Tsunami caused by nuke testing

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Im taking Cyberdude and Zaphod's info into account when doing future research on this subject , but Im not sure im convinced. Im hoping I can get detailed analysis by geologists or physicists. Maybe I can prove to myself that this theory could actually be fact. Large Tsunami's are rare, and Indonesia had 2 in the same amount of years. Strange.




posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Once an area has a major earthquake, it tends to have MORE major earthquakes. It releases the pressure on one area of the fault, but that pressure has to go somewhere, so it tends to move down the fault and increase the pressure in another area, and you get another quake.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   


The energies invovled just don't match up though, its like suggesting that dust falls on a gun, pushed the trigger and fired a bullet.


I agree totally, the nuclear explosion would be in such a small fraction of the plate there is no way it would affect it enough to cause the whole plate to move.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
Im hoping I can get detailed analysis by geologists or physicists.


Uh... Hello?


Despite that, the three of us have pretty much all been singing the same tune.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Another thing I forgot to mention.

When we see a table with the equivalent energy of an earthquake, like this one (simplified by me from the original):


source

Richter         TNT for Seismic         Example
Magnitude     Energy Yield
                   (approximate)

2.0                        1 ton         Large Quarry or Mine Blast
4.0                1,000 tons         Small Nuclear Weapon
4.5                5,100 tons         Average Tornado (total energy)
6.0            1 million tons         Double Spring Flat, NV Quake, 1994
6.5            5 million tons         Northridge, CA Quake, 1994
7.0          32 million tons         Largest Thermonuclear Weapon
8.0             1 billion tons         San Francisco, CA Quake, 1906
9.0           32 billion tons         Chilean Quake, 1960


this tables show the energy of the seismic waves, not the total energy of the earthquake, the seismic waves energy is only a fraction of the total energy liberated by the earthquake, the most amount of energy being used in crushing the rocks and lost also in the sound and heat produced.

But now that I think of it, this does nothing to show what energy was needed to trigger the earthquake, this type of energy may be much smaller than the energy used by the earthquake, like the energy needed to pull the trigger of a crossbow compared to the energy that is applied to the arrow.

So, after this, I reached the conclusion that I do not have enough information to have a definite opinion about this. It may be possible to trigger an earthquake with a relatively small amount of energy if the conditions are already there, and what is needed is only the "straw that breaks the camel's back".

I need to make some investigations about this.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
But now that I think of it, this does nothing to show what energy was needed to trigger the earthquake, this type of energy may be much smaller than the energy used by the earthquake, like the energy needed to pull the trigger of a crossbow compared to the energy that is applied to the arrow.


So both earthquakes and crossbows need only a little energy to create a lot of energy? Nope!

A crossbow is more powerful than a normal bow and arrow because it uses pulleys and a more advanced mechanism all together. Nearly the same amount of energy that you put on the draw string is put onto the bolt. I say nearly because some of the energy is lost to the mechanism.

An earthquake is the same way. The pressure builds up on the fault lines over time. Eventually the pressure is too much, resulting in the slipping of the faults one way or another, and, again, nearly all of the energy is imparted onto the earthquake.

Don't believe me? Then you've never taken a basic physics or science class - For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction.



It may be possible to trigger an earthquake with a relatively small amount of energy if the conditions are already there, and what is needed is only the "straw that breaks the camel's back".


My emphasis. If the conditions are already there, that means that energy is being withheld in the earth as potential energy. So it's not just a little bit of energy to create the earthquake, because all of that previously stored energy goes into the creation of the earthquake!



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
So both earthquakes and crossbows need only a little energy to create a lot of energy? Nope!

That was not what I was trying to say, I said "the energy needed to pull the trigger" because that was my analogy, I never said that a little energy could create a lot of energy.

Suppose that you have two large stone slabs, one on top of the other, but they only touch in one of the corners. The amount of energy needed to brake the corner of any of the stone slabs would be much less than the potential energy that would be transformed in other types of energy after the breaking of the support that kept all that energy as potential.

This, with the difference that I used the weight of the upper stone slab as the force behind the earthquake instead of the pressure made by the pushing of the tectonic plates, is a simplified version of what happens in a subduction zone, like the one responsible by the biggest earthquake ever registered, the Chilean earthquake of 1960.



Don't believe me? Then you've never taken a basic physics or science class - For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I believe you, and I have known that for the last 25 years. And yes, I had physics and Geology at school.

But I never had English, so maybe I am trying to say the things I am thinking in a way that does not help their understanding.



If the conditions are already there, that means that energy is being withheld in the earth as potential energy. So it's not just a little bit of energy to create the earthquake, because all of that previously stored energy goes into the creation of the earthquake!

It is obvious that the energy released in any form during an earthquake was already there as potential energy, an earthquake is not a transformation of mater in energy.

And that was what I was saying, the energy to trigger an earthquake may be "small" enough to be created by humans, I never said it was the energy to create the earthquake.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
.

Some interesting related info here:

Hydro Thermal Mega Plume


IMO - we need to think "cascade."





posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Once an area has a major earthquake, it tends to have MORE major earthquakes. It releases the pressure on one area of the fault, but that pressure has to go somewhere, so it tends to move down the fault and increase the pressure in another area, and you get another quake.


