Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Are The Recent Quakes/volcano The Feared Lhc Consequence?


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 05:02 PM

Could it have really happened?? The evidence is mounting that it may have. The autonomous experimental institution, CERN, disregarded much publicized warnings that their biggest project could generate man’s first synthetic black-hole material. They went ahead with the LHC project despite concerns.

What would happen if they were “successful” and created stable synthetic black-hole material? First, it wouldn't be instant because of the same principles preventing all the sand of an hour-glass to fall through when turned; though eventually all grains will fall they cannot pass through at once. As the Earth’s volume slowly reduces, the surface will continually readjust, where seismic/volcanic activity will continue to get more intense. Over the past year we have seen lethal earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, S.China, New Zealand-x2, and now Japan; tsunami in the Solomons and Japan; and increased volcanism in Alaska, Indonesia, Italy, and Iceland. Also, as the Earth’s volume decreases, its rate of spin will increase (because of dynamics of angular momentum) and this too has been recorded-- http://www.boston.co...ee_bit_shorter/

Why wouldn’t CERN report this “major accomplishment?” Two possibilities: either they didn’t notice it when it did occur (because of either being drowned out by other noise or because black-hole material has no signature that LHC detectors are sensitive to) and was able to excape the machine leaving only the smallest of holes behind that the vacuum status of the machine was not compromised. Or, perhaps the marketing arm of CERN is not ready to take ownership of all of the life-loss their stupidity appears to have wrought. Would admitting to this "accomplishment" make CERN legally responsible to the pain and suffering consequent to such a mishap?

I am also the author of a new scientific model—The Dominium—with ramifications that, unfortunately seem to be coming to pass. I wrote under the pseudonym “Hasanuddin” (my religious name) for many reasons, including a desire to stay out of spotlights. You can also find a summary of important parts of the new model at http://knol.google.c...jtincqf6gddc/1# or alternatively you can buy it cheaply enough at online booksellers. Either way, the scenario of increased frequency and severity of earthquakes/volcano/tsunami, such as is appearing now, is EXACTLY what was predicted by the model in the worst-case scenario that CERN succeeds in creating their synthetic black-hole & the Dominium model is correct.

From 2007 to 2010 I fought very hard to stop CERN from proceeding with the LHC experiment and mission to generate man’s first synthetic black-hole material. I blogged and posted on scientific forums like you wouldn’t believe. Although debate was often contentious, in the end my opponents could not find any real faults with the model and have taken a wait-and-see attitude pending several ongoing experiments that could prove the central question of gravitational dynamics one way of another. See: http://scienceforums...-by-hasanuddin/
And also: http://scienceforums...m-model-part-2/
Hundreds of books were sent out to universities, politicians, and news organizations all across the globe. CERN was contacted first. Unfortunately it all fell on deaf ears.

After this track-record, I know that you, the reader, are probably going to be skeptical too. That’s cool. I don’t expect action immediately. However, if the earthquakes, tsunami, and volcanism continue to increase in both frequency and severity … please consider the ramifications. I believe there is so much more connected to this possibility than *just* destruction, death, and extinction.

The biggest questions shall be how are we going to react. Should decision-makers at CERN be brought to justice? If so, what kind of justice is there worse than watching the world being destroyed and knowing that it is your fault?

More personally, how are we as individuals going to react? Will we become murderous savages clawing of each other in order to live one second longer; or do we become stoic kinder and aware of the pain felt by people less strong than ourselves? Over the past year we saw three different populations impacted. In Haiti gangs of lawless men raped, looted, and murdered over things as small as food; while in Japan there appears to be no looting at all and high levels of inter-cooperation; while Chile fell somewhere between. In a condition of mass destruction, would you comfort a scared orphaned child, or would you push her aside and pillage the remains of her broken home? Digest that last question very slowly and give it plenty of weight. In times of true crisis, the true goodness (or evil) of a person can come out. I have seen for a very long time the eerie connections between Quranic/Biblical texts and the tableau that appears of have played out—these are explained in detail in the published book. If CERN did create a black-hole, if the Dominium model is correct, and if I trust my own eyes for what they have witnessed, then beyond a doubt, there is a God, we all are interconnected, and that personal decisions made will have consequences lasting past our deaths. If these are the Last Days, the choices you make are likely to either save or damn you.

