Ok thanks for the references, Ernest.
Had a read through the Datta et al paper, and I think you have your purported answer right there …
Quote:
|
Here we reason that water tide clearly is not the way to go, nevertheless tidal or geodesic deviation signals can be an accurate source of astronomical quantities that may provide a double check on standard methods. More importantly gravitational tide can reveal information that cannot be accessed via conventional observational techniques.
|
Seems like a reasonably well argued perspective.
I wasn't too enthralled with this bit though ..
Quote:
|
Etymology of the condition “lunacy” is another empirical evidence of celestial effects on human psychology. Furthermore, for a long time there has been at least anecdotal evidence, which is beginning to be scientifically substantiated about a credible connection between significant geophysical events such as earthquakes and tides.
|
Whilst I've heard the 'lunacy' inferences being cited in mainstream media, I've never researched the topic and I remain sceptical about this. (Which doesn't necessarily rule it out as a possibility, mind you).
Also, they should clarify that the 'credible connection between earthquakes and tides', doesn't lead to any useful long term predictive capabilities. Invoking tides as a trigger for relieving fault stress, I see is credible, but using it as a sole method for prediction, places it back into the unlikely category (for lots of reasons).
Using such examples in their Introduction also raises alarm bells with me, when it comes to the credibility of other aspects of their arguments/rationale.
Also, perhaps I haven't read it closely enough, but are they actually saying that: 'the results show a sinusoidal pattern over 24 hours that is repeated day after day.' ??
Figure 10 in this paper is a "synthetic tidal signal". Can't seem to find where they actually come out and say say a 24 hour cycle is statistically evident from the results.
(Happy to be corrected on this, however).
Cheers