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.

 

Earth is Cracking Up

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
If the Earth is expanding then the 'paint on the balloon' would be seperating into islands. However I didn't think the plates were moving away from each other, in fact I thought some were not only rubbing each other but sliding under one another. This would contradict the theory, well it would if I had half a clue what I was talking about.

Edit: Unless of course the earth doesn't expand uniformly like a balloon would.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by and14263]




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wormwood Squirm
 


Has anyone considered the issue of the current redistribution of large quantities of water (and therefore considerable mass) around the globe e.g. from melting ice-caps, glaciers and ex-permafrost that has been melting off?

Whilst many are still debating the causes of climate change, the evidence of change, particularly to ice/water redistribution, and also I suppose notable changes in precipitation patterns, may be an additional factor to consider? There appears to be growing evidence of a rapid ice melt.

It was scientists concerned about the effects of massive quantities of fresh water running off ice-melts and possibly destabilizing/shocking the saline balances of the oceans that first got me thinking of this.

I would guess that even an additional inch or three of sea-level, especially over a crust supporting a sea the size of the Pacific, could create enormous additional mass for those structures to support. Add in other factors and movements (solar, lunar, magnetic) and it would surely lead one to expect increased activity at hot spots like the Pacific Rim as we move through this rapid water redistribution phase.

Thanks for making me think.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
One last thought, land was known to rise up quite substantially once ice left it at the end of the previous ice age (that's how we British gained the English Channel separating us from France I think?). Some areas rise as mass is removed, some are pushed down, see-saw like in some areas perhaps, so it may be interesting to see what happens to land altitude readings in Greenland, Siberia etc over the next few years?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Whats actually happening is that a magma pool under the crust is still flowing in currents much like a Lava Lamp does, magma tries to come to the surface but cools and sinks back down, this movement is what drives the Pacific Plate Eastwards towards South America.

The 2 quakes at Samoa and Indonesia are a result of the Western edge of the plate coming apart from the Australian, hence the shallow depth and why this area is littered in Volcanic Islands. On the Eastern side of the Pacific theres whats called a Subduction zone where the Plate is carried under South America and literally melts away the crust into the Magma forming the Andes Volcanic chain of mountains. This is also why the 3rd big quake of today was medium at 6.3, but was at a depth of 150 miles deep into the Subduction Zone itself.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Here is another one:


From the BNO Newsroom.

JULIACA, PERU (BNO NEWS) – A strong earthquake struck southeastern Peru on Wednesday afternoon, officials said.

The earthquake, which struck about 48 miles from Juliaca, Peru, had a preliminary magnitude of 5.9, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). It was initially reported as a 6.3 magnitude earthquake. It struck about 160 miles deep, making it a deep earthquake. Shallow earthquakes often tend to cause more damage.

There was no immediate report of damage or casualties following the tremor, but a spokesman for the USGS said he would not expect any significant damage as the epicenter was located very deep.

The quake follows a series of powerful earthquakes in just 24 hours. On Tuesday, a powerful 8.0 magnitude earthquake struck near Samoa, creating deadly tidal waves that devastated Samoa and American Samoa.

On Wednesday, a 7.6 magnitude earthquake struck Indonesia, leaving possibly up to 1,000 people killed.


.news.bnonews.com...



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wormwood Squirm
 

The Earth (and the Sun) originally formed out of a cloud of dust which was indeed "star stuff".

The majority of the material expelled by the Sun, even that which is headed in our direction, misses us entirely. Most of it is diverted by the magnetosphere around the Earth and off into interplanetary space. Some is captured for a while before continuing on its way but a small amount is directed to the north and south poles by Earth's magnetic field where it creates the auroras. A certain amount of this material actually does make it to the surface of the Earth.

Let's look at some numbers. The mass of the Earth is 5,973,700,000,000,000,000,000 tons. The CME has a mass of 10,000,000,000 tons. Even if the full amount of material ended up on Earth it amounts to only 0.00000000017% of Earth's total mass. If we got hit by one of those every day for a year it amount to 0.00000006110%. Over 1 million years it winds up being .06%.