Of course there is always the chance that no black-holes have been made and that the recent blitz of earthquakes, volcanism, increased Earth-spin have nothing to do with LHC. It’s one of those wait and see deals. In the meantime, it might be prudent to make peace internally, spiritually, and with one's fellow man.

#2 The Polymath

The Polymath

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 311 posts

Posted 21 March 2011 - 05:58 PM

What would happen if they were “successful” and created stable synthetic black-hole material?


They can't create a 'stable' black hole. If they created a black hole, it would evaporate almost imediatly.

increased Earth-spin


Since when?

#3 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • 6241 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 07:58 AM

Over the past year we have seen lethal earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, S.China, New Zealand-x2, and now Japan; tsunami in the Solomons and Japan;

Do you have a reference to data showing a relevant correlation?

and increased volcanism in Alaska, Indonesia, Italy, and Iceland.

How could increased volcanic activity be caused by the same thing? The black hole would relieve interior pressure.

Also, as the Earth’s volume decreases, its rate of spin will increase (because of dynamics of angular momentum) and this too has been recorded-- http://www.boston.co...ee_bit_shorter/

There's no need for an overall decrease in volume to give this effect, notice how the major quake in '04 caused it to an even greater degree, according to the news you linked to. That's about 4 years prior to LHC runs.

#4 The Polymath

The Polymath

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 311 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 02:11 PM

Also, a large earthquake (or even a small one) can set off a chain of other earthquakes because they destabilize the rock, making the area more susceptible to earthquakes.

#5 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 06:18 PM

Dear Exhausted Gondolier,

Revelent correlation? I agree, what has been put forward certainly does seem to have a degree of post hoc ergo propter hoc to it. Had I not put down in published ink that a stabile black-hole would lead to series of increased seismic activity and volcanism then I wouldn’t have much to stand on. The fact that the prediction is that both frequency and magnitude would steadily increase, coupled with the fact that the Japan quake was the biggest in its history align with these theoretical predictions.

I hope you notice that within the post, and again in this one, I am making the assertion that if the hypothesis that CERN did create a stabile black-hole to be true, then more mega-earthquakes and eruptions will be forthcoming, not in a matter of years, but months.

How could increased volcanic activity be caused by the same thing? The black hole would relieve interior pressure.


True, black-hole material would be expected to compact material that it comes in contact with. However, to assume that would result in negative pressure transmitted evenly across the Earth, as if it were a water balloon, would be an over simplification. The Earth is a complex heterogeneous structure. Also, assuming LHC did create stabile black-hole material, those samples would initially have KE and take orbits that spiral in towards the core, rather than simply dropping right down. As a result, the termite-tunnels bored would themselves be complex. Therefore, to readjust to the lost internal volume both quakes and volcanoes should occur.


There's no need for an overall decrease in volume to give this effect, notice how the major quake in '04 caused it to an even greater degree, according to the news you linked to. That's about 4 years prior to LHC runs.



I agree that big quakes are nothing new. I also agree that quakes of the past have been noted to slow the Earth down. What does appear to be new is the sheer number of large lethal quakes and mega-eruptions all occurring in one year.

The big question is: Will the number of quakes/eruptions continue to occur in increased frequency and severity, as I have put forward; or will it be another 5-10 years before we get another notable geologic event??

#6 The Polymath

The Polymath

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 311 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 06:26 PM

Like I said: One earthquake/tsunami equals more earthquakes/tsunamis. Besides, the Earth would be gone by now if the culpret was a black hole.

