IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

17 Pages V  « < 12 13 14 15 16 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Plate Tectonics And Continental Drift., And I thought I knew all about it...

Omega892R09
post Dec 16 2010, 08:38 AM
Post #261





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (elreb @ Dec 11 2010, 11:49 PM) *
Robert Felix, Timothy Ball and Joe D’Aleo are spot on ...

Which just goes to show how little you know about the topic and the background of the disinformation campaign that has been running to make you think as you do.

Heck. You don't even seem to know enough to appreciate how little you know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Dec 16 2010, 10:20 AM
Post #262



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



It's the vast amount of different sciences.
All are a science unto themselves;
geology, meteorology, astrophysics to particle physics...

No one, can be an expert at all of them.

There is so much to know, in each field,
with constantly updating theories, and discovered new facts,
and observations, in all of them.

Who can even imagine piecing together
all the newly developed theories in each?

Every field of endeavor, has its theoretical central concept,
and a leading edge.
If, that central concept starts to change its' position,
then either density increases (or decreases)
within that field of endeavor;
or that field expands (or collapses), dramatically.

This gives way to a new clear imagination with boundless energy.

Though it may seem a little frightening
seeing the core idea of an entire field of endeavor,
like the theory of continental drift, suddenly shift,
to that of a growing Earth.

Everything in science must adapt,
to explain this phenomena,
of planetary growth.

Then, we can move up.
"Away up."

i get am getting a funny metaphor;

Humanity and mankind,
is about to hatch out of,
its' antiquated, ridged, upper crust.

We are getting too knowledgeable,
under that old, cold, hard, shell,
the pressures are mounting.
But we got to use our own individual tooth,
to break through,
out of it.

i can hear the "chirps" getting louder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Dec 16 2010, 01:41 PM
Post #263





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Dec 14 2010, 12:20 PM) *
It's the vast amount of different sciences.
All are a science unto themselves;
geology, meteorology, astrophysics to particle physics...

No one, can be an expert at all of them.

Indeed.

However many scientists have become knowledgeable in more than one field and understand how particle physics can inform on geological ages which in turn can illuminate paleoclimatology and so on. There has been a growing trend for scientists to broaden their outlooks so as to understand complex issues.

When you have studied a number of issues as much as I have you realise that specialists are important for making advances within their own particular disciplines but unless they have exposed themselves to findings in other fields then they should refrain from using strong language to support ideological driven agendas.

It has been a welcome trend that scientists in different fields increasingly look at others where their expertise may have application. Indeed, as in many areas of engineering, it is the non-specialist who often manages to put disparate threads together producing innovative thinking or novel solutions to problems.

James Lovelock was one such scientist who's acumen in different fields has allowed shed so much light to be shed upon the interactions between geophysical and biological processes. See: He Knew He Was Right

When you too have reached a stage whereby you understand the importance of this then you will be closer to rational thinking about the huge problems that mankind now faces thanks to an uninhibited scramble for money and power.


QUOTE
There is so much to know, in each field,
with constantly updating theories, and discovered new facts,
and observations, in all of them.

Who can even imagine piecing together
all the newly developed theories in each?

That is a problem that has been recognised as I indicated above.

There is no perfect one size fits all strategy to facilitating the sharing of deep knowledge however mechanisms have been in place and continue to evolve. This is why the IPCC has input from so many real scientists in many diverse but contributory fields and is also why the IPCC is so misunderstood for the IPCC is not 'that collection of scientists' that happened to contribute to any one particular assessment report.

I ask you have you ever studied the IPCC TAR or FAR? Each one comes in a number of sections within a number of parts. They are complex documents. And no, the contributors do not get paid directly by the IPCC unlike those who go prospecting on behalf of The Fraser Institute, The Heartland Institute, The American Enterprise Institute, The CATO Institute, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, The George C. Marshall Institute, The Heritage Foundation. The scientists who have prostituted themselves by association with those 'think tanks' which are so fond of Astroturfing should have there opinions treated with a great deal of circumspection with all their statements closely studied against other sources. A common theme that runs through is cherry picking of data points and quote mining without correct attribution and this latter with heavy editing masked so as to invert any meaning intended by the original source. Now who have we seen employing that tactic. Think about it!


QUOTE
seeing the core idea of an entire field of endeavor,
like the theory of continental drift, suddenly shift,
to that of a growing Earth.

But that is not happening and is unlikely to happen. Much data will not fit an expanding Earth hypothesis.

