Are the planets growing?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:35 pm

I think you are asking what the temperature of the core is; no one knows.

We have only drilled down a few miles into the crust. In the thread, we have talked about the Earth being hollow, with the shell being thick, plastic, growing from the inside out.

At this time, we have no idea what is really beneath our feet.

Orthogonal
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Orthogonal » Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:51 pm

Aardwolf wrote:I assume they mean 8 ft further away from the epicenter of the quake. Therefore, for the Earth to maintain a static size, Japan must have moved 8 ft closer to Korea/Russia or the country became 8 ft narrower. If so, where was the effect of this compaction/subduction?
My intention is not to defend plate tectonics here, but it never states the planet remains at a static volume. There are of course ebbs and flows as mountain ranges grow, ocean currents change etc. Although the theory maintains that there is not an overall "growing effect"

Japan quake shortened day by 1.8 microseconds.
"The Japanese earthquake should have caused Earth to rotate a bit faster, shortening the length of the day by about 1.8 microseconds (a microsecond is one millionth of a second)... Earth's rotation changes all the time as a result of not only earthquakes, but also the much larger effects of changes in atmospheric winds and oceanic currents," he said. "Over the course of a year, the length of the day increases and decreases by about a millisecond, or about 550 times larger than the change caused by the Japanese earthquake. The position of Earth's figure axis also changes all the time, by about 1 meter (3.3 feet) over the course of a year, or about six times more than the change that should have been caused by the Japan quake."

The shortening of the day or rather the acceleration of the Earth's rotation implies an overall contraction in volume to maintain inertia as a result of this particular quake. That would be consistent with an earthquake at a plate subduction zone as this particular quake was.

Note: These are just calculations as of now on Japan's quake, they are still analysing raw data, but this has been measured on previous quakes as the article shows.

sureshbansal342
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by sureshbansal342 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:30 pm

allynh wrote:I think you are asking what the temperature of the core is; no one knows.

We have only drilled down a few miles into the crust. In the thread, we have talked about the Earth being hollow, with the shell being thick, plastic, growing from the inside out.

At this time, we have no idea what is really beneath our feet.
yes , i want to know the reliability of method scientist are speculating higher temp. 5500 defree or so on. that is why i need this dissuasion thread. i have prepared a theory and they are rejecting on base of high temp. of core only.

sureshbansal342
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by sureshbansal342 » Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:35 pm

allynh wrote:I think you are asking what the temperature of the core is; no one knows.

We have only drilled down a few miles into the crust. In the thread, we have talked about the Earth being hollow, with the shell being thick, plastic, growing from the inside out.

At this time, we have no idea what is really beneath our feet.
have you seen my theory of earth formation ?

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:33 am

Orthogonal wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:I assume they mean 8 ft further away from the epicenter of the quake. Therefore, for the Earth to maintain a static size, Japan must have moved 8 ft closer to Korea/Russia or the country became 8 ft narrower. If so, where was the effect of this compaction/subduction?
My intention is not to defend plate tectonics here, but it never states the planet remains at a static volume. There are of course ebbs and flows as mountain ranges grow, ocean currents change etc. Although the theory maintains that there is not an overall "growing effect".
When I said size I was referring to the Earths circumference as measured through Japan. If the opposing effect of Japan moving 8ft in seconds is for a mountain range to grow then where did it happen? Wouldn't you have expected significant seismic effects along roughly 1000 miles at the said mountain range or subduction zone at that time? Shouldn't someone have noticed?

The USGS stated that a GPS station shifted 8ft but 8ft relative to what? They would say from another GPS station but in reality it should be relative to all other stations. Did that happen? I'm willing to bet it didn't. It probably shifted relative to Hawaii or US west coast stations but if so did Korean or Chinese stations remain static compared to Hawaii and the US west coast? I doubt it because if they did then where did the 8ft go between Japan and Korea? Would they have us believe that 8ft of land along hundreds of miles of plate suducted in a few seconds with no seismic impact?

I suspect there are some USGS technicians sitting around scratching their heads right now trying to make sense of it, without considering the obvious fact that the Earth just grew a coulple of square miles of surface area and Japan didn't move anywhere.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:59 am

Japan quake moves Korea away
Thu Mar 17, 2011
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/170369.html
Japan.jpg
Japan quake has shifted the position of the Earth's figure axis by about 16cm, according to NASA.
Scientists say Japan's massive earthquake, followed by a tsunami with 10-meter-high waves, has increased the distance between the country and the Korean Peninsula by more than two meters.

The Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASSI) said the Korean Peninsula moved east up to 5cm (about 2 inches) while Japan shifted some 2.4 meters east, AFP reported Thursday.

"We are closely monitoring to see whether the shift was temporary or perpetual," a KASSI spokeswoman said.

The disputed Dokdo islands, also claimed by Japan where they are known as Takeshima, relocated the furthest, moving 5cm east, as the islands in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) are relatively closer to the epicenter.

South Korea's southwestern port city of Mokpo drifted 1.21 centimeters.

According to Italy's National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, the 8.9 magnitude earthquake in Japan on March 11 has also shifted the position of the Earth's figure axis, and moved the whole planet by 25cm.

