It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Artificial Tsunami?

page: 5
0
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:14 PM

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
I strongly disagree, the sudden exspansion and or contraction of the surface place of the earth change the balance as evedenced in such a simple test as the ballancing the tires on a car the side walls sudden dammage can cause a side to side wobble, a ball slightly deflated can through the spin out of balance and these are only 2 of the examples offered in every day life.

OK, to begin with, the Earth is not a wheel. A wheel has a rigid hub with a semi-flexible tire. The Earth has a liquid core with a semi-rigid crust.

A wheel is essentially a two dimensional rotating object, the Earth is a three dimensional rotating object (a sphere). The axis of rotation for a wheel is fixed. The axis of rotation for the Earth is not.

And as for your deflated ball theory, you claim that this is an everyday example. Have you ever done this? Spun a ball and then deflated it while it was spinning? If so, I would like to know how you accounted for the effect of friction between the ball and whatever surface it was spinning on. Also, what about the effect of the Earth’s gravity on the ball as it is spinning? How did you determine what the effect would be from the Earth’s gravity on the ball as it was spinning and deflating?

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 08:11 AM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
OK, to begin with, the Earth is not a wheel. A wheel has a rigid hub with a semi-flexible tire. The Earth has a liquid core with a semi-rigid crust.

A wheel is essentially a two dimensional rotating object, the Earth is a three dimensional rotating object (a sphere). The axis of rotation for a wheel is fixed. The axis of rotation for the Earth is not.

And as for your deflated ball theory, you claim that this is an everyday example. Have you ever done this? Spun a ball and then deflated it while it was spinning? If so, I would like to know how you accounted for the effect of friction between the ball and whatever surface it was spinning on. Also, what about the effect of the Earth’s gravity on the ball as it is spinning? How did you determine what the effect would be from the Earth’s gravity on the ball as it was spinning and deflating?

While a wheel is yet non sphere but disk shaped it applies in the respect it has a pole in the above mentioned hub damage to the side wall causes a slight shift or vibration from true, as for the ball yes I have in a school project in grade school we explored the ball as it related to the earths rotation , now in order to do this we tried it with a standard ball but the balance the the earth has was not easy to achieve till the ball was totally inflated and had no defects, IE we started with a damaged ball that the gym could not use so we could drill a hole in it to feed yarn through, this was to sim the poles but when spun the ball was very irratic, however with a new ball fully inflated with the pole yarn glued on the ball spun smoothly, so yet the ball and wheel are both common uses that related to the basic principles of balance and expansion , damage and deflation alter the performance of both as it has been in the sudden displacement of the plates of the earth on the scale that has been found and the resulting axis shift.

OH and on a personal note if you wish to ask me something please do so and a less hostile tone and I will be glad to negotiate my way thru future contacts but agressive and condasending tones dont usually set well with me and in some cases others. I therefore stated I objected and then stated the reasons instead of jumping into high gear. Please dont get me wrong I respect and enjoy varied opinions like yours and I would hope the same from you about me.

[edit on 13/1/2005 by drbryankkruta]

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 11:25 AM
I don't know if someone pointed this out, because I didn't read every post in this thread, and I'm not going to as it would be 3 minutes I'd never get back.

I believe our government has setup plenty of nukes at sea, above the sea and below the sea. None caused tsunamis to the best of my knowledge.

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 10:52 PM
To me, the cause for the Tsunami is pretty clear. It was an earthquake. What caused the earthquake is the same thing that causes other earthquakes. These are natural occurances.

However, one must look at the incredible weather / ecological changes our planet is under going. Polution, deforestation, global warming / green housing, and ozone depletion are all on the rise. Consequently we have more earthquakes, hurricanes, and storms than in previous years, and now the tsunami.

We are really pushing the envelope on abusing this planet. At the risk of sounding rather esoteric, how much abuse do you think our Earth is going to take before she starts fighting back?
Or, stated in a more down-to-Earth (pardon the pun) manner - I think that the planet has suffered significant and far reaching damage. We may never know just how this damage may manifest itself or what problems may be sparked by it.

