Klaynos

So I know a good few people with PhDs, myself included. Mostly physics but some biology and at lease one languages... Of those the vast majority no long work in academia. Some did postdocs, some did not. Doing a PhD isn't just about learning/researching your topic it is about developing research skills and toolsets. I would say people fall into a few different sectors, technical software companies (mostly modelling software), academia (the minority), research for commercial companies, telecoms companies and working for government agencies. Hardly anyone works on a topic closely or even loosely related to their PhD. Some jobs people do include software engineering, technical sales, technical after sales support, translating between technical teams working in different languages, research, hardware development, product development (both physical and digital), fault modelling, data science in various forms etc... I don't talk much about my work on here, I joined my organisation at a graduate level with a PhD, not unlike many of my friends, 8.5 years ago. Compared to others with a master's who joined at a similar time I'm more senior than them now. To the point where I've chosen to not manage people and concentrate on research. I would say that that is not atypical for people with a PhD, join the same and out pace them in a couple of years. When working with people you can normally tell who went through a PhD by the speed at which they onboard with a project, the rapidity of generating and dismissing ideas etc... It's surprisingly noticeable even when dealing with people of similar experience and time with the organisation. I'm very glad I'm no longer in academia. My contemparairies have less job security and far more pressure from their colleagues for few benefits.

I agree. It's a first step. Which all it might show is that given a large number of cyclical events some well correlate well.

First you need to show a correlation. You need to actually plot the data together and show a statistically significant correlation. Then we can start talking about causes. What you've done here is state something you appear to have cherry picked and then made up a story you like. It's also always worth noting that correlation is not causation.

Humans are not good measurement systems. There are many layers of processing that are done which are complicated and not well understood. Even what seem like simple things are complicated when you investigate further. Mirror therapy is a good example of how the human mind can be trivially tricked, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_therapy.

A theoretical treatise in modern physics would be mathematical. What this reads as; "I've made some stuff up and want someone to do all the hard work".

One of the best "I'm just a layman" type threads I've seen in a long while. All should be commended. ALine, you might enjoy having a look at the mathematical field of mechanics, specifically kinematics.

It'd be helpful to know where you want to study (country) and your end goal

Where in Somerset is this? (I didn't realise you were that close) I'm wondering if the vertical velocity from the Weir might have caused a very gradual undercut. Which possibly together with the recent very dry warm spell causing some movement above the low water line has caused the drop. The fault in the wall following some weak point, possibly a repair or showing how it was built in sections?

An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements by John Robert Taylor. I think this should be forced reading to everyone doing a numeric subject or any kind of experiment design or analysis.

I acknowledge it is a shared belief in this reality though. I do not claim it is absolute. That is an important acknowledgement in this discussion and one others in this thread refuse to understand. They think because they believe it or is true. Or at least that is the impression they're giving.

You're setting artificial limits. There is no reason other than your belief that both senses couldn't be both complying to the same illusion. Not only is it only your belief but it's observably false as people who have hallucinations it often effects multiple senses. This is incredibly frustrating.

Why can't they both be illusions? This is rather foolish.

The trivial counterargument is that the sense of touch is an illusion.

That sounds rather scary to me. Why would your default position be absolute truth? Your position should be scepticism! I don't think science nor philosophy is for you. Nope. You're either in my imagination or a computer simulation where I'm the only true consciousness. I'm yet to decide which. Please see my previous sentence. Or your existence is being modelled in some way. Nope. See my precision comments in this post. Your English is not the problem.

Again the last two posts by themselves show that your coconut example is not absolute. This is getting old.

And the point I am trying to convey is that this is no way absolute. There are many situations that claiming what you get out of a tap is water is going to either cause unpredictable results or cause danger. This is amplified with more unknown sources. They very idea that we're having this discussion should show you that it's not absolute. I also don't think that what is "common sense" to a group of ape descendents on a small blue green planet orbiting an unregarded yellow sun has any bearing on the fundemental working of the universe. And in other news the sun isn't round. https://www.space.com/17143-weird-sun-shape-revealed.html

And you missunderstand me. None of your examples are water. They are mixes with a primary component being H2O. At what point does a pond go from water to muddy water to mud? This is not absolute, far from it. You're spouting nonsense.

Water is not just H2O though. Water from your tap has a significantly different composition than if you get a glass from your local river or the ocean. Which one of those is water? All of them? None of them? Just H2O? That doesn't look absolute to me. Yet another completely wrong example from randopin.

! Moderator Note All, please try and keep this thread civil. It's for talking about the bits of info.

hypervalent_iodineisstupid has been banned for abusive behaviour.

! Moderator Note Quit the personal insults. They're against the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

I'd second these sentiments.

Have you considered a control where you select random days (the same number of days as you have earthquake events) and apply the same methodology? It's quite a small data set you're working with, which is to be expected, larger than I feared it might be though. Might be interesting to look at France over a similar period? Similar seismic stability. I think picking somewhere with lots of quakes might make it too difficult.

How many riots and earthquakes? Correlation doesn't necessarily means causation. Do you have a proposed mechanism? Is the mechanism measurable? The correlation is certainly interesting.

One of the traditional reasons for not having a forum on a given topic, say palaeontology, is that in the related areas where people might post topics (say other or biology) there are not many topics on the subject. So to keep the number of fora to a manageable level they are not included. If there was a sudden upspike in threads I think it would be reviewed. Similarly in the past some fora have been merged due to very few threads. Of course there is also the argument that having a specific forum will encourage more threads.