| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Raymond Yohros" |
| Date: |
17 Oct 2006 01:12:15 AM |
| Object: |
earthquake? |
can a nuke explosion underground produce
an electromagnetic induction capable of producing earthquakes
anytime anywhere in the earth?
regards
raymond
.
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill gneill rem @ ove netcom.ca" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
17 Oct 2006 07:09:06 AM |
|
|
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161065535.574492.210750@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
can a nuke explosion underground produce
an electromagnetic induction capable of producing earthquakes
anytime anywhere in the earth?
Huh? Sounds like Star Trek technobabble.
What, in your mind, is an "electromagnetic induction",
and how do you think it relates to earth movements?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
17 Oct 2006 09:58:32 AM |
|
|
Greg Neill ha escrito:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161065535.574492.210750@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
can a nuke explosion underground produce
an electromagnetic induction capable of producing earthquakes
anytime anywhere in the earth?
Huh? Sounds like Star Trek technobabble.
What, in your mind, is an "electromagnetic induction",
and how do you think it relates to earth movements?
kind of like a conduction-convection of heat going inwards
the heat from within the center of the earth is kept on check by
the cool temperatures on the surface. global warming, or anything
disturbing equilibrium can produce the so called runaway greenhouse
effect.
i think nuke explosions underground can transfer heat even more than
global warming making the earth unstable.
regards
raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill gneill rem @ ove netcom.ca" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
17 Oct 2006 11:37:16 AM |
|
|
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161097112.310134.67160@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greg Neill ha escrito:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161065535.574492.210750@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
can a nuke explosion underground produce
an electromagnetic induction capable of producing earthquakes
anytime anywhere in the earth?
Huh? Sounds like Star Trek technobabble.
What, in your mind, is an "electromagnetic induction",
and how do you think it relates to earth movements?
kind of like a conduction-convection of heat going inwards
the heat from within the center of the earth is kept on check by
the cool temperatures on the surface. global warming, or anything
disturbing equilibrium can produce the so called runaway greenhouse
effect.
i think nuke explosions underground can transfer heat even more than
global warming making the earth unstable.
Nah. Heat flow from the center of the Earth is
dictated by heat conduction of the materials and
temperature difference. The total amount of
energy involved is enormous compared to that of
a nuke, or even a large number of nukes.
As to surface temperature, a difference of even
several tens of degrees isn't going to make a
significant percentage change in the overall
temperature differential between the center and
the surface.
The temperature at the inner core boundary is thought
to be about 3700 to 6000 K. Temperature at the
surface is about 273K.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
18 Oct 2006 02:17:03 PM |
|
|
Greg Neill ha escrito:
Nah. Heat flow from the center of the Earth is
dictated by heat conduction of the materials and
temperature difference. The total amount of
energy involved is enormous compared to that of
a nuke, or even a large number of nukes.
i agree, the temperature of the core is compare to be
close to that of the surface of the sun.
As to surface temperature, a difference of even
several tens of degrees isn't going to make a
significant percentage change in the overall
temperature differential between the center and
the surface.
well yes but it doesnt take a significant change on the overall
temperature between the center and surface for the deep pressure
from within to find ways to escape. proof of this is the increase of
volcanic activity and earthquakes.
The temperature at the inner core boundary is thought
to be about 3700 to 6000 K. Temperature at the
surface is about 273K.
regards
raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill gneill rem @ ove netcom.ca" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
18 Oct 2006 05:20:13 PM |
|
|
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161199023.760555.281000@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Greg Neill ha escrito:
As to surface temperature, a difference of even
several tens of degrees isn't going to make a
significant percentage change in the overall
temperature differential between the center and
the surface.
well yes but it doesnt take a significant change on the overall
temperature between the center and surface for the deep pressure
from within to find ways to escape. proof of this is the increase of
volcanic activity and earthquakes.
