a greater release of earthquake energy?

Of course you can say "Well, maybe this one just took longer than that one." How far can you take that?

Think of flipping rolling two dice. Most of the time you won't get snakeyes but once in a while you do. You can even get boxcars twice (even three times) in a row. That doesn't mean that one of the dice is affecting the other. On the other hand, if it happened most of the time we would have to rethink it.

[edit on 4/8/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I do think this "delayed reaction" hypothesis would definitely have to take into account the current stress on the faults at the time of the hypothetical delayed reaction of Kp Index spike. The seven days was merely an approximation. So the previous months in that image where there was no discernible earthquake activity shortly after the Kp Index spike could mean that the pressure on the Earth's faults were not great enough for it to have an effect and vice verse.

The delayed reaction, I would assume, would not be easily gauged. It seems for this hypothesis to work that it has a varying degree of fluctuation. One would first have to determine what is causing this delayed reaction to occur.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by UberL33t
 

What it sounds like you're saying is that due to random factors (varying stress levels) which are not really quantifiable, the true effects of geomagnetic activity are hidden. Sometimes it happens at the same time, sometimes it happens the next day, and sometimes it happens a week later. Sometimes low level geomagnetic activity produces strong earthquake activity and sometimes high geomagnetic activity produces low level earthquake activity.

The problem with that (other than the absurdity) is that even if it were true, there should be an indication of it in the long term data. There isn't.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I have another question.
(there's no such thing as a stupid question)right?
Since it seems there's an attempt at cause and effect correlation,
and in my mind I'm looking for an associated cause, is it possible to determine if any heat is generated internally by these events?
Perhaps even as a byproduct, and the possible effect on subterranean liquids, gasses, and then the effects if any toward displacement?

In a word I guess I'm saying are the correct items being measured and compared?

[edit on 8-4-2010 by HappilyEverAfter]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
post by Phage
 




not really quantifiable


As is the current science involving seismology.



(other than the absurdity)


Could have just as easily been stated as "IMHO", but then again that is MHO. I choose not to be ruled by bitterness and negativity, but to each his own. Thank you for the discussion Phage, I look forward to many more in the future.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
 

Hmm. Not a stupid question at all.

What is a geomagnetic storm? Fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field.

What happens when a magnetic field moves around? When it moves through an electrical conductor it creates electric currents. That's why geomagnetic storms can cause problems for electrical grids. The electrical transmission lines act like enormous electrical generators when the huge magnetic field sweeps across them. But those are electrical circuits, there really isn't anything like that miles beneath the surface where earthquakes originate and electricity by itself doesn't really make things move.

But what happens if there isn't an electrical circuit? What if there is just a lump of conducting material sitting there? What happens is this. Those electrical currents don't have anywhere to go so they start going in circles called eddy currents. Those eddy currents cause the molecules of the conductor to start wiggling around and bumping into each other. All that wiggling around and bumping is called...heat. The process is called induction heating.

So, if there were deposit of some mineral which is a good electrical conductor, it could in principle, get heated up by magnetic fluctuations. I don't know how strong those fluctuations have to be but I do think they have to be cyclical rather than the random fluctuations produced by a geomagnetic storm but, you may have come up with a mechanism whereby heating across a fault could have an effect.

If only that pesky data showed a correlation.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by UberL33t
 

I offended you. Please accept my apology.

I really did not mean to say that you or your ideas are absurd. I was referring to taking "what ifs" to absurd levels. At some point it must be said that there either is a relationship or there isn't, otherwise what is the point of this sort of discussion.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
www.swpc.noaa.gov...
data.giss.nasa.gov...

The Magnetic Fields of the Terrestrial Planets, and of The Moon
The magnetic fields of the Terrestrial planets should be created by convective motions within molten metallic cores. In some theories, this motion alone is capable of causing a net planetary field. In others, a relatively fast rotation of the planet is also necessary, so that the Coriolis effect of the rotation can organize the internal convection parallel to (and/or anti-parallel to) the rotation axis of the planet.

Earth: Known to have molten core, rapid rotation, and a fairly strong magnetic field (strongest of the Terrestrial planets), nearly parallel to its axis of rotation (although it does move around a bit over long periods of time). Theory predicts a strong magnetic field under these circumstances, which agrees with observation.
cseligman.com...

understandearth.com...