Research scientist Richard Gross of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory said Japan's quake should have shifted the position of the Earth's figure axis (the axis about which its mass is balanced) by about 16cm (6.5 inches), towards 133 degrees east longitude. According to NASA, the tremor also shortened the length of a day caused by the earthquake's redistribution of Earth's mass by 1.8 microseconds.
Entire planet shaken up by Japan’s earthquake
March 17, 2011
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/m ... arthquake/
Within a matter of weeks, Earth has experienced a swarm of earthquake activity. We’ve all heard about the deadly and catastrophic 9.0 magnitude quake that devastated northern Japan with its violent shaking and the huge tsunami it generated on Friday.

The earthquake was so strong that it shifted Earth’s axis about 6.5 inches. This shift would affect how our planet rotates, not its position in space. According to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, it’s estimated that the Japanese quake shortened Earth’s day by 1.8 microseconds as it increased the Earth’s rotation. The loss of time should not cause any type of time change, but may mark a slight difference in the passing of the seasons and also affect precise satellite navigation systems.

And, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that some parts of Japan actually moved 12 feet closer to North America as a result of Earth’s violent movements.
This is the view from Google Maps.
center.jpg
Japan moved East, away from Korea. Korea moved East away from China.

You can see the dark trench running along the east side of Japan. The trench is where standard dogma says the activity usually occurs, yet Japan moved east, away from Korea, and Korea moved east away from China.

Now look at the wider view.
spread.jpg
The dark blue area between Japan and Korea is what grew the most. The light blue area between China and Korea grew the least.

Let me make this clear. The Pacific did not shrink. Asia did not move east, Japan moved east away from Korea, and Korea moved east away from China. If standard dogma was real all of Asia would be closer, not just Japan and Korea.

Japan moved East, away from Korea. Korea moved East away from China.

If that doesn't scare the heck out of you, I don't know what will. HA!

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by webolife » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:07 pm

Allynh,In the earlier part of your post you quoted the claim that parts of Japan may have moved nearly three meters toward the US, yet later you stated that the Pacific was not shrinking... how do you reconcile this?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:00 pm

allynh wrote:Japan moved East, away from Korea. Korea moved East away from China.
Does that mean that the floors of the Sea of Japan and the Yellow Sea are made of elastic? I find it hard to accept that 8ft of seafloor for hundreds of miles appeared within those seas with no consequence.

Because of their incorrect assumptions about the Earth, these GPS measurements are leading to absurd conclusions.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:10 pm

webolife wrote: Allynh,In the earlier part of your post you quoted the claim that parts of Japan may have moved nearly three meters toward the US, yet later you stated that the Pacific was not shrinking... how do you reconcile this?
HA!

Aardwolf had made the good point that the earlier articles were not specific about where the movement was measured from. The new articles are reporting movement from a specific region. We now have numbers that show the Sea of Japan widening, and the Korean Peninsula rotating away from China, and the China Sea getting wider.

Webolife, fire up Google and look at the maps. If you enter Japan, then click on "Maps related to the Earthquake and Tsunami" it will bring up the red star marking the epicenter. Move around and see what the articles are talking about. You can see the city of Mokpo on the tip of Korea that they mention. Then actually read the articles that are linked to in the posts rather than playing your usual "doubting game" of missing the obvious, and refusing to read the source material. HA!
Korea.jpg
We need to hear more reports comparing Japan stations to the West Coast before we can see how much wider the Pacific is now.

Stay tuned.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:29 am

Record aftershocks registered in Japan after March 11 quake
TOKYO, March 19, Kyodo
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/79478.html
A record 262 aftershocks of magnitude 5 or greater were registered in the seven days following the magnitude 9.0 earthquake off northeastern Japan on March 11, the Japan Meteorological Agency said Friday.

The frequency of aftershocks of that magnitude until noon Friday was the highest recorded in the country and more than 2.5 times the frequency detected after a magnitude 8.2 earthquake struck eastern Hokkaido in 1994.

Meanwhile, the agency lowered the likelihood of aftershocks measuring at least upper 5 on the Japanese seismic intensity scale of 7 within three days to 30 percent from 40 percent.

There have been three aftershocks of magnitude 7 or greater since the initial quake, including a magnitude 7.5 temblor that occurred shortly afterward, while there have been 49 aftershocks of magnitude 6 or more.

The aftershocks have occurred in waters off a wide stretch of land from Iwate to Ibaraki prefectures in a zone 500 kilometers in length and about 200 km in width.

''There has been a slight downward trend, but they remain frequent,'' said Takashi Yokota, head of the agency's Earthquake Prediction Information Division. ''We need to remain vigilant because an earthquake focused in an oceanic area could cause strong aftershocks as late as 10 to 20 days afterward.''

==Kyodo

Cracchiolo
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:05 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Cracchiolo » Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:17 am

Hello friends, I have not read through all of this post but I would like to share a piece.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... tassos.pdf

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:39 pm

Good, you found the Tassos. You'll enjoy this thread then. HA!

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:08 am

Oh, this is sweet.

