African desert rift confirmed as new ocean in the making!

Originally posted by Solenki
reply to post by kiwifoot

 

Oh GOD
Since i've been reading ATS I've always read some crazy things about geology, and being a geologist is almost heartbreaking.

1. Stop with the expending earth... with enough time i'll demonstrate you why it's impossible, and proof of the earth being a whole solid body but well, it's already late here (i'm in france), so maybe next time.

2. about the rifting :
first, you have to have a source of heat juste beneath the crust. This source of heat is generally a magma plume, comming up because of archimed's law and will induce a diminution in the crust thickness. Just like if you were melting a layer of plastic from beneath.

then Volcanism appears, is our case, this is the nexte step commine ahead.

After volcanism, extenstion makes it's move, this is when the rifting really occur.
Then, you began to have a separation, this is the full rifting process, each border of the rift are separating, creating normal faults and the crust keep getting thinner.

As the borders or lips, of the rift are separating, a sedimentary basin is being created, and sediments beguns to accumulate.
this accumulation will add a weigh on rocks, creating Subsidence (search it!), basically, the basin will sink because of the weight and because of the heat (this is how you create petroleum, by getting rich organic matter rocks deeper, and you know that deeper you are, hotter it is, so organic matter can be cracked into hydrocarbures).


Then, as the bottom of the rift is getting deeper, it will pass under the Mean Sea Level, so, water will flood it creating a sea.

Next step, if the extension goes on, you will have an ocean. End of the story.

the way the crust is getting thinner will be the main setting to know if the rift will pursue is opening or not.
We calcul a shortening factor (beta) with the lenght of the crust, if this factor is less than a certain number, rifting will not continue.


3. So yeah, having a rifting will modify the sea level, we call it "tectono-eustatisme" here in France, don't know how to say it in english, sorry guys.

Being simple, as you modify the basin configuration, you will have an effect on the mean sea level.
By the way you can also modify the volume of the ocean...
How ? simply by activating the oceanics rifts, you will then create more oceanic crust thus you change the volume of ocean, more volume for the same amout of water = decreasing sea levels.

For the one wondering why rifting is usually observed in deep sea, juste remeber that rifting always begins into the continent, then lead to the formation of a sea, and then at last to the formation of an ocean.
Search for Wilson Cycle, you will understand how it works globaly.

Finally, for those still giving the old propaganda of the hollow earth and the earth in expansion, please, read some more about plate tectonics, subduction, collision and wilson cycle. I just can stand those people, they are creationist for me. No offence, it's juste that all the creastionist I've encountered were narrow minded about scientific fact.

I hope my explaination was clear, sorry I do what I can in english and I'm in a kind of hurry to go sleeping at last.

Don't hestitate if you have questions, I may not be the best geologist, but I can surely help understand.

bye ATS I love reading you before sleeping !

This is probably one of the most educated posts I've ever read in broken english.


Thanks!

or should I say.. Merci!

Being there when the sea fills would be the high spot of it all. I read a sci-fi time traveler story that had people present when the Mediterranean was filling over Gibraltar. I would really like to have been there.

westparker

Originally posted by westparker
Being there when the sea fills would be the high spot of it all. I read a sci-fi time traveler story that had people present when the Mediterranean was filling over Gibraltar. I would really like to have been there.

westparker

Spilling over the Rocks of Gibraltar. Do you think that correlates with the Great Flood of the Bible?

Along the Saint Andreas Fault in So. Cal. I have found petroglyphs of strange men. They are etched into the face of the basalt rocks that are a part of the shear. This part of the fault follows the dry lake beds and certainly could have occurred while the folks were around there as I find artifacts nearby. One dude looks like the king of harts. Instead of having harts on his chest he has wavy lines and bubbles coming out of his head.
Wonder if the lakes pouring down into the fault could have caused a memorable rise of steam.
The wavy lines I think represent the shaking earth.

This reminds me of Thingvellir and the Álfagjá rift valley in Iceland.

Thingvellir is a place in Iceland that the mid-Atlantic ridge is visible on the surface. The Mid-Atlantic ridge is the rift running down the center of the Atlantic ocean where the land is being pulled apart, making the ocean wider.

On the west side of the ridge is the North American plate. On the East side of the ridge is the European plate.

When I visited Thingvellir, I stood in the center of that fissure with one foot planted on the North American plate and one foot planted on the European plate (at least what I think was each plate...I may not have been straddling the actual rift, but you get the general idea)...