I have asked you before to provide solid evidence that cannot be refuted to support an expanding Earth. You persistently fail to respond to direct questions.

You only have to study works on geology, paleogeology and oceanography to get the problems that confront an expanding Earth.

I have asked you pointed questions about certain indisputable geological features but you have ignored answering them. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Repeating irrational ideas will never make facts out of them.

The top of the Matterhorn is composed of gneiss of African continental origin - explain that.

The top of Everest is composed of sedimentary rock complete with fossils of oceanic organisms - explain that.

There are many examples of vertical structures composed of layers of sedimentary rocks, sometimes weather exposed to be known as 'chimneys' - explain those.

Maybe these will help:

Geology.com

National Geophysical Data Center

On-line Earth Science Journals


QUOTE
Everything in science must adapt,
to explain this phenomena,
of planetary growth.

I guess economists and bankers like the idea of an expanding Earth as that would remove the limit to unlimited economic growth.

Not going to happen.

QUOTE
i get am getting a funny metaphor;

Whilst you think up funny metaphors there are some decidedly unfunny events unfolding worldwide.

Why do you think that people should risk everything by migrating in small wooden boats to be smashed against rocks?

OK! Bad people were profiteering by 'people smuggling' but think of the political, ecological and economic disasters unfolding which pushes the desperate to seek such escape. When things get desperate and with little more to lose people take desperate measures. Remember that when the cholera epidemics hit British towns in the late 19th century some of the well off fell victim too, although the poor took the brunt. So it will be when the global ecological-economic-political tripartite spin out of control. There will be geological consequences too, as there already are as oceans rise re-distributing loads on the Earth's crust. There are your four horsemen of the apocalypse; ecological-economical-political-geological breakdowns.

It pays to be able to connect the sciences and not stare myopically into one hole.

Whilst you pontificate about an expanding Earth and try to undermine the arguments with respect to climate change creatures like Monckton strut about the stage, the Marc Moranos shout down anybody trying to hold a rational discussion a trick also practised by the Fox bully boys of Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly. Excuse me if I start to see you in the same light as them for they will probably never grasp the importance of:

MASS EXTINCTION UNDERWAY

= Anthropocene.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 16 2010, 04:10 PM
Post #264





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (lunk @ Dec 16 2010, 04:20 AM) *
i can hear the "chirps" getting louder.

In 1943 when Nikola Tesla died at the age of 86y, he was considered one of the smartest humans on planet Earth.

Because of his eccentric personality and his seemingly unbelievable and sometimes bizarre claims about possible scientific and technological developments, Tesla was often ostracized and regarded as a mad scientist by many late in his life.

Tesla also argued:

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

In addition to his work on electromagnetism and electromechanical engineering, Tesla contributed in varying degrees to the establishment of robotics, remote control, radar, and computer science, and to the expansion of ballistics, nuclear physics, and theoretical physics.

Shortly before he died, Thomas Edison said that his biggest mistake had been in not listening to Tesla by trying to develop direct current, rather than the superior alternating current system of Tesla’s development.

Your mother's so dumb she went to Dr. Dre for a Pap smear! "Something's wrong, Dr Dre! My coochie's doing a beat-box!"

Well yea? Your mother's so stupid she exercises when she could just get like, liposuction or something!

Your mother is so stupid that she goes to Barney's Rooftop Deck Restaurant for lunch and orders a niçoise salad and calls it a 'ni-coise' salad. 'Ni-coise' salad, right? …like it’s an American Cobb salad cousin

Well your mother's ass is so hairy; it looks like Don King's about to pop out and say, "Only in Hampshire”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Dec 18 2010, 12:24 AM
Post #265





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 913
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Dec 14 2010, 03:41 PM) *
Indeed.


MASS EXTINCTION UNDERWAY

= Anthropocene.



You would have to be pretty naive and gullible in order to believe that the dinosaurs

became extinct 65 million years ago.

And "dictionaries" should be utterly ashamed for publishing such nonsensical drivel.


Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Dec 18 2010, 02:16 AM
Post #266



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



What happens when the sun was discovered to be the center of the solar system, instead of the Earth.

The explanations for a geocentric Earth were extremely complex,
They all disappeared when it was accepted that the sun was the true center,
not the Earth.

For the Earth to have grown, it must have gotten bigger.
When the whole rigid crust on Earth, increases in diameter, that curved crust must stretch, tear, or break, and re-curve to the surface of a larger flatter sphere.
This re-curving causes the surface crust to wrinkle up, earthquakes and volcanoes.

What was sea level, is now mountain top.

The age of the sea floor is all under 120 million years.
but most of it is less than 65 million years old.
So if all the continents were nearly all together covering the globe,
then the Earth would be, i think, about half its present size.
And if they were flat then, they would have to wrinkle into mountains today, just to be in the same place on Earth today.

It's like bending a beam. the crust has a thickness, so the top is in compression,
for the underside of the crust to be in tension.
The surface buckles up, in places as mountain ranges.

Continents are massive rock structures.
They cannot "float or drift" from their position on the surface of the Earth.
Yet we see the Atlantic, as a growth of land between N and S America and Africa.
They obviously once fit together.
They obviously have been ripped apart by the new growth of the Atlantic.

Try fitting them back together on the same size globe, impossible, because they have had to re-form to a growing surface of our oblate spheroid.

India was once part of Africa, true, but there are no signs of it fleeting across the Indian oceans floor bed, in the age of the ocean floor map.

So there never was a time when India was an island, and therefore cannot be a cause of the Himalayas.
But we would expect the greatest wrinkling to happen on the largest continent, Asia.

Sure, there are lots of people who have seen India,
but there were no actual witnesses of it crashing into Asia.
And all the evidence seems to show that that never actually happened.
...sort of reminds me of something...

India was always planted firmly to, and part of, the continent of Asia.
The Indian ocean floor, is new growth that rifted and spread India with Asia, apart from Africa.
The new growth always comes from below.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Dec 18 2010, 09:13 AM
Post #267





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Dec 16 2010, 03:24 AM) *
You would have to be pretty naive and gullible in order to believe that the dinosaurs

became extinct 65 million years ago.

Has anybody here argued that they did?

Clearly you know something about straw men.

Most species of what are commonly considered dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago. The fossil record, geology and physics (from that used in dating to tracing hereditary hierarchies) tells us this.

But then some species of what are commonly considered dinosaurs went extinct over the whole time span of the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods (note the difference between Periods and Eons, Eras and Epochs).

Some descendants of dinosaurs are still with us - the aves and other older lineages are represented in the crocodilians today. This is of course ignoring many other species of many genera in the invertebrate and single celled organisms to provide just two examples.

QUOTE
And "dictionaries" should be utterly ashamed for publishing such nonsensical drivel.


Cheers

Well, to rely on 'dictionaries' for all your information is a rather limited method of approach which of course provides limited answers and statements.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Dec 18 2010, 01:29 PM
Post #268





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 913
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Dec 16 2010, 11:13 AM) *
Has anybody here argued that they did?

Clearly you know something about straw men.

Most species of what are commonly considered dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago. The fossil record, geology and physics (from that used in dating to tracing hereditary hierarchies) tells us this.

But then some species of what are commonly considered dinosaurs went extinct over the whole time span of the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods (note the difference between Periods and Eons, Eras and Epochs).

Some descendants of dinosaurs are still with us - the aves and other older lineages are represented in the crocodilians today. This is of course ignoring many other species of many genera in the invertebrate and single celled organisms to provide just two examples.


Well, to rely on 'dictionaries' for all your information is a rather limited method of approach which of course provides limited answers and statements.



It should be obvious to anyone that my comment was in relation to the link you referred to, wherein this claim was made.

Therefore it should be equally obvious that my use of the word "You" was meant to be understood in general terms.

So unless you play a part in the web page linked to, it would have been interesting to find out why you thought my

comment was addressed to you only, but now that it seems you hold the same view as these people do, i sort of get the drift.

I hope instead then that you would be kind enough to tell me why you think dinosaur bones could last 65 million years without

decomposing, And if you think human bones as well as other animal type bones could last this same rather long period of time

if given the change!

Actually, it would also be interesting to find out if you believe it was a meteor that caused the extinction of these animals?


Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Dec 18 2010, 03:38 PM
Post #269





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Dec 18 2010, 07:29 AM) *
dinosaur bones could last 65 million years without decomposing... bones could last this same rather long period of time

I can live with carbon-14 dating…as they use carbon…

but in the case of items much older…”Radioactive decay” is used to date the soil/rocks surrounding old bones.

An example is the natural decay chain of 238U which is as follows:
Decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years to thorium-234
Which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 24 days to protactinium-234
Which decays, through beta-emission, with a half-life of 1.2 minutes to uranium-234
Which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 240 thousand years to thorium-230
Which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 77 thousand years to radium-226
Which decays, through alpha-emission, with a half-life of 1.6 thousand years to radon-222

So in reality, old bones and other items are not actually being tested themselves. Therefore Bones that migrate to older stratum will get mis-dated.

Or better yet, if the soil becomes radioactive...the the bones also get mis-dated...

The rat takes the cheese . . .
The cheese stands alone…
Hi-Ho, the derry-o…

This post has been edited by elreb: Dec 19 2010, 12:25 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Jan 19 2011, 09:01 PM
Post #270





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Global warming

The National Weather Service issued a winter storm warning from the summit and upper slopes of Haleakala on Maui and Big Island's Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. The winter storm warning will remain in effect until 6 tonight, the national weather service said.

…“ice and snow” were reported at the summit of Halekala, Maui thumbsup.gif




This post has been edited by elreb: Jan 19 2011, 09:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 19 2011, 11:41 PM
Post #271



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Hmmm, yes the temperature here, is like a yo-yo this year,
Above and below freezing.
It is much colder than the last 2 years, but not the coldest, i've experienced.

Though i am convinced that the Earth is generating more mass and volume constantly from within...
i've been working on the theory that the daily rotation of the Earth is,
for some reason, suddenly slowing down.
Causing the equatorial oblate-ness to succumb to the Earths gravity.

And, get this,
shrink at its' equator, in its' diameter!
While the rotational poles will extend (stretch out) to compensate.
Making the Earth rounder.

We know that since before the invention of the atomic clock that the length of the year varies.
and as the atomic clock is supposed to be very accurate, there has been the problem of
synchronizing it to the length of the year.
The idea is to add or subtract a leap second, when they go too far out of sync.

However, as far as i can tell, seconds have only been added, never subtracted, since the 1950's.
This means that the Earth-year is getting longer, apparently from a, so far, one-way, oscillation.

Does this mean that the length of the days (and nights) are getting milliseconds longer, too?

i don't know.

But if the days are slowing down, then that must mean the Earth is spinning slower daily, suddenly.
And if this is so, then the general shape of the Earth will change accordingly, too.

What would this mean?

The crust of the Earth is solid,
if it were to start having to shrink in its diameter, the crust around the Equator would have to rise or subduct, considerably. There is one place on Earth where compressive subduction is known to have taken place, and that is a small area, in the pacific floor, found deductively, on the undersea map of the age of the ocean floor.

If an oval was to change shape to a circle,
what latitudes on the surface would undergo the least change in shape?

one would think 45 degrees, north and south.
But it's a circle, so perhaps it is closer to the equator, like around 40?

So if, the Earth is in the process of changing its' general shape from oval to round, because it is slowing down, the "safest" place to be would be around the 40 degree latitude N and S?

Any how, if there is an oscillation, in the daily spin of the Earth, then the Earth would be narrowing and widening its girth with that change in the speed of rotation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jan 20 2011, 08:16 AM
Post #272





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Dec 16 2010, 03:29 PM) *
It should be obvious to anyone that my comment was in relation to the link you referred to, wherein this claim was made.

I do not think that anywhere did you find the unqualified claim that the writers at that site:

QUOTE
believe that the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.



QUOTE
i sort of get the drift.


Clearly you don't.

QUOTE
I hope instead then that you would be kind enough to tell me why you think dinosaur bones could last 65 million years without decomposing,

They don't. A long and complex process involving very specific circumstances replaces the organic matter in the bones with minerals from the surrounding sediment, this is what a fossil is. That a carcass is quickly covered by sediment is one such specific. That the entombed remains then stays undisturbed for the processes of acidic dissolution of organic matter leaving a cast to be filled by minerals is another specific. That the part of the Earth's crust holding the fossil then remains undisturbed and not subsumed into the Earth's mantle before discovery is another specific. All these specifics hold a clue as to why there are many gaps in the fossil record (i.e. no god of the gaps).

As Dawkins put it in 'The Blind Watchmaker' for every way (i.e. organism type) that there is of being alive there are countless ways, infinite, of being dead (i.e. never having existed). A corollary to that is that only a minute fraction of one percent of organisms that have ever existed are known to us, and by us I mean the collective of all scientists that have every attempted to study the extent of the biota.


QUOTE
Actually, it would also be interesting to find out if you believe it was a meteor that caused the extinction of these animals?


