Reasearching Plausibility of Asian Asteroid Impact

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Ok - I want to use this thread to put forth the possibility that the devastation in SE Asia , the Earthquake and the deadly Tsunami are direct results of an asteroid strike emanated fron our Southern Hemisphere. With the recent passage of Earth through the Taurid and Geminid meteor swarms I propose that indeed it is possible that the Earth has been impacted.

The main argument supporting my theory is that although I agree with the science of plate tectonics, I also agree with the principle of conservation of momentum. As soon as I heard the media reporting that the axial inclination of the planet has shifted, I immediately became skeptical of the earthquake theory.

It requires an external force to subject a body in a vaccuum to inclination change. A Volcano outgassing into space would suffice as it would act like jet , propelling the said body. An earthquake , however wont do it. An asteroid on the other hand certainly could.

With all the recent hub bub about potential collisions, in the alternative news forums, and even in the mainstream, it make me wonder just what it is that is heading our way.

I hope you all will join me in researching axial displacement and under what mechanisms can such perturbations be induced. Below is an article on just this point - please join me in seeking the truth

Alias Jones



December 28, 2004

Evidence for Sumatra 9.0 Quake Leans towards Meteorite Strike

By: Sorcha Faal

As more scientific information begins to become available relating to the events surrounding the 9.0 earthquake off of the Northern Coast of Sumatra on December 26th, it is being reported that the depth was 10km. More importantly perhaps are the growing signs surrounding this event that rather than being caused by internal earth dynamics, as is being widely reported, it was instead caused by an extraterrestrial event, a meteorite strike into the ocean having come from the Southern Hemispheric skies.

Australian researcher Professor Ted Bryant had previously warned about just such an event happening in his book, Tsunami - The Underrated Hazard. He also ‘backed up his dire warning’ with a time and a date: 8pm on February 22, 1491, when a meteorite strike caused tsunami waves in excess of 130 meters high.

Further research for the Australian Spaceguard Survey by Michael Paine, and titled “Tsunami from Asteroid/Comet Impacts”, shows that an asteroid having a diameter of 2 km would be equal to 1,000,000 MT. Mr. Paine states, “When an asteroid hits the ocean at 70 000km/h there is a gigantic explosion. The asteroid and water vaporize and leave a huge crater - typically 20 times the diameter of the asteroid (that is, a 100m asteroid will create a 2 kilometre diameter crater). The water rushes back in, overshoots to create a mountain of water at the middle and this spreads out as a massive wave - a tsunami. The centre of the "crater" oscillates up and down several times and a series of waves radiate out.”

Lending credence to the suspicions of a meteorite strike causing this event have been a number of world reports relating to fireballs, mysterious lights in the sky around the world and exploding meteorites turning ‘night into day’ in both Indonesia and China over these past few weeks.

Coinciding with these events was the December 22nd report that scientists had identified a small asteroid ‘after’ it had passed earth orbit, “below the orbits of some satellites” and with no prior warnings as to its passage.

Of course these anecdotal events in and of themselves do not constitute proof of a meteorite strike but they do provide further evidence leading to an ever growing concern as to the mysterious events occurring in the solar system below our Southern Hemispheric skies. There seems to be coming soon a determination based upon human common sense that these numerous events are indeed interconnected and inseparable form one another.

Against this ‘common sense’ however we have a most detailed scientific research paper prepared by: Mike Sandiford, University of Melbourne; David Coblentz, Los Alamos National Laboratory; and Wouter Pieter Schellart, Australian National University, and titled, "Evaluating slab-plate coupling in the Indo-Australian plate", and wherein they state: “The distributed seismicity in the central Indian Ocean is unique, inasmuch as this is the only part of the old ocean lithosphere accumulating strain at an appreciable rate, and suggests that the Indo-Australian plate is in the process of fragmenting into separate Indian, Australian, and Capricorn plates.”

Supporting their research is the theory of plate tectonics. The theory of plate tectonics (meaning "plate structure") was developed in the 1960's. This theory explains the movement of the Earth's plates and also explains the cause of earthquakes, volcanoes, oceanic trenches, mountain range formation, and many other geologic phenomenon. The plates are moving at a speed that has been estimated at 1 to 10 cm per year. Most of the Earth's seismic activity (volcanoes and earthquakes) occurs at the plate boundaries as they interact.

Not well known in the West however is that there are multiple numbers of other theories in contention with plate tectonics, and to which none, including plate tectonics, have ever been proven. Independent Australian researcher Rob Kanen, the author of “Plate Tectonics and The Expanding Earth - A Discounted Theory”, states: “Criticism can be fired at all the theories expounded to explain the mechanism of plate tectonics.”

David Pratt, author of the research paper titled, “Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat”, and published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, states: “Plate tectonics -- the reigning paradigm in the earth sciences -- faces some very severe and apparently fatal problems. Far from being a simple, elegant, all-embracing global theory, it is confronted with a multitude of observational anomalies, and has had to be patched up with a complex variety of ad-hoc modifications and auxiliary hypotheses.”

It must be mentioned that where once Western institutions of higher learning were beacons to the world, and in fact fueled scientific thought for hundreds of years, we now find (sadly) that they have now become virtual prisons of dogmatic thought that counters no opposition to their sacred theories, no matter how flawed or without scientific basis. This is directly related to their inability to view life as being in a co-dependant relationship instead of their cherished view of separatism.

