It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# What is happening at 37.75N latitude?

page: 2
51
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:20 PM

Originally posted by LilyFlower

The distance of one degree latitiude is 69mi, so for a person quibbling about 37.7, 37.75, and 37.8 degrees (for example) they are talking about a range of .1 degree or seven miles

I prefer to see it as someone who says 2 latitudes are "exactly the same" when they are 7 miles out is 7 miles wrong.

YMMV

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:21 PM

According to this, the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 was at 37° 45′ 0″ N, 122° 33′ 0″ W (or 37.75, -122.55)

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:26 PM

Originally posted by AuranVector

Originally posted by AQuestion

Dear LilyFlower,

What area along the New Madrid fault lies on the same path, if you know? Another question I have is related to the magnetic pole movement that occurred. Dr. Kaku stated that there is a possibility of increased solar activity into 2012, he also said that he believed the sun's magnetic pole will shift. Dr. Kaku on the suns impending polar shift. We know that our pole has shifted slightly, I have been wondering if the shift in the suns magnetic pole has been affecting ours. A magnetic pole shift is expected every 25,000 years roughly and it has been hypothesized that this results in wild climate change and earthquakes and volcanoes. Dr. Michio Kaku is not some simpleton, he is one of the best in physics today. When he says the sun's magnetic pole is going to shift, I for one am going to listen.

You may already know this but the Sun reverses its poles every 11 years. 2012 is when it reverses its poles again.

What worries me is the 11 degree pole shift of the Earth that Edgar Cayce predicted decades ago.
There has already been a 10 degree shift in the magnetic poles of the Earth. So what we need to know is: is a magnetic pole shift a precursor to the actual physical shifting of the Earth's poles?

Because if it is, we are in trouble. Even an 11 degree pole shift -- this would explain the major geological changes that Cayce saw in his visions of the future.
edit on 11-5-2011 by AuranVector because: (no reason given)

Dear AuranVector,

I appreciate your words, what concerns me is that Dr. Kaku said that this shift would effect all electronics, that didn't happen 11 years ago. The other thing that disturbs me is that our magnetic pole is shifting a lot, more than it usually does. Here then is what I am wondering, everytime the sun's magnetic pole shifts it impacts the planets, the earths magnetic pole moves regularly, eventually the earth's magnetic pole flips, not every eleven years, every 25,000 years. Can we using science determine when the earths magnetic pole will shift and if so, is it now? Where or when is the tipping point. I study quantum physics; but, not astrophysics. I don't know, just questions.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

I prefer to see it as someone who says 2 latitudes are "exactly the same" when they are 7 miles out is 7 miles wrong.

YMMV

Outside of your reply, does the original post or the source say "exactly the same" anywhere?

The original post says "the same" and that latitude is the 37th parallel. The source indicates the positions in more detail.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:32 PM
Image of earthquakes greater than 5.0 sorted by latitude from the beginning of 2008 through now.

Image
edit on 11-5-2011 by LilyFlower because: Link

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:40 PM

Originally posted by LilyFlower

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

I prefer to see it as someone who says 2 latitudes are "exactly the same" when they are 7 miles out is 7 miles wrong.

YMMV

Outside of your reply, does the original post or the source say "exactly the same" anywhere?

It says somethign is happening at 37.75N - that is an exact parallel, and the original post does not give a tolerance of +/- some fraction or minutes/seconds north and south.

"exactly the same" is a perfectly reasonable description when an exact figure is given.

The original post says "the same" and that latitude is the 37th parallel. The source indicates the positions in more detail.

the 37'th parallel is exactly 37.00 - not from 37.00-37.99 as you seem to be implying - so none of tehse are on the 357th parallel at all.

The facts re that the report is just plain wrong, and is relying upon people not questioning the fact that the figures given are NOT at 37.75N, or, as you are, trying to fit some unspecified tolerance around it that was not given, in order to make it appear correct when it isn't.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:48 PM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Dear Aloysius the Gaul,

I did not think that she meant at exactly the 37th, in fact she supplied numbers that were not at exactly the 37th and they had variation. I gave figures that included the 36th; but, I talked about magnetic shift which has occurred. It would not change the physical latitude and longitude, it would shift the magnetic coordinates and not to any exact longitude or latitude.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:51 PM

Quite evidently the headline and hte facts did not match - that was exactly what I was pointing out.

So in answer to the headline - "What is happening at 37.75N?" - "nothing out of the ordinary" remains the correct answer.

dunno why you bring up pole shift - as you say it is completely irrelevant to lat & long.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:51 PM
First you claimed that the locations were wrong, until the latitudes were provided for you. Now you're jumping on semantics about the title.

