Earth Axis Shifts Again.

imo we are causing the pole movements. with each major quake we shift our axis.

The 9.0 magnitude earthquake that ravaged Japan also shortened Earth's day by just over one-millionth of a second (1.8 microseconds to be exact), according to NASA. It also shifted the Earth's axis by about 6.5 inches.

The same thing happened in 2004 with the 9.1 Sumatran earthquake that triggered the tsunami. That earthquake should have shifted the Earth's figure axis by 2.76 inches and shortened its day by 6.8 millionths of a second, according to computer models. Read more: www.time.com...

Most interesting is the effect the quakes had on the earth’s axis. Saturday’s earthquake shifted the earth’s axis by 2.7 milliarcseconds (about 8 centimeters, or 3 inches). The Sumatran quake shifted the planet’s axis by 2.32 milliarcseconds (about 7 centimeters, or 2.76 inches). Continue reading on Examiner.com Chile earthquake shifts the earth's axis, shortens the days - National Natural Disasters | Examiner.com www.examiner.com...

The scientists said the 2010 Chile quake had a greater effect on the Earth’s axis than the 2004 temblor because it occurred in the planet’s mid-latitudes. By contrast, the Sumatran quake was near the equator. Continue reading on Examiner.com Chile earthquake shifts the earth's axis, shortens the days - National Natural Disasters | Examiner.com www.examiner.com...

Can an earthquake shift the Earth's axis?

The short answer to this is yes. But the effects of such a shift are tiny. The Earth's tilt and rotational spin on its axis as it travels around the Sun causes our seasons. The earthquake in Japan moved the axis of rotation by around 16 cm. That might sound like a lot, but it's small compared to the size of the Earth. 1 degree change to the tilt of the axis of the Earth would mean moving it by around 110 km. But the quake's interference with our axis doesn't stop there. The Japanese landmass was moved around by as much as 4m. This redistribution of mass on the surface changes our moment of inertia. In order to conserve angular momentum, the changes in inertia are compensated by changes in the rate of rotation of the Earth about the axis. After the earthquake it's quite possible that our days will be 1.8 millionths of a second shorter because of this shifting. We can see differences in the average length of the day due to other changes in the Earth and atmosphere. The plots below show that there is a significant seasonal variation, with the day length (speed of rotation) being shortest (fastest) during the boreal summer. This happens because the northern hemisphere winds slow down in the summer and the momentum they lose - half the momentum of the atmosphere - is transferred to the Earth. This increase in momentum makes the Earth spin faster and our days become slightly shorter by 1-2 milliseconds. So while the changes brought to our planet by the earthquake are unique and collosal enough to affect the Earth; they aren't big enough that we will notice them any more than we notice the milliseconds we lose each summer.

so down to brass tax imo i think they ( world governments ) are doing this.
why might you ask. well a number of reasons really. to alter the world climate, melt glaciers for 1 of 3 reasons.
1 access to fresh water, 2 clear out the glaciers to gain access to raw minerals, 3 to raise sea level to lessen the damage of an ocean impact, and last but not least we might be slowing or orbit in order to avoid an impact, or alter the location that the impact will happen.

think about it..... we had 2 close calls with asteroids this year. and then look at all the big quakes that happend right before they passed. this would be the only reason i would think that they would put the whole earth in jeopardy. some minor chaos is better than having our slate whiped clean.

i value all input.
but this is something i take serious
and i hop you all do to.

reply to post by omegacorps


So this thread was made for you to tell us that you think the governments are causing earthquakes?? Can you elaborate on how you believe "they" are doing this?

Why would they be doing this?

Do you have any other information regarding your opinion on the matter??

To me and earthquake is something that happens, has been for many years now.....

Surely you cannot seriously think that altering the axis or length of a day by almost undetectable amounts is going to save us from asteroids?
If we move by such a small margin - any asteroid is still going to hit us. Look at the size of the planet compared to the margin of change.
Even more preposterous is that this is a govt attempt of evading an asteroid collision? I think that is what you are saying? More likely they would attempt to destroy the asteroid directly than rely on a miniscule change from an earthquake.

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


the whole last part of my post gives the reason i would think that they would do it.

here is an easy way to cause small tremors.

the United States Geological Survey has published a finding confirming that processes like fracking can be to blame for “natural” disasters. "Earthquakes induced by human activity have been documented in a few locations in the United States, Japan and Canada,” writes the USGS. “The cause was injection of fluids into deep wells for waste disposal and secondary recovery of oil and the use of reservoirs for water supplies." Out West, geologists have blamed fracking on earthquakes that unexpectedly shook up the state of Arkansas, which recently saw over 20 small tremors in a single day. Freak earthquakes have also occurred in regions of Texas, New York and Oklahoma that should not be likely sites of epicenters, though those locales have all seen a rise in fracking in recent years.

rt.com...

and there is always explosives on the fault lines if you want a bigger quake

I've heard similar theories of governments causing natural disasters but have yet to be convinced.

From what I understand an earthquake is triggered due to the release of energy caused by built up tension in tectonic plates in convergent plate boundary areas. The closest possible theory for a "man made" earthquake to even be plausible is if somehow "they" (whoever they are in this case) fired atomic weapons via submarines at said plate boundaries thus artificially instigating a release of energy felt as an earthquake, and believe me when I say I find even that to be a far cry from reality.

Interesting theory but meteorologists can't even seem to predict natural weather patterns with a high degree of accuracy.

I'll check back when my local weatherman is correct for two weeks in a row

reply to post by CelestialObserver


well the usgs said that it cant happen with explosives but the pressure from pumping fracing fluid can cause quakes. it is not hard to pump fluid in to the earth. even easier underwater. now think when you remove oil you replace it with water wich is way heavier than oil. that right there puts an enormous amount of pressure on the area thus making it a prime spot for activity. and takes very little to set it off.

reply to post by omegacorps

This is something that is normal and has happened for billions of years. This is such a microscopic change that is entirely dwarfed by even the yearly variations and the current slow decline in tilt of Earth.

It is the same thing with tides caused by moon, those also slightly changes it.

If this was done on purpose in the hope of affecting climate then it would not be very effective at all.

reply to post by facchino


well it might just be to big to explode

en.wikipedia.org...

433 Eros is a near-Earth asteroid (NEA) discovered in 1898, and the first asteroid to be orbited by a probe (in 2000). It is an S-type asteroid approximately 34.4×11.2×11.2 km in size, the second-largest NEA after 1036 Ganymed, and belongs to the Amor group. Eros is a Mars-crosser asteroid, the first known to come within the orbit of Mars. Objects in such an orbit can remain there for only a few hundred million years before the orbit is perturbed by gravitational interactions. Dynamical integrations suggest that Eros may evolve into an Earth-crosser within as short an interval as 2 million years, and has a roughly 50% chance of doing so over a time scale of 108–109 years.[4] It is a potential Earth impactor,[4] believed to be larger than the impactor that created the Chicxulub Crater that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs.[5]

im just using Eros as an example to show you the size and distance of a big asteroid

reply to post by omegacorps


Fair enough - so this same big asteroid that is too big to explode, how would moving the earth by a mere 6.5 inches stop a collision? At that size we are going to need a lot more movement to evade it.
Sorry but your whole point is flawed.

small changes over time can have a big impact even 100 years worth. at 8 inces moved a year on average
8x100=800
800/12=66.667 feet thats just 100 years.

8x1000000=8000000 feet in a million years

thats 1515.152 miles and thats a huge difference

thats not taking in to account any shifts in the earths mass.

so if they can predict when one might hit then they can predict the changes needed to avoid it.

it's not hard to believe.

