Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Earthquakes

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Hi all,

Im curious to why we are getting a lot of earthquakes on a large magnitude scale, is something happening to this planet that we are unaware of ? why so many large ones, ive heard people say its about planetary allignment ,planet X etc? people say we are the creators of these, whats really going on here ?


Thanks




posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Scaart:

Why do you say we are getting a lot of large earthquakes... This year was fairly normal, excluding the 1 huge quake and it's related aftershocks. And it was so long since there was a major quake on that boundry, it was 'due' to some extent.

[Edit]

There is no Planet X, and there is no evidnce mankind has contributed to this in any way, shape or form.

For an external source to cause these quakes, it would need to have more effect on the earth than the moon. To give you an idea how big an object you would need for that: Jupiter has approximately 1/500th the effect on the earth of the moon, and it's freakin' huge.

So if there was a Planet X responsible, it would have to be more than 500x the size of Jupiter (larger than the size of the sun) and at least as close as Jupiter. In otherwords, EVERYONE would be aware of it. Not to mention that an object that size would affect the orbits of all objects in the solar system, and at that size/distance would have *already* destroyed the solar system thanks to gravitational effects.

IN SHORT: No Planet X. Never was. Never will..

[end edit]

Osiris

[edit on 2-1-2005 by otlg27]



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
who knows maybe were on the verge of a major Continental drift.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
iksmodnad:

Oh god.. not this again..

WHY OH WHY am I always having to tell people there is:

1) No Planet X
2) There is no high-speed pole-shift or major (physical) earth changing tectonic event about to happen.

Now, if you weren't referring to #2 then I apologize, but the continents drift. The rate has been fairly static for a LONG time:

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Osiris



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by otlg27
iksmodnad:

Oh god.. not this again..

WHY OH WHY am I always having to tell people there is:

1) No Planet X
2) There is no high-speed pole-shift or major (physical) earth changing tectonic event about to happen.

Now, if you weren't referring to #2 then I apologize, but the continents drift. The rate has been fairly static for a LONG time:

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Osiris




Well, about the whole planet x thing. When I was in highschool is when it made the news. We watched it almost everyday in class. That was the big thing. They said they found it, yes it would be the largest planet by far in our solar system. They said that it was so large that the radiation put off by this massive planet could very well support life, and it had an opposite orbit than all the other planets. All they had left to do was name it. That is when we heard no more. Several of us who watched this in highschool have tried to email Nasa and find out what the name was and where it was now. All we get, is "forget you ever heard about it."

So to make a long story short, you could continue to tell us that it does not exist, but you will be ignored.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Found this site "Wikipedia" Has a lot of info

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrsdudara

Originally posted by otlg27
iksmodnad:

Oh god.. not this again..

WHY OH WHY am I always having to tell people there is:

1) No Planet X
2) There is no high-speed pole-shift or major (physical) earth changing tectonic event about to happen.

Now, if you weren't referring to #2 then I apologize, but the continents drift. The rate has been fairly static for a LONG time:

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

Osiris




Well, about the whole planet x thing. When I was in highschool is when it made the news. We watched it almost everyday in class. That was the big thing. They said they found it, yes it would be the largest planet by far in our solar system. They said that it was so large that the radiation put off by this massive planet could very well support life, and it had an opposite orbit than all the other planets. All they had left to do was name it. That is when we heard no more. Several of us who watched this in highschool have tried to email Nasa and find out what the name was and where it was now. All we get, is "forget you ever heard about it."

So to make a long story short, you could continue to tell us that it does not exist, but you will be ignored.



Eh? Never heard of this, so 20/30 ??years ago it made the news that planet x had been discovered, can anyone back this claim up?



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Mrsdudara:

You seem to be missing the point I made in THIS VERY THREAD:

"So if there was a Planet X responsible, it would have to be more than 500x the size of Jupiter (larger than the size of the sun) and at least as close as Jupiter. In otherwords, EVERYONE would be aware of it. Not to mention that an object that size would affect the orbits of all objects in the solar system, and at that size/distance would have *already* destroyed the solar system thanks to gravitational effects. "

It would have to be an object the size of the SUN at the orbit of jupiter or closer. You would SEE IT with the naked eye. Not to mention that any object that size would start it's own internal fusion process and BECOME A STAR ITSELF.

There is no Planet X. At least certainly not one that will affect the earth in any way, shape or form.

Gravitational effects are very well understood, even if we don't understand the true underlying principals that cause it. There is no way something that big could be out there and *not* have an effect on things.

You also said:
"They said that it was so large that the radiation put off by this massive planet could very well support life, "

If that were the case this thing would show up on every single x-ray observatory out there, yet no evidence exists.

Furthermore:
"All we get, is "forget you ever heard about it." "

I'm more than happy to email my personal contacts @ NASA and several observatories. You are likely getting 'forget you ever heard about it' for the same reason I'm getting very close to telling people here 'take a flying leap'. Imagine getting asked about the same thing over and over again. No imagine the thing doesn't exist.