What ever theory is closest to being correct though, and whatever geological explanations the Western scientific community will offer about this event, yet to be explained to the public are how the great oceanic waves associated with this event, and the major killer of life, are more similar to a meteorite hitting the ocean than to a sub induction event of a ‘theorized’ continental plate.

As stated by Dr. J. Falnes, Department of Physics, NTNU, N-7034, Trondheim, Norway, and detailed in his research paper, "Principles For Capture Of Energy from Ocean Waves",: “The generated wave has to interfere destructively with the other waves. In other words, the generated wave has to interfere destructively with the other waves. This explains the paradoxical, but general statement that "to destroy a wave means to create a wave."

What we are left with at this point in time, and relating to this event, are that the parametric equations of these seismic waves do not correspond to well with an earthquake but do so almost exactly with a meteorite strike hitting the ocean waters off of Sumatra with a force equal to 1,000,00MT. Seismic waves, or tsunamis, have periods typically from 10 minutes to one hour, wavelengths of several hundreds of kilometers, and mid-ocean heights usually less than half a meter. Because of their long wavelengths, tsunamis often satisfy the criterion for shallow-water waves. The waves that caused such horrific loss of life cannot be described within these parameters.

Almost a year to the date of these present events, 30,000 human lives were lost in the great earthquake that struck the ancient city of Bam in Iran. How many in the world remember this? As of this writing the loss of human life from this present event is reaching over 60,000 human lives. Will they be remembered in a year?

But most importantly is the question of if the Western nations peoples will begin to rise from their mental slumber, their self induced ignorance of the great global changes presently occurring, and begin to seek the truth of these matters. Their failure to do so will lead to the unnecessary loss of life of millions that will pale in comparison to these past days events. This should not be allowed to happen.

Need I even mention that this event, and as described by Western scientists and media violates Newton’s First Law, which states: “Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.”

LINK : www.whatdoesitmean.com...




posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   
FACT: US government has been and continues to study the potential for asteroidal ocean impacts and Tsunamis:

THE ASTEROID TSUNAMI PROJECT AT LOS ALAMOS
Jack G. Hills and M. Patrick Goda
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA
Tsunamis may be the most devastating source of economic damage caused by asteroid impacts. The worldwide darkness, which may last several months, caused by large asteroid impacts, such as occurred after the KT impact, may kill more people by mass starvation, especially in developing countries, than tsunami, but the dust should not severely affect the economic infrastructure. The tsunami may even kill more people in developed countries with a large coastal population, such as the United States, than would worldwide darkness.

At Los Alamos we are in the middle of a systematic study of asteroid tsunami. The study is divided into three parts: a determination of those regions of the world that are most susceptible to asteroid tsunami by simulating the effect of an asteroid impact into mid-ocean, the simulation of the formation of the initial crater by use of an SPH code, and a Monte Carlo study of the accumulative effect of many small impactors on some of the more strategically valuable regions that we find to be particularly vulnerable in the first part of this study. The first part of the study is well underway. Progress has been made on the other two.

The critical factor in the third part of the study is to accurately determine the dispersion in the waves produced by the smaller impactors. Dispersion may greatly reduce the effectiveness of the smaller impactors at large distances from the impact point. We wish to understand this effect thoroughly before going to the Monte Carlo study. We have modeled mid-Atlantic impacts with craters 150 and 300 km in diameter. We are proceeding to Pacific impacts. The code has been progressively improved to eliminate problems at the domain boundaries, so it now runs until the tsunami inundation is finished. We find that the tsunami generated by such impacts will travel to the Appalachian mountains in the Eastern USA. We find that the larger of these two impacts would engulf the entire Florida Peninsula. The smaller one would cover the Eastern third of the Peninsula while a wave passing through the Gulf of Cuba would cause the inundation of the west coast of Florida.



CHANGES IN THE ROTATION AXIS OF EARTH AFTER ASTEROID OR COMETARY IMPACTS
By Flavio Barbiero, Centro Camuno di Studi Preistorici
Capodiponte, Italia

Evidence exists that the poles have changed position during the recent past in a very rapid way -- in a matter of days. This possibility, however, so far has been disregarded by official science on the basis that such a phenomenon is thought to be physically impossible : no mechanism is known and no energy capable of provoking it. The hypothesis that the inclination of the terrestrial axis in relation to the ecliptic and the position of the poles might change has however been taken into consideration since last century. Some of the greatest scientists of the time, including J.C. Maxwell and Sir George Darwin, considered this problem but decided that the stabilizing effect of the equatorial bulge was so great that no conceivable force originating within the Earth could lead to a shifting of the axis, except for the collision with another planet.

They did not take into account, however, the phenomena of instability which could occur to an Earth-like gyroscope, consisting of a plastic shell, easily deformed by centrifugal forces, covered by freely-moving liquids -- the only body of this kind in the solar system.

Our work shows that the impact of extraterrestrial objects as small as an Apollo class asteroid could "trigger" a process which in a matter of days would cause a "reshaping" of the equatorial bulge around a different axis, inducing therefore a shift of the poles and a change of the tilt. In order to trigger the process, the peak value of the torque developed by the impact has to overtake a "threshold" value, equal to the stabilizing torque developed by the equatorial bulge. A rough calculation shows that the threshold value can be reached during the impact with a body much smaller than a one-kilometer-sized asteroid.

A shift of the poles would cause worldwide destructive phenomena such as : earthquakes and volcanic activity in all areas interested [sic] by adjustments of the crust; violent winds and torrential rains, with unprecedented floods all over the world; wide fluctuations of the oceans' level, with subsequent temporary submersion of large parts of the continents; perturbation of the magnetic field. On top of that, there would be permanent changes of the climate, due on one side to the shift of the poles (and therefore to a change of latitude of many regions, deviation of oceanic and atmospheric currents and so on); on the other side, to the change of the tilt, with subsequent modification of the seasonal pattern.

A shift of the poles occurring at the end of the Pleistocene, with all its related destructive phenomena, could explain coherently the climatic situation before that date, and the situation observed after that date, as well as ancient traditions about a worldwide catastrophe.

LINK: www.slowmotiondoomsday.com...



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   


The conservation of momentum is a fundamental concept of physics along with the conservation of energy and the conservation of mass. Momentum is defined to be the mass of an object multiplied by the velocity of the object. The conservation of momentum states that, within some problem domain, the amount of momentum remains constant; momentum is neither created nor destroyed, but only changed through the action of forces as described by Newton's laws of motion. Dealing with momentum is more difficult than dealing with mass and energy because momentum is a vector quantity having both a magnitude and a direction. Momentum is conserved in all three physical directions at the same time. It is even more difficult when dealing with a gas because forces in one direction can affect the momentum in another direction because of the collisions of many molecules. On this slide, we will present a very, very simplified flow problem where properties only change in one direction. The problem is further simplified by considering a steady flow which does not change with time and by limiting the forces to only those associated with the pressure. Be aware that real flow problems are much more complex than this simple example.


LINK: www.grc.nasa.gov...




The motion of an aircraft through the air can be explained and described by physical principals discovered over 300 years ago by Sir Isaac Newton. Newton worked in many areas of mathematics and physics. He developed the theories of gravitation in 1666, when he was only 23 years old. Some twenty years later, in 1686, he presented his three laws of motion in the "Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis." The laws are shown above, and the application of these laws to aerodynamics are given on separate slides.

Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This is normally taken as the definition of inertia. The key point here is that if there is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out) then the object will maintain a constant velocity. If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest. If an external force is applied, the velocity will change because of the force.

The second law explains how the velocity of an object changes when it is subjected to an external force. The law defines a force to be equal to change in momentum (mass times velocity) per change in time. Newton also developed the calculus of mathematics, and the "changes" expressed in the second law are most accurately defined in differential forms. (Calculus can also be used to determine the velocity and location variations experienced by an object subjected to an external force.) For an object with a constant mass m, the second law states that the force F is the product of an object's mass and its acceleration a:

F = m * a

For an external applied force, the change in velocity depends on the mass of the object. A force will cause a change in velocity; and likewise, a change in velocity will generate a force. The equation works both ways.

The third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if object A exerts a force on object B, then object B also exerts an equal force on object A. Notice that the forces are exerted on different objects. The third law can be used to explain the generation of lift by a wing and the production of thrust by a jet engine

LINK: www.grc.nasa.gov...



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alias Jones

Ok - I want to use this thread to put forth the possibility that the devastation in SE Asia , the Earthquake and the deadly Tsunami are direct results of an asteroid strike emanated fron our Southern Hemisphere. With the recent passage of Earth through the Taurid and Geminid meteor swarms I propose that indeed it is possible that the Earth has been impacted.

The shockwaves of an earthquake had been monitored and recorded. And an asteroid wouldn't necessarily result in a tsunami. Also, it would be a weird co-incidence that it struck at the ring of fire where earthquakes are so prone to happen.

It requires an external force to subject a body in a vaccuum to inclination change.

Or a shifting of the mass on its surface, which is literally what an earthquake is.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Awesome article, but I was wondering a couple things regarding this incident. First, the geological centre in Idaho (or Utah maybe??) also measured the tremor. Since this incident was on the other side of the earth and still gave readings consistent with other earthquake readings, one could call a duck a duck. Ok, so if this was a meteor big enough to make these readings on the other side of the globe, the impact on the sea floor must have been incredible! If this happened, the tsunami should have been much worse and way bigger than it was. No? I'm thinking ten to one hundred times bigger? Surely someone would have seen such a big fireball blazing through the sky...

I do agree with alot of your thoughts though. I love the image in my mind of the earth using a large volcano as a jet, and flying around like a deflating balloon... lol! Reminds me of a potential Douglas Adams cartoon.

I don't think the Earth needs an external factor to cause a distortion in the inclination. Wouldn't a slight wobble screw up rotation? When the tectonic plates crashed, and caused a 10 metre upheavel in the sea floor, that would cause alot of severe water movement in a relatively small area. This could cause the earth to wobble (at least momentarily), from being slighlty more off balance, wouldn't it?



