• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

An interesting observation?

Taffer

Illuminator
T
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
4,530
While messing with Google Earth, I noticed this. A number of oddly straight lines in the Pacific ocean. The first thing I thought of was the result of a meteor impact, so I took some pictures to highlight their location in relation to the Chicxulub crater. (Please excuse the poor quality).

lines5ir.jpg


lines40zl.jpg


lines32zv.jpg


phobos.jpg


Most likely these lines are the result of natural plate movements (and if so, can someone more knowledgeable enlighten me?). However, is it possible they are the result of the violent impact that created the Chicxulub crater?
 
a. I think that impact was must have been too small to crack the Earth like an egg

b. Aren't those lines the ones that develop at right angles to an oceanic ridge and get elongated as the plates separate?

(Caution, Monkey may be talking b*ll*x)
 
No. It is evidence of the 'gumball theory'.

Gumball theory states that the Earth, like all planets, was once inside a giant gumball machine. Some time after the big bang, a 'coin' (possibly made from either nickel or cheese) was placed into the gumball machine and Earth was dispensed. The lines you see are where it scraped along the side of the dispensery chute.

I believe that while present models of planetary formation exist, they are just theories. The lines on Earth support the Gumball Theory quite nicely, and I believe it should be taught in schools to contrast accepted models.

Thank You.

Athon
 
athon said:
No. It is evidence of the 'gumball theory'.

Gumball theory states that the Earth, like all planets, was once inside a giant gumball machine. Some time after the big bang, a 'coin' (possibly made from either nickel or cheese) was placed into the gumball machine and Earth was dispensed. The lines you see are where it scraped along the side of the dispensery chute.

I believe that while present models of planetary formation exist, they are just theories. The lines on Earth support the Gumball Theory quite nicely, and I believe it should be taught in schools to contrast accepted models.

Thank You.

Athon
Click to expand...

That's different from the Gobstopper Earth, where the oceans formed because the green and brown bits had been sucked off.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
a. I think that impact was must have been too small to crack the Earth like an egg
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the effect seen on Deimos is actual 'cracking', per se, more like pressure ridges, but I get your point.

b. Aren't those lines the ones that develop at right angles to an oceanic ridge and get elongated as the plates separate?

(Caution, Monkey may be talking b*ll*x)
Click to expand...

Probably. I don't know. That's why I'm asking. :p
 
Taffer said:
I'm not sure the effect seen on Deimos is actual 'cracking', per se, more like pressure ridges, but I get your point.



Probably. I don't know. That's why I'm asking. :p
Click to expand...

Is it possible they're just an artifact of whatever process was used to assemble the images?
 
Taffer said:
While messing with Google Earth, I noticed this. A number of oddly straight lines in the Pacific ocean. Most likely these lines are the result of natural plate movements (and if so, can someone more knowledgeable enlighten me?). However, is it possible they are the result of the violent impact that created the Chicxulub crater?
Click to expand...
If you were 4.5 billion years old, you would have stretch-marks too!
 
Is it possible they're just an artifact of whatever process was used to assemble the images?
Click to expand...

I reckon so - especially given the fact that if they were physical lines they would not be straight at all but have varying degrees of curvature depending on how far from the center of the picture (globe) they were. To appear straight in the photo they would have to be arched towards the centre in reality.

With this in mind - the photographer would have to have been extremely lucky to take the picture from the perspective at which all the lines appear straight - move up or down and the lines would curve again.
 
Taffer said:
I'm not so sure. I checked their depth, and they vary from the surrounding seabed.
Click to expand...

Here's my point:

- Take a ballon, hold it steady and draw what appears to you to be a straight line.

- Now rotate the balloon around its horizontal axis.

- The line will appear to be curved up or down depending on which way you rotate the ballon.

If the photograph had been taken from anything other than the exact angle for a straight apearance then the lines you spotted would have been curved (on the image), not straight.

- Alternatively draw what appears to you to be a curved line on the ballon.

- Now rotate the balloon around its horizontal axis.

- You will find that the line can be flattened until it appears straight.

If a photograph was taken of your balloon from the same perspective you would see straight lines, whereas you know they are curved.
 
hodgy said:
Here's my point:

- Take a ballon, hold it steady and draw what appears to you to be a straight line.

- Now rotate the balloon around its horizontal axis.

- The line will appear to be curved up or down depending on which way you rotate the ballon.

If the photograph had been taken from anything other than the exact angle for a straight apearance then the lines you spotted would have been curved (on the image), not straight.

- Alternatively draw what appears to you to be a curved line on the ballon.

- Now rotate the balloon around its horizontal axis.

- You will find that the line can be flattened until it appears straight.

If a photograph was taken of your balloon from the same perspective you would see straight lines, whereas you know they are curved.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got your point, mate. Even if they aren't straight, I still think it's an odd phenomenon, and I'd be interested if someone could give me a possible explanation.
 
Taffer said:
Yeah, I got your point, mate. Even if they aren't straight, I still think it's an odd phenomenon, and I'd be interested if someone could give me a possible explanation.
Click to expand...

Therefore I agree with the conclusion that its an artifact of the image compilation process - there's your explanation (fair enough, it would be nice for someone to explain the actual physical causes of the image corruption).
 
Aren't they some artifact of plate tectonics? I cannot post links but a search for something
like "physiography of the surface of the lithosphere" or "physiography of ocean basins"
will present some images that show similar such rectilinear features related to mid-ocean
ridges.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom