Scientist Baffled by Land Uplifted in Alaska - Nothing to Explain it

reply to post by getreadyalready

Plant growth is due to photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process whereby radiant energy (usually sunlight) is used to combine water and carbon dioxide to produce carbohydrates. While nitrates and other minerals are used in the process, the amount of plant material (cellulose, etc.) produced is far greater than the amounts of these inorganic substances. It is the conversion of radiant energy into stored chemical energy that is the "magic of plants".

It is a closed cycle though, no material is added. The energy of light is used to combine water and carbon dioxide (with traces of other chemicals). I don't quite understand what this has to do with a "growing" Earth. If a single crop is planted continuously in a single location without composting or fertilizing, the soil will become depleted of the inorganic substances necessary for growth and the crops will eventually fail. But all of the soil is not "consumed" in the process, just the required chemicals present in it. Just as a seedling planted in nothing but water will eventually consume the material stored in the seed and die. Hydroponics require a certain amount of nutrients.


[edit on 7/12/2009 by Phage]

Perhaps we ought to leave discussion on global warming and how plants grow to other threads and get back on subject?

There's a good article here, including pictures, which strongly supports the landslip theory. Only real question is why it occurred at this particular time.

Source

In slope failures it is often the case that a large block slides down a rupture plane which is concave upward. The leading edge of the block rotates upward, and the block moves outward and away from slope from whence it launched. If the strata in the bedrock were initially horizontal, they now dip back toward the slope. You can see this in the Bluff Point slide, where the strata along the beach dip inward toward the bluff, and ponds occupy the void left behind when these strata slid out to their present location at the top of the beach.

Add to this story thousands of years of shore erosion and a few hundred meters of bluff retreat, and you have created a normal looking, gently sloping beach on top of a beveled off slide block. Someday, for some reason, the slide block moves and rotates downward a bit more, forcing the leading edge upward, and viola!, we have an uplift out on the beach.

Hig observed in my photos that the seaward edge of the uplift was steeper than the landward edge. This is exactly what one would expect with a rotating block.

~ ~ ~

Dick Reger wrote the original paper on the Bluff Point slide in 1979 and concurred that the present uplift is a reactivation of an old slump block. He said that it is possible that there have been many such uplifts along the coast, all of which have been beveled off by thousands of years of very active beach erosion. He too had seen steeply dipping strata in front of the Bluff Point slide, and interpreted this as a beveled off slide block.

So, as I originally suggested, a rather mundane geological explanation - which I'm sure means absolutely no-one on ATS will take a blind bit of notice of it

Originally posted by OhZone
Parallax, you insist that the Earth is not growing/expanding.

Since you have studied geology you surley then can understand the info on this site:
subduction

Now then, about your studies.
Are you assuming that your professors and the authors of your texts are infallible?
Have you ever questioned their wisdom?
If not, why not?
New discoveries have all been made by questioning old ones, you know.

OK - Time for some basic physics.

The Earth is made up of XX amount of tonnes in weight. All matter on earth is relative - e.g. it's all from the same source (except for meteorites etc). Many parts of our body, probably existed at one time as a rock in Australia, or in the mantle of the earth etc etc. The earth is one big, giant recycling machine. Everything that gets used up, gets redeposited somewhere else in one form or another. There is no such thing as total destruction, unless you're talking anti-matter then thats a different ball-game.

Anyhow - the total mass on earth does not change in quantity, only form. The argument that the earth is getting bigger is flawed, because it is based on tectonics and observable phenomena. If the argument was based on the atomic structure of the earth changing, then you may have had some depth to your argument. If we started seeing wholesale molecular level reconstruction, creating less dense and therefore more volumeic atomic structures - that would have been a more usable argument.

If we had a 'significant' gravimetric change, in terms of effect on the earth - this would potentially cause a change in the earths size. But there has been NO change in the gravimetric 'weight' of the earth. Yes the precession of the equinoxes 'wobble' may cause some distortions, as well as the galactic position of the solar system. But the effect of things are likely to be so small, that no observable change would be in evidence.

In short - nice idea, but it's not based in logical science.

The Para.

reply to post by Essan


Very good post - based in sound geological thinking. I concur.

The Para.

reply to post by RussianScientists

reply to post by Phage


Hi fellas,

I have read and respected posts from both of you on many other threads, so I appreciate your perspective.

I completely understand photosynthesis, and I have grown plenty of crops in my youth. I guess my explanation was somewhat lacking.

Plant growth and organic life are not adding to the size of the earth; that is my argument. The growth of organic material is a net-zero proposition. Yes photosynthesis is unique in that it takes light energy, creates "capillary effect" to draw water upwards against gravity, and converts energy and mineral nutrients into cellulose and other carbohydrates and proteins. But, it does not add any mass, that wasn't stolen from its surrounding environment. In other words, it does not convert sunlight to mass!

Farmland is not "used up" because of many environmental factors. After harvesting, much of the plant is "disced" back into the earth to mulch. Many farmer's use fertilizers, minerals, or manure to replenish the soil. Rain and wind bring in nutrients and mass. The best farmland is in flood plains where periodic deposition by flood waters enriches the soil, etc. etc..

