What are the implications for a planet that has eathquakes and volcanoes ?

What causes these 'natural' events ?

Can any body exist in space without having 'earthquakes' ?

Is the Earth expanding, so many physical observations seem to imply this is happening.

In theory the Earth is expamnding as it moves away from the Sun.

Here is a link to some other observations... I am not sure if the conclusions drawn are relevant.

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/051216_glacier_shift.html

>> During the last Ice Age, large portions of North America were blanketed by giant glaciers. Although they’ve been gone for more than 10,000 years, the land they once rested upon is still recovering from the weight.

Parts of North America and other continents are slowly rising due to an effect called post-glacial rebound. That much geologists knew.

But it turns out this slow recovery is also causing a very small horizontal shift, said Eric Calais, a geophysicist at Purdue University in Indiana. The movement varies from one spot to another, but the overall effect amounts to a 1-millimeter shortening per year of the distance between Florida and the Hudson Bay in northeastern Canada. That's about an inch every 25 years.

The shift is small potatoes compared to what goes on in the West.

The San Andreas Fault, which runs north-south, slips about 2 inches (5 centimeters) every year, causing Los Angeles to move towards San Francisco. Scientists forecast the cities will merge in about 15 million years. This relatively rapid change occurs at a plate boundary, where giant chunks of Earth's crust collide.

The area in Calais' study involves no plate boundaries. So the southward movement of the Northeast might represent a challenge to the conventional theory that the region's rocky crustal plate is totally rigid.

The horizontal shifting is similar to gently pushing a balloon into a ceiling. Because the balloon can't rise any higher, it expands sideways. >>


Many of the fault line on the ocean bed indicate expansion.

The incidence of earthquakes greater than 5 at a depth of between 10-20 km has doubled since 1990.

There can be worlds without vocanoes and earthquakes, URI. The geological processes of the Earth are run by the slow release of heat due to the decay of radioactive material in the crust. When all these radioactive materials are used up, as they will be on Earth in ca. 1000-1500 million years from now, the process of tectonic movement will slow down gradually and stop, and erosion will take over. Ancient Earth, under a dying Sun, will be largely a seascape, with a few swampy continents reduced almost to sea-level. Eventually only islands will be left, then only the sea.

You're asking for an explanation for the origin of the Earth and consequent volcanic activity arising from the concentration of highly compacted minerals originating from the core from interstellar material. A good explanation, requires you to take multiple courses in geology.

Then you ask:

"What causes these 'natural' events?"

"Can any body exist in space without having 'earthquakes'?'

"the Earth is expanding as it moves away from the Sun."

"North America and other continents are slowly rising due to an effect called post-glacial rebound."

"The incidence of earthquakes greater than 5 at a depth of between 10-20 km has doubled since 1990."

Wow! What a conglomeration of differnt unrelated conflicting thoughts!

Can you see how each and everyone of these thoughts and questions deserve a seperate forum to answer? Or are you expecting a single short statement that will possibley answer all of your puzzlements? If so, this is one reason why some people say: "God!" But i'm asuming that you're tring to be scientific and ae looking for explanations. But with all those questons, you won't find a complete answer to all of them on just one post forum. But there are scientific answers to them all.

>> But there are scientific answers to them all.

Oh good, but I am aware of most of them, and I find them unsatisfactory.

I was not looking for a paternal approach..... but if you wish to add, great...

I am looking for people who THINK, know their stuff (or are willing to explore), and are not afraid to open the chest of "unrelated (LOL) knowledge".

If this place is not so progressive, I would suggest a walk on the wild side
see http://omegafour.com/

The site is constructed for palm held computers, and discussion of the articles and new articles is encouraged, with no restriction on thoughts......

The Gulf Coast is actually sinking, URI; that's part of the see-saw effect of the removal of ice from the far north ca 12000 years ago. The same effect is taking place in Scandanavia and Britain. Scandinavia is rising most in the north, while the north German and Polish coasts are sinking along the Baltic. There are rings set into quay walls in Scandinavia, which were used for tethering boats. They are no use now, because they were set into the wall centuries ago. The land has risen so much in the intervening time that the rings can't be used. London, England, is sinking at the rate of a foot a century. Roman London was twenty feet higher than the city is now. The northern coast of the Adriatic is sinking at the rate of about an inch a year, which doesn't do Venice any favours. The coasts of Holland and Belgium are sinking at the rate of about 1 cm/year, which doesn't help them either.

>>Roman London was twenty feet higher than the city is now.

I am sure the picture emerging is very unclear..... some raising some sinking..

but it appears the sea floors are expanding..... maybe even lowering sea levels.... or at least to us, slowing the rise ?????

For us here and now, we can only look, measure and wait...maybe thousands of years before the picture becomes clear.

But I 'feel', volcanoes and earthquakes only can be caused by expansion of (cosmic) matter.

I just thought a little background, gathering of what we do know, would be educational.

1) There is a current continental land mass rise referred to as "glacial rebound" that is expected to continue for about the next 10,000 years.

2) Sea levels are rising due to Global Warming which is causing the ice caps and glaciers to melt (see the first few pages of the current thread "World's Ice Caps are Melting...").

3) Volcanoes and earthquakes are caused by the expansion and contraction of Earth's matter; but, more accurately speaking, by the colliding, spreading apart, or sliding together of the Earth's outer crust plates (tectonic plate activity).

In a sense, you can call all of Earth's matter "cosmic" matter, as all of it did originally come from and still is part of the cosmos. But we generally make a distinction - for the sake of communication - between the Earth and the cosmos, or cosmic, interstellar matter.

You ask some very good questions. But a comprehensive answer to them all would require seperate forums, or else for someone to write a book and post it as a reply. I suspect that this forum may continue by someone answering one of your many questions, or as a responce to my reply, and then develop a debate from there. Or possibly someone might post a whacko reply about antimatter or dark matter contributing to volcanos and earthquakes: I advise you to be leery and cautious of any crackpot ideas.

There's one theory, which was discussed in a Discovery programme a while ago, that said we might be facing a much quicker sea-level rise than we expected. The programme was called The Day the Oceans Boiled, and it was about the release of huge amounts of methane from clathrate (ice) deposits on the sea floor. They were saying that could happen as early as 2050, and result in a temperature rise of about 8 degress C. in about the next 50 years.

In that case, we'll be dealing with the loss of the Greenland, East Antarctic and West Antarctic icesheets by 2100. If it does get that bad, we're going to be dealing with Greenland and Antarctica rising up out of the sea (being relieved of the weight of ice) and we'll be dealing with a minimum 80 metres of sea-level rise by 2100, and probably another 20 metres or so by 2200 due to the displacement of water by the rising landmasses.

Then you're going to be also dealing with tsunamis (because the sea-floor is going to be readjusting rapidly) particularly in the North Atlantic because of Greenland, but also in the great southern oceans that surround Antarctica. In fact probably the safest place to live will be inland Antarctica, because it'll be such a big continent (about the size of the entire Western Hemisphere) that even the biggest tsunami won't be able to get too far inland. However, you'll be shaken until your teeth rattle by the earthquakes.

Also, dealing with small worlds like Io, Ganymede, Callisto et. al., their internal heat source is produced partly by radiation (when they were young) but now that they're old, their heat-source is the friction generated by the tidal effect of their giant parent planet around which they orbit. The same goes for Titan, and Triton and Neried, and the same also goes for Pluto and Charon to a smaller degree.

Methane release from ice dposits on the sea floors could only happen at the poles. This methane release is already a major alarming contributing factor to Global Warming from permafrost melting in Alaska, Canada, Norway, and Russia, surrounding Arctic regions. It is also happening in Antarctica.

Land mass rebound is something that is already occuring naturally since the last major ice age 10-15,000 years ago and is expected to continue for another 10,000 years. This will certainly accelerate the process.

As far as "sea-floor readjusting rapidly," I don't think that the extra weight of the water would have much impact on that compared to plate tectonics (caused by the convection currents within the Earth's mantle).

Methane release from ice dposits on the sea floors could only happen at the poles.
Why could this only happen at the poles??

With respect, valich, I disagree that the release of methane from sea-floor deposits would only happen at the poles. Every river takes detritus and plant material down into its undersea deposit zone, beyond the estuary. Therefore reserves of methane are building up constantly there, and could be released.

As for the sea-floor readjusting itself, the shifting of asthenospheric material back under Greenland or Antarctica, and out from under the adjacent sea-floor, would create the shifts, earthquakes and tsunamis.

Why could this only happen at the poles??If one misunderstood the stability field of methane clathrates one could easily be misled into this conclusion.
A reasonable starting point for an understanding of the issue may be found in wikipedia.

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

An even better starting point would be the most important Maslin et al (2004) paper:

http://earth.unh.edu/esci997/Maslin%20et%20al%202004.pdf

very interesting

With respect, valich, I disagree that the release of methane from sea-floor deposits would only happen at the poles. Every river takes detritus and plant material down into its undersea deposit zone, beyond the estuary. Therefore reserves of methane are building up constantly there, and could be released.

As for the sea-floor readjusting itself, the shifting of asthenospheric material back under Greenland or Antarctica, and out from under the adjacent sea-floor, would create the shifts, earthquakes and tsunamis.Yes, I agree with you. I have heard different than what I posted above from what I read from one scientific article, and have come across other articles that say different too. So I am looking into it further. We certainly do have methane release from peat moss and bogs.

As far as the sea floor readjusting, keep in mind that the current theory is that the asthenophere is the molten mantle layer under the plates that drives the plates from the underlying convective currents in the mantle. The origin of the convective currents and plumes in the mantle are from the outer core. So any readjustment must come from the lithosperic plates above the asthenosphere that then interact with the crust.

keep in mind that the current theory is that the asthenophere (sic) is the molten mantle layer under the plates that drives the plates from the underlying convective currents in the mantle. .Keep in mind that the asthenosphere is not molten mantle, but ductile mantle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asthenosphere

Over-and-over again I'm reading that landfill gas is the single most important source of methane pollution, at least in the United States (~34%). Second to that are agricultural sources (artificial fertilizers), and even cow flatulence (farts). Third seems to be methane released into the air as a result of oil and natural gas extraction and other waste treatment activities.

"Major emissions:
Methane occurs naturally in the environment. One of the major sources is from the decomposition of plant and animal matter by methane producing bacteria. These occur in air-less environments such as marshes and the gut of some animals and landfills. Methane is also trapped in pockets within the earth's crust, and can be released during the mining of fossil fuels. On a global scale, the human activities that result in the most methane emission, in descending order of importance are: livestock farming, production of fossil fuels, wet rice cultivation, biomass burning, landfill and domestic sewage." http://pollution.unibuc.ro/?substance=3

"Sources of manmade methane include, notably, herds of cattle and other ungulates, rice production, and leaks of natural gas from pipelines, according to the IPCC. In addition, natural sources of methane include wetlands, termites, oceans, and gas hydrate nodules on the sea floor." http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0231.html

"Methane is directly linked to the production of ozone in the troposphere, the lowest part of Earth's atmosphere, extending from the surface to around 12 kilometers [7 miles] altitude. Ozone is the primary constituent of smog and both methane and ozone are significant greenhouse gases....one way to simultaneously decrease ozone pollution and greenhouse warming is to reduce methane emissions. Ozone is formed in the troposphere by chemical reactions involving methane, other organic compounds, and carbon monoxide, in the presence of nitrogen oxides and sunlight. Methane is known to be a major source of ozone throughout the troposphere, but is not usually considered to play a key role in the production of ozone smog in surface air, because of its long lifetime.

Sources of manmade methane include, notably, herds of cattle and other ungulates, rice production, and leaks of natural gas from pipelines, according to the IPCC. In addition, natural sources of methane include wetlands, termites, oceans, and gas hydrate nodules on the sea floor.

In a baseline study in 1995, 60 percent of methane emissions to the atmosphere were the result of human activity....Under IPCC's A1, emissions would increase globally from 1995 to 2030, but their distribution would shift. Manmade nitrogen oxides would decline by 10 percent in the developed world, but increase by 130 percent in developing countries. During the same period, methane emissions would increase by 43 percent globally, according to the A1 scenario.

