Someone once remarked that "skeptics" of the knee jerk variety, the kind who publish mysteriously funded magazines, are actually the ultimate true believers, who believe (or profess to believe) in the status quo, atheism and materialism. Those of us who no longer accept this belief system, and who are interested in such fortean phenomena as ufos and lost civilizations, owe it to ourselves to be true skeptics and not believe without question. Yet a great many people who think of themselves as open minded believe, with no evidence, in such things as a hollow Earth Sirian motherships, or pole shift.
Pole shift, of course, refers to the theory, first popularized by Charles Hapgood, that the entire crust of the Earth can suddenly, in only a few years or less, slide as much as thirty degrees or so over the mantle, moving polar caps into warmer latitudes and bringing ice free zones into polar areas, forming new ice caps.The theory has been used to explain the ice ages, when much of northern Europe and northern North America was covered by immense glacial ice caps. Proponents of the theory suggested that the weight of polar ice caps causes an imbalance, so that, eventually, angular momentum pulls the ice caps (and the entire crust with them) toward the equator of the spinning Earth. This is just the kind of bold, innovative thinking that is needed to shake up the status quo now and then.
Unfortunately, there is no convincing evidence to support the theory, and a great deal of evidence that it is dead wrong. No one doubts that the Earth's magnetic poles, offset for unknown reasons from the axis of rotation, slowly wander around (again, for unknown reasons). At intervals, the Earth's magnetic field slowly weakens (it is doing so now, at an ever-increasing speed), finally dying out and then reforming with its polarity reversed. Again, no one knows why; in fact, it is a dirty little secret of astronomy and physics that no one knows why such very different celestial bodies as planets, stars, and black holes even have magnetic fields. Plate tectonics would seem to explain the fact that different landmasses have slowly drifted into and out of the polar regions over aeons of time, but this is a far cry from sudden and catastrophic pole shift.
The theory was originally advanced to explain the ice ages, but the problem with understanding the ice ages is not that we don't know what caused them, but rather that there are too many causes.Earth's 25,920 year axial wobble subtly changes the timing and distribution of solar heat absorbed by our planet.The ellipticity of Earth's orbit slowly changes. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have varied for millions of years with no help from Al Gore,but only the most major changes seem to affect climate, if at all; commonly, temperature increases coome before, not after, CO2 changes.When continental drift leaves open ocean over both poles it is next to impossible to have the ice buildup needed for an ice age; conversely, at present, Antarctica covers the south and the Arctic Ocean is partly enclosed, allowing the buildup of sea ice with less disturbance from ocean currents.Mega volcanoes put dust and sulfurous acid droplets into the upper atmosphere, blocking sunlight, resulting in a cooling that can trigger a full-fledged ice age if other conditions are suitable. In fact, the Indonesian volcano, Toba, produced such a super eruption just over 75,000 years ago, and then the last ice age began.And finally, the Sun's energy output varies with the eleven year sunspot cycle, and more extreme variations take place over longer intervals of time. Since the Sun is the major creator of our climate, it is not hard to see why this alone might cause ice ages.At least part of the most recent cool period, the Little Ice Age that began in the fourteenth century and lasted well into the nineteenth century, coincided with the Maunder Minimum, when reduced sunspot activity indicated a reduction in solar energy output.Our problem is trying to understand how all of these factors interact.
Ane merely moving the ice caps around, as in a pole shift, would be unlikely to produce a great deal more ice; it is simply being redistributed.Yet there is overwhelming evidence that during the ice ages there was a great deal more ice;the rocks show the movement of glaciers over vast areas and there is overwhelming evidence that sea levels were as much as 400 feet lower during the peak of the last ice age, which was caused by so much water being locked up in the ice sheets. Proponents of pole shift like to point out that much of Siberia was ice free during the last ice age, but this proves nothing, since large areas of Siberia and Alaska are ice free today, despite being further north than large parts of Greenland that are covered by the world's second largest (after Antarctica) ice sheet.There are other factors involved, mainly cloud cover and snowfall.
If the entire crust of our planet shifted even a few degrees, even over a period of several years, there would be an enormous amount of energy released. It might be enough to melt the entire crust and annihilate all life; it would certainly at least cause massive volcanic eruptions.Yet there is no evidence for any great increase in vulcanism at the end of the last ice age. Worse, the Earth has an equatorial bulge caused by its axial spin, so that neither the Earth nor its crust is exactly spherical. This means that even a slight slippage would cause widespread shattering of the crust as it compressed in some areas and stretched in others, resulting in sudden mountain building and even more vulcanism. There is not the slightest geological evidence for any of this. This is not to say that the end of the last ice age was not catastrophic, but merely that it was not as catastrophic as crustal slippage would be. The sudden climate change and sea level rises were bad enough, and there is now some evidence of a comet explosion over North America that may have contributed to the extinction of much of the Pliestocene mega fauna.
In fact, there is even direct evidence that the crust has not slipped, but rather that the slow process of continental drift has continued without interruption for millions of years. The newest and most active Hawaiian volcanoes are in the southeast, where Kilauea erupts almost continuously and a new volcano is emerging from the sea floor.To the northwest, Mauna Loa is less active; further northwest, Mauna Kea, crowned by some very expensive observatories, is mercifully silent. Haleakala, on Maui, is considered dormant but is more likely extinct, and the island of Kauai, jagged and eroded, is older than the Big island or Maui.Midway Atoll is eroded almost to sea level, and the Hawaiian chain last breaks the surface far to the northwest with the ancient French Frigate Shoals. Conventional gelogists have a good explanation for this. Plate tectonics slowly moves the sea floor and the islands over a hot spot, or mantle plume, and the crust moves from southeast to northwest.Similar evidence is found elsewhere, in many locations. Much of the Columbia and Snake River Plateaus were caused by massive flood basalt eruptions, with the most recent eruptions to the east, at Craters of the Moon National Monument, and, further east, the Yellowstone caldera.This is almost certainly caused by the westward drift of the North American plate and continent over a hot spot that is presently under Yellowstone. A similar chain of volcanoes stretches across Canada, producing diamond deposits and the hill that is the namesake of Montreal. This hot spot is now under the Atlantic, as our continent has moved west of it. None of these chains of volcanoes would exist if pole shift was a reality.
Canadian author Rand Flem Ath, apprised of some of these problems by one of his readers, modified the theory and suggested that the entire mantle, along with the crust, has slipped. But why stop there? Why not include the core as well? Either way, it still does not explain the increased ice sheets and lower sea levels. And it is doubtful that the weight of ice sheets would be sufficient to move even the crust. What unknown force could possibly move the mantle as well? The Earth is an immense and very stable gyroscope, and most of the angular momentum (mass times velocity) that gives it this stability is in the mantle. The crust has less mass and the core has less velocity.
No, it is time to admit our error, bury pole shift once and for all, and move on. Let the "skeptics" be the true believers. We will be the real skeptics. William B Stoecker
Full Version: The Pole Shift Myth
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History
Looks like you are trying to win a new world record for most words in a paragraph. Making them shorter would make it less tortuous for us us to read, and certainly improve our ability to understand what you want.
Having said that, besides that it is absolutely puerile to assume that the polar ice could shift Earth out of balance you don't have to worry about it anymore, global warming is melting it away.
Having said that, besides that it is absolutely puerile to assume that the polar ice could shift Earth out of balance you don't have to worry about it anymore, global warming is melting it away.
QUOTE(William B Stoecker @ Oct 9 2007, 03:45 PM) 
Someone once remarked that "skeptics" of the knee jerk variety, the kind who publish mysteriously funded magazines, are actually the ultimate true believers, who believe (or profess to believe) in the status quo, atheism and materialism. Those of us who no longer accept this belief system, and who are interested in such fortean phenomena as ufos and lost civilizations, owe it to ourselves to be true skeptics and not believe without question. Yet a great many people who think of themselves as open minded believe, with no evidence, in such things as a hollow Earth Sirian motherships, or pole shift.
Pole shift, of course, refers to the theory, first popularized by Charles Hapgood, that the entire crust of the Earth can suddenly, in only a few years or less, slide as much as thirty degrees or so over the mantle, moving polar caps into warmer latitudes and bringing ice free zones into polar areas, forming new ice caps.The theory has been used to explain the ice ages, when much of northern Europe and northern North America was covered by immense glacial ice caps. Proponents of the theory suggested that the weight of polar ice caps causes an imbalance, so that, eventually, angular momentum pulls the ice caps (and the entire crust with them) toward the equator of the spinning Earth. This is just the kind of bold, innovative thinking that is needed to shake up the status quo now and then.
