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.

 

Earthquake + Time Shift = Doesn't add up, Meteor Perhaps?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Are you psycic? The calculations being worked are specifically a small hypervelocity impact. 40K mph plus.




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Are you psycic? The calculations being worked are specifically a small hypervelocity impact. 40K mph plus.


Nope. It just makes sense. No one saw it. There is little physical evidence for it, and there was no throw up debris from it. That to me says small impact in just the right place.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Horacid says:

"The is some seemingly unrelated data that is currently pointing to a "roid" or meteor strike."

What data is that?

"I am awaiting some calculations from a friend of mine relayed to the possible "size of" and "velocity of" a meteor/asteroid impact that could cause the 9.0 event. He is an astrophysist for NASA in Houston."

Who is he and when is he going to come up with these calculations?

"He says the odds of the world actually seeing such an event before it smacks us in the face is very remote.'

No argument there, given the ridiculously low level of funding for such contingencies.

"based on the shallow depth of this "quake" and the mass destruction it caused he also thinks it was an outside event."

Is this guy a seismologist or geologist? The Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) has announced that they're going to look at the epicenter and try to determine with more detail both the epicenter and the origin of the earthquake, but they haven't done so yet.

And remember, the epicenter really doesn't have much to do with the "shallowness" of the quake, since the epicenter is the spot on the Earth's surface (or on the ocean floor) directly above the origin of the earthquake. According to the USGS, the origin (depth) of the quake itself was about 30 km, based on p-wave and n-wave traces. This isn't surprising, because undersea plates are almost always thinner and more mafic that continental crustal plates.

And this type of earthquake and tsunami is exactly what happens when you have a thrust-fault earthquake and a fault plane displacement of ten to twenty meters.

I think your astrophysicist friend is pulling your leg with that "shallow depth" hogwash; he ought to stick to the Hertsprung-Russell Diagram and all that astrophysics stuff.

A couple of junior college geology courses don't make me geologist by any means, but even I know the basics.


[edit on 14-1-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Blind says:

"Now supposedly the tsunami was caused by an earthquake. Although after hearing that the earthquake was so large that it actually tilted the earths axis a slight bit actually throwing the Atomic ( ? ) clock off by a split second.

quote: Scientists believe that a shift of mass toward the Earth's center during the quake caused the planet to spin 3 microseconds faster and to tilt about an inch on its axis.

Now how does that make sense?"


Conservation of angular momentum.

High-school physics.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
agreed Off_The_Street



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Not sure if others mentioned this, but if it was an outside event, eyewitness accounts of the ocean would have confirmed that. In fact they confirmed the opposite. I read about an interview with a diver, who was in the middle of a dive when the quake struck. Suddenly the instructor and diver were forced downward (if memory serves) quite quickly and suddenly, then moved about quite a bit. The diver stated looking at the instructor and noting the most peculiar look on his face. She mentioned that when your instructor has that look, you know something is terribly wrong. The point there is that their account of those event would have been remarkably different had an asteroid hit. Their description is consistent with a wave created when the sea-bed lifts, and creates a rolling wave-motion. They would be carried with it as it flowed past them, but it would not have hurt them at that point. By contrast if an asteroid hit, their descriptions, I would guess would either be far more chaotic, or they may not be alive.

Furthermore, they have done post quake measurements of the topology of the sea floor, and have said that it has changed dramatically, but nothing was mentioned about a crater, or other such evidence which should have been mentioned.

-P


Originally posted by _BLiND_
Now supposedly the tsunami was caused by an earthquake. Although after hearing that the earthquake was so large that it actually tilted the earths axis a slight bit actually throwing the Atomic ( ? ) clock off by a split second.


Scientists believe that a shift of mass toward the Earth's center during the quake caused the planet to spin 3 microseconds faster and to tilt about an inch on its axis.


Now how does that make sense? It would make more sense that a fairly large meteor slammed into the earth...I mean how could a earthquake possibly change earths axis (I know the wobble does over time, but an earthquake? come on....)

Maybe Wurmwood's little brother.


www.timesonline.co.uk...
www.cnn.com...

[Edit: Title]

[edit on 13-1-2005 by _BLiND_]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Sorry but an astroid? ........ speed is infinite in space, so a relativly small meteor compared to an astroid, and astroid would have killed everyone on the planet., but a small meteor, debris? the waves are a form of debris. People are thinking wayyy tooo biggggg....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join