That the KT boundary mass extinction was caused by a meteor, or maybe two parts of one meteor as it broke up in the atmosphere, is a high probability given the current state of our knowledge. An iridium (rare on the Earth's surface) layer within datable geological formations points to the likelihood that the Meteor that caused the Chixulub crater could have caused a seismic event across the world on the Indian subcontinent (not yet joined to Asia and situated rather south of Chixulub), there is another impact crater, Shiva, at the site which is why two meteors or maybe two pieces of the same meteor could have been involved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jan 20 2011, 08:34 AM
Post #273





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (elreb @ Jan 17 2011, 11:01 PM) *
Global warming

That is the nature of the beast with global warming comes climate change.

Some places with a particular type of climate can cool WRT average for that time of year and others can become warmer.
That does not mean that the global average temperatures are not on an upward trend. Only those who believe the likes of the liars such as Michaels and Monckton believe otherwise. Believe absolutely describing ignorance based on prejudice. The Earth's cryosphere is not fooled as it loses mass, no matter how Joe Bastardi, A Watts and D'Aleo try to spin it.

More at Another Quest curved ball and other threads.

Global warming is not a hoax as the biosphere, cryosphere and much else is telling us, for those willing to put in the effort to learn the truth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jan 20 2011, 08:39 AM
Post #274





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Dec 16 2010, 04:16 AM) *
India was always planted firmly to, and part of, the continent of Asia.
The Indian ocean floor, is new growth that rifted and spread India with Asia, apart from Africa.
The new growth always comes from below.

Another post full of absolute and utter bollocks.

Learn some geology, oceanography and cosmology for goodness sake instead of repeating this tripe ad infinitum!

You never ever answer my direct questions (read the thread from the start), what does that tell us?

Sure you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Sigh!

Maybe you just like arguing for arguings sake.

The Earth's rotation slowing down, yes, it is to do with tides. Did you know that as the moon passes directly over a spot on Earth's surface the surface moves up by as much as twelve inches?

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jan 20 2011, 08:42 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 20 2011, 11:36 AM
Post #275



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Jan 20 2011, 04:39 AM) *
Another post full of absolute and utter bollocks.

Learn some geology, oceanography and cosmology for goodness sake instead of repeating this tripe ad infinitum!

You never ever answer my direct questions (read the thread from the start), what does that tell us?

Sure you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Sigh!

Maybe you just like arguing for arguings sake.

The Earth's rotation slowing down, yes, it is to do with tides. Did you know that as the moon passes directly over a spot on Earth's surface the surface moves up by as much as twelve inches?


The reason that India was always connected to Asia, is shown in the age of the ocean floor map.

The Indian ocean floor is a new feature on the crust and has formed between Africa and India.
Nothing in drifting anywhere. The rock of the Earths crust stays fixed in place, to the surface, as the Earth grows and widens with new crust in between. The deep undersea rifts of underwater volcanoes connect world-wide, like the seams on a baseball, is where the new crust is being added to the volume of the Earth.

This should mean that the Earth is constantly making more matter within, (as do all large gravitational bodies suspended in space) And should be constantly growing.

BUT, if the Earth is slowing in its' daily rotation for some other reason as well, this would mean that its' general shape will be rounding from oblate.
AND, if this slowing, of daily rotation, is happening quickly, then the diameter of the Earth at the equator, will have to shrink with that slowing of rotation, as it is the daily spin of the Earth that causes this oblate-ness. If the Earth was to stop in its rotation on its' axis, it would turn into a sphere. This would cause compression of the crust around the Equator, and a stretching of the crust at the poles.

...ever looked at those islands in Canadas' North?

And all those undersea ancient human built structures that are now deep underwater around the equatorial regions?

Think of the way a solid shape like the crust of an oblate spheroid, must change through compression and tension to take on the form of a sphere.
Compressing at the Equator, and stretching at the poles.

Look at the Earth.

(edit) added.
Check your computer clock and compare it to GMT.

Widows has done a few updates to its clock,
i always wondered why.

My computer clock is out by 12 seconds since, i synchronized it just yesterday.

perhaps this is all because the Earth slowing down?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryWilliamsmb
post Jan 20 2011, 03:59 PM
Post #276





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 243
Joined: 30-September 07
From: Regina, Sask, Canada
Member No.: 2,278



"My computer clock is out by 12 seconds since, i synchronized it just yesterday. "

Mine updates daily with Microsoft but if you are right about this lunk, I need to increase my hourly rates and I'm older than I thought... grump.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 20 2011, 05:19 PM
Post #277



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (BarryWilliamsmb @ Jan 20 2011, 11:59 AM) *
"My computer clock is out by 12 seconds since, i synchronized it just yesterday. "

Mine updates daily with Microsoft but if you are right about this lunk, I need to increase my hourly rates and I'm older than I thought... grump.gif


I know it sounds a bit bizarre, but my computer clock should be more accurate than 12 seconds a day. i'm doing an experiment, so i re-set it, so it does not automatically update.
This may be just a glitch with the micro-soft OS.