Sure, the Earth is gaining some mass from the Sun (much less than above). It is also gaining some from meteorites and cosmic rays. But the amount of mass being gained is minuscule when compared to the entire mass of the Earth. It gets distributed quite evenly over the surface of the whole planet. That tiny increase in mass amounts to a completely insignificant amount when spread over 196,940,400 square miles. The Earth may be getting a bit "heavier" as time goes by but it is not getting larger.

[edit on 9/30/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by and14263
If the Earth is expanding then the 'paint on the balloon' would be seperating into islands.
[edit on 30-9-2009 by and14263]


Yes, you are correct, that is indeed what has happened. For if you shrink the earth down all the land masses of earth come together perfectly without any oceans, only shallow seas. So in fact what you suggest is exactly what I think to be happening.

However according to Neal Adams the continents remain fixed in the place with all the rest of the earth being freshened as the earth grew. Have a look at the Adams video I linked. You can see evidence of the ocean "spreading", the fact that the ocean bottoms are only millions of years old as opposed to the continent material in the billions of years old and other facts to support your point.

IMO, this growing earth of ours does so slowly, so we hardly notice and have a look if something like these earthquakes occur.

Constant stress on our growing earth is perceived by us during our short existence as earthquakes and geological activity over what we can see in 80 or 800 years. So events that take millions of years we hardly notice until they grab our attention and kill our brothers and sisters somehow.

The real question in my mind is, are the last major 3 earthquakes over the last 24 hours only small "cracks" (stress relief) that occur regularly on the larger time scale as the earth grows or are they truly major events on the global scale?

Is there a less common event equal to a big massive fracture so massive we cannot even imagine the scale? Perhaps the kind of major breakage I suggest here has not happened yet since man has existed. Maybe it would be something like a popcorn exploding.

Bare with me, that sounds intense to think of the earth popping like corn but my point is maybe the way the earth truly grows cannot be understood by humans ever in our short existence as you would have to watch it for 100 million years to truly understand what happens.

The "what if" here for me is will something truly massive and trans formative occur to the earth during our existence which will make our large earthquakes seem like a pin drop?

I think that is entirely possible if it is our destiny to live millions of years into the future. This may also be why humans have a great innate desire to reach for the stars. It may well be our destiny to populate other plants and collectively seek new homes simply because our origin could instantly become unsuitable someday. It would be nice to have several humans on Jupiter's moons, our moon and mars if the earth ever pops like corn.

It would be nice if we spent as much effort and money on space colonization as we do on silly wars. If we are sitting around here fighting amongst ourselves when the earth ever pops then forget about humanity.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ROBL240
 


Very well put, I understand the major geological forces at work driving the plate collisions / generation / volcanoes that you outline so well, but I'm interested that there is also growing evidence and knowledge of post ice age/glacial land uplift (e.g. Merenkurkku/Kvarken world heritage site in Scandinavia where:

"Land uplift started 20 000 years ago, at the beginning of deglaciation. During the first thousand years of land uplift, the rebound rate was up to 100 mm per year (10 m in 100 years). The total initial depression is assumed to have been in the magnitude of 900-100 m when the Scandinavian Ice Sheet was 3400-3700 m thick. Isostatic rebound presumably will continue for 10 000 to 12 500 years in the Kvarken area and the remaining land uplift will probably be 100-125 metres."

( see www.kvarken.fi...)