Unfortunately, there is no convincing evidence to support the theory, and a great deal of evidence that it is dead wrong. No one doubts that the Earth's magnetic poles, offset for unknown reasons from the axis of rotation, slowly wander around (again, for unknown reasons). At intervals, the Earth's magnetic field slowly weakens (it is doing so now, at an ever-increasing speed), finally dying out and then reforming with its polarity reversed. Again, no one knows why; in fact, it is a dirty little secret of astronomy and physics that no one knows why such very different celestial bodies as planets, stars, and black holes even have magnetic fields. Plate tectonics would seem to explain the fact that different landmasses have slowly drifted into and out of the polar regions over aeons of time, but this is a far cry from sudden and catastrophic pole shift.
The theory was originally advanced to explain the ice ages, but the problem with understanding the ice ages is not that we don't know what caused them, but rather that there are too many causes.Earth's 25,920 year axial wobble subtly changes the timing and distribution of solar heat absorbed by our planet.The ellipticity of Earth's orbit slowly changes. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have varied for millions of years with no help from Al Gore,but only the most major changes seem to affect climate, if at all; commonly, temperature increases coome before, not after, CO2 changes.When continental drift leaves open ocean over both poles it is next to impossible to have the ice buildup needed for an ice age; conversely, at present, Antarctica covers the south and the Arctic Ocean is partly enclosed, allowing the buildup of sea ice with less disturbance from ocean currents.Mega volcanoes put dust and sulfurous acid droplets into the upper atmosphere, blocking sunlight, resulting in a cooling that can trigger a full-fledged ice age if other conditions are suitable. In fact, the Indonesian volcano, Toba, produced such a super eruption just over 75,000 years ago, and then the last ice age began.And finally, the Sun's energy output varies with the eleven year sunspot cycle, and more extreme variations take place over longer intervals of time. Since the Sun is the major creator of our climate, it is not hard to see why this alone might cause ice ages.At least part of the most recent cool period, the Little Ice Age that began in the fourteenth century and lasted well into the nineteenth century, coincided with the Maunder Minimum, when reduced sunspot activity indicated a reduction in solar energy output.Our problem is trying to understand how all of these factors interact.
Ane merely moving the ice caps around, as in a pole shift, would be unlikely to produce a great deal more ice; it is simply being redistributed.Yet there is overwhelming evidence that during the ice ages there was a great deal more ice;the rocks show the movement of glaciers over vast areas and there is overwhelming evidence that sea levels were as much as 400 feet lower during the peak of the last ice age, which was caused by so much water being locked up in the ice sheets. Proponents of pole shift like to point out that much of Siberia was ice free during the last ice age, but this proves nothing, since large areas of Siberia and Alaska are ice free today, despite being further north than large parts of Greenland that are covered by the world's second largest (after Antarctica) ice sheet.There are other factors involved, mainly cloud cover and snowfall.
If the entire crust of our planet shifted even a few degrees, even over a period of several years, there would be an enormous amount of energy released. It might be enough to melt the entire crust and annihilate all life; it would certainly at least cause massive volcanic eruptions.Yet there is no evidence for any great increase in vulcanism at the end of the last ice age. Worse, the Earth has an equatorial bulge caused by its axial spin, so that neither the Earth nor its crust is exactly spherical. This means that even a slight slippage would cause widespread shattering of the crust as it compressed in some areas and stretched in others, resulting in sudden mountain building and even more vulcanism. There is not the slightest geological evidence for any of this. This is not to say that the end of the last ice age was not catastrophic, but merely that it was not as catastrophic as crustal slippage would be. The sudden climate change and sea level rises were bad enough, and there is now some evidence of a comet explosion over North America that may have contributed to the extinction of much of the Pliestocene mega fauna.
In fact, there is even direct evidence that the crust has not slipped, but rather that the slow process of continental drift has continued without interruption for millions of years. The newest and most active Hawaiian volcanoes are in the southeast, where Kilauea erupts almost continuously and a new volcano is emerging from the sea floor.To the northwest, Mauna Loa is less active; further northwest, Mauna Kea, crowned by some very expensive observatories, is mercifully silent. Haleakala, on Maui, is considered dormant but is more likely extinct, and the island of Kauai, jagged and eroded, is older than the Big island or Maui.Midway Atoll is eroded almost to sea level, and the Hawaiian chain last breaks the surface far to the northwest with the ancient French Frigate Shoals. Conventional gelogists have a good explanation for this. Plate tectonics slowly moves the sea floor and the islands over a hot spot, or mantle plume, and the crust moves from southeast to northwest.Similar evidence is found elsewhere, in many locations. Much of the Columbia and Snake River Plateaus were caused by massive flood basalt eruptions, with the most recent eruptions to the east, at Craters of the Moon National Monument, and, further east, the Yellowstone caldera.This is almost certainly caused by the westward drift of the North American plate and continent over a hot spot that is presently under Yellowstone. A similar chain of volcanoes stretches across Canada, producing diamond deposits and the hill that is the namesake of Montreal. This hot spot is now under the Atlantic, as our continent has moved west of it. None of these chains of volcanoes would exist if pole shift was a reality.
