RyanX
The Living Force
I was going to append this onto another thread, but I saw that there hasn't been any discussion dedicated to the ideas of Thomas Gold yet on this forum. I thought it might be appropriate to discuss his ideas in light of some of the recent earthquake data, especially the recent swarm of earthquakes around Yellowstone.
For those familiar with the Peak Oil debate/scam, Thomas Gold's name is often mentioned as a proponent for the abiogenic theory of petroleum. Basically this theory holds that petroleum is natural product of planetary chemistry and was likely deposited at the earth's inception or generated by some little known chemical process deep within the earth. This is obviously in opposition to the "fossil" origin of petroleum. The abiogenic theory explains the process of petroleum production from the upwelling of and condensation of methane from deep within the Earth's mantle. It is claimed by Gold that this accounts for some of the often ignored properties of petroleum (presence of helium being one example). This is a controversial theory given that petroleum producers likely want to maintain the belief that their product is "rare" and deserves a high price. In the extreme, the promoted "fossil" theory of petroleum has brought about the eugenic "Peak Oil" movement which has co-opted much of green, environmentalist and primitivism movements with the goal of necessitating a "mass die-off" for the "betterment" of the pathocracy... but I digress.
Towards the end of his career Gold's work came under attack on the suspicion that he plagiarized the works of others, particularly Russian scientists who had put forth an almost identical theory of abiogenic petroleum a number of years before him. Here is a summary of some of his critics:
_http://www.gasresources.net/Gold_plagiarism(complaints).htm
He has admitted, at least regarding the abiogenic theory of petroleum, he was sorry that he did not credit Russian scientists for their ideas and discoveries and in his later works he does give credit to them. He claims that it was simply a misunderstanding due to the circumstances of the Iron Curtain preventing the dissemination of these Soviet works. Whether he is sincere is a matter of some debate at this point. Here is a review of his work that favors him in a more positive light:
_http://www.metaresearch.org/publications/bulletin/2007issues/0915/Mrb07cp5.asp
In any case, Thomas Gold was not afraid to tackle controversy as a scientist. He was one of the original developers of the Steady State theory of the Universe along with Hoyle and Bondi. He also believed that the earth's rotational axis is unstable over time and that these changes can be due to changes in the earth's distribution of mass which could be brought on by glaciers, upwelling of mountains or meteor impacts. He also believed in theory of panspermia and that bacterial life could exist within some of the planets as well as within comets. All of this along with his above mentioned views on abiogenic petroleum must have made him quite a thorn in the side of the establishment.
One interesting paper written by Gold is his theory of earthquakes. Of all of his controversial theories, this one seems to be touched upon the least - at least from what I have seen. In a prior paper, Gold describes how oil and gas fields are often associated with earthquake laden zones. A good example of this is the Indonesian island arc and the petroleum deposits that overlay this zone. In a newsletter by Dave McGowan (_http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr71.html), he shows that this relationship between petroleum and earthquakes holds true for California as well. So what do we make of the fact that we find petroleum and natural gas in earthquake zones? Thomas Gold hypothesizes that in some cases earthquakes may be caused to the movement of large gas volumes below the surface of the earth, particularly methane gas. Of this he writes in his paper titled Earthquakes, Gases, and Earthquake Prediction:
_http://trilogynet.net/Thomas_Gold/Earthq.html
So this may explain why earthquakes often evolve into smaller tremors over a longer period of time if it takes awhile for the gas to "settle". It could also possibly explain tsunami events as the result of water displacement due to out gassing beneath the ocean. He also claims that this theory of gas causing earthquakes has been put to the test in China several decades ago.
As noted on SOTT, there does appear to be signs of a massive out gassing process occurring on the earth at this point. Earthquakes also appear to be endemic as well. Could the two phenomena be related?
In his paper he continues on to analyze Kimberlite pipes, which are described as "pseudo-volcanoes" found throughout the world. These structures extend for many kilometers beneath the surface and are coated with diamond-bearing rock called "kimberlite" appropriately. He speculates that these diamonds did not form through a slow process upwelling magma, but rather a fast ejection causing the pure carbon to supercool on it's way up the pipe, thus forming the diamond deposits.
I'm no geophysicist, but it seems like that would have to be one heck of a gas bubble to push anything 150km to the surface!
He goes onto discuss the New Madrid Earthquakes that occurred within the years of 1811-1812 and how some of the eyewitness descriptions could be construed as being consistent with this gas-earthquake model:
This is interesting because I've happened upon some of these same eyewitness accounts in my own reading. In a previous thread I wrote about their possible relationship to comet activity also taking place at the same time:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9882.0
At this point I wonder if perhaps the comet activity above could have induced the movement of gas within the earth at the time of the New Madrid earthquakes? Perhaps an overhead impact is enough to "shake things up" below in such a way that large volumes of gas are suddenly put on the move below the surface. This would then explain why the New Madrid earthquakes lasted for such a prolonged period of time. Anything happening in the atmosphere for as long as the New Madrid quakes lasted and in such a wide geographic region would have likely been noticeable, but if all it takes is a single cosmic event to trigger the shifting of gas beneath the earth which may take months to "settle", then this could go a long way to explaining the New Madrid event. Furthermore, perhaps a comet impact in some isolated part of the globe could trigger earthquake events at long distances? If a gas bubble is already on the "tipping point" per say, then any disturbance elsewhere on the planet may be enough to trigger the release of this gas. Still, more data is needed to come to any final conclusion, but this theory does throw a twist into things. If we are to accept it, then we must consider all the possible scenarios involving the movement of gas below the surface, the out gassing effects, volcanic effects, tsunamis, land elevation changes, and how these relate to cosmic inputs as well.
Continuing with his paper, Gold mentions the contradictions in the current earthquake theories showing that earthquakes have been recorded at depths up to 700km where the pressure would be so great that the sudden slippage of rocks could not occur. He believes this points to another earthquake process at work. He goes on to mention some of the lesser-known earthquake spots not associated with common fault lines and comments that these could very likely be places where the upwelling of gas induces earthquakes from time to time. These spots again, are often associated with known coal, oil or gas deposits consistent with the gas theory. Mud volcanoes are another phenomena that would fit the gas theory as well. Some of these have been known to spontaneously ignite into flaming giants at times, likely from the out gassing of methane.
Finally he discusses some hard evidence for associating out gassing with earthquakes. He points to the earthquake at Loma Prieta on October 17, 1989 where gas output levels in the region, that were recorded for other purposes, showed a spike in output at about the time of the earthquake. One wonders if these readings couldn't be used as predictive data for large earthquakes? In this same batch of data, he also points to another interesting anomaly associated with the same earthquake and that was low frequency EM noise prior to the earthquake. He attributes this to the shifting of currents in the ground water. This may be the case, but I'm reminded that there could be another explanation as well. Based on what we know about some of the electrophonic effects of meteors and comets, this EM spike could be due to an overhead explosion somewhere on the globe possibly.
Reading Thomas Gold's papers was the first time I've encountered this theory. I'd be curious if there are any others studying earthquakes in this manner currently. It seems reasonable given the known facts, but as always, more data would be nice.
For those familiar with the Peak Oil debate/scam, Thomas Gold's name is often mentioned as a proponent for the abiogenic theory of petroleum. Basically this theory holds that petroleum is natural product of planetary chemistry and was likely deposited at the earth's inception or generated by some little known chemical process deep within the earth. This is obviously in opposition to the "fossil" origin of petroleum. The abiogenic theory explains the process of petroleum production from the upwelling of and condensation of methane from deep within the Earth's mantle. It is claimed by Gold that this accounts for some of the often ignored properties of petroleum (presence of helium being one example). This is a controversial theory given that petroleum producers likely want to maintain the belief that their product is "rare" and deserves a high price. In the extreme, the promoted "fossil" theory of petroleum has brought about the eugenic "Peak Oil" movement which has co-opted much of green, environmentalist and primitivism movements with the goal of necessitating a "mass die-off" for the "betterment" of the pathocracy... but I digress.
Towards the end of his career Gold's work came under attack on the suspicion that he plagiarized the works of others, particularly Russian scientists who had put forth an almost identical theory of abiogenic petroleum a number of years before him. Here is a summary of some of his critics:
_http://www.gasresources.net/Gold_plagiarism(complaints).htm
He has admitted, at least regarding the abiogenic theory of petroleum, he was sorry that he did not credit Russian scientists for their ideas and discoveries and in his later works he does give credit to them. He claims that it was simply a misunderstanding due to the circumstances of the Iron Curtain preventing the dissemination of these Soviet works. Whether he is sincere is a matter of some debate at this point. Here is a review of his work that favors him in a more positive light:
_http://www.metaresearch.org/publications/bulletin/2007issues/0915/Mrb07cp5.asp
In any case, Thomas Gold was not afraid to tackle controversy as a scientist. He was one of the original developers of the Steady State theory of the Universe along with Hoyle and Bondi. He also believed that the earth's rotational axis is unstable over time and that these changes can be due to changes in the earth's distribution of mass which could be brought on by glaciers, upwelling of mountains or meteor impacts. He also believed in theory of panspermia and that bacterial life could exist within some of the planets as well as within comets. All of this along with his above mentioned views on abiogenic petroleum must have made him quite a thorn in the side of the establishment.
