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.

 

Was the 2004 Earthquake and Tsunami Caused by a Stellar Explosion 26,000 Light Years Away?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I hope I am not re-posting this. I have search ATS and not found any ref to it.

From a paper b P. LaViolette: (www.etheric.com...)


It was determined that the burst originated from the soft gamma ray repeater star, SGR 1806-20, a neutron star 20 kilometers in diameter which rotates once every 7.5 seconds, matching the GRB pulsation period. SGR 1806-20 is located about 10 degrees northeast of the Galactic center and about 20,000 to 32,000 light years from us, or about as far away as the Galactic center. (Originally, it had been thought to be 45,000 light years from us. but new results place it closer.) The outburst released more energy in a tenth of a second than the Sun emits in 100,000 years. Other gamma ray bursts have been detected whose explosions were intrinsically more powerful than this one at the source of the explosion, but since those explosions originated in other galaxies tens of thousands of times more distant, the bursts were not nearly as bright when they reached our solar system. What makes the December 27th gamma ray burst unique is that it is the first time that a burst this bright has been observed, one that also happens to originate from within our own Galaxy.

Astronomers have theorized that gamma ray bursts might travel in association with gravity wave bursts. In the course of their flight through space, gamma rays would be deflected by gravitational fields and would be scattered by dust and cosmic ray particles they encountered, so they would be expected to travel slightly slower than their associated gravity wave burst which would pass through space unimpeded. After a 45,000 year light-speed journey, a gamma ray burst arrival delay of 44.6 hours would not be unexpected. It amounts to a delay of just one part in 9 million. So if the gravity wave traveled at the speed of light (c), the gamma ray burst would have averaged a speed of 0.99999989 c, just 0.11 millionths slower. There is also the possibility that at the beginning of its journey the gravity wave may have had a superluminal speed.



If anything, the December 27, 2004 gamma ray burst shows us that we do not live in a peaceful celestial environment. And if the December 26th earthquake was in fact part of this same celestial event, we see that this stellar eruption has claimed many lives. For this reason, it is important that we prepare for the possibility of even stronger events in the future, the arrival of superwaves issuing from the core of our Galaxy. Like the December 26th earthquake and the December 27th gamma ray burst, the next superwave will arrive unexpectedly. It will take us by surprise.


Please read the full article: www.etheric.com...




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
no the 2004 earthquake was not caused by a GRB.
Period

It was one large earthquake in an era with a very long history of very large earthquakes.

Along a known subduction fault zone.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Why does it occuring in an active fault zone preclude its being triggered by the gravity superwave that preceeded the GRB?



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks
no the 2004 earthquake was not caused by a GRB.
Period

It was one large earthquake in an era with a very long history of very large earthquakes.

Along a known subduction fault zone.



I cant wait for some supporting info on that !

Surly you have information proving it is not so ? !!

[edit on 18/9/2009 by ChemBreather]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Karilla
 


because the area has a long history of regular violent earth quakes, i belive its a bout 160 year cycle with a really big one every thousand or so.

The plates involved are moving a little every year and after so many years the stress builds up and releases.
pretty well documented goe science going on here, no need for some extra terrestrial influence to make it happen.



and how could a gama ray burst cause an earthquake, and besides the grb was observed the next day?



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Everything in the universe effects everything else to some extent. Why couldn't a gamma ray burst cause earthquakes on a planet light years away? Even if they are known to occur periodically along the fault lines, that proves nothing. Zip. Nada.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Ok then explainm to me any sort of mechanism by which a gamma ray burst could have any effect on the earths crust.
Any mechanism

Maybe if was just a few light years away maybe the shock from the collapsing star or black hole ,,,,, no its just not possible.

Its just plate tectonics, thats all nothing more, now maybe if a rogue star passed nearby we might get some disruption, but that would be the last of our worries.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Well, Danish scientists has shown that gamma rays can influense the clouds here on earth, and personaly, I think the universe have no problem 'messing' around here on earth, we are nothing more than a bug on a semi trucks windshield !!


All the lies flying around that the Earth is the center of the univers and nothing bad never happends to it is just propeganda, we take all kinds of 'bombardments' all the time, and once in a while, we get a killer hit...

That is life. ..



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks
and how could a gama ray burst cause an earthquake, and besides the grb was observed the next day?


If you actually read the article I posted, it explains that gravitational superwaves are emitted at the same time as the gamma ray bursts, but the gamma rays are scattered and diffused somewhat by intervening dust in interstellar space while the gravity wave is unimpeded. He explains that the 44 odd hour delay in the gamma ray burst arriving fits perfectly with his theory.

Besides, this was a relativel small wave and GRB. If one comes from the galactic centre it will be many, many times more powerful. Something like that could set Yellowstone off, and what makes it worse is we would get no warning. There is some research that apparently suggests that these gravitational superwaves can travel at superliminal speeds, i.e.: faster than the speed of light.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
According to the theory which predicts the existence of gravity waves, their amplitude follows the inverse square law, meaning that by the time they would reach us they would be very, very weak. We have been trying unsuccessfully, with highly sensitive instruments, to detect gravity waves for a while now.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that gravity waves intense enough to create an earthquake would be undetectable with these instruments?


[edit on 9/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
According to the theory which predicts the existence of gravity waves, their amplitude follows the inverse square law, meaning that by the time they would reach us they would be very, very weak. We have been trying unsuccessfully, with highly sensitive instruments, to detect gravity waves for a while now.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that gravity waves intense enough to create an earthquake would be undetectable with these instruments?


To address our second point first: both LIGO and the TAMA gravity telescopes were off line for maintenance at that period, so were unable to provide any data.

As for your first point, this is in the article I linked to:

[Please note, the gravity potential gradient associated with a stellar explosion or core explosion would drop off in intensity inversely with distance traveled (according to 1/r), and would not drop off as the inverse cube of distance as some have claimed on the internet. That is, it does not have a force-distance dependence similar to the lunar tidal force. So the impact would be quite significant. The mathematics are worked out in the above reference.]


Also remember that a superwave from the galactic centre would be thousands of times stronger than the one received in 2004.

This part answers the question of how this could trigger earthquakes:

Many have inquired if there might be a connection between these two events (e.g., see the Space.com article). Not thinking of the gravity wave connection, astronomers have been reluctant to admit there might be a connection since they know of no mechanism by which gamma rays by themselves could trigger earthquakes. They admit that the December 27th gamma ray burst had slightly affected the ionization state of the Earth's atmosphere, but this by itself should not have caused earthquakes. However, if a longitudinal gravity potential wave pulse were to accompany a gamma ray burst, the mystery becomes resolved. The connection between earthquakes and gamma ray bursts now becomes plausible.


[edit on 18-9-2009 by Karilla]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
If there is something to this amazing connection, and I think there may be...it would be foolish to adhere to
entrenched dogma from the physics community
when addressing it.

According to some theories found here...this idea isn't so wild.

www.crank.net...



[edit on 18-9-2009 by doctor_drewl]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Karilla
 

LIGO and TAMA are not the only gravity wave detectors on the planet. AFAIK, these were all in operation at the time of the earthquake:

ALLEGRO at Louisiana State University
AURIGA at INFN in Italy
NAUTILUS also at INFN
EXPLORER at CERN
NIOBE at the University of Western Australia

Since they are very eagerly searching for gravity waves, they would have no doubt reported any indication of finding them in 2004. These detectors are not as sensitive as LIGO but I find it difficult to understand how gravity waves produced by a neutron star located at a distance of 48,000 light years (adsabs.harvard.edu...) would be strong enough to cause an earthquake yet not be detectable otherwise. In fact, to this date, there have been no confirmed detections of gravity waves at all, from any source.

[edit on 9/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Karilla
 


and why just one fault and not many others
like phage said
and theres the simple fact that no one has ever detected a gravitational wave ever, if it was big enough to dislodge a huge chunk of crust sure it would have manifested itself i other ways.


[edit on 18-9-2009 by punkinworks]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


They haven't detected superwaves yet, maybe. They sure have spent a lot of money on detectors though. Someone must be pretty much convinced of their existense. T. Townsend Brown has spent the last 50 years logging significant gravity wave events and gravity potential variations that are dependent on the activity of the galactic centre. Look on page 335 of LaViolette's book, "Earth Under Fire".



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks
reply to post by Karilla
 


and why just one fault and not many others
like phage said
and theres the simple fact that no one has ever detected a gravitational wave ever, if it was big enough to dislodge a huge chunk of crust sure it would have manifested itself i other ways.


Gravity waves HAVE been detected, just not superwaves from the galactic centre directly, as none have happened during living memory.

And you are misunderstanding. This wave did not dislodge a huge chunk of the earths crust or anything like that. The area is an active earthquake zone, and the fault there would have had huge stresses built up, but the event itself could have been triggered b a gravity wave. Like a bent piece of ply would to which you give a kick. The extra force is enough to break it.

Check this out:



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Here's another good video explaing gravity and gravitational waves:



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Karilla
 

Yes, people are very interested in detecting gravity waves. One reason being that it would more evidence for the theory of general relativity. Another reason being that they would tell us things about some truly awesome events (black hole collisions!) But they are known to be very hard to detect, primarily because events dramatic enough to produce detectable waves must be quite rare. No confirmed gravity waves have been detected.

T.T. Brown has not spent the last 50 years logging gravity waves. He died 24 years ago and he made claims about a lot of things that were never independently verified or duplicated.


[edit on 9/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Well I did eat a whole lotta chili the night before,,, but I was in New Zealand at the time,
26,000 light years- sheesh



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
T.T. Brown has not been spent the last 50 years logging gravity waves. He died 24 years ago and he made claims about a lot of things that were never independently verified or duplicated.

[edit on 9/18/2009 by Phage]



That'll teach me to grab bits from books without checking. However.......


Although gravitational radiation has not yet been directly detected, it has been indirectly shown to exist. This was the basis for the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded for measurements of the Hulse-Taylor binary system. Various gravitational wave detectors exist.

Though the Hulse-Taylor observations were very important, they give only indirect evidence for gravitational waves. A more conclusive observation would be a direct measurement of the effect of a passing gravitational wave, which could also provide more information about the system which generated it. Any such direct detection is complicated by the extraordinarily small effect the waves would produce on a detector. The amplitude of a spherical wave will fall off as the inverse of the distance from the source (the 1 / r term in the formulas for h above). Thus, even waves from extreme systems like merging binary black holes die out to very small amplitude by the time they reach the Earth. Astrophysicists expect that some gravitational waves passing the Earth may be as large as h\approx 10^[-20], but generally no bigger.

source

The concensus seems to be that they exist, and the detectors that are around, even though they are many, apparently do not run continuously. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that during the Christmas break of 2004 none of them were in operation. Given that they are hardly snowed under with data and scientists liking their holidays as much as the next bloke. However, I realise I'm reaching here.

I'm off to do more reading and see if I can get my head around more of the mathematics involved. Then I is coming back to kick arse, bruv!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join