Canadian author Rand Flem Ath, apprised of some of these problems by one of his readers, modified the theory and suggested that the entire mantle, along with the crust, has slipped. But why stop there? Why not include the core as well? Either way, it still does not explain the increased ice sheets and lower sea levels. And it is doubtful that the weight of ice sheets would be sufficient to move even the crust. What unknown force could possibly move the mantle as well? The Earth is an immense and very stable gyroscope, and most of the angular momentum (mass times velocity) that gives it this stability is in the mantle. The crust has less mass and the core has less velocity.
No, it is time to admit our error, bury pole shift once and for all, and move on. Let the "skeptics" be the true believers. We will be the real skeptics. William B Stoecker
Pole shift, of course, refers to the theory, first popularized by Charles Hapgood, that the entire crust of the Earth can suddenly, in only a few years or less, slide as much as thirty degrees or so over the mantle, moving polar caps into warmer latitudes and bringing ice free zones into polar areas, forming new ice caps.The theory has been used to explain the ice ages, when much of northern Europe and northern North America was covered by immense glacial ice caps. Proponents of the theory suggested that the weight of polar ice caps causes an imbalance, so that, eventually, angular momentum pulls the ice caps (and the entire crust with them) toward the equator of the spinning Earth. This is just the kind of bold, innovative thinking that is needed to shake up the status quo now and then.
Unfortunately, there is no convincing evidence to support the theory, and a great deal of evidence that it is dead wrong. No one doubts that the Earth's magnetic poles, offset for unknown reasons from the axis of rotation, slowly wander around (again, for unknown reasons). At intervals, the Earth's magnetic field slowly weakens (it is doing so now, at an ever-increasing speed), finally dying out and then reforming with its polarity reversed. Again, no one knows why; in fact, it is a dirty little secret of astronomy and physics that no one knows why such very different celestial bodies as planets, stars, and black holes even have magnetic fields. Plate tectonics would seem to explain the fact that different landmasses have slowly drifted into and out of the polar regions over aeons of time, but this is a far cry from sudden and catastrophic pole shift.
The theory was originally advanced to explain the ice ages, but the problem with understanding the ice ages is not that we don't know what caused them, but rather that there are too many causes.Earth's 25,920 year axial wobble subtly changes the timing and distribution of solar heat absorbed by our planet.The ellipticity of Earth's orbit slowly changes. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have varied for millions of years with no help from Al Gore,but only the most major changes seem to affect climate, if at all; commonly, temperature increases coome before, not after, CO2 changes.When continental drift leaves open ocean over both poles it is next to impossible to have the ice buildup needed for an ice age; conversely, at present, Antarctica covers the south and the Arctic Ocean is partly enclosed, allowing the buildup of sea ice with less disturbance from ocean currents.Mega volcanoes put dust and sulfurous acid droplets into the upper atmosphere, blocking sunlight, resulting in a cooling that can trigger a full-fledged ice age if other conditions are suitable. In fact, the Indonesian volcano, Toba, produced such a super eruption just over 75,000 years ago, and then the last ice age began.And finally, the Sun's energy output varies with the eleven year sunspot cycle, and more extreme variations take place over longer intervals of time. Since the Sun is the major creator of our climate, it is not hard to see why this alone might cause ice ages.At least part of the most recent cool period, the Little Ice Age that began in the fourteenth century and lasted well into the nineteenth century, coincided with the Maunder Minimum, when reduced sunspot activity indicated a reduction in solar energy output.Our problem is trying to understand how all of these factors interact.
Ane merely moving the ice caps around, as in a pole shift, would be unlikely to produce a great deal more ice; it is simply being redistributed.Yet there is overwhelming evidence that during the ice ages there was a great deal more ice;the rocks show the movement of glaciers over vast areas and there is overwhelming evidence that sea levels were as much as 400 feet lower during the peak of the last ice age, which was caused by so much water being locked up in the ice sheets. Proponents of pole shift like to point out that much of Siberia was ice free during the last ice age, but this proves nothing, since large areas of Siberia and Alaska are ice free today, despite being further north than large parts of Greenland that are covered by the world's second largest (after Antarctica) ice sheet.There are other factors involved, mainly cloud cover and snowfall.