Are you speaking of after shocks? Or perennial Earthquakes? I do understand you if your talking about aftershocks, but There are another 800 people dead now and the media only speaks of the Tsunami this time and not the earthquake.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Also, we should try to figure out if a Large Nuke can cause a Tsumami. Not shift tectonic plates. Who is to say that these Tsumami's are actually caused by Earthquakes...thats the whole point of this thread. Nuclear submarines can easily dispatch nukes that do not have to be on the ocean floor.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
Are you speaking of after shocks? Or perennial Earthquakes? I do understand you if your talking about aftershocks, but There are another 800 people dead now and the media only speaks of the Tsunami this time and not the earthquake.


Depending on the plate area and the fault, it's been known to cause both. You usually see aftershocks right away, but there have been times they've seen an increase in general earthquake activity as well.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Cause and effect...

When we humans put foreign substances into our bodies, our bodies react. Cancers grow.. organs respond violently.

I think the earth is the same way. When we humans tamper with it in ways and add toxic substances to its ecology, we invite violent reactions.

All this nuclear testing and the burning of fossils fuels are two elements we introduce that definitely work against the earth's natural chemistry/balance.

We have treated this earth terribly. The God of the old testament commanded man to be a good steward of the earth; that all beneath us and around us would be subject to our care. What have we done? We have created weapons that can destroy this world eight times over. Its no wonder that the earth is behaving cataclysmically. In the New Testament, Jesus talked about the greater frequency of natural disasters and not to be alarmed. It would be a sing, he said, of living in the latter days.

We should all try and do better where we can. Nowhere does it say we should just throw in the towel.

The saddest thing to me is, if we can send a man to the moon, we should certainly be able to get global warming, the fuel crisis and nuclear proliferation under control. And those issues should be completely non-partisan.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
We are capable of so much. Yet.....greed, lust, hate, envy, jealousy, etc.etc....destroyed the earth ....and we will wash away for it someday...only to become better maybe, but will eventually be obsolete . Machines can keep the world going without polluting it like cars do and factories...etc...nuke tests...blah. So depressing. Were we better off without the technology and better off living like the indians did???

[edit on 7/24/2006 by StreetCorner Philosopher]



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
some oil company drilled 25 MILES in the ocean into the Earth's core.

Man has never drilled through the crust of the earth. The crust is the thinnest portion of the earth. I have heard that, by analogy, if the earth were an apple, the crust would be thinner than the skin of the apple. Man is meaningless, man can't trigger earthquakes with nukes or drills.


Don't know if that had anything to do with it, but it might.

Its unreasonable to think that a drill had any effect.


but Congress passed a law making weather modification legal or some such, if I remember correctly.

Dropping salt into clouds will make them rain. Thats weather modification. Why would congress even need to make it 'legal', its not illegal in the first place.


df1

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Man is meaningless, man can't trigger earthquakes with nukes or drills.


Its pretty well documented that oil/gas drilling has caused earthquakes in the past.


NORSAR - Induced Seismicity
From oil and gas fields the problems relating to induced seismicity have been known since the 1920, and were 30 years later thoroughly studied at an oil field near Wilmington, California, where the oil production triggered a series of damaging earthquakes. In the last decade a number of examples of earthquake activity related to oil and gas production as well as injection of liquids under high pressure have been observed, although not with as serious consequences as for Wilmington.


And it would be my guess that a properly placed nuke could do so also. It is unlikely that anybody is real anxious to do any real world testing with nukes and earthquakes.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Man is meaningless, man can't trigger earthquakes with nukes or drills.




Pardon me?

Please read at least some of the research. The evidence clearly shows that man can and does trigger earthquakes with nukes and drills.




And oh yeah...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DENY IGNORANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


but Congress passed a law making weather modification legal or some such, if I remember correctly.

Dropping salt into clouds will make them rain. Thats weather modification. Why would congress even need to make it 'legal', its not illegal in the first place.




This is the Bill in question:




EXPERIMENTAL WEATHER MODIFICATION BILL FAST TRACKING FOR PASSAGE IN U.S. SENATE & HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

External Source

U.S. Senate Bill 517 and U.S. House Bill 2995, a bill that would allow experimental weather modification by artificial methods and implement a national weather modification policy, does not include agriculture or public oversight, is on the "fast track" to be passed early in 2006. ...This bill is designed to implement experimental weather modification. The appointed Board of Directors established by this bill does not include any agricultural, water, EPA, or public representatives, and has no provisions for Congressional, State, County, or public oversight of their actions or expenditures.

Weather Modification may adversely impact agricultural crops and water supplies. If the weather is changed in one state, region or county it may have severe consequences in another region, state or county. And who is going to decide the type of weather modification experimentation and who it will benefit or adversely impact?

Gil Smolin, an Avian Bird Flu expert, noted on the Ron Owens Show on KGO Radio (January 5, 2006), that the flu was spread more quickly in the winter when there was a "lack of sunlight". Would man-made clouds be contributing to the lack of sunlight which might cause the Avian Bird flu to spread more quickly at other times of the year? Experimental weather modification programs could also exacerbate this problem by changing climate patterns, increasing man-made cloud cover, and changing our weather and climate patterns.




posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
I was down at the beach the other day. After a while, I noticed something strange. It seemed like the water was coming closer to me


Do you think that someone nuked a seamount in the mid Atlantic, and it "pushed" the water in my direction ?

Weird.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Or, you know, tides or something simple like that...



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I assume that you are fully aware that I was being sarcastic ?


[edit on 25-7-2006 by Mogget]





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join