There's simply not enough data to draw a statistically
significant conclusion from the current rate of
volcanism versus global surface temperature. There
isn't nearly enough world-wide historical data for
previous eras of warming or cooling. There is no
proof of an increase in rate either, since a five or
ten or even 100 year sample is not even close to
matching the typically multi-thousand year periods
of typical geophysical processes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
18 Oct 2006 06:55:04 PM |
|
|
Greg Neill <gneill rem @ ove netcom.ca> wrote:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161199023.760555.281000@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Greg Neill ha escrito:
As to surface temperature, a difference of even
several tens of degrees isn't going to make a
significant percentage change in the overall
temperature differential between the center and
the surface.
well yes but it doesnt take a significant change on the overall
temperature between the center and surface for the deep pressure
from within to find ways to escape. proof of this is the increase of
volcanic activity and earthquakes.
There's simply not enough data to draw a statistically
significant conclusion from the current rate of
volcanism versus global surface temperature. There
isn't nearly enough world-wide historical data for
previous eras of warming or cooling. There is no
proof of an increase in rate either, since a five or
ten or even 100 year sample is not even close to
matching the typically multi-thousand year periods
of typical geophysical processes.
Given the surface temperature difference between polar and
equatorial regions is about a couple of hundred degrees, one would
expect volcanoes to be clustered if surface temperature had any
effect.
Vocanoes seem to be pretty scattered over the planet.
What does that tell you?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
18 Oct 2006 09:25:07 PM |
|
|
Greg Neill ha escrito:
There's simply not enough data to draw a statistically
significant conclusion from the current rate of
volcanism versus global surface temperature. There
isn't nearly enough world-wide historical data for
previous eras of warming or cooling. There is no
proof of an increase in rate either, since a five or
ten or even 100 year sample is not even close to
matching the typically multi-thousand year periods
of typical geophysical processes.
but it is simply common sense that
equilibrium betwen the inside and the outside
presures of a system is what keeps it stable
cutting up trees, overheating the atmosfere,
blowing up bombs, etc, that will make little
direct impact to the temperatures inside but it could
start a domino effect on the surface:
ice caps melting, hurracanes, floodings, hell fireflames
on huge landscapes, etc.
then that could brake the balance in the system
and the presure from within will start to kik out.
of curse you can say that a simple meteor collition can
transfer alot more heat than all of the above
and that is why there was alot more volcanic activity
in the begining when the plannet was taking shape.
regards
ray
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill gneill rem @ ove netcom.ca" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
19 Oct 2006 07:12:56 AM |
|
|
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161224707.069213.127120@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Greg Neill ha escrito:
There's simply not enough data to draw a statistically
significant conclusion from the current rate of
volcanism versus global surface temperature. There
isn't nearly enough world-wide historical data for
previous eras of warming or cooling. There is no
proof of an increase in rate either, since a five or
ten or even 100 year sample is not even close to
matching the typically multi-thousand year periods
of typical geophysical processes.
but it is simply common sense that
equilibrium betwen the inside and the outside
presures of a system is what keeps it stable
Internal pressure of the Earth is almost entirely
due to gravity. After all, the contents are
mostly solids and liquids, and the whole lot is
bound together by gravity. Internal temperature
change would needs be very large to make even a
tiny change in the overall size (expansion and
contraction coefficients of solids and liquids).
cutting up trees, overheating the atmosfere,
blowing up bombs, etc, that will make little
direct impact to the temperatures inside but it could
start a domino effect on the surface:
ice caps melting, hurracanes, floodings, hell fireflames
on huge landscapes, etc.
Hell fireflames? Huh?
then that could brake the balance in the system
and the presure from within will start to kik out.
Nope. Gravity vs pressure static equilibrium.
of curse you can say that a simple meteor collition can
transfer alot more heat than all of the above
and that is why there was alot more volcanic activity
in the begining when the plannet was taking shape.
In the beginning the entire Earth was molten and
the total heat content was much higher. This heat
was initially supplied by the gravitational
contraction of the material as the Earth was
assembled. As the Earth cooled and the crust
formed, a temperature balance was achieved between
the radiated heat and that continuing to be
generated by the decay of radioactive isotopes
in the contents.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
19 Oct 2006 01:29:23 PM |
|
|
Greg Neill ha escrito:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
but it is simply common sense that
equilibrium betwen the inside and the outside
presures of a system is what keeps it stable
Internal pressure of the Earth is almost entirely
due to gravity. After all, the contents are
mostly solids and liquids, and the whole lot is
bound together by gravity. Internal temperature
change would needs be very large to make even a
tiny change in the overall size (expansion and
contraction coefficients of solids and liquids).
of curse everything is up to gravity in overal but
you dont believe that constant collitions from biger
objects like commets and asteroids are ALSO part of any
plannets formation?
cutting up trees, overheating the atmosfere,
blowing up bombs, etc, that will make little
direct impact to the temperatures inside but it could
start a domino effect on the surface:
ice caps melting, hurracanes, floodings, hell fireflames
on huge landscapes, etc.
Hell fireflames? Huh?
instead of trees absorbing the heat to turn CO2 into food and O2 they
simply light up because of the xses of heat.
then that could brake the balance in the system
and the presure from within will start to kik out.
Nope. Gravity vs pressure static equilibrium.
thats is the overal view without the details i just explain.
of curse you can say that a simple meteor collition can
transfer alot more heat than all of the above
and that is why there was alot more volcanic activity
in the begining when the plannet was taking shape.
In the beginning the entire Earth was molten and
the total heat content was much higher. This heat
was initially supplied by the gravitational
contraction of the material as the Earth was
assembled. As the Earth cooled and the crust
formed, a temperature balance was achieved between
the radiated heat and that continuing to be
generated by the decay of radioactive isotopes
in the contents.
you are forgetting a very important ingredient in common
planetary formation. proof of bigger body collitions are all over the
solar system. of curse they where more constant when spacetime was
younger.
in the earth, most of the marks are wipped out by all kinds
of new activities but they are sure clear in the centers of volcanos
that was the initial phase of their formation.
regrads
ray
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill gneill rem @ ove netcom.ca" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
19 Oct 2006 03:17:05 PM |
|
|
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161282563.754017.188250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greg Neill ha escrito:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
but it is simply common sense that
equilibrium betwen the inside and the outside
presures of a system is what keeps it stable
Internal pressure of the Earth is almost entirely
due to gravity. After all, the contents are
mostly solids and liquids, and the whole lot is
bound together by gravity. Internal temperature
change would needs be very large to make even a
tiny change in the overall size (expansion and
contraction coefficients of solids and liquids).
of curse everything is up to gravity in overal but
you dont believe that constant collitions from biger
objects like commets and asteroids are ALSO part of any
plannets formation?
What constant collision from comets and asteroids?
That hasn't been "constant" for several billions
of years.
cutting up trees, overheating the atmosfere,
blowing up bombs, etc, that will make little
direct impact to the temperatures inside but it could
start a domino effect on the surface:
ice caps melting, hurracanes, floodings, hell fireflames
on huge landscapes, etc.
Hell fireflames? Huh?
instead of trees absorbing the heat to turn CO2 into food and O2 they
simply light up because of the xses of heat.
What's the ignition temperature of wood? It's in
excess of 450F. That's far above the boiling point
of water.
then that could brake the balance in the system
and the presure from within will start to kik out.
Nope. Gravity vs pressure static equilibrium.
thats is the overal view without the details i just explain.
You're details are specious speculation.
of curse you can say that a simple meteor collition can
transfer alot more heat than all of the above
and that is why there was alot more volcanic activity
in the begining when the plannet was taking shape.
In the beginning the entire Earth was molten and
the total heat content was much higher. This heat
was initially supplied by the gravitational
contraction of the material as the Earth was
assembled. As the Earth cooled and the crust
formed, a temperature balance was achieved between
the radiated heat and that continuing to be
generated by the decay of radioactive isotopes
in the contents.
you are forgetting a very important ingredient in common
planetary formation. proof of bigger body collitions are all over the
solar system. of curse they where more constant when spacetime was
younger.
in the earth, most of the marks are wipped out by all kinds
of new activities but they are sure clear in the centers of volcanos
that was the initial phase of their formation.
Utter nonsense. Volcanos are not, in general, formed from
impacts. Case in point: the string of volcanoes that
formed the Hawaiian island chain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
19 Oct 2006 08:39:42 PM |
|
|
Greg Neill ha escrito:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
of curse everything is up to gravity in overal but
you dont believe that constant collitions from biger
objects like commets and asteroids are ALSO part of any
plannets formation?
What constant collision from comets and asteroids?
That hasn't been "constant" for several billions
of years.
more than 3.5 billions for the earth and maybe around 5 billions for
mars
(the peek of collitions on each planet speaking loosly)
the farther you go back in time, the more constant the collitions use
to be
and i mean that from subatomic up to full scale levels.
cutting up trees, overheating the atmosfere,
blowing up bombs, etc, that will make little
direct impact to the temperatures inside but it could
start a domino effect on the surface:
ice caps melting, hurracanes, floodings, hell fireflames
on huge landscapes, etc.
Hell fireflames? Huh?
instead of trees absorbing the heat to turn CO2 into food and O2 they
simply light up because of the xses of heat.
What's the ignition temperature of wood? It's in
excess of 450F. That's far above the boiling point
of water.
dry leaves ignite and they lite up the wood.
then that could brake the balance in the system
and the presure from within will start to kik out.
Nope. Gravity vs pressure static equilibrium.
thats is the overal view without the details i just explain.
You're details are specious speculation.
proof of it its all over the earth. just watch cnn
of curse you can say that a simple meteor collition can
transfer alot more heat than all of the above
and that is why there was alot more volcanic activity
in the begining when the plannet was taking shape.
In the beginning the entire Earth was molten and
the total heat content was much higher. This heat
was initially supplied by the gravitational
contraction of the material as the Earth was
assembled. As the Earth cooled and the crust
formed, a temperature balance was achieved between
the radiated heat and that continuing to be
generated by the decay of radioactive isotopes
in the contents.
you are forgetting a very important ingredient in common
planetary formation. proof of bigger body collitions are all over the
solar system. of curse they where more constant when spacetime was
younger.
in the earth, most of the marks are wipped out by all kinds
of new activities but they are sure clear in the centers of volcanos
that was the initial phase of their formation.
Utter nonsense. Volcanos are not, in general, formed from
impacts. Case in point: the string of volcanoes that
formed the Hawaiian island chain.
well of curse not all of them but certainly most of them including
those in the hawaiian island chain.
because mars is now very dry, you can see all the scars produce
in the past with alot more detail than the structures here on earth,
there are a couple of very similar structures to that of the hawaiian
islands.
collitions also tranfer lots of heat that help produce volcanic
activity
regards
ray
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill gneill rem @ ove netcom.ca" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
20 Oct 2006 08:00:56 AM |
|
|
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161308382.248736.128630@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Greg Neill ha escrito:
What's the ignition temperature of wood? It's in
excess of 450F. That's far above the boiling point
of water.
dry leaves ignite and they lite up the wood.
What's the ignition temperature of dry leaves then?
Probably close to that of paper. Ever read the
book Fahrenheit 451?
then that could brake the balance in the system
and the presure from within will start to kik out.
Nope. Gravity vs pressure static equilibrium.
thats is the overal view without the details i just explain.
You're details are specious speculation.
proof of it its all over the earth. just watch cnn
Oh dear. Getting your facts from the common media, eh?
So, just how many incidents of spontaneous tree ignition
has CNN reported lately? How about meteor impacts?
[snip]
Utter nonsense. Volcanos are not, in general, formed from
impacts. Case in point: the string of volcanoes that
formed the Hawaiian island chain.
well of curse not all of them but certainly most of them including
those in the hawaiian island chain.
No. Look at a map of volcano location with respect
to techntonic plates. They tend mostly to form around
the rims of the plates where there are subduction zones.
because mars is now very dry, you can see all the scars produce
in the past with alot more detail than the structures here on earth,
there are a couple of very similar structures to that of the hawaiian
islands.
Methinks you don't have a clue. Have you done any reading
at all on the topic? Information on the ongoing generation
of the Hawaiian islands is plentiful.
collitions also tranfer lots of heat that help produce volcanic
activity
No.
regards
ray
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
20 Oct 2006 03:37:22 PM |
|
|
Greg Neill ha escrito:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
What's the ignition temperature of dry leaves then?
Probably close to that of paper. Ever read the
book Fahrenheit 451?
???
proof of it its all over the earth. just watch cnn
Oh dear. Getting your facts from the common media, eh?
