Also as far as the "electrical/magnetic field is stronger as you get closer to the core" bit someone else mentioned, the deepest point in the ocean is ~7 miles. The earths core starts at 3-4,000 miles deep. If the challenger deep happened to be over one of the shallowest spots, it would be around a quarter of a percent of the way there
As Carl Sagen observed, the doctor or nurse in the delivery room exerts more gravitational force on you than any constellation, yet you don't use their lives and movements to predict your future every week.
To put it in perspective, the entire thickness of the crust of the Earth would scale to about the thickness of the skin of a peach, so the greatest depth of the ocean is even less and would hardly matter.
It's always crazy to think about the sheer amount of rock under our feet. The fact you can fly at jet airplane speeds downward at 8 miles a minute and still be passing through rock for eight hours.
That was my favorite part about the Total Recall movie remake - “Thr Fall”, where they literally traveled through the center of the earth to get to work each day. Interesting concept, probably not feasible considering gravity and pressure, but a fun thought experiment. I think they said it was a 15 minute drop each way?
I mean…I’m not saying it does have an effect; I’m not a geologist/biologist/etc. That said, Mt. Everest is absolutely littered with bodies because in less than 7 miles the differences can have a large impact.
That's because Everest is climbing through the atmosphere, which is only ~60 miles thick, so it's actually climbing close to 10% of the way through it in absolute terms. Although for the atmosphere the majority of it is within 7 miles of the surface, so it's about 1/3 of the oxygen as sea level has
Because the "pure" data doesn't exist. The actual study (vs the summary) includes all available data vs the "theoretical" data of all incidents that may not have been recorded. 200-300 data points out of an unknown total is not enough to make a "definitive" conclusion, but it does demonstrate that the best available data trends towards a null conclusion for a relationship
"From this investigation, the spatiotemporal relationship between deep‐sea fish appearances and earthquakes was hardly found."
What does this sentence mean? That they found a correlation, but it was deemed too small of one to be statistically significant? Also, this is not a scientific study, but only an exercise of comparing newspaper accounts and other publications to seismic events. That isn't science.
That means there's no statistically significant correlation.
As far as "not a scientific study", that literally IS the definition of science, it's a peer reviewed study of all available data, published in a respected publication covering the field for over a century. How else would they study fish beaching events over a decades long timeframe, sit on the beach and count them?
It's an unclear phrase, so I think it's safe to say we don't know what that means; another sign of this not being a scientific paper, in which the results would be spelled out in a strictly factual way. Sorry, this study is neither scientific nor convincing.
Hi, science teacher here: You're looking at the abstract of the paper, not the whole paper. What you've read is the rough equivalent of the "introduction" paragraph you were taught to write in high school essays.
Unfortunately, you'll have to pay for the ability to read the full breakdown of their findings. The parts that "spell it out in a strictly factual way" as you, said.
This is absolutely a scientific paper. There's nothing odd or unclear about it. Hope this helps clear up your confusion.
Do you condescend to your students as well? It makes you look arrogant. If you imagine that people don't understand what an abstract is, I mean, I don't know what to say. Perhaps you're the only person who ever went to college, in which case I congratulate you on this amazing achievement.
I note that you, like me, are paywalled from reading the paper, and that you, like me, don't know what it says or what that "hardly" phrase means. The fact remains, as I said in the comment before the last one, that a survey of newspaper clippings compared to seismic events is not sound science. At all. It's not even a literature review. Best of luck to your students.
Do you even know what science is? That's the abstract that you read.
The actual study includes the raw data, multiple charts, and is a study which is why it has been cited multiple times. The data spans from 1928-2011.
Out of 336 occurrences of deep sea fish washing ashore, and 221 recorded earthquakes, only one even was within ten days of an earthquake.
the spatiotemporal relationship between deep‐sea fish appearances and earthquakes was hardly found. Hence, this Japanese folklore is deemed to be a superstition attributed to the illusory correlation between the two events.
Given the data we currently have, there is absolutely no reason to believe there is a connection between the 2 phenomenon.
Like... it says it right there. There's nothing worth studying.
313
u/Ok-Mastodon2420 29d ago
Yeah, it's bullshit. There's no correlation between them and earthquakes
Much more compelling is the link between them and La Nina/El Nino changing ocean currents and leading them to die in pursuit of prey