Saturn's UFO moons: Bizarrely-shaped Pan and Atlas baffle scientists
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... tists.html
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 3:51 PM on 18th March 2011

They look more like flying-saucers than icy moons, but Pan and Atlas are two of Saturn's strangest satellites.

Scientists have long been puzzled by how the oddly-shaped moons, which are only 20miles across, came to be.

Researchers based at the European Space Agency now think they have some answers after studying several years worth of cosmic images.
Pan.jpg
UFO? Pan is Saturn's most inner moon, as seen in this illustration. It orbits within the Encke Gap in the planet's A ring

They realised that 14 of Saturn's small moons had a very low density - about half that of water ice - and shapes that suggested they had grown out of the rings themselves.

However, they would have needed a jump start as it is not gravitationally possible for small particles to fuse together within the rings.

Therefore, each moon would have started with a massive core that was a leftover from the original collisions that caused the rings.

Carolyn Porco from ESA, said: 'We think the only way these moons could have reached the sizes they are now, in the ring environment as we now know it to be, was to start off with a massive core to which the smaller, more porous ring particles could easily become bound.'

By this process, a moon will grow even if it is relatively close to Saturn. The result is a ring-region moon about two to three times the size of its dense ice core, covered with a thick shell of porous, icy ring material.

Simulations performed at Southwest Research Institute in 2010 suggest that Saturn originally had several large Titan-sized moons, which spiraled into the planet during its early history.
Atlas.jpg
Pan2.jpg
Pan2.jpg (8.35 KiB) Viewed 12383 times
The Cassini spacecraft has captured images of Saturn's moon Atlas (top) and Pan, which were likely formed at the same time as the rings

As the final lost satellite neared Saturn, heating caused by the flexing of its shape and the planet's gravity would cause its ice to melt and rock sink to its centre.

Planetary tidal forces as it crossed the region of the current B ring would then have stripped material from its outer layers, creating the initial ice ring.

Dr Robin Canup from the SwRI Planetary Science Directorate in Boulder, who led the study, said: 'The new model proposes that the rings are primordial, formed from the same events that left Titan as Saturn's sole large satellite,.

'The implication is that the rings and the Saturnian moons interior to and including Tethys share a coupled origin, and are the last remnants of a lost companion satellite to Titan.'

But how then to explain the strange ridges that give Pan and Atlas their unique shapes?

The answer, scientists suspect, lies in accretion discs, that are seen at all scales in the universe from planetary rings to galaxies. Essentially as the disc spins, forces cause the edges of the structure to flatten out and a bulge to form towards the centre.

'Our computer simulations show that the ridges must have accreted rapidly when Saturn's rings were thin, forming small accretion disks around the equators of Pan and Atlas,' said Sebastien Charnoz, from the University Paris-Diderot in France.
The highlighted sentence shows that despite everything, they have no clue how these shapes are possible.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:30 am

I look forward to seeing what they find. <-----[Insert Mad Scientist Laughter]

Scientists plan to drill all the way down to the Earth's mantle
March 25, 2011 by Bob Yirka
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-sci ... antle.html
earthsmantle.jpg
earthsmantle.jpg (12.18 KiB) Viewed 12279 times
(PhysOrg.com) -- In what can only be described as a mammoth undertaking, scientists, led by British co-chiefs, Dr Damon Teagle of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, England and Dr Benoit Ildefonse from Montpellier University in France, have announced jointly in an article in Nature that they intend to drill a hole through the Earth’s crust and into the mantle; a feat never before accomplished, much less seriously attempted.
The Earth’s mantle is the part of the planet that lies between the crust and the iron ball at its center, and to reach it, would require drilling down from a position in the ocean, because the crust is much thinner there. Even still, it would mean drilling through five miles of solid rock. And if that doesn’t sound hard enough, temperatures increase the farther down you go, and could reach as high as 570 degrees Fahrenheit; high enough to render useless most modern drill bits. Last but not least is the problem of atmospheric pressure, which increases the deeper you go, to somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 million pounds per square foot near the mantle. That last one may not seem like much of a problem, but with exploratory drilling, it becomes a problem rather quickly when you remember that it’s not just a hole they plan to dig, but a hole that can be used to extract samples from very far below.

To retrieve a sample, the drillers would have to rely on drills without a riser (drills that use double pipes for venting gases) which would mean pumping seawater down into the hole through the drill pipe with sufficient pressure to force whatever is being dug back up to the surface so that it can be examined.

This would not be the first time that a sample of the mantle would be recovered however, as volcanoes and such have been forcing under-crust material to the surface for eons; it would be the first time that a sample was found though that hasn’t been tainted by the process that brought it up to us, and that scientists say, is worth whatever the cost might add up to over time as the project carries on through years of laborious drilling.

The pair plan to begin searching for a suitable site somewhere in the Pacific this spring, but don’t expect the technology, nor the funding to allow them to start drilling till perhaps 2018.

© 2010 PhysOrg.com

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:55 pm

Something odd just happened. This thread went from 45 pages to 48, from 672 posts to 719 posts, all since I last posted on 28 March, without adding anything at the end. That means something has been consolidated into the thread, which means everybody, including myself, needs to read through the thread from the start and see what has changed. Yikes.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests