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.

 

Melting Ice Could Cause Gravity Shift

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
The melting of one of the world's largest ice sheets would alter the Earth's field of gravity and even its rotation in space so much that it would cause sea levels along some coasts to rise faster than the global average, scientists said yesterday.


The rise in sea levels would be highest on the west and east coasts of North America where increases of 25 per cent more than the global average would cause catastrophic flooding in cities such as New York, Washington DC and San Francisco.

A study into how the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could respond to global warming has found its disintegration would change the focus of the planet's gravitational field, so sea levels would rise disproportionately more around North America than in other parts of the world. If the ice sheet covering West Antarctica disappears, the loss of so much mass from the southern hemisphere would effectively make the pull of gravity stronger in the northern hemisphere, affecting the spin of the Earth and causing sea levels to rise higher here than in the south, where the mass of ice is currently located.

continue reading article

I know some people do not believe the global warming theory but I'm one of the ones who does. I came across this article today and it is discussing the issue from an angle I personally haven't heard of before so I thought I'd post it here for all the rest of you who haven't come across it before either. Enjoy the read




posted on May, 16 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
interesting article. it has an alarmist feel, until they slip this in near the end:
"However, it is not known how fast the ice sheet might disappear if global temperatures continue to rise, although many scientists believe this would take at least 500 or even 1,000 years."

the whole article references man-made global warming, but this figure of taking 500 or 1000 years doesnt seem to be based off this model; how can you predict what humanity will be like and achieve in 500 or 1000 years? a period that long sounds more like a natural cycle of the earth.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Mostly the article says that sea level increases would not be as much as previously claimed. But I don't get the bit about gravity shift.

If and when the WAIS melts the mass of ice doesn't vanish it turns to water. Why would that water decide to move to the northern hemisphere? Even if it did there is not enough mass to make a significant difference.

The mass of all Antarctic (not just the WAIS) ice is around 2.72 * 10^19 kg. That is about .00046% of the total mass of the Earth. Even if all of the ice in Antarctic were moved to the northern hemisphere it would not make a noticeable difference in Earth's gravity field.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
It may happen as they indicated... however, the sea levels would rise uniformly over the northern latitudes, not just the North American continent.

Furthermore, a shift in the mass, as indicated, would bring about calamitous
earth shifts to bring about equilibrium. In which case, we would have a lot more on our minds than a rise in sea levels.

Should the processes toward equilibrium not occur, we may find that the Earth's orbit would be altered, hurtling it through the galaxy, or toward the sun.

My vote is out into the galaxy...I'll contact my lobbyists.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Hey, maybe this is the answer I've been looking for.
Does anyone else think that the reason the dinosaurs were so big is because the earth's gravity was different? I know they say that the reason was their diet, whatever!! I have read that the Pterodactyl should not have been able to fly in this gravity. My point being, was it this gravity shift that killed them all? Was the earth's gravity different then? I really think so. I just can't buy this "diet" crap.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
Permission to slap me down if this is a daft question...

If the ice caps melted would it have any impact on plate tectonics and fault lines? I had an idea last year that as their mass decreases, an outcome could be an increase in tremors. Having looked at the figures you posted, I'm now fairly doubtful and expect that the change would be so gradual as to have a negligible effect on tectonics. What's your take on it?



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 


Great points!

Isn't there something in Hopi lore about the earth standing still, turning backward, tumbling out of it's orbit, etc.?



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Since Arctic ice is floating it really isn't exerting any pressure on the tectonic plates beneath it. But Antarctic ice is a different story. There is little doubt that the continent of Antarctica would experience a good deal of uplift if there is a substantial loss of ice. (article).

But I think any earthquake activity would tend to be localized. Since continental Antarctica is fairly well separated from the edges of the Antarctic plate I don't think there would be much, if any, effect on a tectonic scale.


[edit on 5/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by cosmicpixie
 


Very interesting. S&F.

So what effect do you think a shift in gravity would have on the planet?

BTW - I like Zot Twady's reference to Hopi mythology; and Kandinsky's idea about the effect on the tectonic plates.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by cosmicpixie
 


Stop! Put down the book 5/5/2000 and get back to reality.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
well the good news is that sea levels will rise.. we are climbing the degrees on a therm.. but uh, its normal. its not global warming the earth heats up... in fact, every other plaet has been heating up as well... it'll climax n temps will drop gradually again. meanwhile, energy shifts will be occuring. the poles chage? perhaps.. but not drastically and over loooooong periods of time. there'll be energy bursts about everywhere n it migh not be bad at all.. on the contrary, maybe people will learn to balnce themselves, mind and energies better under such conditions. relaxxxxxxxxxxxx



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Fun to postulate about, but there is much evidence for EXPANDING glaciers and sea ice...how would expanding ice sheets effect gravity??

www.iceagenow.com...

newsbusters.org...



