It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Artificial Tsunami?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
i doubt a nuke would do that much damage, especialy if it was set off under water. i think you would need numerous amount, maybe in the region of 15 i guess to create a big enough tidalwave to have an effect. new form of terrorism prehaps? who knows... we should be ready for it though, more ready that asia anyways.



dh

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Just how, if I may ask, did HAARP cause the tsunami?


Hi, Howard, Still feel honoured by you. Thanks
Interferometry is the basic principle though it's a little beyond me and not directly related to HAARP, more a refinement of the vibratory principle, using interacting energy streams to create an immediate exponential expansion of explosive force
A simple method of creating the waves is through an electrically charged moebius coil -for home experimenters - wrap round a large crystal and use as a radionic device
I think a highly likely explanation for the WTC demolition and perhaps the Bali bombing is an interferometric weapon

See, for example

www.prahlad.org...



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
just type Tesla, and Earthquakes into a search engine, there are SO MANY links...


You will get the same number of results, if not more if you type in “Santa Clause” or the “Easter Bunny.”

I don’t believe in them either.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Hi dh, still spouting out the psuedo scientific B.S. I see.


dh

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Let's call it grappling with stuff by the essentially non-technically inclined mind
Sounds so much more friendly
Still as cynical and unaccepting I see
Accept it all, and spit out the pips, I say

[edit on 29-12-2004 by dh]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by spacedoubt
just type Tesla, and Earthquakes into a search engine, there are SO MANY links...


You will get the same number of results, if not more if you type in “Santa Clause” or the “Easter Bunny.”

I don’t believe in them either.




Maybe.

But the easter bunny isn't responsible for the fact that your car starts every day!


[edit on 29-12-2004 by spacedoubt]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Just because Tesla was a good at electrical engineering, doesn’t mean that he was right about everything. There is no “aether.” Einstein proved that. Scalar weapons are a scientific impossibility.


dh

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
. Scalar weapons are a scientific impossibility.




Prove it - as they always say to 'us'



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh

Originally posted by HowardRoark
. Scalar weapons are a scientific impossibility.




Prove it - as they always say to 'us'



Easy. Scalar wepons are based on the idea that EM waves travel in an “Aether.”

The Aether theory was proven wrong by Maxwell over a century ago. Einstein drove the stake though its heart with the theory of general relativity.

Since Aether does not exist, a weapon system that exploits the properties of Aether can not exist.


dh

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   


Prove it - as they always say to 'us'


Easy. Scalar wepons are based on the idea that EM waves travel in an “Aether.”

The Aether theory was proven wrong by Maxwell over a century ago. Einstein drove the stake though its heart with the theory of general relativity.

Since Aether does not exist, a weapon system that exploits the properties of Aether can not exist.



The ether doesn't exist, eh?
That's because you accept the bs quack science of paid-off corporate scientists who only have the agenda written for them on a piece of paper to hand over a reductionist and materialist view of interacting molecules and confined frequencies so the world accepts an accidental explanation for its existence
That's very sad
This progression that's going on is very major and the most important times of our lives - ever
Get on board, Howard, don't let your cynicism and doubt drag you down with the wreckage - you'll get swept out to sea yourself
Hope for yourself - the times are very critical



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Lets look at what Einstein had to say about it shall we?


From an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden:

How does it come about that alongside of the idea of ponderable matter, which is derived by abstraction from everyday life, the physicists set the idea of the existence of another kind of matter, the aether? The explanation is probably to be sought in those phenomena which have given rise to the theory of action at a distance, and in the properties of light which have led to the undulatory theory. Let us devote a little while to the consideration of these two subjects.

Outside of physics we know nothing of action at a distance. When we try to connect cause and effect in the experiences which natural objects afford us, it seems at first as if there were no other mutual actions than those of immediate contact, e.g. the communication of motion by impact, push and pull, heating or inducing combustion by means of a flame, etc. It is true that even in everyday experience weight, which is in a sense action at a distance, plays a very important part. But since in daily experience the weight of bodies meets us as something constant, something not linked to any cause which is variable in time or place, we do not in everyday life speculate as to the cause of gravity, and therefore do not become conscious of its character as action at a distance. It was Newton's theory of gravitation that first assigned a cause for gravity by interpreting it as action at a distance, proceeding from masses. Newton's theory is probably the greatest stride ever made in the effort towards the causal nexus of natural phenomena. And yet this theory evoked a lively sense of discomfort among Newton's contemporaries, because it seemed to be in conflict with the principle springing from the rest of experience, that there can be reciprocal action only through contact, and not through immediate action at a distance.