#7 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 14883 posts

Posted 22 March 2011 - 10:51 PM

...I agree that big quakes are nothing new. I also agree that quakes of the past have been noted to slow the Earth down. What does appear to be new is the sheer number of large lethal quakes and mega-eruptions all occurring in one year.

The big question is: Will the number of quakes/eruptions continue to occur in increased frequency and severity, as I have put forward; or will it be another 5-10 years before we get another notable geologic event??


the japan quake did not slow earth's rotation; it sped it up.

The Day the Earth Sped Up

The quake in Japan shaved about one-millionth of second off our day and tilted the planet's axis by several inches.


your anecdotal claims of "incresed frequency and severity" is scientifically worthless. there is no evidence this quake, or any other, is new in any fashion other than the degree to which we recorded them. if you have scientific data to the contrary, you must provide it.

besides, we all know the quakes are caused by the itchings of the ginormous turtle on which the earth rests. :rotfl:
:earth:
:turtle:


#8 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • 6241 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 04:44 AM

As a result, the termite-tunnels bored would themselves be complex. Therefore, to readjust to the lost internal volume both quakes and volcanoes should occur.

Is this planet's interior made of wood? With all the controversy that still lingers, I still think it's the same stuff that occasionally spews out of volcanoes. As far as stress goes, magma behaves as a viscous liquid. You provide no support for your claim that it would cause an increase of volcanic eruptions.

Also note that, granting the black hole doesn't evaporate before it even starts accretion, its trajectory inside Earth would be a rapidly damped orbit becuase the added mass it accumulates has almost zero momentum. If not, it wouldn't even remain inside the planet because typical velocities of high energy particle collison products are way way more than terrestrial escape velocity. Do the math.

#9 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7315 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 06:14 PM

Also note that, granting the black hole doesn't evaporate before it even starts accretion, its trajectory inside Earth would be a rapidly damped orbit becuase the added mass it accumulates has almost zero momentum. If not, it wouldn't even remain inside the planet because typical velocities of high energy particle collison products are way way more than terrestrial escape velocity. Do the math.

An alternative to doing the math is reading science fiction by an author able and inclined to have done the math. ;)

A SF novel in this category involving the destruction of Earth by an artificial black hole that comes to mind is James Hogan’s 1980 Thrice Upon a Time.

In Hogan’s novel, many thousands of tiny black holes are formed by an inertial confinement fusion power generator (fusion bombs also created these, but as they gain mass very slowly, the effect was only noticed months after startup of the first fusion power plant, which created several a second). Hogan’s explanation is that, for reasons unknown, the Hawking radiation calculation that assured the impossibility of such an occurrence was wrong by several orders of magnitude. Assuming Hasanuddin is familiar with Hawking radiation, this must be his explanation for his prediction, as well.

A neat twist of Hogan’s is that the presence of these tiny black holes is detected not via any physics experiment (or by earthquakes or volcanoes erupting), but as explanation for two seemingly unrelated anomalies: the foundation of the fusion power plant settling abnormally (due to microscopic holes in its concrete), and a global epidemic of unexplained leg pains (due to microscopic holes in their nerves).

A shout-out to Greg Bear’s 1987 The Forge of God is in order here, too. Although this novel’s doomsday machine isn’t a black hole, but an alien aggressor’s bomb made of chunks of neutronium and antineutronium dropped into the Earth, it’s description of the last moments of every person on Earth as its crust collapses is IMHO one of the most dramatic depictions of a gigantic catastrophe ever written, and applicable to a black-hole-eats the Earth

Besides, the Earth would be gone by now if the culpret was a black hole.

Not if it was a very small, neutrally or nearly neutrally charged black hole.