Just one chain of thought:
We cause global warming and begin to affect the polar ice caps -
the melting ice changes ocean temps and changes currents in the ocean -
the change in temp and current causes changes on the ocean floors -
the changes accumulate, setting off the earthquake.

This is probably not what happened, my point is only that abuse of our planet might manifest itself in previously unforseen ways.
(and it makes as much sense as saying a terrorist put a nuke or a machine of some sort on the ocean floor.)

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:41 AM

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
Just one chain of thought:
We cause global warming and begin to affect the polar ice caps -
the melting ice changes ocean temps and changes currents in the ocean -
the change in temp and current causes changes on the ocean floors -
the changes accumulate, setting off the earthquake.

In a way this was what I was trying to say in the point , where in I said the sudden and drastic tidal charge IE the Tsunami displacement has cause a disturbance on a global scale. This was achieved by the mixing of the upper warmer water mixing with lower cooler water on a very grand scale radiating beyond the obvious visible signs like the distructive surface disturbance.

The change in and mixing the currents cooled the oceans where tidal turn over was achieved, this occured because as those who may understand water will tell you the cooler water out measure the warmer water as surface water is the only area on grand scale that is constantly warmed by the sun, now in some areas this varies where in areas of active steam and lava vents make the water below warmer than surface water but these are isolated pockets usually. In either instance the water is cooled by mixing , like when you stir hot tea the heat gives way to the more abundant cooler temps.

Now in this case the result is a cooling of the atmoshere because of disipated water temp and increased vaporization IE sea spray from fast moving currents. This introduces the cooler water into the atmosphere cooling the air bringing on cooler rains increased hail, snow, etc. in those areas already prone to precipt. related conditions, flooding and mud slides are a by product of these changes in precept as evidenced in California, USA and flooding as witnessed in south eastern coastal areas and west coast coastal areas, all this really boils down to is the thermostat of the world has been changed and now the a/c-heater unit is clicking off and on irratically now. It will stabilizae again if the oceans calm but it will take time and no further disturbances.

[edit on 14/1/2005 by drbryankkruta]

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:48 AM
Agreed. I am no expert on Nuclear anything, but as powerful an explosion as it is, it isn't powerful enough. Remember a few dedades ago we did underwater/underground nuclear tests. No tsunami.

However a nuclear could VERY easily trigger a landslide somewhere, which would most definitely do the trick. ***SHUDDER***

-P

Originally posted by Banshee
Nope. Wouldn't work.

It would take upwards of 1,500 megatons detonated in just the right spot to create a tsunami the size of the Indonesian one. The biggest nuclear explosion to date generated, I believe, about 50 megatons.

posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 08:27 AM
Check it out.
These stories are both dated June 30, 2000
They are from The New Zealand Herald

Story 1: Tsunami bomb NZ's devastating war secret
www.nzherald.co.nz...

Story 2: Devastating tsunami bomb viable, say experts
www.nzherald.co.nz...

National News

Devastating tsunami bomb viable, say experts

By Eugene Bingham: 30.06.2000

Tsunami experts believe a bomb secretly tested off the coast of Auckland 50 years ago could be developed to devastating effect.

University of Waikato researchers believe a modern approach to the wartime idea tested off Whangaparaoa could produce waves up to 30m high.

Dr Willem de Lange, of the Department of Earth Sciences, said studies proved that while a single explosion was not necessarily effective, a series of explosions could have a significant impact.

"It's a bit like sliding backwards and forwards in a bath - the waves grow higher," Dr de Lange said yesterday.

He was responding to a Weekend Herald report of experiments at Whangaparaoa in 1944-45 to create a tidal wave bomb. The top-secret work by the late Professor Tom Leech was detailed in 53-year-old papers released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Continued:

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:20 AM
Old thread but I figure I should bump it. Back in 2004 I think people may have been on the right track. Has anyone wondered what bush really spent that 13+ trillion us dollars on. If you ask me it was to finish out 4th generation military build up. F22, F35, MTHEL, rail guns, and my favorite from Regan's star wars program is the ability to send Rods from God (orbital kinetic weapons).en.wikipedia.org...

new topics

top topics

0