An axial shift is a difficult concept for most people to wrap their minds around. One too many disaster movies and most people, including a lot of scientists, believe such a dramatic shift in the angle of the tilt would be accompanied by Global destruction and disasters. Not true. This shift is about a 2000 mile shift which leaves us 2000 miles further to the south during the summer and 2000 miles farther to the north during the winter. Spring and Fall would be at the same positions. Most people forget that the Earth is about 25,000 miles in circumference, thus as the Earth rotates on its axis, the entire planet turns just over 1042 miles every hour and turns 25,000 miles every 24 hours. No global calamities, no destruction.... none of us can feel our planet turning 1042 miles every hour, so why would you believe that you could notice a 2000 mile shift? And if we are not having global disasters from our hourly 1000 mile rotation... then why would you think there would be global upheavals from a 2000 mile shift? Yes, there are signs and effects from this shift, but not in such a dramatic calamity. The changes are there but much more sedate than the doomsday believers might expect. And shifts like these are not unusual to our planet. There are numerous documentaries which describe how Earth's axis has tipped over in past millennia when previous meltdowns of the polar ice caps occurred creating a shift in the axis. As the polar ice continues to melt, the weight distribution of the planet begins to change. Since the diameter of the Earth is larger at the equator, the weight of the planet is also heavier at the equator, so as the ice melts at the poles, the water levels equalize and rise in an even weight distribution which leaves less weight at the poles and more at the planet's midsection based on girth. The more ice that melts, the less weight at the poles and the planet begins to shift toward the heaviest section at the bottom. What happens if you take a rubber ball and add a metal strip around the mid section to make it heavier... then float the ball in water? The heavy point will be on the bottom, so the planet will continue to rotate, but it will do so on it's side. Since the ice does not melt in a day, the slippage in the axis will occur in moderate amounts. Not all at once, but some shifts will be more significant than others until the entire polar ice has been completely melted and the planet ends up laying on its side. The focus on this page is the shift which has already occurred. However, according to an Aug 2007 report on CNN, world scientists have estimated total polar meltdown by 2020. This date also coincides with the US Gov't estimate that there will be a global water shortage in 2020. Since a full meltdown will raise sea levels by 297 ft (20 stories), a lot of water tables and water sources will be contaminated. Not only by sea water, but by the contamination which will mix with the water as it covers the cities, factories and chemical plants. So, it is interesting that both have fixated on the same year. Some scientists believe the meltdown could occur 5 years sooner. From what I have seen of the current condition of the polar regions and the rate of melting, I believe we could see a total meltdown by 2013. The first week of July 2008, CNN reported that world scientists expected a complete melting of the arctic by Sept 2008. Right now, the gov't is limiting access to current satellite imagery of the polar regions. Most of the images are dated 1999 and earlier. For those images later than 1999, they have all been censored or modified to block the view. Why would the images be kept from the public... unless there is something they don't want you to see. Unfortunately, most people will be in denial until the water starts lapping at their doorstep... and then they will all cry for someone else to do something about it. People are their own worst enemies. They refuse to listen to scientific data, attack anyone who does not share their opinion and then they want everyone else to fix their problems that they had refused to acknowledge. And when they get desperate, these will be the people who will prey on and victimize those who planned ahead. It would seem to me that everyone should start planning ahead to take care of their own needs and stop attacking those people who are trying to help them understand what is happening to our planet.
The info shown on this site is courtesy NASA, USGS, NOAA, NWS, SOHO and your American Tax dollars which fund them.

Originally posted by facchino
reply to post by omegacorps

 

Fair enough - so this same big asteroid that is too big to explode, how would moving the earth by a mere 6.5 inches stop a collision? At that size we are going to need a lot more movement to evade it.
Sorry but your whole point is flawed.

you might need to reread it. i averaged 8 inches of movement a year. look back at my math. when you change the axis of the earth you change the position of everything. the earth has a slight bulge where the equator is well if you move the mass off of its current position then you have a whole different mass over the equator that would also cause the earth to wobble side to side depending on the moon and the sun. as you might know the earth already wobbles side to side. our orbit is not perfect circle. if you get something wobbleing enough it's going to move. its simple physics

First, there has been no shift of Earth's rotational axis. No internal processes can change the axis of rotation, that would require an influence from outside the planet.

What earthquakes (and other things) can do is to cause immeasurable shift in the Earth's figure axis. They are not the same thing. The figure axis is the axis of the center of Earth's mass. The rotational axis is the axis around which the Earth rotates.