So, just how many incidents of spontaneous tree ignition
has CNN reported lately? How about meteor impacts?
well we are no longer at summer now but there was a
terrible one in Australia a week ago.
you just snip where i told you that this impacts use to happen
constantly on earth more than 3.5 billion years ago.
because mars is now very dry, you can see all the scars produce
in the past with alot more detail than the structures here on earth,
there are a couple of very similar structures to that of the hawaiian
islands.
Methinks you don't have a clue. Have you done any reading
at all on the topic? Information on the ongoing generation
of the Hawaiian islands is plentiful.
yes i bet you can find information on what happen there
3.5 billion years ago.
collitions also tranfer lots of heat that help produce volcanic
activity
No.
well, i totally disagree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill gneill rem @ ove netcom.ca" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
20 Oct 2006 03:55:36 PM |
|
|
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161376642.597639.142490@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greg Neill ha escrito:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
What's the ignition temperature of dry leaves then?
Probably close to that of paper. Ever read the
book Fahrenheit 451?
???
proof of it its all over the earth. just watch cnn
Oh dear. Getting your facts from the common media, eh?
So, just how many incidents of spontaneous tree ignition
has CNN reported lately? How about meteor impacts?
well we are no longer at summer now but there was a
terrible one in Australia a week ago.
A terrible what? Meteor impact?
you just snip where i told you that this impacts use to happen
constantly on earth more than 3.5 billion years ago.
3.5 Billion years ago is long gone. There have
been whole chains of volcanoes that came into
being since then. There are new volcanoes forming
now.
because mars is now very dry, you can see all the scars produce
in the past with alot more detail than the structures here on earth,
there are a couple of very similar structures to that of the hawaiian
islands.
Methinks you don't have a clue. Have you done any reading
at all on the topic? Information on the ongoing generation
of the Hawaiian islands is plentiful.
yes i bet you can find information on what happen there
3.5 billion years ago.
Huh? Those islands are forming *now*. One after another.
collitions also tranfer lots of heat that help produce volcanic
activity
No.
well, i totally disagree
You can disagree if you wish, but to do so effectively
you'll need facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
21 Oct 2006 12:52:49 AM |
|
|
let simplify this
asteroid collitions make the initial cracks and craters
in wish main volcanos are form. this cracks can later on branch
up into other cracks because of internal and external presure making
smaller volcanos near by but there are also cases in wish a whole
stream of meteors collide making lots of cracks and craters in
a spesific area. volcanos that do not arise form meteor collitions
are volcanos of a new generation and they are very young in nature.
regards
raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill gneill rem @ ove netcom.ca" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
21 Oct 2006 09:00:16 AM |
|
|
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161409969.557901.20680@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
let simplify this
asteroid collitions make the initial cracks and craters
in wish main volcanos are form. this cracks can later on branch
up into other cracks because of internal and external presure making
smaller volcanos near by but there are also cases in wish a whole
stream of meteors collide making lots of cracks and craters in
a spesific area. volcanos that do not arise form meteor collitions
are volcanos of a new generation and they are very young in nature.
Plate tectonics. Nearly the entire surface of the
Earth has been re-surfaced through subduction and
spreading since the main bombardment ended.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
21 Oct 2006 12:14:05 PM |
|
|
Greg Neill wrote:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161409969.557901.20680@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
let simplify this
asteroid collitions make the initial cracks and craters
in wish main volcanos are form. this cracks can later on branch
up into other cracks because of internal and external presure making
smaller volcanos near by but there are also cases in wish a whole
stream of meteors collide making lots of cracks and craters in
a spesific area. volcanos that do not arise form meteor collitions
are volcanos of a new generation and they are very young in nature.
Plate tectonics. Nearly the entire surface of the
Earth has been re-surfaced through subduction and
spreading since the main bombardment ended.
yes
regards
ray
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
21 Oct 2006 12:55:03 PM |
|
|
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161409969.557901.20680@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
let simplify this
asteroid collitions make the initial cracks and craters
in wish main volcanos are form. this cracks can later on branch
up into other cracks because of internal and external presure making
smaller volcanos near by but there are also cases in wish a whole
stream of meteors collide making lots of cracks and craters in
a spesific area. volcanos that do not arise form meteor collitions
are volcanos of a new generation and they are very young in nature.
Plate tectonics. Nearly the entire surface of the
Earth has been re-surfaced through subduction and
spreading since the main bombardment ended.
yes
You don't understand he just said you are full of crap, do you?
regards
ray
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
21 Oct 2006 05:19:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161409969.557901.20680@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
let simplify this
asteroid collitions make the initial cracks and craters
in wish main volcanos are form. this cracks can later on branch
up into other cracks because of internal and external presure making
smaller volcanos near by but there are also cases in wish a whole
stream of meteors collide making lots of cracks and craters in
a spesific area. volcanos that do not arise form meteor collitions
are volcanos of a new generation and they are very young in nature.
Plate tectonics. Nearly the entire surface of the
Earth has been re-surfaced through subduction and
spreading since the main bombardment ended.
yes
You don't understand he just said you are full of crap, do you?
regards
ray
youre just confuse because we where not in sync with time.
during the constant collition era (3.5 billion years ago),alot of
the surface ofthe earth (maybe half) was kind of like an asteroid.
the collitionsnot only made the initial cracks but also produce
lots of dust and diferent gas molecules including water vapor.
the gas became the initial atmosfere and the dust fell back down to
the surface.
when the main bombardment ended, lots of things change dramaticaly.
the temperatures start to cool down and water start to
fall down to the surface in liquid form.
liquid water then start A NEW CHAIN OF TRANSFORMATIONS
all over the earth. it took almost 2 billion years for
the earth to become from grey and red to green and blue.
of curse there is alot more detail into this story but i am just
tring to be brief.
regards
raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
21 Oct 2006 06:55:03 PM |
|
|
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:
"Raymond Yohros" <bat@birdband.net> wrote in message
news:1161409969.557901.20680@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
let simplify this
asteroid collitions make the initial cracks and craters
in wish main volcanos are form. this cracks can later on branch
up into other cracks because of internal and external presure making
smaller volcanos near by but there are also cases in wish a whole
stream of meteors collide making lots of cracks and craters in
a spesific area. volcanos that do not arise form meteor collitions
are volcanos of a new generation and they are very young in nature.
Plate tectonics. Nearly the entire surface of the
Earth has been re-surfaced through subduction and
spreading since the main bombardment ended.
yes
You don't understand he just said you are full of crap, do you?
regards
ray
youre just confuse because we where not in sync with time.
You're not in sync with anything.
<snip babble>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
21 Oct 2006 07:45:41 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
wrote:
youre just confuse because we where not in sync with time.
You're not in sync with anything.
now i feel sorry for you
goodbye
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
21 Oct 2006 12:35:03 PM |
|
|
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
let simplify this
asteroid collitions make the initial cracks and craters
in wish main volcanos are form. this cracks can later on branch
up into other cracks because of internal and external presure making
smaller volcanos near by but there are also cases in wish a whole
stream of meteors collide making lots of cracks and craters in
a spesific area. volcanos that do not arise form meteor collitions
are volcanos of a new generation and they are very young in nature.
regards
raymond
Babbling nonsense.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
21 Oct 2006 04:35:42 PM |
|
|
ha escrito:
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
let simplify this
asteroid collitions make the initial cracks and craters
in wish main volcanos are form. this cracks can later on branch
up into other cracks because of internal and external presure making
smaller volcanos near by but there are also cases in wish a whole
stream of meteors collide making lots of cracks and craters in
a spesific area. volcanos that do not arise form meteor collitions
are volcanos of a new generation and they are very young in nature.
regards
raymond
Babbling nonsense.
If you can not undertstand that most things have a common more simple
begining then you can not understand all that came after that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
21 Oct 2006 06:55:04 PM |
|
|
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com ha escrito:
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
let simplify this
asteroid collitions make the initial cracks and craters
in wish main volcanos are form. this cracks can later on branch
up into other cracks because of internal and external presure making
smaller volcanos near by but there are also cases in wish a whole
stream of meteors collide making lots of cracks and craters in
a spesific area. volcanos that do not arise form meteor collitions
are volcanos of a new generation and they are very young in nature.
regards
raymond
Babbling nonsense.
If you can not undertstand that most things have a common more simple
begining then you can not understand all that came after that.