It is only with reluctance that man's desire for knowledge endures a dualism of this kind. How was unity to be preserved in his comprehension of the forces of nature? Either by trying to look upon contact forces as being themselves distant forces which admittedly are observable only at a very small distance and this was the road which Newton's followers, who were entirely under the spell of his doctrine, mostly preferred to take; or by assuming that the Newtonian action at a distance is only apparently immediate action at a distance, but in truth is conveyed by a medium permeating space, whaether by movements or by elastic deformation of this medium. Thus the endeavor toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an aether. This hypothesis, to be sure, did not at first bring with it any advance in the theory of gravitation or in physics generally, so that it became customary to treat Newton's law of force as an axiom not further reducible. But the aether hypothesis was bound always to play some part in physical science, even if at first only a latent part.

When in the first half of the nineteenth century the far-reaching similarity was revealed which subsists between the properties of light and those of elastic waves in ponderable bodies, the aether hypothesis found fresh support. 1t appeared beyond question that light must be interpreted as a vibratory process in an elastic, inert medium filling up universal space. It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarization that this medium, the aether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid. Thus the physicists were bound to arrive at the theory of the ``quasi-rigid'' luminiferous aether, the parts of which can carry out no movements relatively to one another except the small movements of deformation which correspond to light-waves.

This theory also called the theory of the stationary luminiferous aether moreover found a strong support in an experiment which is also of fundamental importance in the special theory of relativity, the experiment of Fizeau, from which one was obliged to infer that the luminiferous aether does not take part in the movements of bodies. The phenomenon of aberration also favored the theory of the quasi-rigid aether.

The development of the theory of electricity along the path opened up by Maxwell and Lorentz gave the development of our ideas concerning the aether quite a peculiar and unexpected turn. For Maxwell himself the aether indeed still had properties which were purely mechanical, although of a much more complicated kind than the mechanical properties of tangible solid bodies. But neither Maxwell nor his followers succeeded in elaborating a mechanical model for the aether which might furnish a satisfactory mechanical interpretation of Maxwell's laws of the electro-magnetic field. The laws were clear and simple, the mechanical interpretations clumsy and contradictory. Almost imperceptibly the theoretical physicists adapted themselves to a situation which, from the standpoint of their mechanical program, was very depressing. They were particularly influenced by the electro-dynamical investigations of Heinrich Hertz. For whereas they previously had required of a conclusive theory that it should content itself with the fundamental concepts which belong exclusively to mechanics (e.g. densities, velocities, deformations, stresses) they gradually accustomed themselves to admitting electric and magnetic force as fundamental concepts side by side with those of mechanics, without requiring a mechanical interpretation for them. Thus the purely mechanical view of nature was gradually abandoned. But this change led to a fundamental dualism which in the long-run was insupportable. A way of escape was now sought in the reverse direction, by reducing the principles of mechanics to those of electricity, and this especially as confidence in the strict validity of the equations of Newton's mechanics was shaken by the experiments with b-rays and rapid cathode rays.

This dualism still confronts us in unextenuated form in the theory of Hertz, where matter appears not only as the bearer of velocities, kinetic energy, and mechanical pressures, but also as the bearer of electromagnetic fields. Since such fields also occur in vacuo i.e. in free aether the aether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic fields. The aether appears indistinguishable in its functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the aether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole of space. There is no fundamental difference between Hertz's aether and ponderable matter (which in part subsists in the aether).

The Hertz theory suffered not only from the defect of ascribing to matter and aether, on the one hand mechanical states, and on the other hand electrical states, which do not stand in any conceivable relation to each other; it was also at variance with the result of Fizeau's important experiment on the velocity of the propagation of light in moving fluids, and with other established experimental results.

Such was the state of things when H. A. Lorentz entered upon the scene. He brought theory into harmony with experience by means of a wonderful simplification of theoretical principles. He achieved this, the most important advance in the theory of electricity since Maxwell, by taking from aether its mechanical, and from matter its electromagnetic qualities. As in empty space, so too in the interior of material bodies, the aether, and not matter viewed atomistically, was exclusively the seat of electromagnetic fields. According to Lorentz the elementary particles of matter alone are capable of carrying out movements; their electromagnetic activity is entirely confined to the carrying of electric charges. Thus Lorentz succeeded in reducing all electromagnetic happenings to Maxwell's equations for free space.

As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian aether, it may be said of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H. A. Lorentz. 1t may be added that the whole change in the conception of the aether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the aether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility. How this is to be understood will forthwith be expounded.