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Without knowledge of the configuration of the boundary of the Antarctica plate, it is difficult to forecast the amount of tectonic activity due to rebound, should the ice melt. But, my guess is that it would be sizable.

The continent and the plate are not separate entities; regardless of the distance to the plate boundary, a rebound will effect all surrounding plates.

By way of demonstration: Place a shallow, flexible bowl upside-down on a table top. Using your fingertips, press down on the center of the bowl and observe the resulting flexing at the edges of the bowl.

As I indicated, the boundary of the plate will move, the determining factor in amount and kind of tectonic activity will whether the boundary is over-riding, or being subducted, in relation to the surrounding plates.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by pyrytyes
 

I like your analogy but it may be an exaggeration. Considering the actual vertical scaling, a very thin and flat plastic plate might be closer to reality. We're talking about a rebound of hundreds of meters over an area of millions of square kilometers.

But as you say without knowing what is going on at the boundaries, it is difficult to predict what activity may occur.

[edit on 5/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
Hey, maybe this is the answer I've been looking for.
Does anyone else think that the reason the dinosaurs were so big is because the earth's gravity was different? I know they say that the reason was their diet, whatever!! I have read that the Pterodactyl should not have been able to fly in this gravity. My point being, was it this gravity shift that killed them all? Was the earth's gravity different then? I really think so. I just can't buy this "diet" crap.


I have often wondered what the effect of our cosmic speed had on our gravity.

Our galaxy is travelling, as well as the solar system and planet, through space. The actual speed we are travelling....what does that do to the relative gravity we feel?

I think that this would have a GREAT effect on the overall gravity of Earth, and our entire system. Perhaps it would cause the planets to fluctuate, slowly, in their orbital depths?

Consider, further, the supposed (yet unidentified) connection of gravity to electromagnetism. What effects do thngs lke the Sun, or interstellar plasma, have on us and our relative gravity?

It gets much more interesting when we consider the time dilation that is tied to gravity, and what effect that has to us, relative to the universe.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yeah I have to agree here. It's not like were removing mass from the planet and moving it to another side of the planet.

According to equilibrium the water levels would rise everywhere in the same fashion. It's not like we have barriers that seperate the flow of water from the oceans.

Now Global Warming is occuring, although I refer to it as climate change because we aren't the problem, the Sun is. I can't see how anything other than something falling from space and impacting the planet could set it off course or change gravity in any sort of way.

Interesting article however, I hadn't been introduced to this line of thought before.

~Keeper



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

You're talking about general relativity and the effects of velocity and acceleration on the shape of space-time? Einstein does tell us that travel at relativistic velocities (I don't think we're going that fast) does result in an increase in mass which in turn leads to an increase in the distortion of space-time which is referred to as gravity.

But, since it is relative, even if we are moving fast enough we do not experience any change in our local gravity or timeflow. But from outside of our frame of reference we would "generate" more gravity and our clocks would be moving slower.

[edit on 5/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Mostly the article says that sea level increases would not be as much as previously claimed. But I don't get the bit about gravity shift.

If and when the WAIS melts the mass of ice doesn't vanish it turns to water. Why would that water decide to move to the northern hemisphere? Even if it did there is not enough mass to make a significant difference.

The mass of all Antarctic (not just the WAIS) ice is around 2.72 * 10^19 kg. That is about .00046% of the total mass of the Earth. Even if all of the ice in Antarctic were moved to the northern hemisphere it would not make a noticeable difference in Earth's gravity field.


It's the old "Earth turns over every once in a while" nonsense. Bit fancier than the others I've seen, mostly in Atlantis Rising, but not significantly different.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The time dilation would be relative. The gravitational effect would not.

The time dilation effect is more ponderous than i can truly put my head around. Time effects caused by the relativity of time are not often considered on a cosmic scale.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
Thanks. The article was clear, although I had to look for the definition of 'refugia' (Any local environment that has escaped regional ecological change and therefore provides a habitat for endangered species). The article's reference to 'deglaciation' suggested a keyword to add to 'tectonics.' It turned up some interesting information (and more terminology definitions
).

The 'opposite of tectonics': How deglaciation drives a different 'dystectonic' style of high latitude seismogenesis

A tectonic pulse in the Makran accretionary prism recorded in Iranian coastal sediments

No cataclysmic events, as you say, just some mild increase in localized seismic activity.



[edit on 16-5-2009 by Kandinsky]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join