Meaningless, childish, babble.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
18 Oct 2006 02:45:06 PM |
|
|
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
Greg Neill ha escrito:
Nah. Heat flow from the center of the Earth is
dictated by heat conduction of the materials and
temperature difference. The total amount of
energy involved is enormous compared to that of
a nuke, or even a large number of nukes.
i agree, the temperature of the core is compare to be
close to that of the surface of the sun.
As to surface temperature, a difference of even
several tens of degrees isn't going to make a
significant percentage change in the overall
temperature differential between the center and
the surface.
well yes but it doesnt take a significant change on the overall
temperature between the center and surface for the deep pressure
from within to find ways to escape. proof of this is the increase of
volcanic activity and earthquakes.
If volcanic activity were caused by temperature differences, there
would be volcanos all over the Earth.
There are not as the cause is cracks in the structure of the Earth
forming vents.
Earthquakes are the sliding of sections of the Earth's crust and
have little to nothing to do with what's going on in the core.
The temperature at the inner core boundary is thought
to be about 3700 to 6000 K. Temperature at the
surface is about 273K.
regards
raymond
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
18 Oct 2006 08:03:48 PM |
|
|
ha escrito:
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
Greg Neill ha escrito:
As to surface temperature, a difference of even
several tens of degrees isn't going to make a
significant percentage change in the overall
temperature differential between the center and
the surface.
well yes but it doesnt take a significant change on the overall
temperature between the center and surface for the deep pressure
from within to find ways to escape. proof of this is the increase of
volcanic activity and earthquakes.
If volcanic activity were caused by temperature differences, there
would be volcanos all over the Earth.
There are not as the cause is cracks in the structure of the Earth
forming vents.
and how do you think those cracks came to be?
it is through those cracks that the pressure from within finds a way
out.
Earthquakes are the sliding of sections of the Earth's crust and
have little to nothing to do with what's going on in the core.
most of it is due to gravity and structure but the presure from within
has
alot to do with the shape that structure takes together with the
outside presure.
regards
raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
18 Oct 2006 08:35:04 PM |
|
|
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com ha escrito:
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
Greg Neill ha escrito:
As to surface temperature, a difference of even
several tens of degrees isn't going to make a
significant percentage change in the overall
temperature differential between the center and
the surface.
well yes but it doesnt take a significant change on the overall
temperature between the center and surface for the deep pressure
from within to find ways to escape. proof of this is the increase of
volcanic activity and earthquakes.
If volcanic activity were caused by temperature differences, there
would be volcanos all over the Earth.
There are not as the cause is cracks in the structure of the Earth
forming vents.
and how do you think those cracks came to be?
So you believe that cracks in the crust of the Earth are caused by
relatively minor changes in surface temperature?
it is through those cracks that the pressure from within finds a way
out.
Earthquakes are the sliding of sections of the Earth's crust and
have little to nothing to do with what's going on in the core.
most of it is due to gravity and structure but the presure from within
has
alot to do with the shape that structure takes together with the
outside presure.
regards
raymond
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
19 Oct 2006 12:04:38 AM |
|
|
ha escrito:
So you believe that cracks in the crust of the Earth are caused by
relatively minor changes in surface temperature?
of curse not.
deep impact meteor collitions make the craters
and the initial cracks but they take diferent shapes depending
on outside presure but mainly the presure from within.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
19 Oct 2006 10:25:04 AM |
|
|
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com ha escrito:
So you believe that cracks in the crust of the Earth are caused by
relatively minor changes in surface temperature?
of curse not.
deep impact meteor collitions make the craters
and the initial cracks but they take diferent shapes depending
on outside presure but mainly the presure from within.
What craters?
What planet are you talking about, certainly not Earth?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond Yohros" |
|
| Title: Re: earthquake? |
19 Oct 2006 02:10:18 PM |
|
|
ha escrito:
Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> wrote:
ha escrito:
So you believe that cracks in the crust of the Earth are caused by
relatively minor changes in surface temperature?
of curse not.
deep impact meteor collitions make the craters
and the initial cracks but they take diferent shapes depending
on outside presure but mainly the presure from within.
What craters?
What planet are you talking about, certainly not Earth?
the earth like the sun, every plannet and satelite in the solar system
where
constantly bombarded by commets and asteroids a very long time ago.
regards
ray
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