But if, the Earth is rather suddenly slowing down, even by a just a few microseconds per day,
its' oblate-ness is going to reduce, simultaneously.

This should cause equatorial surface compression. And perhaps cause new land to rise up, above ocean level, lowering in other places, as the surface around the equator must compress by crimping or wrinkling, on a global scale, if it's rotation is dramatically dropping.

This should also cause rifting or stretching of the crust towards the North and South poles.

Also, the angle of the sun will be hitting the Earth both farther North and South, causing the antarctic and arctic circles to move closer to their poles, as the Earth becomes rounder, from the result of its' spin slowing.

The pace of this slowing of rotation is now becoming noticeable, in inhabited northern locations, with the sun appearing 2 days earlier in Greenland this year, and Inuit elders say the sun is moving further to the North, last year.
Yet the Earth has not changed its' orientations to the cosmos.

Gives a new meaning to civilization coming to a standstill.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 21 2011, 11:24 AM
Post #278



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Is Earth slowing down, and changing its' shape,
springing back to round, from slightly oblate?

Compression towards the equator.
Elongation of the poles.

QUOTE
We identified a 'band' of earthquake activity roughly described by a trans-equatorial orbit which covers a great deal of the earth's recent quakes, including the recent 7.4 in Pakistan, the strange activity in the Gulf Aden, the increased activity down around Indonesia, and so forth.


http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm

i'm not sure, but if the shape of the Earth is changing,
would the quickening pace, of the slowing of the earths daily rotation,
cause GPS units to start showing a noticeable variation and difference, from sunrise and sunset, towards the higher latitudes (actually everywhere, if the Earth is dramatically slowing, in its' daily rate of rotation)?

"How i wish that there were more than the 24 hours in the day"...

This post has been edited by lunk: Jan 21 2011, 11:35 AM
Reason for edit: to make it make some sort of sense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Jan 21 2011, 11:48 AM
Post #279





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



as far as the clock goes, unless your machine is powered up 24/7, it'll rely on the little battery on the motherboard to maintain state.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 25 2011, 11:06 PM
Post #280



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Jan 21 2011, 07:48 AM) *
as far as the clock goes, unless your machine is powered up 24/7, it'll rely on the little battery on the motherboard to maintain state.

i turned the contraption off, for a few days, it was back to within a second.
However when the OS is left on, my clock seems to run fast by about 15 seconds per day.
i think the OS may have its own clock,
that perhaps is not as accurate as the (battery) bios clock.
(something about 15/16th of a second discrepancy?)
but i'm just guessing.
ugh.




On the general re-shaping of the Earth...

THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS (movie)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#

If the Earths' daily rotation on its' own axis, runs like a simple direct current motor, powered by perhaps, the ionospheric electrojets, a current of extreme electrical power above the lower atmosphere.
If the current was reversed, the direction of rotation, could reverse.


Think of reversing a ceiling fan.
It slows down to a stop.
Then it slowly starts up again, until it gets back up to speed, the other way.

Now, if this were the Earth,
Its' oblate-ness would start become rounder,
from gravity, and the reduction in gyroscopic force.
Though this initial slowing may not be easily noticed, by the clock,
it would be noticed by the appearance of the sun moving further North,
in the North, and South in the South.

This is caused by global rounding.

Compressing the equatorial, while bulging the poles.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsanim/world/

If the speed of rotation of the Earth were to suddenly change, for whatever reason, then it would lose its' equatorial bulge
QUOTE
An equatorial bulge is a bulge which a planet may have around its equator, distorting it into an oblate spheroid. The Earth has an equatorial bulge of 42.72 km (26.5 miles) due to its rotation: its diameter measured across the equatorial plane (12756.28 km, 7,927 miles) is 42.72 km more than that measured between the poles (12713.56 km, 7,900 miles). To identify the Earth's radius, these numbers must be divided by two. I.e, anyone on either pole may be 21.36 km closer to the earth's centrepoint than if standing on the equator.


OK, here is what i'm pondering,
at what latitude, would the least change take place,
in distance from the surface, to the center of the Earth,
if our growing, oblate spheroid, is turning into a more perfect, ball?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

17 Pages V  « < 12 13 14 15 16 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th October 2014 - 02:18 AM