If the entire crust of our planet shifted even a few degrees, even over a period of several years, there would be an enormous amount of energy released. It might be enough to melt the entire crust and annihilate all life; it would certainly at least cause massive volcanic eruptions.Yet there is no evidence for any great increase in vulcanism at the end of the last ice age. Worse, the Earth has an equatorial bulge caused by its axial spin, so that neither the Earth nor its crust is exactly spherical. This means that even a slight slippage would cause widespread shattering of the crust as it compressed in some areas and stretched in others, resulting in sudden mountain building and even more vulcanism. There is not the slightest geological evidence for any of this. This is not to say that the end of the last ice age was not catastrophic, but merely that it was not as catastrophic as crustal slippage would be. The sudden climate change and sea level rises were bad enough, and there is now some evidence of a comet explosion over North America that may have contributed to the extinction of much of the Pliestocene mega fauna.
In fact, there is even direct evidence that the crust has not slipped, but rather that the slow process of continental drift has continued without interruption for millions of years. The newest and most active Hawaiian volcanoes are in the southeast, where Kilauea erupts almost continuously and a new volcano is emerging from the sea floor.To the northwest, Mauna Loa is less active; further northwest, Mauna Kea, crowned by some very expensive observatories, is mercifully silent. Haleakala, on Maui, is considered dormant but is more likely extinct, and the island of Kauai, jagged and eroded, is older than the Big island or Maui.Midway Atoll is eroded almost to sea level, and the Hawaiian chain last breaks the surface far to the northwest with the ancient French Frigate Shoals. Conventional gelogists have a good explanation for this. Plate tectonics slowly moves the sea floor and the islands over a hot spot, or mantle plume, and the crust moves from southeast to northwest.Similar evidence is found elsewhere, in many locations. Much of the Columbia and Snake River Plateaus were caused by massive flood basalt eruptions, with the most recent eruptions to the east, at Craters of the Moon National Monument, and, further east, the Yellowstone caldera.This is almost certainly caused by the westward drift of the North American plate and continent over a hot spot that is presently under Yellowstone. A similar chain of volcanoes stretches across Canada, producing diamond deposits and the hill that is the namesake of Montreal. This hot spot is now under the Atlantic, as our continent has moved west of it. None of these chains of volcanoes would exist if pole shift was a reality.
Canadian author Rand Flem Ath, apprised of some of these problems by one of his readers, modified the theory and suggested that the entire mantle, along with the crust, has slipped. But why stop there? Why not include the core as well? Either way, it still does not explain the increased ice sheets and lower sea levels. And it is doubtful that the weight of ice sheets would be sufficient to move even the crust. What unknown force could possibly move the mantle as well? The Earth is an immense and very stable gyroscope, and most of the angular momentum (mass times velocity) that gives it this stability is in the mantle. The crust has less mass and the core has less velocity.
No, it is time to admit our error, bury pole shift once and for all, and move on. Let the "skeptics" be the true believers. We will be the real skeptics. William B Stoecker
We do have a pretty good idea why the earth has a magnetic field, it's called magnetohydrodynamism. Long word, but that's it. We have a constant convection of molten conductors (mainly iron) in the outer core of the planet which causes a magnetic field. This is amplified by twisting, mainly north-south rolls of in the conductive fluid which induce a current when they pass though a magnetic field. In effect it creates a dynamo.
As for the rest of your post, you're obvioulsy mixing up what skeptics are, and not to any ironic effect, if that's your intention. No scientists have pushed pole shift since the seventies and that was a whole two people on the fringe so I don't know what you're talking about burying it. In the nineties Flem-Ath was being goaded by Hapgood whose ideas had already been abandoned. Flem-Ath isn't a scientist so his book doesn't mean squat. It's new age fringe wackiness. It's not even accepted in the first place. There's nothing to bury here.
that post is ridiculously long. im not even going to read it.
So we are agreed then? Geographical pole shift is just nonsense, and the magnetosphere is very easy to explain in electro-mechanical theory. Nuff Said. 