The researchers find that a reduction of manmade methane by 50 percent would have a greater impact on global tropospheric ozone than a comparable reduction in manmade nitrogen oxide emissions. Reducing surface nitrogen oxide emissions does effectively improve air quality by decreasing surface ozone levels, but this impact tends to be localized, and does not yield much benefit in terms of greenhouse warming. Reductions in methane emissions would, however, help to decrease greenhouse warming by decreasing both methane and ozone in the atmosphere world-wide, and this would also help to reduce surface air pollution."

Source: "Control Of Methane Emissions Would Reduce Both Global Warming And Air Pollution," American Geophysical Union, 2002-10-10, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021010065923.htm


"Once GHGs like methane and the molecules that create ozone are released into the air, these gases mix and react together, which transforms their compositions. When gases are altered, their contribution to the greenhouse warming effect also shifts. So, the true effect of a single GHG emission on climate becomes very hard to single out.

The leading greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons. These gases are called ‘well mixed’ greenhouse gases because of their long lifetimes of a decade or more, which allows them to disperse evenly around the atmosphere. They are emitted from both man-made and natural sources. Ozone in the lower atmosphere, called tropospheric ozone or smog, also has greenhouse warming effects. In the upper atmosphere, ozone protects life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays.

Sources of methane include natural sources like wetlands, gas hydrates in the ocean floor, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, and non-wetland soils. Fossil fuels, cattle, landfills and rice paddies are the main human-related sources."

Source: "Methane's Impacts on Climate Change May Be Twice Previous Estimates," by Krishna Ramanujan, Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA, 7-18-05. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/methane.html

URI, what theory states that "the Earth is expamnding as it moves away from the Sun"?

>> what theory states ...

an analysis shows this to be the case.....
I think the Earth, Venus have expanded < 2%
Mars 11%, Jupiter 63%... Saturn > 100 % etc

This is deduced from the density of Mercury... compared to other planets...

PS don't scream.... I consider all planets originate and are expelled from the Sun's core and therefore are composed of approximately similar matter.

This is an obscure view, but it has too much evidence to be ignored.

That's pretty far out. Do you have an idea of a mechanism for their expulsion and expansion?

Could you elaborate on the analysis that shows this?

>> Do you have an idea of a mechanism for their expulsion and expansion?


mmmh, what follows is controversial, but mathematically very accurate.

very briefly
Inside a star the core becomes very positive..... electrons are depleted and moved to the surface. Metals accumulate and are violently ejected. The ejection then goes into orbit... and as this process goes on the other ejected bodies continually move away from the centre in a N/(pi^2n) spiral.... this is because of negative charge accumulation on the orbiting body (ejected planets) and that of the central body.. electric repulsion pushes them apart.

Near a star the pressure is very high, so matter in this area is quite dense (see Mercury) and as the ejected body move outwards, the solar field spin pressure reduces allowing electric expansion of the particles of matter in the orbiting body. Thus the planets expand as they travel outwards. (the introduction of leap seconds could be evidence of this process)

So what we see in a planet's parameters as it expands, is a lowering of its magnetic moment B and an increase of its electric moment E. [ E and B are always in harmonic equilibrium and together manifest as a Poynting energy structure]

Now it then appears that moons are ejections of planets.
Pluto et al, is an escaped moon of Neptune, because it has the same quantum number as Neptune (17) so what appears like an exception is not, it is mainstream.

Standard theory would negate the above assertions, however standard theory has no one mechanism that explains it all.... only ad hoc mechanisms that are employed, and all of them after the fact..

IMO, the Universe is driven by universal mechanisms which produce similar results (clones).

The whole of this approach is based upon Electro-Spin Gravity theory, which models the Universe as magnetic bubbles within magnetic bubbles within....
such that... for example our Solar System is (field) spin centred by the Sun for the planets..
the Earth is spin centred for the Moon...

In this way the whole structure of the Universe is laid down and explained by a few simple universal rules, rather than multiple explanations.

All observed cosmic parameters (anywhere) can be accurately calculated from ESG theory.... which is founded upon Newtonian mechanics and extended into electrodynamics. Interestingly, all spin system are interdependent and differentially driven. The Universe is very integrated.

Thanks for the interest, ESGT really is not so far out :)

Immanuel Velikovsky is alive and well and living inside the poster called Uri.