Also, would it be affected seasonally coupled with ground saturation?

Thank you.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



So there is data that has heat attached to it, and it's been calculated and attempted to be applied already with no results?
Darn it !
This is very interesting, the entire investigation that is, where is that data, where can I see it?

Thank you



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
I was talking about the data I presented.

The idea of induction heating as a result of geomagnetic activity is interesting and it wouldn't be too hard to imagine sufficient heating might induce fault slippage. But the earthquake and geomagnetic activity data don't support the connection.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Please, no apology necessary, I wasn't at all offended. I just think that "absurdity" claims to any hypothesis when there is no concrete evidence to state said absurdity are, well absurd. You have very convincing data I'll be the first to admit, but the data you have, albeit convincing, is not by any means concrete. It is for the sake of argument your hypothesis vs. an array of different hypotheses that I am sure you will gain from this thread.

Having said that:

Let us not forget that ages ago the Earth was flat, and there was nothing "quantifiable" to suggest otherwise.


[edit on 4/8/2010 by UberL33t]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter
I was talking about the data I presented.

The idea of induction heating as a result of geomagnetic activity is interesting and it wouldn't be too hard to imagine sufficient heating might induce fault slippage. But the earthquake and geomagnetic activity data don't support the connection.


Yes sir I see that,
I guess what I'm doing now is looking for a third measure maybe even a fourth as well.
Increased heat and available lubrication, whether it be in the form of crude oil, dense gasses or water.

Magnetic Storm or sub storm
available lubricant / possible generated heat
earthquake

I'm imagining a possible "length" of string and not looking at say only the "ends".

I'm not trying to trouble you, I appreciate your intel.

Also would our core qualify as an armature of sorts?



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage - Your first two charts show a strong direct correlation between earthquake magnitude and number of earthquakes. I am guessing that the causal relationship is that stronger earthquakes generate more aftershocks in a more-or-less direct proportion to the strength of the quake. Thus every strong quake produce a horde of aftershocks that skews the total number higher. Would you agree?

Nice work, btw!



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 

Yes. But as I pointed out in the OP, it is the shape of the curve that is of interest more than the amplitude. The charts are not scaled to any particular value. Using a larger scale for the energy curve would skew the apparent value even more and using a smaller scale would appear to flatten it but it still would not follow the other data.

My quick study is meant to look for a direct correlation between Solar and/or geomagnetic and earthquakes activity (which would include aftershocks).



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Understood. Thanks for the reminder. Have a cold one for me, Bro!



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Hiya Phage. =)

Great thread, and I'll agree that your evidence appears rather convincing. However you mentioned that there may somehow be some form of connectivity energetically with the tectonic events as related to the solar ones, I'm interested in that aspect as well because while the data shows a definite offset in relation to the two, it's not by much.

I made that announcement of the minor C.M.E. on the 9th of April and mentioned that I was more interested in the aspect of Tectonic aggrevation caused by these latest C.M.E. events. The C.M.E. event I made reference to was by the way, a full halo C.M.E., rather than a directed energy C.M.E., which are rather more volatile in aspect.

While it was indeed mentioned too that Earth would just be glanced by this C.M.E., nonetheless Earth will be receiving a massive influx of charged particulated, right at Earth's equatorial regions....

today is April 12, and do you know what happened yesterday, in a location almost directly on Earth's equatorial region?


News - 7.1 Solomons Earthquake Sunday, April 11, 2010

7.1
Date-Time Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 09:40:29 UTC
Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 08:40:29 PM at epicenter

Location 10.925°S, 161.191°E
Depth 51.9 km (32.3 miles) set by location program
Region SOLOMON ISLANDS
Distances 97 km (60 miles) WSW (237°) from Kira Kira, Solomon Islands
211 km (131 miles) SE (140°) from HONIARA, Solomon Islands
248 km (154 miles) SSE (168°) from Auki, Solomon Islands
1540 km (957 miles) E (97°) from PORT MORESBY, Papua New Guinea


now this is the proof that I present here. this happened as Earth received that "glancing blow" of the announced C.M.E. that I then said o.k. to, and acknowledged that the 'glancing blow would hit Earth Equatorially.

poof... there goes the theory - now, what we need to do is somehow understand what the relationship is...

[edit on 12-4-2010 by DarkspARCS]









 
64
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join