As for it being all over the news:

- Remember the falsified cold fusion research in the 80s? That was all over the news. Best advice now - forget you ever heard about it

- Remember one time the earth was flat.. - forget you ever heard about that

- Remember when aliens invaded the earth on a radio broadcast in the middle of the last century - forget you ever heard about it...

The point is, the popular media is usually eager to report on BS before doing the necessary research to back it up.

[edit]

For future reference on solar masses:

The lower mass limit of the main sequence lies at about 0.072 times the mass of the Sun (or 75 jupiters) for an object with solar composition. The limit is larger for objects with lower metallicity, reaching about 90 jupiters for zero metallicity (Saumon et al 1994).

[end edit]

Osiris

[edit on 2-1-2005 by otlg27]



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by otlg27

IN SHORT: No Planet X. Never was. Never will..


There is more than enough proof that there is an astral body very large at the edge of the solar system. That first, second, what we see happening in the Earth is also happening all over the solar system, most planets in our solar system are reacting to something, scientists are saying they don't know exactly what it is. Russian scientists say that perhaps we are going through an energy field that is causing all this commotion on Earth and the other planets.

To find the research done by scientists of different fields as to the existance of planet X or another major planet on our solar system there is the following. Now the planet x of Liederman and Markhazelwood of course does not exist, but there is evidence that points towards there being another major planet size body in our solar system.

Here is the link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by otlg27
Scaart:

Why do you say we are getting a lot of large earthquakes... This year was fairly normal, excluding the 1 huge quake and it's related aftershocks. And it was so long since there was a major quake on that boundry, it was 'due' to some extent.



BTW...i don't know where you get last year was fairly normal...we normally only get one major earthquake once a year, last year we had one 8.1, a 9.0, and Nine 7+. That is nothing normal...the same with the hurricane season we had down in Florida last year. We are getting more and worse disasters, and only fools will say things are normal.

To find the earthquakes we had last year, there is this link.
neic.usgs.gov...


[edit on 2-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Muaddib

What you are referring to... the possible existance of a large(ish) body beyond on the edge of the "known" solar system, is not *impossible*.

That is not what I am referring to though. I could care less about objects in stable orbit that far out. I'm referring to objects that are going to affect the earth.

*IF* there is an object out there: I can have a mass no larger than 13 jupiters or it would show up on x-ray observatories (at 13 juptiers, some mild hydrogen burning occurs and emits x and gamma rays).

Further more if the planet out there contains the supposed missing matter from the simulations, it's not going to be very large. A neat addition to the solar system certainly. Large enough to bother us, no. Large enough to have internal radition strong enough to support life, no.

That is the Planet X always referenced in *this* forum.

Sorry if I made it seem like there isn't the possibilities of other bodies out there. However, that said, I have my doubts as we have VERY good telescopes now that should pick on something that size.

Osiris



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Some people are into what I call arm-waving. They wave AWAY thoughts they don't want to entertain.

Near-earth objects will always be a concern, in a Universe and Galaxy in which mankind is perceived to be paranoid schizophrenic and omnicidal.

You want to discount that possibility down to zero, do so at your own risk.




posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Take a look at the link i gave and the links within it, you will find the information refreshing, btw, how many meteors have passed us by really close and haven't been seen? i am not saying that a planet is right now close to the sun as Niederman (however her name is spelled) or hazelwood proclaim, you are right that something that big we will probably notice, but do take a look at what is happening at the planets in our solar system, in the link i gave i think i also gave other links as to what has been happening to the Sol system lately.

[edit on 2-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by otlg27
Scaart:

Why do you say we are getting a lot of large earthquakes... This year was fairly normal, excluding the 1 huge quake and it's related aftershocks. And it was so long since there was a major quake on that boundry, it was 'due' to some extent.



BTW...i don't know where you get last year was fairly normal...we normally only get one major earthquake once a year, last year we had one 8.1, a 9.0, and Nine 7+. That is nothing normal...the same with the hurricane season we had down in Florida last year. We are getting more and worse disasters, and only fools will say things are normal.

To find the earthquakes we had last year, there is this link.
neic.usgs.gov...


[edit on 2-1-2005 by Muaddib]


Wow.. you really didn't read what I posted did you?

There was the 8.1 off NZ, the 9.0 in the Indian Ocean. You could argue > 1 8.0 a year is 'abnormal'. But if the 9.0 had been just 5 days later it would have fallen in '05, making '04 totally normal with respect to > 8.0 quakes.

Be careful with statistic they can be dangerous.

As for the huricanes, be very careful there. I actually model those things and talk with folks @ the NHC regularly. We had a big year. But a big year was also expected. It just seems so much worse cause they actually hit something this year (and that something was the US). Lots of big hurricanes have missed the US, and because of that many people have no idea they even happened. (sorry but CNN sickens me, unless Americans are involved it didn't happen, hell it took almost 24 hours for them to cover the Tsunamis.. the BBC had them beat by HOURS).