URI,

I appreciate that you only intended to provide a brief exposition, and it doesn't help that my expertise in physics falls between non-existent and severely limited. I therefore have a few questions for you that I hope you might help me with. Please pitch it to the extreme layman, if possible.

What is the process by which charge separation occurs in the Sun's core, and why does the imbalance not cause the electrons to be attracted back to the positive centre?

If the planetary masses have sufficient charge for the electrostatic repulsion to overcome the Sun's gravity and force them outwards, what prevents the planets themselves from exploding due to similar electrostatic forces?

After this point I don't even know what questions to ask except... what is the quantum number of a planet?

Thanks

>> What is the process by which charge separation occurs in the Sun's core, >>

I have never been to the Sun.... so it would be a guess.... but planets etc do have charge..... nuclear reactions separate charge..... the whole Universe is set up as if it is a very large radioactive atom, driven by harmonic interactions of magnetic and electric energy.


>> If the planetary masses have sufficient charge for the electrostatic repulsion to overcome the Sun's gravity and force them outwards, what prevents the planets themselves from exploding due to similar electrostatic forces? >>>

This repulsion is over and above an electric magnetic equilibrium already set up (via Lenz's law)->[due to motion of a charged planet in the Sun's magnetic field], this negates gravity so planetary orbits are inertial, ,,,,so any excess charge moves the equilibrium further away from the centre. It is important to note luminous and non luminous bodies behave in predictable but different modes.

I will not pretend to have the last answers to this.....it appears to be very complicated in its simplicity (due to my lack of knowledge)

The planets I expect do explode, the small planet that has become the asteroid belt has exploded.... Mars next....(but this would be due to Jupiter's Bloch wall)
Note matter electrically repels matter in space... thus asteroid belt, Saturn's rings etc

>> what is the quantum number of a planet? >>

this is an interesting situation, that I do not fully understand as yet. ESGT does not need mass for its analysis... this is curious, however "mass???" is computable (in agreement with standard values)

The Poynting vector of the Sun, set up by magnetic and electric forces, if computed at planet distances forms a series
that conforms to the wave equation
N/pi^2n where integer n is the quantum number and N is the wave number.

eg
Mercury starts at n = 9 N = 3/2 pi
Earth n = 11 N = pi.......
Neptune n = 17 N = pi etc

The Sun's BXE (Poynting vector) at each planet's distance ( including asteroid belt distance ) conforms to this equation where n increments by 1 each time and N varies between pi and 2 pi..... mostly pi.

I won't go into it here but mass seems to be a strange concept. Magnetism (geomagnetism) is a more useful concept for mass... and as such Newton's gravitational constant makes more sense... it is a geometrical conversion factor
G = 1 / ((4/3)* pi^2) multiplied by a units conversion factor

sorry jargon has to be used.... and there is so much more to this.... all I can do is give you a big picture.... details are there however.

>> and why does the imbalance not cause the electrons to be attracted back to the positive centre? >>

separation of charge exists in all matter....... I do not know why. I suspect it is magnets in motion (spin) and Lenz's law again.

Either magnetism or charge does not intrinsically exist....... the ether is a magnetic ether and motion produces charge or ????/ magnetic matter in motion (through the magnetic ether) produces charge... ????

However Laika, you are pushing the limits of my understanding here.
ESGT is well founded in standard logic.... I am uncomfortable in stepping outside that, so many more observations need to be made before I have any real understanding of the mechanisms of the Universe. A work in progress !!
:)

If that's the layman's version I'm glad I didn't ask for the more involved explanation! :)

I'm grateful for your attempt to explain, though I won't pretend to understand even the basics. I'm also aware of taking this thread off in a tangent. I'll keep an eye on the physics or astronomy forums in case it pops up there.

Cheers

>> in case it pops up there.

thanks, sorry if it appeared complicated, it isn't really
but I have been warned not to pursue this topic, why i am not sure
:)

How about trees as methane producers, which they're talking about today?

Xylene, what do trees and methane have to do with volcanoes and earthquakes?

Volcanoes produce methane......
methane is a natural greenhouse gas... produced by many things... but meaningless in the big picture... its a "spin" to justify doing nothing.

The silly world is paranoid about greenhouse gases

and yet continue to spew masses and masses of oil onto our waters