If ice removal/water mass reduction = 'land uplift', then surely it is reasonable to suggest that water mass increase (especially on large areas of plates almost totally submerged in water) may = land sinking?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by curioustype
 

Perhaps we are going through the rapid ice melt because the water is used to "cool" the growing earth and we are in a more rapid growth era. This could be why the oceans are younger than the continents. Perhaps someday in the future all the ice will be used up and converted to liquid water on a bigger earth. Perhaps after that critical point the earth goes through a transformation into something more like Venus.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ROBL240
 


Just to confirm, what I am thinking is that a spike in water/ice mass changes (even displaying apparently small perceptible changes for us such as a 1-3 inch sea level rise) may represent enough pressure and change in force on a geological scale, and in proportion to those changes evidenced previously at the end of the last ice age, to aggravate or catalyze activity in highly volatile geological hot spots, faults and volcanoes, especially around the Pacific? A great big nudge down on something floating, agitating weak spots round the edges.

Does that make sense?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wormwood Squirm
 

The Earth (and the Sun) originally formed out of a cloud of dust which was indeed "star stuff".

The majority of the material expelled by the Sun, even that which is headed in our direction, misses us entirely. Most of it is diverted by the magnetosphere around the Earth and off into interplanetary space. Some is captured for a while before continuing on its way but a small amount is directed to the north and south poles by Earth's magnetic field where it creates the auroras. A certain amount of this material actually does make it to the surface of the Earth.

Let's look at some numbers. The mass of the Earth is 5,973,700,000,000,000,000,000 tons. The CME has a mass of 10,000,000,000 tons. Even if the full amount of material ended up on Earth it amounts to only 0.00000000017% of Earth's total mass. If we got hit by one of those every day for a year it amount to 0.00000006110%. Over 1 million years it winds up being .06%.

Sure, the Earth is gaining some mass from the Sun (much less than above). It is also gaining some from meteorites and cosmic rays. But the amount of mass being gained is minuscule when compared to the entire mass of the Earth. It gets distributed quite evenly over the surface of the whole planet. That tiny increase in mass amounts to a completely insignificant amount when spread over 196,940,400 square miles. The Earth may be getting a bit "heavier" as time goes by but it is not getting larger.

[edit on 9/30/2009 by Phage]


With all due respect to your obvious brilliance and your overwhelming contribution to ATS including the uncanny ability to solve a riddle or conspiracy viewpoint in a single paragraph on other posts I think you are wrong here.

I do not think even the might Phage can pin point the exchange of material from the sun to earth and whip out a number based on anything other than speculation. Humans have no idea what is truly going on or how the earth and sun truly interact. This is left to gods to know and for us to guess simply because we haven't observed enough activity to truly know.

So I think you are wrong to say the earth is not getting larger when the overwhelming evidence proves the earth was smaller in the past.

To me the denial of Adams theory is the ultimate conspiracy because it would send geologists back to school.

Matter can release energy, perhaps energy can create matter. Maybe the middle of the earth is like the opposite of a black hole? Who knows. It is fun to discuss.

Considering modern humans thought the earth was flat just a few grandpas ago, it is retarded for humans to think we know it all in 2009. Especially in our understanding of how heavenly bodies intermingle.

Facts of today are tomorrow's laugh over tea.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Wormwood Squirm]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Wormwood Squirm
 

Educated humans have known the Earth is round for at least 2,500 years. It is only the uneducated or gullible who thought otherwise.

You offered a suggestion to account for the mass required for an expanding Earth. I used your own suggestion to show that products of the Sun and space are not sufficient to account for any appreciable increase in the girth of the Earth.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by curioustype
 


Perfect sense, infact post-glacial Earthquakes occur in parts of the world where otherwise there's no underlying active Fault system. Take the UK for example where we had a 5.0+ quake in early 2008, the same forces at work in Scandinavia where a massive upheavel scars the land across for some 50 miles as is 20 meters in height.

Belgium has Fault quakes which occur spontaneously, the largest of which were in the early 90's, Germany is also prone to quakes as is much of the area's north of the Alps. It goes to show even 400 miles away from any active Plate Boundary you can still get corresponding Earthquakes that are related to Earth Movement because of it.

I'm just surprised that the Atlantic hasnt ruptured yet, with being inactive for so long, there's records of Tsunami off the Irish and Welsh coasts which lay claim that the European/American plate can also generate 8.0+ quakes during periods of activity.

The idea of Sea-Level movement has been around for quite a while, afterall to shift a Continental Plate whilst under the exertion of the size of the Pacific would require massive forces, all of which create not only the Marianas trench but also Hawaii where the Plate is at its thinnest. I also remember a study about Lunar Cycles and Seismic/Volcanic activity with scientists studying the effects on Stromboli, however nothing conclusive was ever found.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DataWraith
 


All in All...

I encountered this subject first in Laurence Myer's "expanding-earth.org" web-site. Interestingly he refers to just one previous researcher but commits the cardinal discourtesy of providing no citation. Neither does he give any professional courtesy title (Dr., Prof., etc) or research/ academic institution he may have, so his interest may, like mine, be amateur. If so does he have any geological education? At least I can claim that albeit not to degree level.

Having read many of the posts here, I can honestly say I've never seen so much hazyness!


Myer states (he posits his case not as theory or even hypothesis but as if incontrovertible) that the Earth his receiving vast amnounts of debris all the time, but fails to explain its nature or origin.

He reverts to long-obsolete ideas such as calculating the Earth's age by its cooling rate from the original accretion: this was found wanting when it was realised that geological processes take too long to allow for such cooling. It was also outmoded by the discovery of radioactivity, whose heat (by U decay) is far more satisfactorily explains the planet's internal "engine" than Myer's compression (adiabatic?) origins for the heat.

Similarly I think one post here describes the continents as sitting on a single crust that covers the whole globe. That was found incorrect decades ago: the continents are (at basement level) granite rafts floating on the extremely viscous Mantle, the spaces in between occupied by basalt crust that forms the ocean floor.

The water on Earth was always here. The total volume in sea and terrestrial waters and terrestrial ice has remianed constant while the continents drift about and the water/ice distrtibution changes. Myers and his supporters cannot see this. Sea level changes, both eustatic (so world-wide) and isostatic (so affecting only particular land areas as these rise or subside), do not alter the planet's water bulk even though the total possible sea-level range relative to today's is from memory of my text-books about -150 to +150metres. (The film 'Waterworld' and the Biblical Flood both suggest a physical impossibility - but while the OT myth arose from genuine ignorance, Hollywood has no excuse!) The range is given by ice-sheet formation and thawing.

Dinosaurs did NOT need lower gravity to live. The largest were once thought by most standard text-book writers to live semi-amphibiously to support their weight, but with greater understanding of bone and muscle physiology and more specimens coming to light, it became clear they needed only big legs! Any animal, including us, is proportioned for its own environment on a ball of rock some 8000 miles in diameter whose gravitational filed has remained constant throughout geological time - because its size and mass has remained constant. Besides, if lower gravitational field in the Jurassic affected the animals, one might expect earlier fauna to have been bigger still. Not only were most dinosaurs not especially large, but most preceding creatures were smaller.

Expanionism can be (mis)used to "explain" earthquakes and mid-ocean spreading ridges, but it fails spectacularly to explain almost all other observed geological processes including continental drift, rifting and collision, subduction, arc-volcanism with its explosive rather than extrusive eruptions, batholiths and their associated features, and the seismically-traced lumps of subducted plate in various locations.

There are unanswered questions, it is true: Mantle Plumes (convection currents) were flavour of the month for a time but their number if not existence is still debated. I imagine they would be hellishly hard to pin down because their seismic effect would be small compared to their sizes, by basic acoustic principles alone.

It is also promoted by people like Myers who like yout to think them professioanl researchers but give no hint of any personal, professional practices including field-work, experimental techniques or mathematical modelling, no formal references to supporting (or disputing) papers, no peer-review statements and no named place of research. Hardly good science even if the hypothesis has some substance and is not merely re-hashing long-forgotten ideas by others. At least Myers has the grace to admit his view is his alone and not supported by other scientists.

It would be interesting to know his motives...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join