The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of relativity were modeled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the electromagnetic field. This theory therefore satisfies the conditions of the special theory of relativity, but when viewed from the latter it acquires a novel aspect. For if K be a system of coordinates relatively to which the Lorentzian aether is at rest, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are valid primarily with reference to K. But by the special theory of relativity the same equations without any change of meaning also hold in relation to any new system of coordinates K' which is moving in uniform translation relatively to K. Now comes the anxious question: Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the aether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the aether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable.

The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The aether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz's theory, electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter, brings impulse and energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of energy.

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny aether. We may assume the existence of an aether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavor to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else with the help of small floats, for instance we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterize it as a medium.

We have something like this in the electromagnetic field. For we may picture the field to ourselves as consisting of lines of force. If we wish to interpret these lines of force to ourselves as something material in the ordinary sense, we are tempted to interpret the dynamic processes as motions of these lines of force, such that each separate line of force is tracked through the course of time. It is well known, however, that this way of regarding the electromagnetic field leads to contradictions.

Generalizing we must say this: There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time. In Minkowski's idiom this is expressed as follows: Not every extended conformation in the four-dimensional world can be regarded as composed of worldthreads. The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the aether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of aether in itself in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the aether.

Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the aether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. 1n the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacuo appears to be completely determined by these equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic aether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.

But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favor of the aether hypothesis. To deny the aether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behavior of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectifies space. Since he classes his absolute space togaether with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``aether''; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.

It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavoring to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the aether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the aether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the aether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's aether not only conditions the behavior of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.

Mach's idea finds its full development in the aether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that ``empty space'' in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the aether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the aether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.

What is fundamentally new in the aether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the aether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations,; whereas the state of the Lorentzian aether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The aether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the aether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the aether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian aether, through relativation.

As to the part which the new aether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know whaether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whaether it is only in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially from that of the Lorentzian aether; whaether the geometry of spaces of cosmic extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of that mean density.

If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the aether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the aether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational aether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational aether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type.

Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational aether and electromagnetic field, or as they might also be called space and matter.

Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field togaether as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between aether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H. Weyl,; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

--Albert Einstein



The problem is, dh, your scalar weapons theory are derived from the assumption that this aether is in fact endowed with qualities characteristic of ponderable media. That is why the concept of scalar weapons is foolish



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Howard,

Tesla's "Earthquake machine" was more mechanical than anything else.
brief description with patent information

He was not just an electrical genious. He was a mechanical genious as well.

Both of which rely on a great understanding of "oscillation" or resonance.

See the tacoma narrows bridge story



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Are you suggesting that the tsunami was produced by a giant earthquake machine at the bottom of the Indian ocean?





[edit on 29-12-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   
No Howard, I am not suggesting that.
I think that was a natural adjustment of the Earth.

On the Tesla thing. I am just stating that like Haarp, which is used to study, and possibly affect the ionosphere, using standing waves (resonances).
It's also possible to influence the very Earth we stand on, letting these harmonics works for us.
Everything has some sort of reaction, if the frequency, and energy type , is correct.
Ever eat microwave popcorn?


[edit on 29-12-2004 by spacedoubt]

[edit on 29-12-2004 by spacedoubt]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   
A couple of points:

1. A nuke going off under water would have its effect increased, not decreased. Water is a more effecient shock transmitter than air.

2. A nuke properly delivered might start a chain reaction that could cause this sort of quake. An asteroid impact, or a very powerful ICBM or Rail Gun might have the same effect. Slippage is a constant factor, and if two plates are building up tension for a period of time it doesn't take much to set it off.

3. Tesla was most assuredly a genius, and his theories on weather control were nothing short of enthralling to anyone with an interest in technology. He had some incredible ideas, and many good patents as well. Also, you shouldn't go around stating Einstein as fact, his is a theory just like Tesla's. Remember, science is always evolving, and those who claim something can't be done will wake one day to find themselves wrong. Those who claim that something can be done, but can't prove it, may wake one day to find themselves vindicated. You have to choose whether you will be like the dinosaur or the shrew..



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
A couple of points:

1. A nuke going off under water would have its effect increased, not decreased. Water is a more effecient shock transmitter than air.


Or a series of nukes, each timed to amplify the shock created. using, what else? the resonance of the seawater?