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Nyugen - yes - I agree with realtion to tsunami an Earthquake is more than an adequate source - true especially on known subduction zones. What I am saying is not about the tsunami per se, I am talking about the reported shift in the axial inclination of out entire planet as being reported in the links below. There is no known law of physics that says that an independent body in a vaccuum can chane its momentum on its own . EXTERNAL force is required. To violate this is to violate the laws of physics.

Links to reports on inclination slippage:

www.cnn.com...



Rotation apparently CAN be affected by earthquakes. Below is an essay on that. I will look into what it takes to make the inclination of the polar axis shift - I am still thinking external force . I will post what I find

Co-seismic Excitation of Earth Rotational

and Gravitational Changes
At a Glance
A seismic event, apart from the "shaking" that is the earthquake, leaves behind permanent, step-function-like dislocations in the Earth. This redistribution of mass changes the Earth's inertia tensor; and the Earth's rotation will change according to the conservation of angular momentum. Such is the co-seismic excitation of Earth rotation changes. Similarly this mass redistribution causes the Earth's gravitational field to undergo slight changes expressible in terms of changes in its harmonic Stokes coefficients. The question is whether such excitations are large enough to be of any significance or consequence. The answer is mixed, as highlighted below:

(1) The 1960 Chilean event, which is by-far the largest earthquake ever recorded, should have left a co-seismic kink in the polar path which is worth 23 milliarcseconds in terms of polar motion excitation, barely discernible in records back in 1960 but certainly very noticeable if happened today.

(2) The length-of-day (LOD) is more resistant to change. The Chilean event would only have produced 8 microseconds of co-seismic decrease in LOD, an effect hardly detectable even in today's best measurements.

(3) The second largest earthquake recorded, the Alaskan event of 1964 (only 1/4 as large as the Chilean event in terms of its seismic moment or energy), should have produced a co-seismic increase in J2 by 5.3 x 10-11, which would take the post-glacial rebound two years to "iron out", but still an order of magnitude smaller than the observed short-term fluctuations mostly due to atmospheric mass transport.

(4) All earthquakes that occurred after the Alaska event were much smaller (the largest was only 1/20 as energetic as the Alaskan event). None of their individual signatures were discernible either in Earth rotation or in gravitational field. These earthquake-induced signatures are in general two orders of magnitude smaller than, and completely buried in, natural fluctuations of Earth rotation and gravitational field, which are known to be caused by mass transports associated with other geophysical processes in other geophysical fluids.

(5) The collective effects of all earthquakes greater than magnitude 5 in the last two decades have an extremely strong statistical tendency with time. The parameters that show the strongest non-randomness are the dynamic oblateness J2, the total moment of inertia (the trace of the inertia tensor), the length of day, the sum of the two equatorial principal moments of inertia, and the difference J22 between the two equatorial principal moments of inertia. Their time series all exhibit a strong decrease with time, indicating the tendency of earthquakes to make the Earth rounder and more compact. No such tendency is evident for higher harmonics of the gravitational field changes caused by earthquakes (e.g. J3, J4, J5 ).

(6) A similar strong tendency is seen in the polar motion excitation: earthquakes cumulatively are trying to "nudge" the Earth rotation pole towards ~140o E, roughly opposite to that of the observed polar drift. However, the speed of this earthquake-induced polar drift in the last two decades is two orders of magnitude smaller than that observed.

The above findings (4-6) are summarized in these plots, showing the cumulative, earthquake-induced changes in geodynamical parameters. These changes are calculated based on formulation of Chao and Gross (1987; see below), for the 15,814 major earthquakes (1976-1999) listed in the Harvard CMT catalog.




Historical Background

The Earth's polar motion has been observed for over a hundred years, initially by astrometric and in modern times by space geodetic techniques. The polar motion excitation function derived from these observations shows a generally broad-band structure, but with certain prominent signals superimposed: a more-or-less secular drift largely attributed to the present-day post-glacial rebound, a 30-year Markowitz wobble whose origin remains mysterious, and the very notable annual wobble of obvious meteorological origin.

In addition, the observed polar motion has a strong Chandler wobble component with a time-varying amplitude comparable to that of the annual wobble. Although the Chandler wobble is a natural free mode, it still needs continual excitation to maintain its observed amplitude. Despite many studies, the Chandler wobble's excitation sources have remained elusive to date, although atmospheric angular momentum variations, perhaps together with oceanic variations, may prove to be largely responsible for its excitation.

Historically, another notable candidate excitation source for the Chandler wobble was seismic dislocation; a first proposal was made as early as Milne (1907), soon after the annual and Chandler wobbles were identified. Cecchini (1928) later noted some correlation between the large polar motion and the high seismicity during 1900-1908. Similar correlations have been alluded to in subsequent reports, such as Runcorn (1970), Pines and Shaham (1973), Press and Briggs (1975), Kanamori (1976).
However, to establish an unequivocal relationship between seismic excitation and the observed polar motion, one needs to be able to compute quantitatively how much an earthquake can excite polar motion by altering the Earth's inertia tensor. In their milestone geophysical monograph, Munk and MacDonald (1960) briefly treated the problem. They used a simplistic local block-dislocation model for an earthquake, and quickly dismissed the importance of earthquakes in polar motion excitation, even for the largest earthquakes.