Black holes don’t gravitationally attract other bodies any differently than ordinary bodies of the same mass, so a black hole of mass, say [imath]10^{-24}\,\mbox{kg}[/imath], about the mass of 3 gold atoms, wouldn’t exert enough gravitational force (the gravitational force between, say, 2 weakly attracted molecules is still on the order of [imath]10^{33}[/imath] times greater than their gravitational attraction) to collect matter other than that it actually collided with. The size of this black hole – twice its Schwarzschild radius is about [imath]2r = \frac{2Gm}{c^2} = 10^{-51} \,\mbox{m}[/imath], so passing through the Earth, it would absorb essentially single atoms in its path, about [imath]10^{17}[/imath] atoms with a total mass of about with [imath]10^{-10} \,\mbox{kg}[/imath] each pass. This is if we can even make such assumption what interactions at such a tiny scale would really do, as these scales are much smaller than atomic nuclei – perhaps such a tiny black hole would pass through most atomic matter without interacting with it at all.

For any of this to thinking to be of any use or sense, we must begin by assuming that the Hawking radiation prediction is either completely wrong, or many orders of magnitude too large, because by this prediction, a [imath]10^{-24}\,\mbox{kg}[/imath] would evaporate is about [imath]10^{-88}\,\mbox{s}[/imath] – much to fast for it to interact with anything, or in any usual sense be said to exist at all.

If we assume there’s no Hawking radiation, however, we’re faced again with the question the Hawking radiation prediction answered: why aren’t there a lot smaller-than-star black holes around?

Reasoning like this is what leads nearly all physicists to conclude that the doomsday scenario Hasanuddin describes can’t happen.

A somewhat more promising physicists accidentally destroy the world scenario involves the creation of strangelets – but we’re only talking about death-by-micro-black holes in here. :)

#10 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 07:38 PM

Dear Polymath,

Twice you have referred to the dogmatic assumption that black-holes must evaporate harmlessly away. Yes that is a core question. This dogma is also paradoxically intertwined with LHC itself.

Did you know that this assumption is referred to as “Hawking Radiation” (HR) and that there has never been any experimental or empirical confirmation of this suggested phenomenon? Did you also know that one of the goals of LHC was to find evidence that this hypothesis was actually valid? Isn’t it a bit scary that LHC proponents have traditionally used the notion of “Hawking Radiation” as the lynch-pin of their claims that LHC is not dangerous??????????

The Dominium model makes the opposite claim as HR: that black-hole material is stabile, even at small mass sizes. I’d suggest that you read and digest the discussions that have already taken place on this matter. http://scienceforums...-by-hasanuddin/ Please continue this tangential discussion on that thread.

This thread is assuming the Dominium assertion of stabile black-holes is correct. It is making the assertion that if that were true, and LHC did generate one, then we would find ourselves in a cycle of ever increasing seismic/volcanic activity and severity. Currently we find ourselves in such a cycle. Therefore,…

All I have concluded (and predicted) that if all of that is true, then the frequency/severity of this activity will continue to increase AND the Earth will continue to speed up its spin.

The assertions being made are very large, and based on the past unlikely to occur. Go ahead and scoff at me if you are so comfortable in your certainty. However, the predictions of this hypothesis do transpire the absolute conclusions I would make are even larger than just that LHC made a stabile black-hole … I would go on to conclude that there is a God, that the omens of the Quranic/Biblical texts are valid, and that the choices that each of us make will have dire consequences on us individually. Okay, we’re now relegated to the “Strange Claims Forum” … fine … I suppose that is appropriate, the claims I am making right now are quite strange… Let’s all hope that they are completely incorrect.

Wait and see. Watch if more quakes, tsunami, and volcano continue to blast. That is the test of the hypothesis set forward.

#11 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 03:01 AM

Are ther not other causes of Earth's rate of spin increasing? What about that new huge dam in China? That is a lot of mass being held behind that dam! As for the seizmic activity, it has been my understanding that major earthquakes and tsunami were expected soon, if not considered overdue by geologists. Hasn't the earth wiped out most of life a couple of times already?

Such a shame some need to fear the "end of days" to consider consequences of their actions or to make peace. It would be a good thing if people did that anyway.

#12 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7315 posts

Posted 24 March 2011 - 10:30 AM

Are ther not other causes of Earth's rate of spin increasing? What about that new huge dam in China? That is a lot of mass being held behind that dam!

A dam effectively lifts a mass – it’s similar to pump-fed water tower, except that in place of a motor-driven pump, water is moved from sea level to the dam’s reservoir by the water cycle's normal evaporation and precipitation – so doesn’t increase the earth’s rotational speed, but decreases it.

Some quick approximate calculations, taking a standard value for the Earths moment of inertia and the height and volume of the Three Gorges Dam, I get that fully filling its reservoir (starting from completely empty) slows the Earth’s rotation by about 0.0000005 sec/day – about 1/3rd as much as 2011/3/11 Northeast Pacific earthquake, 1/14th as much as the 2004/12/26 Indian Ocean earthquake, sped it up. (check my work, in messy personal notation, here
Spoiler
)
By comparison, fully filling Hoover Dam's Lake Mead reservoir slowed the earth by about twice that, because it's of a similar volume (35 vs. 40 km3) but about twice the height above sea level (about 350 vs 150 m). Making a huge reservoir at a high altitude would have an even greater slowing effect - but still such a small it's only measurable with very precise clocks and observatories. Melting huge glaciers – which is actually happening – has a speeding effect.

Earthquakes tend to speed up the Earth’s rotation, because they lower a big mass – a section of the crust – similarly to how shaking a bucket of rubble lowers its height in the bucket.

It's easy to be clear about what speed and slows the Earth's rotation by imagining spinning on ice skates - pull you arms in (similar to an earthquake settling crust), you spin faster, stick them out (similar to pumping water into a high reservoir), you spin slower.

Long term, tidal drag from the Moon, and to a much lesser extent, the Sun and other bodies - slow the Earth's rotation, while melting glaciers speed it up. The current rate of this is about 0.000017 sec/day/year, so, the rotation speed increase due to the 2011/3/11 Earthquake will be erased by steady tidal effects around 14 April 2011.

#13 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 12 July 2011 - 01:51 PM

Here is an interesting bit of number crunching that seems to back up this hypothesis.
http://www.irishweat...rply/20688.html

Notice that the graphs at the end of the article compare half a year’s data for 2011 with full years’ data for all other years, 2000-2010, which is why they say that we’ve already surpassed the full year's data for 2002 & 2003 w/in the first six months of this year.

True, I agree that this could all be due to “natural fluctuations” as the article discusses. However, these statistics are exactly the type of phenomena that the central hypothesis of this thread projected three months ago.

If the worst case scenario is truly occurring, then the rate of earthquake and volcanic activity will steadily continue to rise.

Since this has been relegated to “Strange Claims” let me reiterate the neutral and upsides of this plight (if indeed the worst-case triggers have been pulled.)
Neutral: We have been fated to die since the first time we opened our eyes. This is not a game-changer, no matter what happens.
Upside: This would be the “first” verifiable and tangible evidence of the existence of God (Allah swt.) True, it comes also with the vision of impending death, but isn’t that when most people achieve highest clarity and closeness with their creator?

Trust me, I would love for this all to stop and go away. I would love to have people pull me aside fifteen years from now and joke about how I was once worried about CERN’s potential for a runaway mistake, creation of a stable black-hole, subsequent causation of increasing massive volcanic/seismic destruction, and the ultimate extermination of all Life. I would love to eat that form of crow.

However, the predictions of the model ARE coming to pass. Earthquakes and volcanic activity IS increasing world-wide.

A question to ponder becomes how will each individual personally react in the face of a potential Reckoning?

For me?.. I’m going on a pilgrimage to Mecca during the last two weeks of Ramadan (next month.) The way I figure, if this is occurring, at some point society will begin to unravel and it will become impossible to travel. Besides, making this pilgrimage is a mandatory component of my religion and it is something I have never yet done. If the worst-case point of no-return has been crossed, then, like everyone else, there’s nothing that I can do and I’m just along for the ride. In that case, instead of trying to argue about theoretical physics with the hope of diverting the LHC trajectory as I have done since 2007, I must look inward and work on changing my own trajectory.

