The real reason for the oceans of the world's rising. Not Global Warming.

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Just for funs sake to imagine if all the UFO's are really hiding under the sea, these would make for some displacement as well.




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

And look Dubai just keeps adding to this! If they keep going my theory will become real like it or not.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
edit on 22-3-2011 by Slipdig1 because: cause i'm a fool.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
www.worldwidemarinasales.com...


There are also things like this that are being built everywhere, the ocean has to be rising a little from these things.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I just had a thought imagine all the extra stuff and earth that is now washed off into the ocean by the Tsnami? There would have been heaps too.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Do you think if I put this in the Science forum it may get more noticed, I would really like some experts in on this?



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Well this seems like another trick of the Cabal, hiding behind the global crisis and using HAARP to attack civil areas. Yes this seems very correct.

But also. Aren't the ice caps melting?



posted on Mar, 30 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sanjur0
 


i have seen evidence that would say otherwise, I will find it and post it.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
www.news.com.au...

www.articlesbase.com...

reply to post by Sanjur0
 


I have read alot more about glaciers moving and more. moving not melting. Maybe meltingg one side, but growing the other.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Come on this is a serious theory and could well give us an alternative to the global warming theory they have fed us!



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Slipdig1
 


OMG, really. like i'm going to believe that one. Why don't you just add things like for example, the birds die offs were because of fireworks. he, he, he, he, he . Get a grip, do the math of water displacement. You will find after doing the correct math that thats not even close. Here is a science experiment for you. take a small kids swimming pool and measure the amount of water put in it and mark the level of water. fill the pool with nothing but ships, now measure the water line. So i take it the water line did not move, well it did only you cannot see it. Now the pool was filled with all boats, now take into consideration that our oceans are NOT filled with all ships. But you filled the pool with all ships. Sorry, you have been DEBUNKED. That is not why the oceans are rising.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slipdig1
reply to post by UnixFE
 


This one site says there are closer to 10000 ships that can carry 15000 teu's. One TEU's weight is 24000 kg or 24 tonne this would mean full they would be 360000 tonnes. But that seems alot to me.

reply to post by cloaked4u
 


So you debunked me with absolutely no math and just your words of wisdom, you obviously didn't read this whole thread did you.

I have stated I got the original math wrong but have found that there are many more ships eg: warships, cargo ships, coal ships.

With the cargo ships in the above quote they can weigh 3 600 000 000 tonnes.

Now that's not adding warships, cruise liners, recreational craft, coal ships, people in the water, man made islands, reclaimed land, hotels and buildings built on water, trash and Bridges and their pylons.

So lets add all these to your little pool experiment and see what happens.

It has to have some impact whether you like it or not.



posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that the entire mass of the boats displace the water?

As far as I know only the volume below the surface would displace water the the mass.
If you make a giant hollow shell, and another mass of the same volume and submerge both they will displace the same amount of water by volume.

Also your statement that you need only count the surface area of the water is false as well.
A volume of water is being displaced by a volume of boats, not a surface area being displaced by a weight of boats.

It's basically related to the density.
Take one boat so the displacement can be measured with consistency.
Load the boat up with 100 tons of cargo and measure the displacement of water.
Unload the boat and then force the boat under water by attaching cables and pulling the boat down to the same level as before.
The volume displaced is constant, but the Density is different because the first submersion had more mass.

Not to mention if you are counting the sediment from rivers, that would be the total volume of the particles not their mass.

I honestly don't know if the scale/ scope of the displacement is enough to affect the total level of the ocean.
I am just questioning your method of finding out how much water is displaced.
The weights on the ocean don't factor into it, it is the volume displace.
Boat A could weigh more, but Boat B could displace more water based on the design of the hull(sp).

Fixing your science would allow you to make a better argument.

I just don't know if the amount of water displaced would be significant, boats are constantly being removed for cleaning, repair, destroyed for scrap and new boats built with different hull shapes.

Anyway I just wanted to correct your science so if you want your argument can stand up to better scrutiny.



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


In relation to the boats displacement, Did you see the Archimedes principle of floating in the OP?



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
The standard definition of floating was first recorded by Archimedes and goes something like this: An object in a fluid experiences an upward force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object. So if a boat weighs 1,000 pounds (or kilograms), it will sink into the water until it has displaced 1,000 pounds (or kilograms) of water. Provided that the boat displaces 1,000 pounds of water before the whole thing is submerged, the boat floats.



That is the Arhimedes standard definition of floating. Don't worry, I thought the same as you at the start. But I have researched this and the only thing I got wrong was a bit of math and weights.

Your thoughts on how things float is actually wrong, this is how I thought before doing some research.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


Wow i just looked at your theories as to my maths and I think you need to go and look at the first op again and really read it. The surface area was involved in working out what volume would be needed to rise the sea by a metre.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
So should I start this is the science forum?



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Slipdig1
 



344 309 966 tonnes of water will need to be displaced to make a one metre rise in the oceans of the world.


NO.

You would need to displace 361,000,000,000,000 Metric Tons to raise the oceans water level by 1 meter.

Current bulk shipping fleets of the entire world = 282,361,250 metric tons.

It's not even a drop in the bucket.


As an addendum to my post, I will elaborate on the math portion for you, so that you can follow along.

The Earths oceans have a total surface area of 361 million km squared or 361,000,000,000,000 meters squared
(361 trillion square meters)

Sea water has a density of 1000kg / m^3

SO, the first meter in depth of the ocean has a mass of 361,000,000,000,000,000 kg, which is the mass you would need to displace the ocean water level by one meter.

Your Average Supramax Freighter = 50,000 DWT (Deadweight Tons) or (45,359,237kg)

(That's 45,359 metric tons.... 1,000kg = 1 metric ton.)

There are over over 6,225 Shipping vessels over 10,000 DWT in the world.

So, the current bulk shipping fleet of the ENTIRE WORLD displaces around 0.00000078216413 meters.

(782 nanometers) or, the width of a single bacteria cell.
edit on 6-4-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: added math



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Sea waters density is 1027kg/m3 not 1000kg/m3 so thats one mistake.

There are 10000 cargo ships world wide able to take an average 15000 teu each. A Teu is around 24000kg 0r 24 tonne. This would weigh one in at 360 000 tonnes and 10000 would be 3 600 000 000 tonnes

Secondly you have your math all which way back to front more than me. How did you convert the square Kilometres to a measurement of volume by multiplying it by a measurement of weight?



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
edit on 6-4-2011 by Slipdig1 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join