Then came the great 1964 Alaskan earthquake, which provided new, fundamental insight into the displacement field of an earthquake: Based on a strainmeter record in Hawaii, Press (1965) announced that a static displacement was recorded at teleseismic distances several thousand kilometers from the epicenter. That prompted a series of investigations of seismic excitation of polar motion: Mansinha and Smylie (1967), Smylie and Mansinha (1968; 1971), Mansinha et al. (1970; 1979), Ben-Menahem and Israel (1970), Israel et al. (1973), Israel and Ben-Menahem (1975), Rice and Chinnery (1972), Dahlen (1971; 1973), O'Connell and Dziewonski (1976), Smith (1977). Unfortunately the search for signatures left by large earthquakes (e.g., the great 1960 Chilean event and the 1964 Alaskan event) in polar motion was essentially inconclusive: the quality of the polar motion data at the time was insufficient for that purpose both in accuracy and temporal resolution.

A revival of interest in the problem appeared during the latter half of the 1980s, largely because of advances in polar motion measurement techniques, but also owing to the availability of the Harvard centroid moment tensor (CMT) catalog of all major earthquakes (see below). Using Dahlen's (1973) formula on the thousands of earthquakes listed in the catalog, Souriau and Cazenave (1985) and Gross (1986) computed time series of seismic excitation of polar motion. They concluded that the earthquakes since 1977 were simply too small to produce any appreciable signature in polar motion, with the cumulative seismic excitation power being orders of magnitude smaller than that observed.

The next development was by Chao and Gross (1987) who again computed the seismic excitation of polar motion for all events listed in the CMT catalog, but using the normal-mode summation scheme of Gilbert (1970). Their method has since remained a most efficient way of computing the seismic excitation of not only polar motion, but also of other important geodynamic parameters such as gravitational field changes. Furthermore, Chao and Gross (1995) and Chao et al. (1995) extended the formulation to compute earthquake-induced changes in rotational energy and gravitational energy, respectively. These papers and later Chao et al. (1996) have updated, and in fact strengthened, the results of Chao and Gross (1987) who found many earthquake-induced phenomena having intriguing geodynamical implications, listed as (4)-(6) above.

It should be stressed that all these studies only pertain to the coseismic effects, that is, to the effect due to the elastic dislocation that happens within, say, an hour following the initial rupture of the fault. The inelastic pre- or post-seismic movements that are often associated with large earthquakes on timescales of months to years have been studied based on rheological modeling (e.g., Dragoni et al., 1983; Sabadini et al.,1984; Soldati and Spada, 1999) . These effects typically augment the coseismic ones by a factor depending on the source mechanism and mantle rheology.

In passing, there is an effect in the opposite sense that has been proposed in the past (e.g., Lambert, 1925) -- the possible triggering of earthquakes by the centrifugal "pole tide" potential generated in the solid Earth by polar motion. This effect is physically analogous to tidal triggering of earthquakes; however, statistical studies have so far failed to conclusively detect the effect (e.g., Chao and Liu, 2000).



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Seven days before the 9.0, a meteor was seen in the area. It just died off the news....as if someone knew there was something bigger coming.

linkage



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I have read verry little of the posts because everyone knows that no onr reads long posts.
But from your inital statment of that fact of the Gaminid and Taurid meteorshoewrs being the direct cause of this , I can rule that out.

What a metior shower is is when earth in its orbital peroid around the cun crosses a trail of dust left by a comet that has been through earths orbital plane. Because its a trail of dust we encounter this same trail on our yearly jorny around the sun. Meteor showers are anual. The date of a shower's peak is always around a day of it last year.

The fact that the meteors are just small dust particles and maybe rocks of a few inches in diameter can rule out the plausibility of a meteor from the shower causing this natural dissaster, BUT there is still room for another wayward asteroid/meteor to have caused the dammage. Although I see this highly unlikely. Because: An asteroid impact would create an Odd trace on sisemagraphs, the asteroid would have to be of maderate size to cause the dammage probally 60 -100 feet. Upon entering teh atmosphere there would have been a large shockwave and "sonic boom" also a large glowing tail from atmospheric friction all of whihc would have happend shortyl before the tsuanimi and all of wich were not reported.

I doubt aftershocks would have appeared also had it been an asteroid. Also the reports that it disrupeted earths movement. AN asteroid large enough to distrup earths movement needs to be atleast 10 km large,



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mizar
But from your inital statment of that fact of the Gaminid and Taurid meteorshoewrs being the direct cause of this , I can rule that out.

I doubt aftershocks would have appeared also had it been an asteroid. Also the reports that it disrupeted earths movement. AN asteroid large enough to distrup earths movement needs to be atleast 10 km large,


A large Boom was heard in the area based on live TV reports.

Velocity of the asteroid could make for a smaller mass. After shocks would continue because the crust was broken at the point of impact and was cloase to a fault line. The actual quake was several miles from the main fault.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Seven days before the 9.0, a meteor was seen in the area. It just died off the news....as if someone knew there was something bigger coming.

linkage


Aussie Bloke knew




jk

It was an just an earthquake, IMO.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Alias Jones says:

“I want to use this thread to put forth the possibility that the devastation in SE Asia , the Earthquake and the deadly Tsunami are direct results of an asteroid strike emanated fron our Southern Hemisphere.”