The figure axis is changing constantly (and to a greater degree than that caused by the Japan earthquake) due to things such atmospheric conditions and ocean currents. The result of these changes is an immeasurable change in the "wobble" of the Earth known as precession.

But neither a change in the rotational axis or the figure axis would help Earth avoid a collision with an asteroid. Neither affects the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

www.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Phage

In 1989, Jacques Laskar's work showed that the Earth's orbit (as well as the orbits of all the inner planets) is chaotic and that an error as small as 15 metres in measuring the initial position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time. Modeling the solar system is subject to the n-body problem. The angle of the Earth's tilt is relatively stable over long periods. However, the tilt does undergo a slight, irregular motion (known as nutation) with a main period of 18.6 years. The orientation (rather than the angle) of the Earth's axis also changes over time, precessing around in a complete circle over each 25,800 year cycle; this precession is the reason for the difference between a sidereal year and a tropical year. Both of these motions are caused by the varying attraction of the Sun and Moon on the Earth's equatorial bulge. From the perspective of the Earth, the poles also migrate a few meters across the surface. This polar motion has multiple, cyclical components, which collectively are termed quasiperiodic motion. In addition to an annual component to this motion, there is a 14-month cycle called the Chandler wobble. The rotational velocity of the Earth also varies in a phenomenon known as length-of-day variation.[10]

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by omegacorps
small changes over time can have a big impact even 100 years worth. at 8 inces moved a year on average
8x100=800
800/12=66.667 feet thats just 100 years.

8x1000000=8000000 feet in a million years
[Color=Blue]So you are saying we started planning for a collision a million years ago, or one a million years from now?
thats 1515.152 miles and thats a huge difference

thats not taking in to account any shifts in the earths mass.

so if they can predict when one might hit then they can predict the changes needed to avoid it.
Please re-read what you are saying. Do you not grasp how bizarre your theory sounds?

it's not hard to believe.
Oh it is. Never mind Phages input above which is based in more scientific reasoning than your outlandish idea and flawed theory.

This below is from this link... www.nytimes.com...

On a larger scale, the unbuckling and shifting moved the planet’s mass, on average, closer to its center, and just as a figure skater who spins faster when drawing the arms closer, the Earth’s rotation speeds up. Richard S. Gross, a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, calculated that the length of the day was shortened by 1.8 millionths of a second. The earthquake also shifted the so-called figure axis of the Earth, which is the axis that the Earth’s mass is balanced around. Dr. Gross said his calculations indicated a shift of 6.5 inches in where the figure axis intersects the surface of the planet. That figure axis is near, but does not quite align with, the rotational axis that the Earth spins around.

reply to post by facchino


1000000 years from now.

Both of these motions are caused by the varying attraction of the Sun and Moon on the Earth's equatorial bulge

it states it right there. so if the mass around the equator were to change so would our orbit.

We are definitely seeing changes as change is constant. I do agree that Fracking is a joke and should be eliminated. How stupid can they be...REALLY!

What I have always admired about the Native Americans is their love for their home. We have come so far from a love it isn't funny. It is quite sad! So, I do agree with you that our Government does indeed cause changes that are not natural.

As change IS constant and as our Planet IS alive...there will be changes that come about on this Planet that is NOT natural....that is a given. Our Planets vibration is at stake imho and it is unfortunate people in power do not realize what has been long forgotten by many but the Native's still hold close to their heart. Mother Earth is not happy!

Earthquakes will always happen but they are more likely to happen more often because of the fracking and modern mining.

reply to post by omegacorps

you implied that conspiracies of government have caused EQ's to miss objects heading for us in your OP. Heaven forbid they make a wrong calculation....whats wrong with my statement here?



maybe everything?

Originally posted by omegacorps
Both of these motions are caused by the varying attraction of the Sun and Moon on the Earth's equatorial bulge

it states it right there. so if the mass around the equator were to change so would our orbit.

I think you are talking about a Pole Shift?? I don't even think a Pole Shift would change our Orbit. Only thing that would change our Orbit is something hitting us as we are held up pretty good.