>Feb 3
>Sooner or later there will be a ~M 7.5 #earthquake in this region (South-Central Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon). #deprem
The earthquake happened 3 days after. This seems prescient, until you realize the wording suggests an ambiguous timeline. The area is a known fault zone, one happening "sooner or later" isn't exactly some deep insight. If he knew about that specific earthquake, why didn't he give a more specific prediction of "within the next week"?
>A few days ago a fluctuations chart was published marking the region west of Portugal, which is an approximation.
>I guess #Spain and #Italy should also be on extra alert.
He warned Spain and Italy, but not Morocco? Also for whatever reason he warned italy even though it's not a region marked by the map. Why?
Also, if you scroll through his timeline, it's littered with predictions that didn't come to pass:
https://twitter.com/hogrbe/status/1633919887243370497
https://twitter.com/hogrbe/status/1630518718886191104
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.
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).
I know that and I’m just commenting his claim; I’m not attacking you in any way.
For the record, I hate this out-of-hand dismissal of anyone who asks "What if..." about anything outside the current Overton Window.
What in the world is an "antibeliever?" I find it kind of telling you chose this phrase instead of anti science.
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."
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
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 ?
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-dut...
[2]: https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2023/02/did-earthquake-guru-frank...
[3]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6469019/Top-Austral...
[4]: https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/01/dutch-earthquake-enth...
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.
That’s not say you should defend bad science. Just that great Science might appear like nonsense - at first.
His opponents were not scientists, but priests.
Resistance against evolution likewise. Fueled by religion, not science.
And tectonic plates was just a theory among many, with unclear data at that time. Pasteur likewise.
Real scientists also made mistakes, more so when their reputation is based on the old theory. But in general if there is a new theory that provides a model that works (its calculation fit reality), then it will be adopted. I don't know of a case where this did not happen.
Just saying that anyone who says “there’s resistance in the scientific community” can be right or wrong. The COVID vaccine rollout and subsequent confirmation of large amounts of vaccine injury was certainly a good case study. Happened just 24 months ago. There was lots of “resistance” until the papers confirmed a lot of what the naysayers were saying on day 30, but the papers arrived on day 300
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-enth...
He seems fairly reasonable at first glance.
I scrolled through his timeline and found plenty of predictions that failed to materialize https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37446472
Perhaps it's part of his process for sorting out what works.
I'm disinclined to draw any conclusion one way or another at this point in time about his work. I lack sufficient information and I'm confident quickly scanning his Twitter feed won't adequately fill in the gaps in my knowledge.
He's been doing this for years and has been going on the media circuit touting his predictions. He even works at (founded?) an organization that claims to predict earthquakes. This is obviously not a case of some scientist "sorting out what works".
I've just learned of his existence. I reserve the right to draw my own conclusions in my own time and do not feel compelled to cave to social pressure to spout the "party line".
Thank you.
What a bizarre statement to make after a seemingly reasonable series of exchanges. If you're out of arguments but don't want to change your mind, just admit so. Invoking some sort of persecution complex to justify it is just baffling. Nobody is demanding that you immediately change your mind or publicly recant your beliefs.
I'm not sure why you think I'm "failing to grasp" that part. My previous comment literally says
>If you're out of arguments but don't want to change your mind, just admit so.
The part that was "bizzare" to me was
>Invoking some sort of persecution complex to justify it is just baffling. Nobody is demanding that you immediately change your mind or publicly recant your beliefs.
I'm disinclined to draw any conclusion one way or another at this point in time about his work. I lack sufficient information and I'm confident quickly scanning his Twitter feed won't adequately fill in the gaps in my knowledge.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37446779
Changing one's mind requires you to first have a position. You keep arguing for me to see it your way, as if I believe the opposite to be true. I don't.
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-position-moon-or-planets-affec...
Or a similar idea about a correlation between solar activity and earthquakes:
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.
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...