24 Km Long Underwater Wall in India Is At Least 8000 Years Old.

page: 3
45
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by Harte

The other side of the plate - the western side of India, is undergoing it's own subduction as it presses into Asia, forming the Himalayas. Thats' the locale this thread is about.



So...in geographical time, the Indian sub-continent crashes into Asia and the impact forces the Himalayas up, and continues to do so. I understand that much. I think. I found this, I am sure, fascinating article...


The most spectacular example of a plate convergence event on Earth is the motion of the Indian plate towards Eurasia at speeds in excess of 18 cm yr−1 (ref. 1), and the subsequent collision. Continental buoyancy usually stalls subduction shortly after collision, as is seen in most sections of the Alpine–Himalayan chain. However, in the Indian section of this chain, plate velocities were merely reduced by a factor of about three when the Indian continental margin impinged on the Eurasian trench about 50 million years ago. Plate convergence, accompanied by Eurasian indentation, persisted throughout the Cenozoic era1, 2, 3, suggesting that the driving forces of convergence did not vanish on continental collision. Here we estimate the density of the Greater Indian continent, after its upper crust is scraped off at the Himalayan front, and find that the continental plate is readily subductable. Using numerical models, we show that subduction of such a dense continent reduces convergence by a factor similar to that observed. In addition, an imbalance between ridge push and slab pull can develop and cause trench advance and indentation. We conclude that the subduction of the dense Indian continental slab provides a significant driving force for the current India–Asia convergence and explains the documented evolution of plate velocities following continental collision.


www.earthbyte.org...

...unfortunately it is beyond my scope of understanding, as yet, we live and learn, one day it may make perfect sense, but until then, does this mean that India's coast could be bobbing up and down like Australia? Presumably, there is some general momentum upwards, responsive to impact, but is it also, at times, being re-aligned by the subduction process? Lifting back up to level it out or the such like.

I apologise for my gross ignorance, and/or silly questions.


Actually, to lift up the entire Indian subcontinent or lets say to keep it floating, we need 100million gallons of H2SO4 or sulphuric acid, Sulphuric acid would react with Thorium oxide deposits the indian coastline has underwater.
edit on 5-8-2011 by sai1711 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


Hey there Heliocentric,

Great thread ... now whilst the fantacist side of me would like to believe that this ancient civilization built the wall to keep some King-Kong-like or Dinosaur-type creature from ravaging their land and women-folk ... I guess a more realistic and (for me at least) a more exciting probability ... could be that the wall was in fact built because they had actually worked out that sea-levels were rising ... and it was an attempt to delay the inevitable for as long as possible.

Similar to how we see the sea defense walls built along crumbling coastlines nowadays ... especially near me on the North East Coast of England (known as the 'Dinosaur Coast' for obvious reasons) which is eroding at an alarming rate.

I'm pretty sure that if they had the intelligence to construct such a feat of engineering back then ... then they would also have been aware of the ecological situation.

S&F for this. Woody



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Fantastic thread and info I missed Marking this for later.

How come no one called me?





posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwytch
 


Hi there,

i tend to agree with you , when i first saw the images in the OP i thought it odd that they run parallel to the shore line. so i immediately thought that they could be old sea defences.

snoopyuk



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 


Good post.

Very very interesting indeed.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
I'm concerned about a growing trend here on ATS - every morsel of old ruins being described as "advanced" civilisations without evidence in some cases - this is a case in point. Right now we have a long wall.

Whilst completely fascinating, it is arousing suspicion about a possible agenda/ - it is putting out an idea that is not supported by any evidence in this case.

1. We all know that a civilisation/s existed before what many call the great flood in many of our religions
2. There have been many ruins underwater that have been discovered over the past decades

I do love reading these posts, but the "advanced civilisation" angle, when not supported by any known evidence, should be in a speculative like forum


I suppose it depends on how you define the word "advanced". It is a rather flexible word after all.

Were the ancient Greeks an advanced civilization? Yes they were. With the investigation of the Antikythera mechanism, we now also know they were far more advanced in mechanics than we even remotely suspected before, which makes them even more advanced.

Ar we (the Western, industrialized world, or whoever you want to read into it) an advanced civilization? Logistically, technologically yes. But in terms of resource managing we're surprisingly primitive, and inferior to many ancient civilizations. Socially and ethically, I would also say we're behind many of our ancestors (there are not that many equivalents in ancient cultures of people walking into McDonald's and shooting people down just because they can't find any meaning to their lives). So you see, there are many ways of using the word.

If we're talking about the underwater wall outside of Konkan coast, I would say that it was built by an advanced civilization. Advanced in the sense of social organization. A 24 km long wall is a building site, and you need to organize a building site. It takes a certain amount of manpower and a certain amount of work hours. Someone has to quarry the stone and someone has to pay for the labour. You need an economy to do it. I would personally exclude that it was done by hunter gatherers. You need at least an agrarian society, probably a city state society with some type of centralized government to pull it off IMO.


Or someone just wanted a wall in front of the ocean. I think the best word here is "intelligent". They were an intelligent civilization. First we need to definitively date the structure then we can examine the data. I would not go so far as calling this advanced though.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
S+F

Thank you,

Really enjoyed your OP,
Some great contributions to learn't a lot one of my Favorite places and subjects


It becomes so profoundly clear day by day we have not a full grasp of Humanities true full unabridged history.

Edit to add:

Originally posted by zorgon
Fantastic thread and info I missed Marking this for later.

How come no one called me?




Lol I am sure we will hear more on this topic, from your kind self in the future on ATS


Kind Regards,

Elf
edit on 12-12-2011 by MischeviousElf because: Zorgon lol



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by eagleeye2

Its interesting how sea level was way lower back then.

I remember reading somewhere, here on ATS, about a submerged road or bridge that looked similar. But this one seems to be west of the maintaind, ill try to find the thread back to compare the location. Anyway, i say thanks for posting this I really like those finds. tbh i'm pretty sure ancient India hides alot of secrets.

Sea level rises and falls, of course. But land also rises and sinks. Most likely, if this is a real relic, that is what happened. The land sank.

Harte

That is the question that we should also be interested in studying in addition to the culture itself that might be responsible for its construction. I do know there were few EQ's in that vicinity of the country (mainly Gujarat State). The sea levels definitely rose around the world and there are several evidences scattered across the globe. I'm sure the engineering wasn't up there with some of the other ancient civilizations around the world (including the ones flourished in India) but this is a good find with respect to learning a thing or two from History or our Past
edit on 12-12-2011 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Subduction zones are created when a chunk of continent breaks off and falls into the mantle below.
This usually happens where two plates are coming together.
It takes millions of years for the chunk to drift down throught the semi-plastic mantle. In the meantime, the continents move on. As they drift, they leave the subduction zone and part ways with the other plate that they were up against for so long.
But the chunk continues to fall, and the subduction zone stays where it is.


so your a geologist now:


When Japan recently had the big on, it happened because Japan sits on an constantly moving subduction zone (several but that in not relevant right now) As the plate moves underneath Japan Japan is pushed up. When the plates get stuck, pressure builds up and folds a piece of land downwards... as the pressure builds you get a sudden release and the land snaps back up and forward. Japan moved about 8 meters west and the plate beneath about 30 meters east in a very short time

A subduction zone is not created by a piece of falling continent


Sumatra's subduction zone



Japan's subduction zone




posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Harte
Subduction zones are created when a chunk of continent breaks off and falls into the mantle below.
This usually happens where two plates are coming together.
It takes millions of years for the chunk to drift down throught the semi-plastic mantle. In the meantime, the continents move on. As they drift, they leave the subduction zone and part ways with the other plate that they were up against for so long.
But the chunk continues to fall, and the subduction zone stays where it is.


so your a geologist now:

No, I can read. Can you?


Originally posted by zorgon
A subduction zone is not created by a piece of falling continent


Perhaps you decided to ignore the part where I say ancient subduction zones.


Indeed, in the late 1970s and early 1980s Clement G. Chase uncovered the opposite pattern. When Chase, now at the University of Arizona, considered geographic scales of more than 1,500 kilometers, he found that the pull of gravity is strongest not over cold mantle but over isolated volcanic regions called hot spots. Perhaps even more surprising was what Chase noticed about the position of a long band of low gravity that passes from Hudson Bay in Canada northward over the North Pole, across Siberia and India, and down into Antarctica.

Relyingon estimates of the ancient configuration of tectonic plates, he showed that this band of low gravity marked the location of a series of subduction zones—that is, the zones where tectonic plates carrying fragments of the seafl oor plunge back into the mantle—from 125 million years ago. The ghosts of ancient
subduction zones seemed to be diminishing the pull of gravity. But if cold, dense chunks of seafl oor were still sinking through the mantle, it seemed that gravity would be high above these spots, not low, as Chase observed.

SNIP

Australia is bordered by a subduction zone, a deep trench where the tectonic plate to the east plunges into the mantle. The sinking plate (blue) pulls the surrounding mantle and the eastern edge of Australia down with it. Later, subduction ceases, and the continent begins to drift eastward. The entire eastern half of Australia sinks about 300 meters below sea level as the continent passes eastward over the sinking tectonic plate. About 20 million years later the plate’s downward pull diminishes as it descends into the deeper mantle. As a result,
the continent then pops up again.

Read all about it in a decade-old Scientific American special issue: Here

So, roll your eyes and remain ignorant, or open your eyes and learn something.

Harte





new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join