Geophysics - Discussion & Research

reply to post by zenius


Sorry forgot to comment on the piece about no expansion.

It started scientific consensus.............OK out the window with that then.

It came from Wikipedia...............OK out the window with that then. They may be able to report facts but anything that cannot be proven they follow the party line. They are not a credible source on anything that is theoretical as far as I am concerned but they are an excellent reference for things that are factual.

reply to post by PuterMan


Yes I agree, I just wanted to add fuel to the fire.
I've been trying to find something on current and historical measurements of the earth but still searching. Know any?

reply to post by zenius


I did find something in an article a while ago but I am not sure where now.

I will have to look through my documents and see if I can spot it. ( OMG - hours of fun!! )

reply to post by PuterMan


I'll keep searching too.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


On the meta-physical side of things have you read this thread by Zenius?

It might be of interest to you.

reply to post by PuterMan


I'd forgotten about that thread. But regarding metaphysical aspects, there is a belief that our thoughts can create our reality and can control matter/molecules/atoms. I was into all that once years ago. If you also think that energy cannot be destroyed or created, but it can change form, then I suppose that if you believe that thoughts can control matter, then our thoughts can bring matter from other dimensions/spaces/times into our current reality. But unless you can relate it to geoscience it's somewhat off topic, unless the mass consciousness is creating the planet? I'm not sure what you were getting at Johnnybegood.

reply to post by zenius


I tell you one thing, you were asking about pole shift? You have it in the report. Well not pole shift but altered tilt and that MUST have an effect on (1) the position of the sun and (2) the activity of the planet. I am still sure that astronomers would have noticed however. Then again maybe not - they are always compensating fro this that and the next thing..............

I'm - sorry, I was rather thinking that everyone on a conspiracy board would be familiar with the 'universe as an octave' view of things - a series of increasingly 'dense' planes - with physical matter as the backstop of creation.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


No need to be sorry! This is after all the Geophysics thread in Fragile Earth so perhaps not quite as conspiratorial as the main part of the site.

If this theory has some relevance in your opinion to the subjects under discussion here then bring it on in and let's take a look.

I actually found it nearly impossible to find anything about it on the internet because ubuntu seems to have something called octave that sits under a directory called universe so the bulk of the results relate to that.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

No need to be sorry! This is after all the Geophysics thread in Fragile Earth so perhaps not quite as conspiratorial as the main part of the site.

If this theory has some relevance in your opinion to the subjects under discussion here then bring it on in and let's take a look.

I actually found it nearly impossible to find anything about it on the internet because ubuntu seems to have something called octave that sits under a directory called universe so the bulk of the results relate to that.

Er....you find it quoted as a theory, it is just a picture that emerges from mystical experiences through the ages, astral travellers etc, Robert Monroe's descriptions are as good as any. The lower astral that surrounds the planet is a sort of miasma of negative emotions, earth bound spirits, demons, jinns etc.


Still it is not within the province of science - so perhaps not the thread to discuss it on - just an attempt to explain where the extra mass comes from - otherwise you are left with it condensing from the ether or quantum foam.

planetearth.nerc.ac.uk...

I posted a thread about this Mars volcano in the space forums but since most of the world is asleep or just waking up I thought I'd put it here also, as this volcano is believed to have similarities with Mt Etna in it's formation.

reply to post by zenius


Thanks for posting that.

You gotta love the first comment. He sounds so young!

This article is very interesting- i did not know that there where Volcanoes on other planets!! Please can i ask - could the volcanoes in this world be in anyway linked through Gravity or maybe magnetic force with Tharsis Rise?

Ah! *Pats him on the head* Nope, not really.

Interesting site - that argues for an expanding earth!


III. The Myth of Subduction

"People don't want to see it. They believe in subduction like a religion." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981

"I had taught subduction for more years than any of the present generation of people had been with it. And when they have been in it as long as I have they'll abandon it too." -- Samuel W. Carey, geologist, 1981

Link

"Subduction is not only illogical, it is not supported by geological or physical evidence, and violates fundamental laws of physics." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 1999

“
In order to maintain Earth’s current diameter, subduction MUST remove older Pacific Ocean seafloor at a rate equal to ALL new seafloor area added anywhere on the planet—not just the small ~25-40 mm/yr (~1 to 1-1/2 in/yr) of new seafloor added annually along the Atlantic Ocean midocean ridge. The total new seafloor growth, both E-W and N-S, along the ~65,000 kilometers of midocean ridges undoubtedly exceeds ~300 mm/yr (~12 in/yr), and ALL of it must be vectored into the Pacific Ocean basin, the only area on the planet where subduction is believed to occur.

