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.

 

Questions for those knowledgeable in the fields of either Geology, Magnetic fields and Astrophysics.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Since the Japan EQ, some very strange occurancies have been reported by USGS, that got me thinking of the "growing earth" theory that i'm sure most have you have heard.

I hope you will all read this thread, point out my ignorance, and answer my possibly very stupid questions! Although I am going to aim questions at people with specific knowledge, please read all the questions to garner a context on where my questions are coming from.



A question to those knowledgeable in Geology:

It's been reported that Japan has moved a considerable(?) distance (8ft) into the pacific ocean since the EQ struck and...


David Applegate, a senior science adviser at the US Geological Survey, tells the Associated Press. He says the quake ruptured a patch of the earth's crust 240km (150 miles) long and 80km (50 miles) across.


Now my basic knowledge of physics tells me that where there is an action there has to be a reaction. Thus where a void forms it has to be filled. My question to the geologists on this site is, what was the void(s) filled by?

If Japan moved 8ft into the pacific ocean, at the earths mantle, what moved into the space that Japan once occupied? Also, I think (excuse my ignorance, I am a layman in geology), the rupture in the earths crust will have been filled with magma which would have been cooled to form a new part of the earths mantle?

So in effect if the above is true, does this then mean that the Earth has grown slightly in diameter? Is this supporting the "growing Earth" theory?



A question to those knowledgeable about the Earth's magnetic field:

If this is also true, then the earth's surface has changed, thus magma has been shifted from the core upwards, then surely this would have an effect on the magnetic field of the Earth? What kind of effect would this have?



A question to those knowledgeable in the field of Astrophysics:

Now assuming that some of the above summations are true, then surely this effects the "universal gravitational constant" between the earth and the Moon? Now if the Earth's diameter is indeed growing, thus the square of the distance between them (Earth/Moon) changing, then could this expalin why the Moon is gradually moving away from the Earth? Could this also explain the anomalies in the Moon's orbit of Earth?


Just some crazy thoughts I've been toying with.


edit on 13-3-2011 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2011 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
to answer you on the magnetic field question, any crust displacement or shift will place no effect on the electromagnetic field of the earth as the EM field is generated at the core level of the planet and not the surface.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by AnotherYOU
 


Yes but displacement of magma into the voids I talked about, then has an effect on the mass of the core does it not, even if only fractionally? I should have been more specific in my question, sorry. Told you I was stupid!

edit on 13-3-2011 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
it moved only 10 cm so were talking a few inches not feet, the crust's shift and move yearly so it's really nominal
movement and may move around as it settles.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I think it was 8 to 10 cm, which is 4 to 5 inches.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by CIGGSofWAR
 

Meh! Neopan is right! (post below). It moved 8 feet.

edit on 13-3-2011 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by CIGGSofWAR
 


I think they said the earths AXIS moved 10cm but the island of JAPAN moved 8ft. At least that is what was reported on both CNN and the weather channel yesterday.

The island of japan moved 8ft closer to the east.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


fractional maybe... but still even if a massive displacement of magma occurs it's still not significant enough to produce visible or noticeable effects as far as the EM field goes.

The EM field is much more susceptible to external disruptions like spaceweather than internal causes like any shift at surface level.

any significant change in the core itself though would leave the em field useless, depleting this planet's atmosphere(as it would be consumed by solar winds) and slowly turning it into something more like mars.
edit on 13/3/11 by AnotherYOU because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by AnotherYOU
 


Yes, it would take a very long time, but an effect if only minimal is therefore possible I suppose. Your mars analogy is interesting though, some more food for thought...
edit on 13-3-2011 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


yes theoretically it can be assumed as so.

but the way the sun has been pounding our EM field lately i wouldnt worry much about magma and the crust.
the latter has much more influence than the rest summed up together.

and to make sure you fully understand what i mean about the magnetic field, look at Jupiter.

it's magnetic field is the biggest in the solar system expanding all the way across Saturn i think, yet the planet is a gas giant, it has no solid mass or crust, no magma, just a turnmoil of hydrogen.

therefore since both rock and gas planets have magnetic fields, one can conclude the em field is generated at core level and will have no interference by the planet's crust.

if anything, depending on the elements present the crust could act as an amplifier or isolator of the field, but have a direct effect or influence, no.


edit on 13/3/11 by AnotherYOU because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AnotherYOU
 


Indeed, the effects of the Sun on the MF, are more pronouced and of far mor worry in the short term, however, taking into context everything that is going on, even on a minimal scale and the continuation of the odds narrowing due to time moving forward, it surely is all adding up to a far higher chance of a doomsday like scenario.