Where was the fireball?

Where was the oceanic impact itself?


With millions of people living in that area of the world, including swarms of fishing boats, commercial freighters and tourist craft, and the usual gaggle of satellites, I figure someone would’ve seen something, right?

No one did.

“With the recent passage of Earth through the Taurid and Geminid meteor swarms I propose that indeed it is possible that the Earth has been impacted.”

As our colleague Mizar said earlier in this thread, that stuff is dust from a comet’s tail. You will probably get a rock as big as a basketball, but 99.99 percent of the detritus is the size of a pea or smaller.

“It requires an external force to subject a body in a vaccuum to inclination change. A Volcano outgassing into space would suffice as it would act like jet , propelling the said body. An earthquake , however wont do it. An asteroid on the other hand certainly could.”

You’re contradicting yourself: a volcano eruption is not an external force; it is an internal force, as is an earthquake. And vacuum has nothing to do with it. A shift in one of the plates is sufficient to upset the equilibrium by changing (ever so slightly) the mass concentration at the Earth’s surface and thus impart a microscopic wobble to the earth. It could even change the axial tilt, but it’d be on the order of a thousandth of an arc-second.

“US government has been and continues to study the potential for asteroidal ocean impacts and Tsunamis.”

And well they should; with 75% of the earth’s surface covered by water, the chances are three-to-one that a major strike will occur in the ocean, and the results will be much worse that if there were a land strike. Not only will the resultant tsunamis multiply the deaths and damage from the impact itself, but you will have clouds of superheated water rising to the stratosphere and turning into cirrus which would supplement the dust that would be blown up there and would probably make the resultant winter last even longer.

The government is also studying anthrax, but that doesn’t mean that my kid has it if he’s complaining about a headache and a runny nose.

You quote ‘Flavio Barbiero’ as saying ”Evidence exists that the poles have changed position during the recent past in a very rapid way -- in a matter of days. This possibility, however, so far has been disregarded by official science on the basis that such a phenomenon is thought to be physically impossible.”

Yes, that is a good reason to disregard something: it’s physically impossible! In addition to not providing me a citation for beardo here, you seem to ignore that an oblique strike large enough to translate the physical poles would also be enough to turn the Earth into a brand new asteroid belt.

Jones, you were the one who said you believed in the conservation of momentum, right? Have you calculated just how much energy it would to take to translate a ball of rock eight thousand meters in diameter -- and then have it magically stop after a translation of 180 degrees? And then added the factor caused by the gyroscopic effect of its rotation at an equatorial speed of about a thousand miles per hour? Do the math, bud.

I don’t think that the possibility of an impact causing earthquakes and tsunami all over the earth is bogus; it is very real and has terrifying implications. This is why I think that we (not just the US, but the entire world) should be spending a good portion of our space exploration budget on ways to identify and destroy such bodies if necessary.

But there simply isn’t any evidence at all for such an extraterrestrial impact causing the tsunami of last Sunday....

...And there's lots of evidence against it.

[edit on 29-12-2004 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Do you remember this picture? it is very close from where the impact was, if it was an impact, very wierd




posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Yeah, but if you look closely, this is for NEO's in June. NEO's would more than likely burn up or not come close enough - if the were big enough and close enough they would probably be classified as PHA's, wouldn't they?

Anyway, I have to admit that it is kind of suspicous of an astroid, but I need more proof - right now I take it as a bad earth quake myself. It would sure start the AB thread up again though
given to where it happened -

Also, I had to edit because I forgot what I was going to say before I spaced -

If there was an impact from an astroid that would be big enough to cause the earth to hickup, skip, tilt, etc. someone would have seen and reported the site of a huge fire ball and sound coming from the sky. Nobody, so far has - credibly; so I have to go with quake.


[edit on 29-12-2004 by Godsent]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   


The location was not on a fault line. That isn't specifically unusual, but, it is for a quake this large. The aftershocks have been along the fault lines.

Large earthquakes are acceptable to the general public. I suspect an NEA event isn't. With all our technology we still have little clue whats out there.

Would like to see a pic of the sea bottom in the area.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Yes they are for June, but not necessarily for that month, if you know what I mean, may be the date is only to know when the impact zones were made.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   
“I want to use this thread to put forth the possibility that the devastation in SE Asia , the Earthquake and the deadly Tsunami are direct results of an asteroid strike emanated fron our Southern Hemisphere.”

Where was the fireball?



Loud explosions where heard - the impact / earthquake was LATEnite / EARLY morning in SE asia at the time so many where possibly sleep, the trajectory could have put the line of sight over the horizon - just a few possibilities here my friend



Where was the oceanic impact itself?

With millions of people living in that area of the world, including swarms of fishing boats, commercial freighters and tourist craft, and the usual gaggle of satellites, I figure someone would’ve seen something, right?

No one did.


At least no one is saying they did. YET. The local population that may have witnessed it are mostly dead. The satellite observations may or may not be released to the public.


“With the recent passage of Earth through the Taurid and Geminid meteor swarms I propose that indeed it is possible that the Earth has been impacted.”

