Megaquakes Predicted For 2018. It's Happening!

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Upsurge in big earthquakes predicted for 2018 as Earth rotation slows

Scientists have warned there could be a big increase in numbers of devastating earthquakes around the world next year. They believe variations in the speed of Earth’s rotation could trigger intense seismic activity, particularly in heavily populated tropical regions.

The link between Earth’s rotation and seismic activity was highlighted last month in a paper by Roger Bilham of the University of Colorado in Boulder and Rebecca Bendick of the University of Montana in Missoula presented at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America.

“The correlation between Earth’s rotation and earthquake activity is strong and suggests there is going to be an increase in numbers of intense earthquakes next year,” Bilham told the Observer last week.

The researchers searched to find correlations between these periods of intense seismic activity and other factors and discovered that when Earth’s rotation decreased slightly it was followed by periods of increased numbers of intense earthquakes. “The rotation of the Earth does change slightly – by a millisecond a day sometimes – and that can be measured very accurately by atomic clocks,” said Bilham.

Now I don't buy for a second that a milisecond change in rotation creates earthquakes. Here's what I think. Gravity doesn't exist, and the earth rotates due to it's electromagnetic properties and this periodic rise in megaquakes is due to periodic surges in whatever electric current the earth is hooked up to.

The slowed rotation doesnt cause the earthquakes, rather the same electrical event that causes the planet to slow also causes it to quake.

I think maybe a small drop in the extraterrestrial voltage upsets the balance just enough to slow the earth while also causing the electricity produced in the earths core to come flying out in the form of lighting. And where you have lighting you have thunder (earthquakes are underground thunder).

Thoughts @haidut @charlie @Travis

 

[x-ray peat]

It must be global warming. (sarc)

 

[Such_Saturation]

Gravity doesn't exist

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.01927.pdf

 

[hiconscience]

let alone the seismic activity from fracking....oh humans.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.01927.pdf

I said gravity doesn't exist. This is talking about momentum in subatomic particles

 

[Such_Saturation]

I said gravity doesn't exist. This is talking about momentum in subatomic particles

He comes out with the field equations of conformal gravity on page 7

 

[damngoodcoffee]

let alone the seismic activity from fracking....oh humans.

Is that you in the pic? What a cutie! :3

 

[hiconscience]

Is that you in the pic? What a cutie! :3

haha yes thanks!

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

He comes out with the field equations of conformal gravity on page 7

Alright what i got from reading is that both electromagnetic forces and gravity are the result of a more fundamental law called the dynamical law.

Is that right?

Also could you give me a rundown of what the dynamical law is. Is it a law regarding motion?

 

[tara]

Gravity doesn't exist

I guess you wouldn't be too worried about earthquakes dropping heavy things on your head then, like earthquake engineers do.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

I guess you wouldn't be too worried about earthquakes dropping heavy things on your head then, like earthquake engineers do.

Nope I'd just go outside

 

[tara]

Nope I'd just go outside

Who needs structural engineers when there's such a simple solution. Why can't everyone be so clever.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Who needs structural engineers when there's such a simple solution. Why can't everyone be so clever.

Because intelligence is negatively correlated with sexual success.

We need structural engineers to build structures, not just for earthquakes.

 

[tara]

We need structural engineers to build structures, not just for earthquakes.

You know that people get injured and killed in unsafe buildings because they can happen fast, right? That sometimes the stairways and exits get blocked? That heavy things fall on people outside buildings too? (Though perhaps you have some explanation other than gravity for stone/brick concrete falling on people.)

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

You know that people get injured and killed in unsafe buildings because they can happen fast, right? That sometimes the stairways and exits get blocked?

That's what windows are for

That heavy things fall on people outside buildings too? (Though perhaps you have some explanation other than gravity for stone/brick concrete falling on people.)

My plan is to go outside and lay down in the doggy park how the hell is anything going to fall on me out there?

When I said gravity doesn't exist I meant the magical einstein-newton gravity. Obviously there is some force that causes objects to fall on people who can't get to the doggy park in time but thats not gonna be me

 

[Jem Oz]

The earth don't rotate. It's flat as a pancake. Next.

 

[Jem Oz]

The earth don't rotate. It's flat as a pancake. Next.

 

[haidut]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.01927.pdf

So...gravity is just a form of this electromagnetic coupling constant they talk about?

 

[haidut]

When I said gravity doesn't exist I meant the magical einstein-newton gravity

I think if you had said that "gravity" is just an ignorant term for an electromagnetic interaction of elementary particles, it would have been better received. Now people think you are the gravitational equivalent of a flat-earther I don't, but I think you get the idea.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

So...gravity is just a form of this electromagnetic coupling constant they talk about?

I've read that paper half a dozen times and i think I'm starting to understand it. From what i could gleam, the author is talking about a fundamental law of motion that underlies both gravity AND electromagnetism.

According to modern physics, particles of matter exchange bosons (made up particles of force) when they interact with each other. From wiki: 'The Standard Model of particle physics recognizes four kinds of gauge bosons: photons, which carry the electromagnetic interaction; W and Z bosons, which carry the weak interaction; and gluons, which carry the strong interaction'.

There's also supposed to be a graviton which they haven't found yet.

So he's replacing the different quantum particles with one quantum field and presenting the evidence for it. Seems legit, and he does present some observation and empiricism. (actual science as opposed to hocus pocus math) For example in the abstract when he says "For two massive spin one-half particles, the coupling constant matches the empirical value of the electromagnetic coupling constant." and later when he's describing coupling constant and he says

"The result (for massive leptons) is given by the expression ....1/137.03608245. This expression is identical to the well-known semi-empirical Wyler formula. Its numerical value closely matches the electromagnetic fine-structure constant α, whose empirical value is 1/137.035999084(51). This close match is strong evidence that the electromagnetic interaction is in fact the manifestation of the intrinsic gauge field (cf. Section 4) required by the Dynamical Law."

From the pdf:

Actually, the Standard Model uses a concept of momentum exchange to describe three of the fundamental forces between elementary particles. Feynman, when formulating the perturbation theory of quantum electrodynamics [2–4], spoke of ‘virtual quanta’. Based on the postulate of gauge invariance, the exchanged quanta became ‘gauge bosons’. Integration over the exchanged momenta is an integral part of the Feynman rules in momentum space (cf., e.g., [5]). Together with the conservation of momentum at each vertex, this integration generates the kind of momentum entanglement that is demanded by the Dynamical Law.

What he's talking about is a "gauge field" to replace or supplement the made up gauge bosons mentioned above. All those interactions could then be mediated by one field as opposed to four different virtual particles:

As just shown, there is no need to explicitly postulate the presence of gauge bosons: they are there not for reasons of gauge invariance, but because the structure of the Poincare group requires their existence. However, in contrast to the common understanding of QED, these gauge boson are not the quanta of an independent field. They rather stand for a field that describes the intrinsic structure of many-particle states as determined by Poincare symmetry. Therefore, this field may be referred to as an intrinsic gauge field.

He's also describing a "dynamical law" that seeks to explain how particles interact with each other at a fundamental level. Gravity and EM are the main ways in which particles interact and, according to the standard model, they do so by exchanging gauge bosons. He's describing a quanta of momentum as opposed to a quanta of electromagnetism (photon) and a quanta of gravity (graviton).

In conjunction with the conservation laws for total momentum and angular momentum, this rule has the character of a complementary dynamical law, dictated by Poincare symmetry. It defines a mechanism that forces two particles to exchange quanta of momentum in a controlled way. I call this rule ‘a law’ (in the following: ‘the Dynamical Law’) for two reasons: Firstly, it derives directly from the commutation relations of the Poincare group and is, therefore, fundamental for relativistic quantum mechanics, as fundamental as the conservation laws of energy, momentum, and angular momentum. Secondly, it has, just as the mentioned conservation laws, far-reaching implications for the physics of elementary particles.

Supposedly this dynamical law would be as fundamental as the laws of motion which, if true, is quite amazing.

For practical calculations, the perturbation approach of QED remains the method of choice. This should not be taken as a license to overload the perturbation algorithm with questionable ‘physical’ interpretations. There are no indications, neither theoretical nor experimental, that ‘virtual particles’ are anything other than elements of a pictorial description of momentum entangled structures. This applies to virtual gauge bosons as well as to virtual electron–positron pairs, which, within the perturbation algorithm, are ‘created’ by gauge bosons.

Funny because from where I stand it seems like every couple of months the LHC "detect" another boson. So if these pparticles that they keep finding don't exist what does? Slight alterations in the movement of the particles that they smash together. They detect these motions in bubble chambers and particle detectors and deduce that they must come from throwing off virtual particles like infinitesimally small pinballs. I.e if the electron moved off course such and such amount, it must have thrown off a particle of such and such weight, just as we predicted! I could be wrong here (I'm no quantum physicist) but that's what I think happens.

Independently of the partial failure of the perturbation algorithm, it can be stated that the Poincare group not only determines the structure of the electromagnetic interaction, it also explains, by means of the Dynamical Law, why there is an electromagnetic interaction, and it determines, in contrast to the principle of gauge invariance, the correct value of the electromagnetic coupling constant.

What can be said about the value of the coupling constant αg? A first calculation for a two-particle system of spinless particles, in analogy to the calculation of the electromagnetic coupling constant, reproduces this very same coupling constant. However, in contrast to the electromagnetic interaction, which can be neutralized, because there are positive and negative charges, the ‘gravitational charge’ always has the same sign, which makes it impossible to shield gravity. Therefore, to determine an effective coupling constant, in principle all particles of the universe must be taken into account. The number of protons derived from an estimated total mass of the visible universe of 1053 kg (cf., e.g., [14] and references cited therein) is 10^80 . To exchange momentum with another particle, a given particle must, at first, find a second particle, before it can form a two-particle state with this partner. There are 10^80 different potential partners. The quantum mechanical transition amplitude for a given particle to form a two-particle state with a specific second particle is therefore given by 10^−40, the square root of 10^−80. Hence the strength (or, better, the weakness) of the gravitational interaction is, first of all, determined by the factor 10^−40. This factor agrees quite well with the empirical ratio between the strengths of the gravitational and the electromagnetic interaction. It has no relation to the Planck mass, but rather to the number of particles in the universe.

I think this is saying that gravity and electromagnetism are the same thing, the difference being one can be positive or negative while one is always positive. This guy claims his theory removes the need for gauge bosons but the photon is a gauge boson and I think it's pretty well established that the photon exists.

Since gravity is far reaching, to calculate the chance of a particle forming a gravitational coupling with any other particle, you need to include all the particles of the known universe. For particle A to gravitationally attract particle B it has to fight against the combined gravity of the universe. Electromagnetism doesn't have that problem. Positive attracts negative, positive repels positive, and negative repels negative. That' a lot more options that just attract. This goes to show why electromagnetism is the dynamic force of the universe, and why it's so strong locally, scales infinitely, and explains a myriad of empirical observations much better than gravity ever could.

Not to mention charge separation makes sure there's always something happening, whether in between the core and the mantle, the clouds and the earth, the earth and the sun, the sun and the milky way, etc etc. Gravity is pretty lame in comparison.

I think if you had said that "gravity" is just an ignorant term for an electromagnetic interaction of elementary particles, it would have been better received. Now people think you are the gravitational equivalent of a flat-earther I don't, but I think you get the idea.

I maintain that Einstein-Newton gravity doesn't exist and that this whole space time curvature is a crock of . I don't care if they burn me at the stake there's no way I'm accepting that empty space is like a fabric that bends depending on how much weight is put on it.

From the pdf:

According to Newton’s laws, ‘exchange of momentum’ is another wording for ‘curved trajectories’. From General Relativity it is known that curved trajectories can be described by an intrinsic curvature of space–time, such that the trajectories become geodesics with respect to the metric of space–time. Differential geometry describes this curvature by the Riemann curvature tensor Rλµνκ.

Yeah no.

But as far as the positive pull inherit in all mass which attracts it to every other particle of mass independent of it's electromagnetic charge, and which scales without the need for made up dark energies and dark matter....I'll accept that.

Conformal gravity is known to yield the same results as Einstein–Newton gravity as long as systems with the symmetry of the solar system are considered [12], see also [13]. On the scales of galaxies, the theories differ insofar as conformal gravity is able to describe the kinematics of galaxies solely on the basis of the distribution of visible matter [12], whereas in Einstein–Newton gravity large amounts of properly placed ‘dark matter’ are required to match the observational data.