However you want to split hairs, you're ignoring the point that there is a range of events close to a latitude around the world. ... Mt Etna (37.74° N) and Spain (37.699 N) today. and coincidently (although nothing has happened here yet) Fukushima, Ft. Knox, and San Francisco are close to or on 37.75.

As for the latitude, in my University the 37th degree (or parallel) can broadly refer to anything between 37 and 38, as well as specifically 37.00N
edit on 11-5-2011 by LilyFlower because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Dear Aloysius the Gaul,

I am looking at these events, not by longitude and latitude; but, instead in relation to their distance from the magnetic pole. The magnetic pole shifted, that would result in the distance from the longitude and latitude would have adjusted also. In other words, if we look at these events in relationship to the longitude and latitude that would exist if we used the magnetic pole as our baseline, how close would they be to the same.

I live in Los Angeles, I know earthquakes. Just like anything else in nature, the weak link gives first. That means that if we assume there is a pressure in the mantel of the earth, it will push out not at an exact coordinate but at a coordinate that is the weakest near the exact longitude and latitude of the force. I have no problem with you pointing out and requiring specificity. I hope I have explained myself better.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by LilyFlower

First you claimed that the locations were wrong, until the latitudes were provided for you.

nope - the locations are wrong - none of them are at 37.75N - you provided ONE location of 37.75N - but that is actually 37 deg 46 minutes and some seconds N - so 37.75 is insufficiently accurate to give the precise location anyway......

Now you're jumping on semantics about the title.

in response to you and others criticising me for pointing out the innaccuracy

However you want to split hairs, you're ignoring the point that there is a range of events close to a latitude around the world. ... Mt Etna (37.74° N) and Spain (37.699 N) today. and coincidently (although nothing has happened here yet) Fukushima, Ft. Knox, and San Francisco are close to or on 37.75.

Nope - I'm pointing out that your "close or on" is a wishy-washy tolerance you have invented to try to justify the inaccuracy in the initial report.

BTW it didn't say Fumkushima - the EXACT wording from the linked article is:

Fukishima (location of the critical Nuclear reactor)
37.75

Which is patently and obviously WRONG.

your uncritical thinking lets you rationalise inaccuracy by saying "oh but it's close by so that's OK".

Mine doesn't. Mine says "They said they were at the same latitude but they weeer not, so they are either stupid or deliberately misleading".

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
nope - the locations are wrong - none of them are at 37.75N - you provided ONE location of 37.75N - but that is actually 37 deg 46 minutes and some seconds N - so 37.75 is insufficiently accurate to give the precise location anyway......

Check again

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:34 PM
ETNA just blew BIGTIME red alert BIGTIME

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:37 PM

As it often does - www.msnbc.msn.com...

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:41 PM

Originally posted by LilyFlower

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
nope - the locations are wrong - none of them are at 37.75N - you provided ONE location of 37.75N - but that is actually 37 deg 46 minutes and some seconds N - so 37.75 is insufficiently accurate to give the precise location anyway......

Check again

Yawn.....I did

As I said originally - SF is a big city that does cross 37.75 ....as well as quite a lot of other fractions.....I'm surprised you missed that I had said that, what with your penchant for grouping ranges of lattitude together ....

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:42 PM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Looked in the last five minutes?

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by LilyFlower

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
nope - the locations are wrong - none of them are at 37.75N - you provided ONE location of 37.75N - but that is actually 37 deg 46 minutes and some seconds N - so 37.75 is insufficiently accurate to give the precise location anyway......

Check again

Yawn.....I did

As I said originally - SF is a big city that does cross 37.75 ....as well as quite a lot of other fractions.....I'm surprised you missed that I had said that, what with your penchant for grouping ranges of lattitude together ....

You claimed that I provided a location that wasn't at 37.75N, but the link I provided shows the epicenter of the original SF earthquake was at 37.75. Then you provide a link slightly different and claim I am misleading people when I didn't.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:01 PM
There was an EQ in Colorado, USA at 19:06 UTC today...
37' 057" N -104'695" W

not that it is related but, here is what haarp has been doing today

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:07 PM
I'd bet if you look at just about any parallel line around the world, you'd find earthquake zones along them in several locations.

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:12 PM

Originally posted by babybunnies
I'd bet if you look at just about any parallel line around the world, you'd find earthquake zones along them in several locations.

Dear babybynnies,

Actually, it doesn't work that way. Faults run north to south, nor west to east. Why don't you show the opposite.

new topics

top topics

51