I have to admit, I have never seen anything grow in distilled water only. I am going to try it. Typical water has many minerals and nutrients, and the water is used up as the plant grows and goes through its processes.

For the tree analogy, trees have vast root systems, typically they are similar in size below ground to what you see above ground. If a tree were pulled up from the ground intact, a hole would be left behind proportional to the size of the tree, and the only difference in the mass would be explained by the water content of the tree.

I hope this isn't all off topic, it serves to debate the idea of a "growing" earth being the cause for geological phenomenon. Indeed we have a "changing" earth. We are losing water vapor into space, we are gaining minerals from meteorites, we are absorbing mass and energy from the sun. The rotation of the earth causes flattening at the poles and bulging at the equator. The dynamic balance between the earth and moon is degrading slowly (why moon does not rotate and is tear-drop shaped toward earth). So yes, there are many factors that could contribute to the earth changing in shape and mass, but plant growth is not one of them!

Originally posted by amazed
Ok, last I heard, the land is uplifting due to melting glaciers. Take off all that weight, and the land "pops" up. Nothing weird about it.

www.nytimes.com...

Do a search and you find many other articles about this as well.

As the glaciers here melt, the land is rising, causing the sea to retreat.

Relieved of billions of tons of glacial weight, the land has risen much as a cushion regains its shape after someone gets up from a couch

Greenland and a few other places have experienced similar effects from widespread glacial melting that began more than 200 years ago, geologists say. But, they say, the effects are more noticeable in and near Juneau, where most glaciers are retreating 30 feet a year or more.

Having lived in Alaska myself for many many years, I personally watched some of these glaciers almost completely disappear. So I am not surprised that the land is responding.

Harm None
Peace

And what I find surprising, is that some here say that Global Climate change is crap! But with this post, Its true. altho, to me, I think its more profound in the last few decades.

Originally posted by ablue07
reply to post by Amagnon

 

Black Holes are only a theory and it's not known whether they really exist or not. And if they did exist one in the center of the Earth would not work.

Um black holes don't exist? in just the last 5-10 years, Observations of the the center of our own Milky Way galaxy would tend to disprove your thinking.
www.space.com...

But anyways, I have seen a show on THC, with regards to a theory on Black Holes and the Bermuda Triangle, but even I highly doubt there really can be a microscopic black hole in the center of earth, cause it just doesn't make sense in alot of ways.

The "mutant space goats" get my vote well its a better therory than some of the rubbish posted here

Originally posted by warrenb
Just a little refresher

the earth is not round, nor is it truly elliptical

The GEOID

The geoid, is often described as the true physical figure of the Earth, in contrast to the idealized geometrical figure of a reference ellipsoid.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/832e4f812d1e.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fecd39c2686b.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/abb0dc5376d8.jpg[/atsimg]

Is it within the realms of possibility that this could be linked to the New Zealand quake? I doubt it but I am not a expert.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by tarifa37]

No one has said this but maybe it was a possible warning of what was to come..... An Earthquake has just struck in that part of the World.... 7.8 on richter scale......

reply to post by getreadyalready


Hi Get Ready Already,

Here are your words quoted: "So yes, there are many factors that could contribute to the earth changing in shape and mass, but plant growth is not one of them! "

Here is my reply.

Coal is nothing but the remains of plant growth. Coal beds are sometimes massive and their weight is part of Isostasy.

DIRT is nothing but plant growth residue and/or worm residue from eating plant material. Dirt/silt is usually mixed with silicates, hydrates and other minerals and metals due to mechanical weathering processes.

If we look at the Mississippi River it is carrying millions of tons of Silt (plant residue) into the Gulf of Mexico. The bottom of the Gulf of Mexico is a Basin that currently is getting heavier and heavier as it is filling in. Millions of years from now the Gulf of Mexico Basin is expected to rebound from this weight that is currently being added, and it supposedly will turn into a huge mountain due to Isostasy. I'm not actually sure if that will occur, but that is what we were taught decades ago about Isostasy.

So... plant growth can and does change the shape and mass of the Earth.



[edit on 15-7-2009 by RussianScientists]

No doubt this theory will get demolished but here goes lol, what we call solid ground is not solid but moves as a liquid, ask any farmer who has to continually remove stones from his fields. Now being an old miner I have seen the earth do a lot of strange things, one time in a new underground roadway I had to go back and back rip the whole road way not because of a cave in but because the floor raised up to the ceiling, this was because of the external pressure shoving down on the roadways sides forcing the floor to raise and fill the space, has anyone checked the surrounding areas and not just the area effected.

reply to post by RussianScientists

So... plant growth can and does change the shape and mass of the Earth.

I give you shape, but not mass. The silt is eroded from higher ground and carried into lowlands, riverbottoms, and eventually the sea. The dirt is made up of the decaying plant life, because the plant life is made up of the dirt.

Think about this. The orbit of the Earth around the Sun, and the Moon around the Earth are delicately balanced according to mass. If the Earth gained any considerable mass, the moon would have to increase its speed to stay in orbit. And the Earth would have to increase its speed to stay in orbit about the Sun.