#14 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 04:56 AM

Very Funny new features to this website: the ability to "vote" about scientific discourse but not back up their opinions!

Since when did Science become of opinion and not fact?????


In the last posting I laid out evidence that verifiably matches a direct prediction of the Dominium Model in the worst case situation for the repercussions had LHC “succeeds” in producing man’s first (last) sample of black-hole material. Cool. Wild assertions? Yes, but they are backed up by strong statistical evidence.


The response?? Somebody “voted down” the entry. Huh? An anonymous opinion w/out any backing? Dude (or Dudette), sorry but science ain’t no popularity contest… well, I guess the banquets, luncheons, prizes, and other sycophantic assns are… but ACTUAL scientific assertions/opinion should never be based on emotions alone.

Perhaps they were voting down that I brought up the idea of Death, or was it the notion of God… We’ll never know because whoever voted is not willing to back up their vote with any justifications.

Explain.

#15 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7315 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 02:25 PM

Here is an interesting bit of number crunching that seems to back up this hypothesis.
http://www.irishweat...rply/20688.html

Notice that the graphs at the end of the article compare half a year’s data for 2011 with full years’ data for all other years, 2000-2010, which is why they say that we’ve already surpassed the full year's data for 2002 & 2003 w/in the first six months of this year.

True, I agree that this could all be due to “natural fluctuations” as the article discusses.

You appear to have misread the article, Hasanudin.

IrishWeatherOnline.com’s article “Number of Recorded Earthquakes Rises Sharply” does not cite any seismologist or organization suggesting the increase in the number of earthquakes above 5.0 in the Richter scale recorded in a given year is due to an increase in the actual number of earthquakes occurring, nor does it mention “natural fluctuations” at all.

Rather, it states


Seismologists argue that an increase in detected earthquakes does not necessarily represent an increase in actual earthquakes. The USGS, for example, says improved global communication and enhancements in detection technology have both contributed to higher earthquake numbers being recorded over time.

According to the USGS: “Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant throughout this century and, according to our records, have actually seemed to decrease in recent years.”


In short, the organization authoring the data that the article's author used for its discussion and graphs explains that the increase in the rate of recorded earthquakes is due to more data being recorded, not more earthquakes occurring.

However, these statistics are exactly the type of phenomena that the central hypothesis of this thread projected three months ago.

Statistics about a phenomena are not the phenomena! As explained above, these statistics don’t show an increase in the rate of earthquakes.

Even if these data did indicate an actual increased earthquake rate, they increase beginning in 2003, and peaking in power in 2007. The LHC didn’t exceed the 0.98 TeV beam energy the Tevetron reached in 2001 until 30 Nov 2009, nor a 2-beam collision energy of 7 TeV until 30 Mar 2010. (source: wikipedia article Large Hadron Collider and references) These timelines don’t match.

#16 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 14883 posts

Posted 15 July 2011 - 05:53 PM

Very Funny new features to this website: the ability to "vote" about scientific discourse but not back up their opinions!

Since when did Science become of opinion and not fact?????


In the last posting I laid out evidence that verifiably matches a direct prediction of the Dominium Model in the worst case situation for the repercussions had LHC “succeeds” in producing man’s first (last) sample of black-hole material. Cool. Wild assertions? Yes, but they are backed up by strong statistical evidence.


The response?? Somebody “voted down” the entry. Huh? An anonymous opinion w/out any backing? Dude (or Dudette), sorry but science ain’t no popularity contest… well, I guess the banquets, luncheons, prizes, and other sycophantic assns are… but ACTUAL scientific assertions/opinion should never be based on emotions alone.

Perhaps they were voting down that I brought up the idea of Death, or was it the notion of God… We’ll never know because whoever voted is not willing to back up their vote with any justifications.