There are other reasons to doubt the validity of subduction. One is the illogical question of why the East Pacific Rise (EPR) should generate ~80 to ~160 mm/yr (~3-1/4 to ~6-1/2 in/yr) of new ocean seafloor—right in the middle of the supposed subduction area, and simultaneously subduct a greater amount elsewhere around its perimeter, leaves one puzzled. This EPR growth is four times greater than seafloor growth anywhere else on the planet and this large amount of new oceanic seafloor does not appear to be accounted for in the VLBI measurements. Where are measurements showing the Pacific Ocean basin DECREASING IN WIDTH?

Also unaccounted for are the vast amounts of new N-S seafloor being added circum-Antarctica that are causing Antarctica to INCREASE IN TOTAL SURFACE AREA AND EXPAND RADIALLY OUTWARD FROM THE PLANET’S CENTER.

This raises the pivotal questions of HOW and WHERE subduction could be occurring because there is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of seamounts or soft sedimentary debris filling the deep ocean trenches or piled up on North or South American shores, semi-liquid debris that would easily have been scraped off the top of any subducting ocean floor.

The Pacific Rim of Fire, the supposed subduction area, suffers frequent earthquakes, but Benioff zones and seismic tomography that scientists point to when trying to justify subduction, only APPEAR to support subduction because they merely provide epicenter depths of earthquakes without providing the direction or extent of movement.

The only way subductionists can PROVE SUBDUCTION is to demonstrate that the Pacific Ocean basin is actually being REDUCED IN SIZE, and that offshore islands or seamounts are rapidly moving closer to shore or are descending into the deep ocean trenches. The simplest solution would be direct trans-Pacific measurements of the changing distances between fixed points on each of the five Pacific continents and Alaska. (Use of satellite measurements (VLBI, LAGEO, GPS) should be avoided because the global grid system of latitude and longitude has itself changed by increased distances between parallels and meridions.)

However, there is no need to go to all this trouble. Since it has been shown earlier that the planet is obviously expanding there is no comparable problem, either physical or mathematical (except for the expanded global grid system). Midocean ridges are the enabling mechanism of global expansion, acting like cranial sutures that permit the human skull to grow to maturity. The midocean ridges simply add new basaltic seafloor from core magma that increases Earth’s total surface area, diameter and circumference, and, like Antarctica, EXPANDS ALL SURFACE AREAS RADIALLY OUTWARD FROM THE CENTER OF THE PLANET!
”
Source: Subduction's Fatal Flaw (Myers 1999)

cont......www.sciforums.com...

This seems a rather promising theory - one that I have not heard of before.


blog.hasslberger.com...

Volcanism: Activity at the Hydrogen/Oxygen Interface

Volcanic activity - that's the sparks that fly and the heat that develops at the interface between the hydrogen-saturated mantle of the earth and the carapace or outer crust, where oxygen dominates. When hydrogen and oxygen meet and mix, heat is released that melts stone and results in lava. At times, a more explosive reaction involving certain gases generates great fireworks and leaves a fine ash - sometimes in thick strata - that covers the surroundings of the site of the explosion.



Of course that is a very simplified statement of the findings of Charles Warren Hunt, author of two books: Environment of Violence and Expanding Geospheres. In a recent article titled Triple Geospheres: Oxidic Carapace: Hydridic Mantle: Ultimetal Core which was published in Frontier Perspectives, the magazine of Temple University's Center for Frontier Sciences, Hunt explains why he postulates a neat separation of two very different geospheres, and how the interaction between the dominating gases of the two spheres generates the enormous amounts of heat we observe in volcanic activity and what chemical reactions are most likely involved.

The article is an interesting read, and the theory makes sense, whereas the official view of how volcanoes are fed by a huge reservoir of liquid magma inside the earth is rather less convincing.

October 10, 2010
Sustainable Oil Production?
By John McLaughlin
Who would have thought the current controversy over man-made global warming could lead to significant rethinking of the entire climate change phenomenon and, as an unintended consequence, shatter another environmental group-think error involving sustainable oil production? Stick with me here. We need to review some history first.

Climate change alarmists, seeking to bolster their theory of the hypothetical properties of carbon dioxide to foster man-made global warming, devised the concept of radiant energy balance. The problem is that all such concepts to date specify that solar radiation as the primary source of energy for Earth's climate system. Unfortunately, not only is this fundamentally flawed science, but it has made it difficult to fully explain variations in ocean temperatures causing such well-known regional phenomena as the Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation,.