So, 6 million years of plant life would surely have shortened our years, and shortened the lunar cycle?

Otherwise, the moon would have crashed into the earth by now!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Otherwise, the moon would have crashed into the earth by now!

what?

where did you hear that bit?

The moon is moving away from the earth.

The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. (The Moon's orbit has a radius of 384,000 km.) I wouldn't say that the Moon is getting closer to the Sun, specifically, though--it is getting farther from the Earth, so, when it's in the part of its orbit closest to the Sun, it's closer, but when it's in the part of its orbit farthest from the Sun, it's farther away.

The reason for the increase is that the Moon raises tides on the Earth. Because the side of the Earth that faces the Moon is closer, it feels a stronger pull of gravity than the center of the Earth. Similarly, the part of the Earth facing away from the Moon feels less gravity than the center of the Earth. This effect stretches the Earth a bit, making it a little bit oblong. We call the parts that stick out "tidal bulges." The actual solid body of the Earth is distorted a few centimeters, but the most noticable effect is the tides raised on the ocean.

Now, all mass exerts a gravitational force, and the tidal bulges on the Earth exert a gravitational pull on the Moon. Because the Earth rotates faster (once every 24 hours) than the Moon orbits (once every 27.3 days) the bulge tries to "speed up" the Moon, and pull it ahead in its orbit. The Moon is also pulling back on the tidal bulge of the Earth, slowing the Earth's rotation. Tidal friction, caused by the movement of the tidal bulge around the Earth, takes energy out of the Earth and puts it into the Moon's orbit, making the Moon's orbit bigger (but, a bit pardoxically, the Moon actually moves slower!).

The Earth's rotation is slowing down because of this. One hundred years from now, the day will be 2 milliseconds longer than it is now.

This same process took place billions of years ago--but the Moon was slowed down by the tides raised on it by the Earth. That's why the Moon always keeps the same face pointed toward the Earth. Because the Earth is so much larger than the Moon, this process, called tidal locking, took place very quickly, in a few tens of millions of years..........

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

reply to post by warrenb


Exactly! That is why it is impossible for the Earth to be INCREASING in mass! (You missed my point warren?)

There have been stories in history of whole Islands rising up and then falling into the Atlantic. In one case like the 1700s human activity had been found when digging on it. It was claimed. The best answer would be gas as said but it is a mystery and there are others.

It is clear in the bible and Jewish traditions that there are pits some place in the earth. Places that demonic spirits that were to evil were locked up many years ago by some unknown force. It is even noted in Revelation that one is opened for a spell on the earth (Rev. 9:1). After seeing locations that have EMF effects that distort light and etc. Maybe God had to add a new wing.(lol)

Originally posted by warrenb

Originally posted by warrenb
Just a little refresher

the earth is not round, nor is it truly elliptical

The GEOID

The geoid, is often described as the true physical figure of the Earth, in contrast to the idealized geometrical figure of a reference ellipsoid.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/832e4f812d1e.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fecd39c2686b.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/abb0dc5376d8.jpg[/atsimg]

I have never heard this!

I had no idea we were a shriveled grape!

Now I will never forget this. Are you sure this is true? What the #!?!?! this breaks my brain in half and then slaps it a few times.

Edit:

According to C.F. Gauss, who first described it, it is the "mathematical figure of the Earth," a smooth but highly irregular surface that corresponds not to the actual surface of the Earth's crust, but to a surface which can only be known through extensive gravitational measurements and calculations.

that corresponds not the actual surface of the Earth's crust.

So does this mean we are all asteroid shaped like that or are we round? What the hell man

[edit on 18-7-2009 by BaronVonGodzilla]

reply to post by BaronVonGodzilla


The images you see are a very exaggerated representation of the geoid shape of the Earth.
The Earth is certainly not a perfect ellipsoid, but overall and from a distance, it appears to be.

[edit on 2009/7/18 by Shirakawa]

Originally posted by Amagnon
I totally subscribe to the growing earth theory - it is entirely likey that this is the explanation.

The mountain range along the west coast of south America is also caused by this expansion of the crust.

The problem with dinosaurs size caused to me to do a great deal of research - and so far I am totally sold on the growing earth as the solution.

There is a strong possibility that the earth is entirely hollow and that a black hole resides inside the earth producing the magnetic field that surrounds us - also that the sun has basically the same design, but runs much hotter. Sun spots are simply whirlpool vortex's caused by the flux carrying plasma deep inside the sun to feed its black hole.

There's no such thing as black holes. Watch Thunderbolts of the Gods

Black holes are a myth, created by astrophysicists who think gravity is the only driving force in the universe. What scientists are witnessing is a massive confluence of electromagnetic energy. Since there's no such thing as electromagnetism in mainstream astrophysics, they say it has to be an infinite source of gravity, because gravity is an infinitely weak force and quasars, which are the massive bursts of energy they see, are too powerful to be explained as a gravitational phenomenon. Please note that there is no one shred of proof that there is any such thing as a black hole or a neutron star, because neither can exist, nor do they. Watch this documentary. If you want the big picture, you have to look at it from every angle.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Syrus Magistus]