So in summary, if the earths magnetic field changes even so slighlty, then the effect of the next solar storm that comes our way will be different if that minor change had not occured. Interesting domino like effect.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
First of all the earth is not expanding, what is occurring in Japan is continental drift of the earth's plate tectonics. Japan is situated on 3 different plates and in a very tectonically active area. Earthquakes are the result of plate movements and not the cause. See below the precarious zones around Japan.



Think of the earth's crust as a broken eggshell in constant motion around the liquid mantel.

The lithosphere covers the whole Earth. Therefore, ocean plates are also involved, more particularly in the process of sea-floor spreading. This involves the midocean ridges which are a system of narrow submarine cracks that can be traced down the center of the major oceans. The ocean floor is being continuously pulled apart along these midocean ridges. Hot volcanic material rises from the Earth's mantle to fill the gap and continuously forms new oceanic crust. The midocean ridges themselves are broken by offsets know as transform faults.

Now this is interesting, from USGS.

One of the keys to plate tectonics was the discovery that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed its polarity 170 times in the last 80 million years. As new basaltic material is squeezed up into the midocean cracks and solidifies, it is magnetized according to the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field. If the field reverses its polarity, the strip of new material is magnetized in an opposite sense. As the oceanic floor continues to spread, the new strips of rock are carried away on either side like a conveyer belt.

Using these magnetic strips as evidence of movement, it became obvious that the Earth's surface consisted of a mosaic of crustal plates that were continually jostling one another. If the Earth was not to be blown up like a balloon by the continual influx of new volcanic material at the ocean ridges, then old crust must be destroyed at the same rate where plates collide. The required balanced occurs when plates collide, and one plate is forced under the other to be consumed deep in the mantle.


edit on 13-3-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Good post! So therfore (laymen talk), some parts of the plate that went underneath the other in the recent EQ would have melted back into the various layers of the earth, thus creating a cycle of sorts. But to throw out the "growing earth" theory, that would mean that an exact amount of the plate needs to be reconsumed to offset the spreading of the ocean floor, thus stopping the Earths diameter from getting bigger. But in the same flow of thinking, there is nothing to suggest that in some cases the Earth's diameter might also shrink...

What's the chances?


(I wasn't suggesting that EQ's were the cause of Tectonic movement btw
)
edit on 13-3-2011 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher


What's the chances?




now that itself has much more to do with the planet's own gravity.

Physics explain it, every force has a matching reaction.

poke some gelatin with a fork, it's gonna shake and tear, but it won't grow bigger in size.

or another example, just because you dig a hole in a sand beach, the beach itself will not grow larger just because you scattered some sand and took it from where it was.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by AnotherYOU
 


Yes, but Jelly and sand is of a very different make up than that of magma, which has it's various forms. If water is frozen does it not change the area of it's mass?

Fill a pastic bottle with water to the very top, put a lid on it, then leave it in your freezer. Let me know what happens...

If you dig a hole in the sand, and that hole gets filled by sand from a tide and the sand you displaced stays where it is, then yes, in theory the beach has got bigger.
edit on 13-3-2011 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


you are correct on your analogy, and about the state changes.

but in your own analogy try to see it like this, the beach only got bigger because some other beach became smaller to begin with.

same with the earth and the tectonic plates, one sinks, one rises, one expands another contracts.

so while there are shifts and changes, the overall mass and elements being used are still the same in number.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by AnotherYOU
 


Yes, unless the Earths core is becoming smaller when magma is injected into the upper layers which then expand the surface of the Earths diameter, due to the solidificaton of said magma?

I wasn't using your analogy of the sand on the beach as support for what has been suggested, just correcting your black and white view of cause and effect, when there are kinds of potential grey areas in between.
edit on 13-3-2011 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


that's not how the core and inner core work, thankfully.

but due to this thread i've been reading further on the subject, i admit my own personal expertise or lack of it is reaching it's limits on this subject.

and from what i can see, what you are speaking of is and has been theorized and discussed.

some interesting articles that may shed you some more light on the matter.

www.agu.org...

www.nature.com...

www.nature.com...

sadly some are paid articles, but ill leave them as reference as im sure a thourough search will provide a full pdf somehow somewhere.




posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnotherYOU
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


that's not how the core and inner core work, thankfully.


Well I don't know how you can just come to that conclusion, when we simply don't know! Science still hasn't explained the inner workings of the Earth's as of yet, and it's true that as a race, we know more about the edges of the universe than that of the Earths core.

You know something I don't?
edit on 13-3-2011 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


Well i did not say we know how it fully works and sustains itself, but i said we know enough to at least know that it doesn't work the way you described it in the previous post.

because if the core was as sensitive as you mentioned, would be very dextrimental to us.

and we would never be having this conversation, as this planet would not be stable enough top generate life at all.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join