One interesting paper written by Gold is his theory of earthquakes. Of all of his controversial theories, this one seems to be touched upon the least - at least from what I have seen. In a prior paper, Gold describes how oil and gas fields are often associated with earthquake laden zones. A good example of this is the Indonesian island arc and the petroleum deposits that overlay this zone. In a newsletter by Dave McGowan (_http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr71.html), he shows that this relationship between petroleum and earthquakes holds true for California as well. So what do we make of the fact that we find petroleum and natural gas in earthquake zones? Thomas Gold hypothesizes that in some cases earthquakes may be caused to the movement of large gas volumes below the surface of the earth, particularly methane gas. Of this he writes in his paper titled Earthquakes, Gases, and Earthquake Prediction:
_http://trilogynet.net/Thomas_Gold/Earthq.html
So this may explain why earthquakes often evolve into smaller tremors over a longer period of time if it takes awhile for the gas to "settle". It could also possibly explain tsunami events as the result of water displacement due to out gassing beneath the ocean. He also claims that this theory of gas causing earthquakes has been put to the test in China several decades ago.
As noted on SOTT, there does appear to be signs of a massive out gassing process occurring on the earth at this point. Earthquakes also appear to be endemic as well. Could the two phenomena be related?
In his paper he continues on to analyze Kimberlite pipes, which are described as "pseudo-volcanoes" found throughout the world. These structures extend for many kilometers beneath the surface and are coated with diamond-bearing rock called "kimberlite" appropriately. He speculates that these diamonds did not form through a slow process upwelling magma, but rather a fast ejection causing the pure carbon to supercool on it's way up the pipe, thus forming the diamond deposits.
I'm no geophysicist, but it seems like that would have to be one heck of a gas bubble to push anything 150km to the surface!
He goes onto discuss the New Madrid Earthquakes that occurred within the years of 1811-1812 and how some of the eyewitness descriptions could be construed as being consistent with this gas-earthquake model:
This is interesting because I've happened upon some of these same eyewitness accounts in my own reading. In a previous thread I wrote about their possible relationship to comet activity also taking place at the same time:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9882.0
At this point I wonder if perhaps the comet activity above could have induced the movement of gas within the earth at the time of the New Madrid earthquakes? Perhaps an overhead impact is enough to "shake things up" below in such a way that large volumes of gas are suddenly put on the move below the surface. This would then explain why the New Madrid earthquakes lasted for such a prolonged period of time. Anything happening in the atmosphere for as long as the New Madrid quakes lasted and in such a wide geographic region would have likely been noticeable, but if all it takes is a single cosmic event to trigger the shifting of gas beneath the earth which may take months to "settle", then this could go a long way to explaining the New Madrid event. Furthermore, perhaps a comet impact in some isolated part of the globe could trigger earthquake events at long distances? If a gas bubble is already on the "tipping point" per say, then any disturbance elsewhere on the planet may be enough to trigger the release of this gas. Still, more data is needed to come to any final conclusion, but this theory does throw a twist into things. If we are to accept it, then we must consider all the possible scenarios involving the movement of gas below the surface, the out gassing effects, volcanic effects, tsunamis, land elevation changes, and how these relate to cosmic inputs as well.
Continuing with his paper, Gold mentions the contradictions in the current earthquake theories showing that earthquakes have been recorded at depths up to 700km where the pressure would be so great that the sudden slippage of rocks could not occur. He believes this points to another earthquake process at work. He goes on to mention some of the lesser-known earthquake spots not associated with common fault lines and comments that these could very likely be places where the upwelling of gas induces earthquakes from time to time. These spots again, are often associated with known coal, oil or gas deposits consistent with the gas theory. Mud volcanoes are another phenomena that would fit the gas theory as well. Some of these have been known to spontaneously ignite into flaming giants at times, likely from the out gassing of methane.
Finally he discusses some hard evidence for associating out gassing with earthquakes. He points to the earthquake at Loma Prieta on October 17, 1989 where gas output levels in the region, that were recorded for other purposes, showed a spike in output at about the time of the earthquake. One wonders if these readings couldn't be used as predictive data for large earthquakes? In this same batch of data, he also points to another interesting anomaly associated with the same earthquake and that was low frequency EM noise prior to the earthquake. He attributes this to the shifting of currents in the ground water. This may be the case, but I'm reminded that there could be another explanation as well. Based on what we know about some of the electrophonic effects of meteors and comets, this EM spike could be due to an overhead explosion somewhere on the globe possibly.
Reading Thomas Gold's papers was the first time I've encountered this theory. I'd be curious if there are any others studying earthquakes in this manner currently. It seems reasonable given the known facts, but as always, more data would be nice.
