5 ms·

Is this documented scientifically that planet positions can affect earth seismic activity? Like the moon affects sea tides?

DoreenMichele 3y ago
One of his tweets: Yes, there is much resistance within the scientific community regarding the influence of the planets and the Moon. But there's no extended research that 'disproves' it. It's merely an assumption. In fact, a scientific paper in Nature suggests otherwise. https://twitter.com/hogrbe/status/1622641784869322754 https://twitter.com/hogrbe/status/1622641784869322754
- hk__2 3y ago
  "there is much resistance within the scientific community" is the usual euphemism used by pseudo-scientists to justify their claim. There’s absolutely no evidence that you can predict earthquakes by looking at the positions of the planets, and this "researcher" is known for his very vague "predictions" that sometimes appear to be true, sometimes not. It’s the scientific equivalent of a broken clock.
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    I know exactly nothing about this guy. I'm the person who asked for a name. I was just quoting his own Twitter feed where he himself indicates this is not scientifically proven. He apparently calls it research. I'm personally fine with that and followed him before it was said here he predicts this based on planetary influences (and hadn't noticed it myself).
    - hk__2 3y ago
      > I know exactly nothing about this guy. I'm the person who asked for a name. I know that and I’m just commenting his claim; I’m not attacking you in any way.
      - DoreenMichele 3y ago
        Okay, for the record, you are officially an antibeleiver who thinks simply asking the question and investigating it and trying to answer it makes one a nutter. For the record, I hate this out-of-hand dismissal of anyone who asks "What if..." about anything outside the current Overton Window.
        Apocryphon 3y ago
        We are hardly living in incredulous times.
        Capricorn2481 3y ago
        He just said he wasn't attacking you personally, but the fact that it's flying over your head implies that you actually do believe this stuff. What in the world is an "antibeliever?" I find it kind of telling you chose this phrase instead of anti science.
        DoreenMichele 3y ago
        Antibeliever is someone who firmly believes the opposite though it's not actually scientifically proven. For example, people who say Bigfoot or aliens are absolutely not real and anyone who believes in such is clearly a loon rather than saying "It's unproven and seems extremely unlikely."
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > Antibeliever is someone who firmly believes... maybe they should be called a firm believer, then? like, in science? the opposite here is the default until you prove your thing true and the default false
        cjaybo 3y ago
        You seem to be reading into and responding somewhat defensively to subtext that doesn’t appear to exist
  - kranke155 3y ago
    This could have been said before every major scientific discovery. The scientific community must be wrong by definition if science is to learn something new. It’s more than proven that things most scientists find absurd and impossible end up being doable and proven. I’d give this person more leeway. He’s not reading astrology, he’s working patterns and clearly has not determined whether his research is accurate yet or not. He himself says there’s not enough data in some regards. So what is your resistance based off outside of reflexive skepticism ?
    - hk__2 3y ago
      > So what is your resistance based off outside of reflexive skepticism ? This has been debunked over and over [1][2][3][4] and is by no mean different from fortune telling. He has not published a single paper nor has detailed its method, which is summarized by various sources as making a lot of predictions about earthquakes in regions that are known to often have earthquakes. Most of these predictions end up wrong, but we only talk about the "right" ones. [1]: https://www.newarab.com/news/arab-osint-platform-debunks-dutch-earthquake-forecaster https://www.newarab.com/news/arab-osint-platform-debunks-dut... [2]: https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2023/02/did-earthquake-guru-frank-hoogerbeets-really-foresee-the-disaster-in-turkey-and-syria/ https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2023/02/did-earthquake-guru-frank... [3]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6469019/Top-Australian-academic-debunks-researchers-bizarre-prophecy-planets-cause-monster-quake.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6469019/Top-Austral... [4]: https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/01/dutch-earthquake-enthusiast-claims-to-predict-major-tremor/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/01/dutch-earthquake-enth...
      - kranke155 3y ago
        Ok so this is far more substantial. Thanks for sharing.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      "It’s more than proven that things most scientists find absurd and impossible end up being doable and proven" Are there many examples besides quantum physics? And eventually and in quite short time, they made their way into the mainstream science, because they modelled the world better. So if this guy can show that his approach can reliable help with predication of earthquakes, he will win. Simple as that. So far I am not convinced, but sure, the moon and the planets are a real force.
hk__2 3y ago
No, not at all. This "researcher" is a fraud.
- k_ 3y ago
  That his research subject has not given "proper" scientific results yet (or ever) doesn't make him a fraud. We wouldn't go far if researchers could only research proven concepts.
  - hk__2 3y ago
    > That his research subject has not given "proper" scientific results yet (or ever) doesn't make him a fraud. We wouldn't go far if researchers could only research proven concepts. The problem is we’re looking at the correct predictions only. He’s a broken clock, he "predicted" numerous earthquakes in various regions and only a small number ended up true. > The idea that planetary alignments can predict earthquakes has been long rebuffed by scientists. The USGS has stated that neither it nor any other scientist is able to predict a specific earthquake, but that it can calculate the probability of future temblors. Andrew Michael, a geophysicist for the agency, called alignment-based predictions "easy to refute" in a statement sent to Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/01/dutch-earthquake-enthusiast-claims-to-predict-major-tremor/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/01/dutch-earthquake-enth...
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      Confirmation bias is a known human weakness. Based on what little I've seen, he does not appear to be guilty of it. If other people are overemphasizing his "correct" predictions and ignoring his incorrect ones, this should not be conflated with his position. He seems fairly reasonable at first glance.
      - gruez 3y ago
        >Confirmation bias is a known human weakness. Based on what little I've seen, he does not appear to be guilty of it. I scrolled through his timeline and found plenty of predictions that failed to materialize https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37446472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37446472
krapp 3y ago
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/24846/do-planetary-alignments-affect-earths-seismic-activity https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/24846/do-pl...
JPLeRouzic 3y ago
It looks like yes if I understand correctly this usgs.gov link. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-position-moon-or-planets-affect-seismicity-are-there-more-earthquakes-morningin-eveningat https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-position-moon-or-planets-affec... Or a similar idea about a correlation between solar activity and earthquakes: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3
- perihelions 3y ago
  - "It looks like yes if I understand correctly this usgs.gov link" The USGS answer is a definitive "no" with regards to planets: - "The relative amount of influence is proportional to the objects mass, and inversely proportional to the third power of its distance from the earth" That's (inter-planet) tidal forces weaker than 10^-6 the strength of the moon's.
  - JPLeRouzic 3y ago
    I am sorry, even if English is not my mother tongue, this article certainly does not give a "no" to interactions between planets and sun. Actually the sentence just before the one you cite says: "The moon, sun, and other planets have an influence on the earth in the form of perturbations (small changes) to the gravitational field. " And anyway if you search for other scientific articles on this topic, you can find at least a handful of them. Then you can criticize the quality of this research (single author, unknown univ, etc) but it exists. This discussion reminds me how the plaque tectonic theory was rejected for 40 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift#Rejection_of_Wegener's_theory,_1910s%E2%80%931950s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift#Rejection_of...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

DoreenMichele 3y ago

One of his tweets: Yes, there is much resistance within the scientific community regarding the influence of the planets and the Moon. But there's no extended research that 'disproves' it. It's merely an assumption. In fact, a scientific paper in Nature suggests otherwise. https://twitter.com/hogrbe/status/1622641784869322754 https://twitter.com/hogrbe/status/1622641784869322754

hk__2 3y ago
"there is much resistance within the scientific community" is the usual euphemism used by pseudo-scientists to justify their claim. There’s absolutely no evidence that you can predict earthquakes by looking at the positions of the planets, and this "researcher" is known for his very vague "predictions" that sometimes appear to be true, sometimes not. It’s the scientific equivalent of a broken clock.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  I know exactly nothing about this guy. I'm the person who asked for a name. I was just quoting his own Twitter feed where he himself indicates this is not scientifically proven. He apparently calls it research. I'm personally fine with that and followed him before it was said here he predicts this based on planetary influences (and hadn't noticed it myself).
  - hk__2 3y ago
    > I know exactly nothing about this guy. I'm the person who asked for a name. I know that and I’m just commenting his claim; I’m not attacking you in any way.
    - DoreenMichele 3y ago
      Okay, for the record, you are officially an antibeleiver who thinks simply asking the question and investigating it and trying to answer it makes one a nutter. For the record, I hate this out-of-hand dismissal of anyone who asks "What if..." about anything outside the current Overton Window.
      - Apocryphon 3y ago
        We are hardly living in incredulous times.
      - Capricorn2481 3y ago
        He just said he wasn't attacking you personally, but the fact that it's flying over your head implies that you actually do believe this stuff. What in the world is an "antibeliever?" I find it kind of telling you chose this phrase instead of anti science.
        DoreenMichele 3y ago
        Antibeliever is someone who firmly believes the opposite though it's not actually scientifically proven. For example, people who say Bigfoot or aliens are absolutely not real and anyone who believes in such is clearly a loon rather than saying "It's unproven and seems extremely unlikely."
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > Antibeliever is someone who firmly believes... maybe they should be called a firm believer, then? like, in science? the opposite here is the default until you prove your thing true and the default false
      - cjaybo 3y ago
        You seem to be reading into and responding somewhat defensively to subtext that doesn’t appear to exist
- kranke155 3y ago
  This could have been said before every major scientific discovery. The scientific community must be wrong by definition if science is to learn something new. It’s more than proven that things most scientists find absurd and impossible end up being doable and proven. I’d give this person more leeway. He’s not reading astrology, he’s working patterns and clearly has not determined whether his research is accurate yet or not. He himself says there’s not enough data in some regards. So what is your resistance based off outside of reflexive skepticism ?
  - hk__2 3y ago
    > So what is your resistance based off outside of reflexive skepticism ? This has been debunked over and over [1][2][3][4] and is by no mean different from fortune telling. He has not published a single paper nor has detailed its method, which is summarized by various sources as making a lot of predictions about earthquakes in regions that are known to often have earthquakes. Most of these predictions end up wrong, but we only talk about the "right" ones. [1]: https://www.newarab.com/news/arab-osint-platform-debunks-dutch-earthquake-forecaster https://www.newarab.com/news/arab-osint-platform-debunks-dut... [2]: https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2023/02/did-earthquake-guru-frank-hoogerbeets-really-foresee-the-disaster-in-turkey-and-syria/ https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2023/02/did-earthquake-guru-frank... [3]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6469019/Top-Australian-academic-debunks-researchers-bizarre-prophecy-planets-cause-monster-quake.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6469019/Top-Austral... [4]: https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/01/dutch-earthquake-enthusiast-claims-to-predict-major-tremor/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/01/dutch-earthquake-enth...
    - kranke155 3y ago
      Ok so this is far more substantial. Thanks for sharing.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "It’s more than proven that things most scientists find absurd and impossible end up being doable and proven" Are there many examples besides quantum physics? And eventually and in quite short time, they made their way into the mainstream science, because they modelled the world better. So if this guy can show that his approach can reliable help with predication of earthquakes, he will win. Simple as that. So far I am not convinced, but sure, the moon and the planets are a real force.

hk__2 3y ago

No, not at all. This "researcher" is a fraud.

k_ 3y ago
That his research subject has not given "proper" scientific results yet (or ever) doesn't make him a fraud. We wouldn't go far if researchers could only research proven concepts.
- hk__2 3y ago
  > That his research subject has not given "proper" scientific results yet (or ever) doesn't make him a fraud. We wouldn't go far if researchers could only research proven concepts. The problem is we’re looking at the correct predictions only. He’s a broken clock, he "predicted" numerous earthquakes in various regions and only a small number ended up true. > The idea that planetary alignments can predict earthquakes has been long rebuffed by scientists. The USGS has stated that neither it nor any other scientist is able to predict a specific earthquake, but that it can calculate the probability of future temblors. Andrew Michael, a geophysicist for the agency, called alignment-based predictions "easy to refute" in a statement sent to Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/01/dutch-earthquake-enthusiast-claims-to-predict-major-tremor/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/01/dutch-earthquake-enth...
  - DoreenMichele 3y ago
    Confirmation bias is a known human weakness. Based on what little I've seen, he does not appear to be guilty of it. If other people are overemphasizing his "correct" predictions and ignoring his incorrect ones, this should not be conflated with his position. He seems fairly reasonable at first glance.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >Confirmation bias is a known human weakness. Based on what little I've seen, he does not appear to be guilty of it. I scrolled through his timeline and found plenty of predictions that failed to materialize https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37446472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37446472

krapp 3y ago

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/24846/do-planetary-alignments-affect-earths-seismic-activity https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/24846/do-pl...

JPLeRouzic 3y ago

It looks like yes if I understand correctly this usgs.gov link. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-position-moon-or-planets-affect-seismicity-are-there-more-earthquakes-morningin-eveningat https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-position-moon-or-planets-affec... Or a similar idea about a correlation between solar activity and earthquakes: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3

perihelions 3y ago
- "It looks like yes if I understand correctly this usgs.gov link" The USGS answer is a definitive "no" with regards to planets: - "The relative amount of influence is proportional to the objects mass, and inversely proportional to the third power of its distance from the earth" That's (inter-planet) tidal forces weaker than 10^-6 the strength of the moon's.
- JPLeRouzic 3y ago
  I am sorry, even if English is not my mother tongue, this article certainly does not give a "no" to interactions between planets and sun. Actually the sentence just before the one you cite says: "The moon, sun, and other planets have an influence on the earth in the form of perturbations (small changes) to the gravitational field. " And anyway if you search for other scientific articles on this topic, you can find at least a handful of them. Then you can criticize the quality of this research (single author, unknown univ, etc) but it exists. This discussion reminds me how the plaque tectonic theory was rejected for 40 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift#Rejection_of_Wegener's_theory,_1910s%E2%80%931950s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift#Rejection_of...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]