Untitled attachment

Notices where this attachment appears

1. 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Jan-2020 12:56:10 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   @se7en Sort of... In the terms of solar activity, absolutely. Being "overdue" is a bit of a statistical fallacy. If i flipped a 100 coins and they are all heads you might say "we are overdue for a tails" yet the chance of a tails coming up on the next flip is the same as it is on any other flip.

   When we talk about the sun what matters is the minimums and maximus. They tend to cycle in semi-predictable ways. Each cycle will be slightly more or less active than the last but generally you wont have low activity that just suddenly errupts into a lot of activity. It goes through several cycles of slowly increasing or decreasing. I attached a diagram to show you the solar cycles historically.

   Right now as you can see we are in a minimum. So its a pretty sure bet we can say that we are safe from such an event for at least 30 - 50 years. At which point we may be at another maximum and then there is some risk of such an event. But it has nothing to do with being "overdue"

   As for earthquakes, there is some validity to being overdue in that case. Faults that go long periods without a quake but are otherwise active regions will have MUCH bigger quakes when they occur. Other active faults that have quakes often tend to have much smaller quakes consistently and are at low risk for massive quakes despite their high activity. So in this case the whole "overdue" argument may have some validity. But as for the idea of california sinking into the ocean, well thats just bullox, but we may have a pretty massive quake, thats possible, its something we have a hard time predicting though.