Seeing as you are calling me a fool, I would call you chicken little. Hell this year wasn't even the WORST hurricane year on record. In fact it was only the fifth worse. The last one this bad was in 1995.... nearly 20 years ago.

From my friend (one of the senior forecasters at the NHC):



Cuurently (as of 18Z 26 Sep 2004), the 2004 season, if it was to
end today, would have the fifth highest ACE...following 1950, 1893,
1995, and 1926. The bad part about those 4 higher ACE years is that --
those seasons went well into October and even November (sigh). I am
trying to get over a bout with pneumonia that I acquired about 10 days
ago and, yes, I worked my Jeanne dayshifts last week under those
conditions. But we were out of warm bodies, so someone had to work the
shifts. Maybe we'll get a brief respite before the "October onslaught"
hits.


IN OTHER WORDS (since you obviously didn't do ANY research) big seasons happen.... it's a natural occurence. Only fools would read too much into it.

Osiris



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Thank you. I'll check into them.

I do remember, the NASA logo includes a red, tenth planet.

Also, the Bible and the Kulbrin both tell of astronomical events in which what was in the skies was not "normal."

So, I'm probably classified as a "catastrophist." I believe in such events--
especially when the cockroaches have clearly taken over the cupboards.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Mauddib:

Rather than edit the last post (which ended up dealing largely with hurricanes):

Regarding the > 7's we had this year, if you look at those lists you'll see that in hind-sight a lot were foreshocks to the large events. This is not unexpected or uncommon.

All are related to movement of one plate (the indian plate)

The exceptions being Japan and Columbia.

One was an aftershock in your count as well.

Just point out what may not be obvious in looking at the numbers.

Osiris



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   
otlg27, you seem to want to discount many of the things happening, like the hurricane that developed in the south American coasts, one which had never happened before....things are not as normal as you would want to make them look like, when was the last time we had 5 major hurricanes developing and hitting the US? when was the last time when these 5 major hurricanes happened almost within a month or two?

Also looking at some of the things weather related that have been happening lately, you cannot tell me with a straight face that things are normal... We are having records in storms, lightening, etc, etc, and these weather events seem to be getting worse.

Things are not normal, are you telling me that the 2003 heatwave in Europe was normal? the one that killed 30,000+ people?

The Earth does go through cycles, but these cycles do have consequences on humans, and it is also true, according to scientists who have a different opinion from you, that human activities do have an impact on climate change and the consequences these changes bring on us are disastrous.

[edit on 2-1-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Some people have a need to deny the possibility of change.

Some do that for political reasons; others for psychological reasons.

Pick one.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Muaddib:

You are putting words in my mouth. I would thank you to kindly *not* do that.



you seem to want to discount many of the things happening, like the hurricane that developed in the south American coasts, one which had never happened before....


Actually it has. I wrote the wikipedia entries for a number of oddball 'huricanes'. However, I would like to point out that they are infact rare, and that prior to 1950 we had no way to know they were there (they are not very big hurricanes, and are confused with non-tropical storms based on ground observations) because we had no weather satellites.

There have also been 'hurricanes' in the mediterain before (really!!). There are also arctic hurricanes. (I could go on and on and on)



things are not as normal as you would want to make them look like, when was the last time we had 5 major hurricanes developing and hitting the US?


At the risk of sounding crass, who cares. The US isn't the end all and be all of the world, or even the atlantic hurricane basin.



when was the last time when these 5 major hurricanes happened almost within a month or two?


Not at all uncommon to have a major burst of hurricanes in August and September.. infact.. over 60% of all hurricanes ever recorded occur during those two months.



Also looking at some of the things weather related that have been happening lately, you cannot tell me with a straight face that things are normal... We are having records in storms, lightening, etc, etc, and these weather events seem to be getting worse.


Where did I say that all the weather patterns were normal. *You* specifically referenced hurricanes in a thread about earthquakes
I responded to point out, while a big season, it was not without precident.



Things are not normal, are you telling me that the 2003 heatwave in Europe was normal? the one that killed 30,000+ people?


Normal, no. A horrible thing, yes. A freak occurance, who knows? (my crystal ball is broken
).



The Earth does go through cycles, but these cycles do have consequences on humans, and it is also true, according to scientists who have a different opinion from you, that human activities do have an impact on climate change and the consequences these changes bring


I don't disagree on any of that. I believe we are having some effect on the climate's planet. I would expect major hurricane seasons to become more common going forward (and have said so elsewhere in this forum). Having said that, I *ALSO* believe we are in a natural warming cycle. The crappy timing of it, it just happens to coincide with the period when we are doing the most damage.. sort of a double whammy if you will.

Hopefully, this clarifies my point..

Osiris



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by defrag99

Some people have a need to deny the possibility of change.

Some do that for political reasons; others for psychological reasons.

Pick one.


And some people have the need to make snide comments that add no value to the thread..

I won't give you a choice to pick-one, since there is only one option.

Osiris





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join