Earth - tectonics and geology

[tholden]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Sea_anomaly

http://beforeitsnews.com/beyond-science ... 46188.html





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KfrXJABn2M

[Metryq]

And?

You posted several links on this subject, but no commentary of your own on how this ties in with Electric Universe. Are you suggesting that this an electrical artifact, like Olympus Mons? Or were you intending to get a discussion going on fossilized UFOs?

Edit: By the way, I'm very skeptical of the "photo" showing divers. One generally cannot take long distance photos underwater. So a single photo of an object that size is most likely a composite, or an "artist's rendering." Sunlight at 90 meters is pretty scarce.

[tholden]

Sorry, I don't have any sort of a neat/tidy theory for this one. I posted the thing hoping somebody else might.

The thing is obvoiusly artificial but that's as far as I'd go.

[nick c]

Note that these are not photographs, but rather artistic renditions based on sonar images.
I do not think that we can yet establish whether this is a natural formation or something artificial, or even if it is legitimate.
We need more information.

[Maol]

[seasmith]

And ??

[Chromium6]

There is the possibility that this area was above the ocean several thousand years ago (7,000+). Much like this area:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_slide

[finno]

I´m pretty sure it is Methane clathrate.
They possible looking for oil and gas under sea. Place where that “ufo” is, is about 200m deeper like sea bottom around. What means, its better place drilling if they found something. That esoteric theorys are only for `false flag´story

[seasmith]

by finno » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:15 pm

I´m pretty sure it is Methane clathrate

Best analysis so far, imho...

[beekeeper]

Greetings to all EU pilgrims, I am perplexed by the idea that this structure is of natural origins. The form and the details are striking not to mention the stairs leading up the structure. The base the thing is sitting on appears to have been done to support the thing. Some erosion would indicate that it is made of the same rock as the base it is sitting on. The size of it is also fairly impressive in relation to the divers hovering over it. To me it would appear to have been constructed for some untold purpose. Maybe to imitate something that came from somewhere in the not so distant past.

[tholden]

Greetings to all EU pilgrims, I am perplexed by the idea that this structure is of natural origins. The form and the details are striking not to mention the stairs leading up the structure. The base the thing is sitting on appears to have been done to support the thing. Some erosion would indicate that it is made of the same rock as the base it is sitting on. The size of it is also fairly impressive in relation to the divers hovering over it. To me it would appear to have been constructed for some untold purpose. Maybe to imitate something that came from somewhere in the not so distant past.

The only thing which seems obvious about the thing is that it's artificial.

[King David]

Any fellow geophysicists here? How did you feel about reconciling EU theory and what you learnt in school?

My experience was, "well that would sure make geophysics a lot easier"

[Max Photon]

Your Highness,

I have a degree in geophysics from the University of California, Berkeley.

EU enthusiasts, rightly or wrongly, routinely accuse the Great Misguided of confirmation bias.

The former are hardly immune.

My recommendation: keep an open mind ... but not so open that your brain falls out.

Yours,

Maxwell C. Photon

[starbiter]

If catastrophe and plasma physics are added to the tool kit of geophysics the entire current model needs to be utterly abandoned! Similar to black holes and cosmology. Either black holes or not. Either recent electric catastrophe or not. No middle road. Not kind of sort of.

The process of abandoning ideas seems problematic and painful. The more money and time spent learning a flawed model, the more painful the process. Money and time spent also seems to produce a more aggressive defense of established concepts. Ph.D Geologists are a hard nut to crack, but i try.

Unfortunately my work requires geologists to admit EVERYTHING they know about the process of geology is wrong. There is nothing in common between a 2 billion year model and a less than 10,000 year model. Probably closer to 3,500 years. This refers to the surface of Earth, to a great depth. Zero time for erosion, geologically speaking.

Just my opinion,

michael steinbacher

[Max Photon]

... my work requires geologists to admit EVERYTHING they know about the process of geology is wrong.

King David,

See what I mean?

So, for example, if you go to Point Reyes, CA, located on the west side of the San Andreas Fault, you will encounter geology that closely matches that found around Tehachapi in southern California. The notion is that the west side of the fault has moved the Point Reyes structure north relative to Tehachapi.

But you are asked to admit that "EVERYTHING" about the process of geology is wrong. Those rocks are not 80 - 100 million years old. There is no San Andreas fault. In the 1906 earthquake, even though the visible, measurable surface displacement in the Point Reyes area was up to 25 feet (!), you are asked to ignore that too.

All the earthquakes, from micro to large that clearly delineate the San Andreas Fault ... wrong!

I could go on.

Yes King David, keep an open mind. But geophysics is an awesome field of inquiry. I strongly suggest you not toss out your education just quite yet.

Max