...and, no -- I didn't notice the land spreading apart

Here is info on Thingvellir:
pubs.usgs.gov...

Perhaps hundreds of millions of years ago, the place where eastern South America and Western Africa were joined together looked like one of these rifts.


[edit on 11/3/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by grey580
If a new ocean forms.. does that means that ocean levels will lower?

A rift the size of the width of africa is alot of water even it if is skinny.
what happens then?

Aren't the oceans rising in the first place due to the ice caps melting? Maybe that's where this water is intended to go? If you believe in intelligent design that is.

just think of what it will look like and sound like when the water stats pouring in!

i wonder if it would be possible to lets say, dig a trench and connect it early? just some speculating! lol!

Originally posted by blackthorne
just think of what it will look like and sound like when the water stats pouring in!

i wonder if it would be possible to lets say, dig a trench and connect it early? just some speculating! lol!

Perhaps it will fill up slowly after several million years of rainfall, and/or as the groundwater gently seeps in.

[edit on 11/3/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

hoping for a giant tsumani like flood! yeah, will probably fill slowly. would be cool though to see a great show like that!

I guess that this will make the Suez Canal worthless.
Think of all the new beach-front property that will be formed though.
Oh, to only be a real estate agent in that area!!

Creating an ocean and having gender reassignment surgery are very similar in so far as the hardest part, is installing the fish. My apology in advance. I could not resist.

Originally posted by Angel One

Expanding Earth guys, well that idea is most laughable and lacks insight and logic.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Angel One]

The video evidence supporting global expansion on Earth and other bodies is irrefutable. When confronted with proof you resort to labeling its proponents without examining the facts. How intellectually dishonest.

You can’t answer my basic question because you simply have no answer for it.

The expanding Earth model is also consistent with following observations:

- Large dinosaur growth. Smaller Earth = less gravity = more growth.
- Fish fossils found in high elevations suggests the Earth was completely covered in water at one time. Water must have been displaced during expansion when the continents formed.
- Constant heat and pressure in the core.
- Mass constantly ejected from the core (magma) with no indication of “running out”.
- Radioactive byproducts indicate presence of nuclear material and possible reactions.
- Cold fusion (LENR / CANR) experiments prove nuclear reactions are possible in solids and liquids without requiring millions of degrees.

If we are to believe Pangaea theory, we will have to *assume* fish fossils found in high elevations were placed there by some other mechanism. I prefer to apply Occam’s razor on this one as well.

Fossils found in Tibet revise history of elevation, climate
www.physorg.com...


[edit on 3-11-2009 by platoslab]

I’d like to address some of the comments:

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
reply to post by Byrd

 

Thanks for addressing that, Byrd. I'm aware that the development of the rift will be extremely gradual; geology isn't generally a blink-and-you'll-miss-it sort of deal. That's why I was so struck by the sudden formation of this rift; events that dramatic are rare, as I understand it.

still an interesting story, though.

On the contrary, some geological events are sudden and catastrophic. A good example of a sudden, catastrophic geological event would be the Indian Ocean Mega-thrust that caused the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004. That event occurred along a subduction zone.

www.encyclopedia.com...

There are several problems with the Expanding Earth theory:

1. Neal Adams claims that there are no subduction zones and that the ocean floor is relatively young compared to the continents which proves that the Earth is expanding.

Subduction zones are well documented and are easily identified. Subduction explains the fact that the ocean floors are “young” as well. The sea floor is “pushed” away from the oceanic rifts on either side and later subducted under the adjacent plates. The oldest parts of the sea floor eventually disappear as they are subducted which explains why the sea floors are “young”.

2. Neal Adams claims that Matter is being created at the core of the planet through some “quantum” process.

Uh… where do I begin? This claim “flies in the face” of known Physics and is ludicrous to say the least. Matter is neither created nor destroyed, it is merely transformed. That is the first law of Thermodynamics, the conservation of energy.

en.wikipedia.org...






3. Neal Adams claims that the scientific community is keeping the “truth” hidden from “us”.

This claim is somewhat suspect and is reminiscent of Creationist arguments which have no foundation in real science. The antagonistic stance which Neal has taken toward the sciences smacks of anti-intellectualism and is somewhat insulting to those “misguided” folks that have dedicated countless hours of study and research in the science disciplines. The sanctimonious tone of Neal’s narration seems to suggest that those whose expertise is garnered though the scientific method is insignificant compared to those whose intuition molds belief sets regarding the world we live in.


Other comments to address:

“Large dinosaur growth. Smaller Earth = less gravity = more growth.

• Large Dinosaurs do not prove Expanding Earth theory. Many Scientists attribute gigantism to higher Oxygen levels in the atmosphere.

” Fish fossils found in high elevations suggests the Earth was completely covered in water at one time. Water must have been displaced during expansion when the continents formed.”

• Marine fossils found at higher elevations can be explained using the uplift model. When two continental plates collide the Granit based land is not subducted and is forced upwards. The Himalayan Mountains were formed in this way when the Indian Plate slammed into the Eurasian Plate some 40 million years ago.

Mass constantly ejected from the core (magma) with no indication of “running out”.

• This is due to the fact that the continental plates upon which the continents rest, is constantly being recycled via subduction action. Most volcanic activity can be found along continental plate subduction zones.

Radioactive byproducts indicate presence of nuclear material and possible reactions.

• This proves nothing except for the fact that radioactive decay occurs naturally. Uranium, Plutonium and other radioactive materials are found in the crust, not the core.

Cold fusion (LENR / CANR) experiments prove nuclear reactions are possible in solids and liquids without requiring millions of degrees.

• Cold Fusion? Really? I’ve never read any reported Cold Fusion experimentation that was repeatable. Experimental evidence must be repeatable to have any validity.

Neal Adams provides no PLAUSIBLE mechanism by which the Earth or any other planetary body would expand.

He also provides no explanation for the volcanic & seismic activities that occur at subduction zones.

He provides no evidence for planetary expansion other than a cheesy animation model and many unfounded assumptions.

A good theory provides a model which predictions can be made from. If theoretical predictions match the ultimate outcome, then the theory is said to be proven. Over and over again Plate Tectonic theories have been proven through prediction and observation.

Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. Neal Adams theory assumes two major mechanisms are at work; Cold Fusion at the Core & new matter is created at the Core. Those two claims alone are wildly speculative and suggest that some other more plausible explanation should be found (and already has been found).

I’m sorry guys. Expanding Earth theory just doesn’t hold any water for me. It’s Pseudo-Science at best and Creationist Techno-babble at worst.

Originally posted by platoslab

Originally posted by Angel One

Expanding Earth guys, well that idea is most laughable and lacks insight and logic.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Angel One]

The video evidence supporting global expansion on Earth and other bodies is irrefutable. When confronted with proof you resort to labeling its proponents without examining the facts. How intellectually dishonest.

You can’t answer my basic question because you simply have no answer for it.

The expanding Earth model is also consistent with following observations:

- Large dinosaur growth. Smaller Earth = less gravity = more growth.

Then why is the bone structure so much larger and the places where the musculature attached so much more massive? If gravity was once less, then there would be no need for dinosaurs to have such thick bones. Relatively Thin bones would suffice.

Plus, the large dinosaurs were not the most common. Most dinosaurs were smaller than us humans, and many other smaller animals lived along side the big dinos.

- Fish fossils found in high elevations suggests the Earth was completely covered in water at one time. Water must have been displaced during expansion when the continents formed.

No -- it only suggests that those portions of land were once low enough to be covered by an ocean. Land is not "created" as mountains. Land starts relatively low and then is thrust up over millions of years to form mountain ranges. Plate tectonics explains how this can occur.

The parts of those mountains containing fish fossils were once lower in elevation.

- Constant heat and pressure in the core.

You may need to explain this one to me (as to why this is an issue). Heat at the core is caused by the weight and pressure from the thousands of miles of rock above pushing down.

Also, some of the heat is caused by the decay of radioactive materials.

- Mass constantly ejected from the core (magma) with no indication of “running out”.

That's because the crust is constantly being pushed under to the mantle, also, adding material to the mantle. (btw, volcanic magma comes from the mantle, not the core).

For example, the "Juan de la Fuca" plate off the coast of the NW U.S. and SW Canada is being driven under the western edge of the North American plate. All that crust from the Juan de la Fuca plate is being recycled in the mantle and may someday break the surface again in a volcano (That's where geologists thing much of the material from the volcanoes in the 'Cascades Range' comes from).

So that's why the planet is not "running out" of magma. Crust keeps getting churned under into the mantle to make more magma.

- Radioactive byproducts indicate presence of nuclear material and possible reactions.

Again, you're going to need to explain how the presence of nuclear materials is evidence against the present (non-expanding) model of the Earth.

- Cold fusion (LENR / CANR) experiments prove nuclear reactions are possible in solids and liquids without requiring millions of degrees.

The jury is still out on cold fusion, but even if I stipulate that cold fusion DOES occur naturally, how does the assertion that cold fusion exists help disprove the current (non-expanding) model of Earth's geologic structure.

If we are to believe Pangaea theory, we will have to *assume* fish fossils found in high elevations were placed there by some other mechanism. I prefer to apply Occam’s razor on this one as well.

I don't know what you mean by "some other mechanism", but as I said above, the mechanism I'm familiar with is plate tectonics and the "pushing up" of land masses.

Here in the northeast U.S. I can drive my car on highways cut through 200+ feet high cliffs of diagonal strata. It seems quite obvious by looking at that rotated strata that the Earth IN FACT HAS mechanisms for lifting large pieces of land. I can see the results of that mechanism with my own eyes.

Fossils found in Tibet revise history of elevation, climate
www.physorg.com...

That article suggests that the uplift of land DOES occur due to plate tectonics, so I don't know how the article specifically applies to the Expanding-Earth hypothesis.

It may be true that there is a discrepancy between the dates of the uplift ( prviously thought to be 50 million years ago) and the age of that ancient lake (2 to 3 million years ago). It could be that plate tectonics caused the land mass raised up faster than previous thought, or perhaps there was a drastic climate change that allowed that lake to flourish at relatively high elevations.

However, I don't understand how the Expanding-Earth hypothesis can better explains that discrepancy. I personally think that plate tectonics may be able to lift land masses faster than scientists believe.

EDIT TO ADD:
Anamnesis beat me to the punch in his (her?) post above mine.



[edit on 11/3/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by kiwifoot
reply to post by sharps

 

hey mate have can you recall the Documentary's name?

That 'earthquake machine' sounds crazy.. but I've heard of stranger things on ATS that have a grounding in reality!

Can't be certain by any means because i watch so many and they all tend to converge into a mess in my head.

However, my gut is telling me that the presenter may have been Dr Iain Stewart who did the 'journeys into the ring of fire' series in 2007. en.wikipedia.org... He also did 'Earth' and this has been on TV recently so that could well be the source. There's also a docu called 'inside the ring of fire' but I can't find any info on this but the name seems to suggest a sequel docu series.

reply to post by sharps


Thanks Sharps, I'll see if I can find a list of his docs that sound like they're on this subject!

Thanks for replying mate!

Originally posted by sensfan

Just found that pic of the rift. From what I have read, it will take about 10 million years for the rift to split the continent.

Great pic, but ten million years, damn, there goes the idea of making a quick buck!

but deep down inside I figured as much!

thanks!

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
wouldn't it still just be the Indian ocean ?

Except that now the Indian Ocean is bigger?

That's not a bad call, I'd think more along the lines of a 'Straits of Ethiopia'!

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

Originally posted by kiwifoot

Originally posted by thecrow001
i know i hate it when things like this happen, if this does turn out to be a ocean i say lets put some pots and treasures for people of the future to discover

even though i know its a stupid idea

I like it, we could start our own 'Atlantis' myth!

Who knows, it may split open to reveal more than we bargained for!

i will lead the expidition to do this greatest prank in history. You can start by sending your precious metals and contact info to the address in my profile.

As far as sea levels, a shift shouldn't cause much of a change once things settle down. However if one of these ieces sinks it could mean some higher water levels.

You always get one don't you!?

reply to post by Anamnesis


I agree with your view of the expanding earth theory.

However there are a few questions that should be looked at. I tried to find out how the volume of molten rock changes as it cools and forms crystals. I bring this up because I read somewhere looking for this that the core is expanding at 18cm per year because of cooling. Not much. But if liquid rocks double in volume when cooled (not known by me) it might explain some of the expanding earth theory. I am not saying this happens, but right now I can't find out how volume of liquid rock compare to that of cooled rock given the same mass. This plus accumulated material from space add something to some expansion. I would like one of the geologists to answer the rock volume question.

Just catching up with my reading, just plain old radioactivity heats the core, so critical masses or fusion aren't needed. Add potassium 40 to thorium as a source.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by A52FWY]

reply to post by A52FWY

The volume of most substances in their solid form (including nickel and iron -- the materials that mostly comprise the Earth's core) is actually less than that same material in liquid form -- that is to say that solid iron or solid nickel takes up less volume than liquid iron or liquid nickel.

There is at least one exception to this rule -- and that is water. Solid water (ice) has a greater volume than liquid water.