Explain.


i don't know how to view the rep-voters while logged in, but while you're logged out you need only click on the green, or in your case red, box and a window appears showing who voted and how.

that you continue here with this as you do is evidence enough that your ability to reason out things is seriously restricted. let me spell it out for you. not only is your model unsupported word-salad, it is unwelcome here. :turtle:

#17 Hasanuddin

Hasanuddin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 16 July 2011 - 05:04 AM

Dear CraigD (long time … Asalam alai’kum)

First I apologize for the overused and misused quotation marks—natural fluctuations—should have been italics.

There is a very vague paragraph that you quote. Actually, the news organization, IrishWeather, should never have clumped those words with the rest of the article at all

Seismologists argue that an increase in detected earthquakes does not necessarily represent an increase in actual earthquakes. The USGS, for example, says improved global communication and enhancements in detection technology have both contributed to higher earthquake numbers being recorded over time.



The problem here is that this paragraph is a stand alone issue unrelated to the article itself. It is IrishWeather that is guilty of this Fallacy of Composition. In this case the issue is time. Very true, as seismologists have steadily increased their monitoring and assessment capabilities they have been able to fine tune, i.e., count most near 100% of that which occurs. Therefore over time, because of the technological learning curve, counting became more accurate and totals increased closer to what was actual. The debate over what to do with all of the painstakingly taken, yet grossly undercounted data from the time of the New Deal through the ‘70s and ‘80s… but eventually one reaches a point where accuracy has improved so much that data collection is precise. Such times are now. We have been at that level for roughly twelve years (hence the reason why the article can’t/isn’t saying anything about times before 2000 because those numbers are not accurate. No-one is debating about the reliability of readings since 2000.

*Therefore the statistical spike is real, and cannot be dismissed by measuring error. We are also talking about an overnight doubling, and approaching tripling, of discrete events.


Speaking of analysis of Statistics, I need further explanation of your own opinion of whether a more than doubling of occurrence over a 6-month time represents something of statistical significance or not.

Statistics about a phenomena are not the phenomena! As explained above, these statistics don’t show an increase in the rate of earthquakes. <> Even if these data did indicate an actual increased earthquake rate, they increase beginning in 2003, and peaking in power in 2007.


Actually, I agree. The data at hand is what we have, so it should be what we analyze. The debate whether we can/can’t use 1999 or before data is irrelevant. What is relevant is the spike in the data. I disagree with your assertions that the data that there were ever a nonsteady-state beginning in 2003. Rather, all of the data, through 2010 seems relatively constant. It’s 2011 that’s the anomaly and if they repeat in the 2nd half of the year would produce an unprecedented spike in statically measured earthquakes.

At this point the question of LHC potency/impotence is irrelevant. Right now we are debating whether an unprecedented spike in the number of earthquakes ranging from 5.0 to 7.9 is credible data … (!) … Who cares about LHC any more? If we have reached the stage of increasing earthquakes … that means the point-of-no-return has been passed… who cares when? However, the question of when this could have happened is relevant to some degree. According to your Wikipedia report, they didn’t reach 7 TeV until early 2010. Creating a mini-black-hole would take a whole lot of initial input energy, therefore I’d guess that it they were to be *successful* it would have occurred closer to Mar 2010. But does that really matter any more?

Remember: Creation of an MBH (or several) at that time could be deduced to escape, feed, and in the process destabilize the internal structure of the planet. As that occurs the rates of volcanic and seismic activities will increase as the Earth, slowly at first, but even continuously ever changes shape as its internal volume is reduced by the feeding MBH. The physical and measurable indication of this will be an ever increasing occurrence of volcanic and earthquake activity. The article presented shows a doubling spike as measured over the first half of 2011.

Trust me, I don't want this to be true more than the next guy. But if it is, that means we all need to be extra Good to each other; we need to be extra careful with our interpersonal actions; and even careful with one's own eyes, tongue, and word. It appears that prophesies are coming to fruition, so then a necessary and final step is Reckoning ... to which we will be judged completely discretely.