As our colleague Mizar said earlier in this thread, that stuff is dust from a comet’s tail. You will probably get a rock as big as a basketball, but 99.99 percent of the detritus is the size of a pea or smaller.

There is no confirmation whatsoever of what EXACTLY is in these debris fields. It is accepted as fact that for every 1 known smaller body discovered there exsist no less than 2 that go undiscovered. An impactor may or may not have originated in these streams - it is not out of the realm of possibility to think that it might have


“It requires an external force to subject a body in a vaccuum to inclination change. A Volcano outgassing into space would suffice as it would act like jet , propelling the said body. An earthquake , however wont do it. An asteroid on the other hand certainly could.”

You’re contradicting yourself: a volcano eruption is not an external force; it is an internal force, as is an earthquake. And vacuum has nothing to do with it. A shift in one of the plates is sufficient to upset the equilibrium by changing (ever so slightly) the mass concentration at the Earth’s surface and thus impart a microscopic wobble to the earth. It could even change the axial tilt, but it’d be on the order of a thousandth of an arc-second.

I am not contradicting myself - a volcano expelling gas out off the Earths atmosphere would indeed be an external push. An Earthquake can and does provide the mechanism to affect rotation with the oceanic tides as the above article states . For axial inclination though to be affected in a a vacuum ( space ) the body ( Earth ) must be affected by an external force- The above links in my first and second post to Newtons laws are worth a read



“US government has been and continues to study the potential for asteroidal ocean impacts and Tsunamis.”

And well they should; with 75% of the earth’s surface covered by water, the chances are three-to-one that a major strike will occur in the ocean, and the results will be much worse that if there were a land strike. Not only will the resultant tsunamis multiply the deaths and damage from the impact itself, but you will have clouds of superheated water rising to the stratosphere and turning into cirrus which would supplement the dust that would be blown up there and would probably make the resultant winter last even longer.

The government is also studying anthrax, but that doesn’t mean that my kid has it if he’s complaining about a headache and a runny nose.


Yes I know study is good - I brought it up only as a side note to underscore the very real possibility that this threat exsists

You quote ‘Flavio Barbiero’ as saying ”Evidence exists that the poles have changed position during the recent past in a very rapid way -- in a matter of days. This possibility, however, so far has been disregarded by official science on the basis that such a phenomenon is thought to be physically impossible.”

Yes, that is a good reason to disregard something: it’s physically impossible! In addition to not providing me a citation for beardo here, you seem to ignore that an oblique strike large enough to translate the physical poles would also be enough to turn the Earth into a brand new asteroid belt.


I am talking about a strike capable of altering the axial inclination by way less than an arc second - earth rotation is one thing, its axial inclination is something else. Yes complete oblitereation is a possibility if not a certainty with an impact of sufficient size. The Sumatra event could have been a smaller body - you must take into account the kinetic energy realeased to gauge effect - this is a function of mass AND velocity not mass alone - therefore a smaller body travelling faster could do more damage than a larger body travelling slower - I wont go on with this as it is self evident



Jones, you were the one who said you believed in the conservation of momentum, right? Have you calculated just how much energy it would to take to translate a ball of rock eight thousand meters in diameter -- and then have it magically stop after a translation of 180 degrees? And then added the factor caused by the gyroscopic effect of its rotation at an equatorial speed of about a thousand miles per hour? Do the math, bud.

Well I am not a mathematics professor, but I will say this , bud, - the amount of inclination change induced is most certainky related to the amount of energy released. The differnetial is no where near 180 degrees - I have no idea where you came up with that figure. It is indeed possible for a smaller body travelling at the requisite velocity to hit in an area subjective to progressed declination to have a significant impact on the polar axial inclination.

I look at it like this. If you had a basketball and spun it in space , it would continue to spin. Orient it in the same fashion as Earth , take into account the precessionary wobble. Bear with me. now the ball is spinning freely in space of its own accord, without any external disturbance it will continue to do so indefinately. now take a marble and put it in a sling shot. If you shoot the ball directly on its axial inclination you will not get much of a change. If you incline the trajectory of your aim and release the marble into or against the angle of inclination you will likely observe a greater net result. I know this is a simplistic way of looking at and I dont want to argue, but the fact is it is possible that a smaller body , say 10 - 20 meters travelling fast enough and hitting the Earth at the right spot at the right time could sufficiently affect the rotational / orbital / or axial spin of a much larger body ( Earth )


I don’t think that the possibility of an impact causing earthquakes and tsunami all over the earth is bogus; it is very real and has terrifying implications. This is why I think that we (not just the US, but the entire world) should be spending a good portion of our space exploration budget on ways to identify and destroy such bodies if necessary.

But there simply isn’t any evidence at all of such an extraterrestrial impact causing the tsunami of last Sunday.

This thread was started to collect the evidence . I will continue looking. I am not saying it was without a doubt an impact - I am saying a that I would like to look into it further to see what is the truth - anyway I value your input and thank you for your contribution to this thread



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Spain - what is that picture from - please post a link to wherever you foud it - I would like to look into that , especially is it is a legitimate NASA image -

Thanks



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   
This was NOT an asteroid impact, the earthquake waves produced were charteristic of an earthquake. An asteroid impact would create an entirely diffrent characteristic of earthquake wave.

Also the quake occured in an area that large earthquakes are expected, a junction between two plates. So stop all this conjecture, it was an earthquake



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Alias Jones, I appreciate your response too; they are well-thought out. I hope you understand that I am not disagreeing with you to be a butt-head, but because I believe we need to look at all sides of a hypothesis.

You mentioned that trajectory was over the line of sight of the horizon. Well, if we assume (and this is just an assumption) that the putative impact was where the epicenter of the earthquake was reported, that meant that the meteor came in over the center of the fourth-largest countries (in population) in the world.

Now when you figure that the average shooting star we see (and wish on) is at an altitude of about 60 miles and is as large as a pea, imagine how bright a meteor as large as an apartment building (or even a suburban house) would be as it ionized!

You mentioned that they hear large explosions. Well, I should hope so. If you have a house size object coming in at hypersonic speeds, the SPL from the sonic boom itself would permanently damage peoples’ hearings. No one reported that kind of boom.

Had there been a meteor large and fast enough to cause that kind of tsunami, I believe the fireball would have wakened a million people and ruptured the eardrums of a couple of thousand.

You say that “At least no one is saying they did. YET.”

But Jones, the place has been rife with journalists from around the world, interviewing everyone they can. This is HUGE news. If there were witnesses to a huge fireball, it would not only be reported, but would be front page news, because it would be good evidence for your hypothesis.

You also say: “The satellite observations may or may not be released to the public.”

Good Lord, are you kidding? If this were shown to be a meteor strike, the people would DEMAND that we spend a bazillion dollars ensuring this never happens again, and NASA and all the other government agencies would have all the funding they’d need. Besides, there are simply too many satellites in orbit. I hope you’re not proposing that there is another huge international plot to keep the people in the dark -- especially when such ignorance would work against the various governments’ interest, not for them.

You say (regarding the debris fields) “There is no confirmation whatsoever of what EXACTLY is in these debris fields. It is accepted as fact that for every 1 known smaller body discovered there exsist no less than 2 that go undiscovered. An impactor may or may not have originated in these streams - it is not out of the realm of possibility to think that it might have.”

You’re right, it’s not outside the realm of possibility, but it is outside the realm of probability. I don’t know how old those two debris fields are, but they've been longer than my lifetime, and I’m 60. I’d think that most of the big stuff already was pulled in by the Earth’s gravity well and landed long ago.

”I am not contradicting myself - a volcano expelling gas out off the Earths atmosphere would indeed be an external push. An Earthquake can and does provide the mechanism to affect rotation with the oceanic tides as the above article states . For axial inclination though to be affected in a a vacuum ( space ) the body ( Earth ) must be affected by an external force- The above links in my first and second post to Newtons laws are worth a read”

I guess it depends on how you define internal versus external. To me, ‘external’ implies something like a meteor hit, while ‘internal’ implies something that happens inside the earth, whether a volcano or an earthquake. But I will accept your definition; we are only splitting hairs.

Regarding my comment on the government study, you said, “Yes I know study is good - I brought it up only as a side note to underscore the very real possibility that this threat exsists.”

My apologies. I thought -- incorrectly -- you were using it as evidence. You are absolutely right, the threat is very real.

”I am talking about a strike capable of altering the axial inclination by way less than an arc second”

I was talking about Barbieri’s assertion, that the earth’s axial inclination was translated 180 degrees. You were the one that brought Barbieri up. But let’s blow off Barbieri for the time being -- we can discuss it later when you give me the cites -- and talk about the earthquake and tsunami.

“Well I am not a mathematics professor…”

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not either. I’m an engineer which is a long way from being either a physicist or a math professor (especially when it’s only an undergrad degree). However, we do learn about statics, dynamics, strengths, heat transfer, and all the other stuff that made my hair prematurely gray.

“I look at it like this. If you had a basketball and spun it in space , it would continue to spin. Orient it in the same fashion as Earth , take into account the precessionary wobble. Bear with me. now the ball is spinning freely in space of its own accord, without any external disturbance it will continue to do so indefinately. now take a marble and put it in a sling shot. If you shoot the ball directly on its axial inclination you will not get much of a change. If you incline the trajectory of your aim and release the marble into or against the angle of inclination you will likely observe a greater net result. I know this is a simplistic way of looking at and I dont want to argue, but the fact is it is possible that a smaller body , say 10 - 20 meters travelling fast enough and hitting the Earth at the right spot at the right time could sufficiently affect the rotational / orbital / or axial spin of a much larger body ( Earth ) “

I agree completely, although I would say the ‘marble” would have to be closer to 10-20 km, not meters. But I agree; we’re digressing from the original discussion.

As far as I can see, while I agree wholeheartedly that a meteor strike can cause subsequent earthquakes and tsunami, I still don’t see any evidence that a meteor strike was involved in last Sunday’s tragedy.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rock Hunter
This was NOT an asteroid impact, the earthquake waves produced were charteristic of an earthquake. An asteroid impact would create an entirely diffrent characteristic of earthquake wave.

Also the quake occured in an area that large earthquakes are expected, a junction between two plates. So stop all this conjecture, it was an earthquake


Provide data. Give me 100% proof. Where is the source data for the difference between waves? The quake was 10km deep. Very shallow.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join