Any correct science model of physical phenomena must include all variables and constants. Missing from the current models is the heat input originating from the molten material forming the core of our planet and upon which the thin crust floats. A Canadian engineer estimates that this core heat could range from 75% to nearly 100% of that received on earth originating from the sun. So why ignore something of such potential magnitude? Because core heat flow remains difficult to precisely quantify. Not only is little really known about the source of that heat, but its impact on climate appears discontinuous due to the movement of tectonic plates forming the crust.

However, as more and more scientists begin to realize what has been overlooked, focus is shifting to theories proposed over the last couple of decades which may provide the key to not only explain certain climate change phenomena, but also could lead to new conclusions about petroleum production. What is that key? It involves recognition of the potential source of the heat -- a nuclear fission reactor at or near the very center of the planet.

Current conventional wisdom holds that petroleum products result from accumulation of ancient biomass. Oil is said to form from preserved remains of prehistoric algae and zooplankton through a process called diagenesis.

In the late 19th century, Dmitri Mendeleev, renowned Russian chemist and inventor who achieved great fame when he proposed the first version of a periodic table of elements, studied petroleum hydrocarbons. He concluded that hydrocarbons originated from carbon deposits in the depths of the earth, perhaps dating back to the formation of the planet, and could be formed by chemical combination under suitable temperatures and pressures without need for biomass. Astronomical observations of vast amounts of methane on other planets and moons (such on Saturn's Titan) -- obviously formed without the benefit of biomass -- supported this theory.

Such observations prompted Thomas Gold (1920-2004), an astronomy professor at Cornell University, to conclude that since petroleum and its component hydrocarbons were present across the entire universe, including in meteorites and captured interplanetary dust, there was no reason to believe that only on Earth could they come from a biological origin. Further, he pondered a mystery about helium, one of the essential elements of the universe, present in trace amounts everywhere in nature yet never chemically combining like, say, hydrogen and oxygen do to form water. Yet the only place on Earth where helium is ever found in abundance is with pools of petroleum underground.

www.americanthinker.com...

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


Thanks for all that JBG. Weekend reading sorted then!

By the way have you seen this one about renewable oil?

www.oralchelation.com...

reply to post by PuterMan


Interesting! - I have been absolutely amazed at the apparent lack of research and discussion about these various alternative theories in the geological literatue - specially given the numerous glaring inconsitencies in the conventional picture of geology.............but then I heard the Russians who seem to have originated most of these theories had indeed a program of experimental drillings to confirm the deep oil theory, they were all showing successfull results, untill the collapse of the Soviet Union when the funding lapsed fro them admist the chaos - but quite frankly given the enormous geo-political and economic consequences of such thoeries being proven true - I have to wonder if all is as it seems - if I were them I would keep it quiet too until such time as such discoveries were much clearer and ripe for the picking.

reply to post by Roald

It shows surprisingly rapid changes in the movements of the liquid metal deep inside the Earths core which is the reason for the Earth’s magnetic field.

This is probably because it is unlikely to be "liquid metal". One day the "scientists" will realise that magnetism is not just produced by iron. The poor little things are still in Earth 101. They should try plasma cosmology.

The sun switches it's magnetism every 11 years or so. Can this be explained by the "iron core" than they also say is in the Sun? I think not. There are people here on ATS who have as much knowledge as some scientists.

Note that the so called "scientists" can give no explanation why iron, one of the lighter elements, should decide to assemble in the core.

I am afraid I am yet to be convinced of their rather dubious explanations.

Edit: By the way I forgot to say, isn't the actual core supposed to be solid?

Forget the core. Even though it's a factor.

It's the liquid outer core. It changes as a result of our orbit. It's the relationship between our sun and moon and the gravitational forces which pulse. There are different temperature zones within the liquid core. They ebb and flow and are for the most part stable, but eventually in the dance between us, the moon and sun, the zones swirl around and change direction.

Fluid dynamics.
Gravity.
Constant changes.

reply to post by Robin Marks


Sorry Robin but I am not a subscriber to a solid/liquid metal core either on Planet Earth or the Sun. There is no explanation as to why the Sun flips every 11 years, neither is there any explanation as to why the Earth flips. What is more the North pole elements breaking out in the Southern hemisphere is not explained by a molten/solid core in my opinion.

It is my feeling that plasma cosmology solves this dilemma, but I have not studied it long enough to make a firm opinion yet. Determining the core to be solid iron from tomography, a dubious science at the best of times at depth of a few hundred miles, is just bonkers for a depth of 6000+ miles.