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Well, the earthquake had the force of 1000s of nukes I heard, so I doubt 1 or even 10 nukes would produce the same tsunami.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Nuclear Tsunami?
I had heard of using nuclear devices to trigger tsunami as a weapon long before the recent events, and while I am not claiming that this is the case with this tsunami, it does raise concerns though now that the devastation that can be caused by this is painfully apparent. An extremely devastating blow to a nation could be dealt with a single weapon, in a terrorist school of thought, this maximization of collateral damage could be an incentive to utilize this tactic. I wonder how serious a threat this could present to the world community, as to me, it would seem to me to be fairly easy for a group to obtain a nuclear device, cruise out into international waters and sink it for detonation. Is this a real concern or would the detonation simply stir mud up and kill some fish? Alot of folks scoff, but don't be fooled into thinking this is not a potential man made threat becuase of energy requirements to generate a tsunami, It may not be as far out as it sounds... One term that should really hit home here is "Locally Generated Tsunami", a term I found on NOAA.gov here... And for you guys shaking your heads and laughing (roark), notice this quote...


www.prh.noaa.gov...
Conceivably tsunami waves can also be generated from very large nuclear explosions....


www.google.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Here is the idiocy (sorry it's true) that the nuclear tsunami people seem to be theorizing. Pretend I had a gun, and I wanted to kill someone, well logically, I would shoot him with the gun. What some of you are saying is that a better method would be to take the gun and put it behind of a knife, and then shoot the back end of the knife in hopes that it propels it into the person.

Using a nuke in a vanilla fashion to create a tsunami is nothing but a GIGANTIC waste of energy. Nukes under most situations are best used directly. However, there are certain situations with the rare (note, rare) possibility that a nuke could be used to trigger (emphasis on trigger) a tsunami. For example, in the Canary Isles there is a volcano called Cumbre Vieja, well supposedly if this volcano erupted, it would trigger an absolutely unfathomably massive landslide, creating a tsunami 330 feet in height. Right now this large chunk of land has already been detached from the main land mass itself to a degree, therefore one could theorize that if a very large scale nuke were detonated at the most vulnerable point, it could trigger this landslide and then of course, create a massive tsunami.

However as I was saying, this is highly unlikely, but it is the only scenario where a nuke creating a tsunami makes any sort of sense.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Conspiracy nuts aren't the only ones concerned about nuclear generation of tsunami either, the US Military has been aware of this threat for a long time, and commissioned reports, and even been in court over it. Yes nuclear explosions can cause tsunami, while not of the magnitude of an earthquake made tsunami, still a nasty potentiality...


www.gi.alaska.edu...
A tsunami is a massive wave that sometimes follows an earthquake or underwater landslide, volcanic eruption, nuclear explosion, or meteorite impact.



usinfo.state.gov...
Earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, nuclear explosions, and even the impacts of meteorites, asteroids, and comets can generate a tsunami.

Someone on here had said that no nuclear testing had produced tsunami's, but that isn't true. The tsunami were smaller scale, but strategically placed nuclear devices could produce terrible consequences in heavily populated areas.


www.tulane.edu...
Nuclear testing by the United States in the Marshall Islands in the 1940s and 1950s generated tsunami.

W.G. Van Dorn's report for the Us Navy raised some concerns...


www.spaceref.com...
Melosh began by saying that he was "only the messenger", and that his purpose was to call attention to the 1968 report by W.G. Van Dorn of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who had studied explosion-generated waves for the U.S. Navy (TTR Report TC-130, Handbook of Explosion-Generated Water Waves, Volume 1 - State of the Art). While never formally classified, this report has been generally unavailable, and as recently at 1996 Van Dorn himself had asserted that it did not exist. However, a handful of copies had been distributed to academic libraries long ago, and these were eventually located and distributed to the attendees at this workshop. Van Dorn carried out an extensive analysis of the entire subject of "small" tsunami based on both theory and experimental results from nuclear explosions (both on and under the ocean, and up to 10 megatons yield), and also on a series of smaller-scale chemical-explosion tests carried out in Mono Lake. Most important for our purposes is the so-called "Van Dorn Effect", which asserts that small (short-wave) tsunami break when they cross the continental shelf, generating large-scale turbulence there but relieving the coast of any wave run-in. The Van Dorn Effect apparently has had important implications in nuclear strategy, for example in the basing of ballistic missile submarines.

Some other interesting reads...
www.usace.army.mil...

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...


EDIT:


www.tsunami.org...
A nuclear bomb was never detonated on the shelf, however a huge explosion did generate a tsunami during World War I. Any large disturbance that displaces a large volume of water can be a potential cause of a tsunami.


[edit on 30-12-2004 by twitchy]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join