Regarding my posting, "The Pole Shift Myth," this is a topic that does need to be addressed, since not only does Rand Flem Ath continue to push the myth on his web site, but so does the very influential Graham Hancock. The fact that Hancock also supports the global warming lie has made me begin to wonder just what his agenda is. Regarding the Earth's magnetic field, it has not been explained. The theory that it is somehow caused by currents in the core is just that, a theory. Yet science textbooks and magazine articles state it as if it were a proven fact. Supposedly the currents exist because the Earth rotates like a generator in its own magnetic field, but you need the field to generate the current and the current to create the field, so how did it get started? And how does the theory explain the fact that the magnetic poles are offset from the geographic poles and slowly wander around? And why does the Earth's magnetic field periodically die out and then reform with the poles reversed? And Earth has a nickel-iron core, but the Sun has a magnetic field and a hydrogen plasma core; Jupiter has a field and a metallic hydrogen core; neutron stars are all neutrons and have a field; black holes are no longer matter as we understand it and have magnetic fields, and the entire galaxy has a magnetic field and is not even a solid object.
Should we not at least suspect some common cause? All of the above celestial objects have angular momentum, since they are rotating masses. In fact, there is a rough correlation between angular momentum and magnetic field strength. If the Earth and other objects have a net electric charge, that could explain a lot. Maybe this needs to be looked into. William B Stoecker
Should we not at least suspect some common cause? All of the above celestial objects have angular momentum, since they are rotating masses. In fact, there is a rough correlation between angular momentum and magnetic field strength. If the Earth and other objects have a net electric charge, that could explain a lot. Maybe this needs to be looked into. William B Stoecker
Dear skeptics,
There was either a sudden pole shift or the entire continent of Africa shifted in 10400BC as a result of catastrophic meteor impacts. So says The Great Pyramid (eye witness evidence). www.thegreatpyramidspeaks.com - Updated with illistrations to help explain my theory.
Best
John Gagnon
There was either a sudden pole shift or the entire continent of Africa shifted in 10400BC as a result of catastrophic meteor impacts. So says The Great Pyramid (eye witness evidence). www.thegreatpyramidspeaks.com - Updated with illistrations to help explain my theory.
Best
John Gagnon
QUOTE(Joe Atlantis @ Oct 10 2007, 07:01 PM)
Dear skeptics,
There was either a sudden pole shift or the entire continent of Africa shifted in 10400BC as a result of catastrophic meteor impacts. So says The Great Pyramid (eye witness evidence). www.thegreatpyramidspeaks.com - Updated with illistrations to help explain my theory.
Best
John Gagnon
There was either a sudden pole shift or the entire continent of Africa shifted in 10400BC as a result of catastrophic meteor impacts. So says The Great Pyramid (eye witness evidence). www.thegreatpyramidspeaks.com - Updated with illistrations to help explain my theory.
Best
John Gagnon
Thanks for the tip, but we have been there, seen it and thought it was a riot. Please continue with your satire.
QUOTE(William B Stoecker @ Oct 10 2007, 11:56 AM)
Regarding my posting, "The Pole Shift Myth," this is a topic that does need to be addressed, since not only does Rand Flem Ath continue to push the myth on his web site, but so does the very influential Graham Hancock.
Graham Hancock is influential? I think he's generally regarded as a crack-pot on par with von Daniken, Sitchin and Icke.
QUOTE
Regarding the Earth's magnetic field, it has not been explained. The theory that it is somehow caused by currents in the core is just that, a theory. Yet science textbooks and magazine articles state it as if it were a proven fact.
Yes, but it's a theory that explains a great deal of scientific evidence we've gathered. That's how theories work. It also does a better job of explaining the data than any other theory. This is why it's taught in science books. I mean, it seems a little ridiculous to me to complain that science books recapitulate modern science, especially when you clearly read books that don't jive with it. Stick with Sitchin et al. if that's what you want.
QUOTE
Supposedly the currents exist because the Earth rotates like a generator in its own magnetic field, but you need the field to generate the current and the current to create the field, so how did it get started? And how does the theory explain the fact that the magnetic poles are offset from the geographic poles and slowly wander around? And why does the Earth's magnetic field periodically die out and then reform with the poles reversed? And Earth has a nickel-iron core, but the Sun has a magnetic field and a hydrogen plasma core; Jupiter has a field and a metallic hydrogen core; neutron stars are all neutrons and have a field; black holes are no longer matter as we understand it and have magnetic fields, and the entire galaxy has a magnetic field and is not even a solid object.
I'm going to pull out (for roughly the 10th time this week) the camlax alternative and say this: just because you don't know the answer to these questions doesn't mean they don't exist. Perhaps a little personal study of geophysics is called for before you claim it's bunk.
QUOTE
Should we not at least suspect some common cause? All of the above celestial objects have angular momentum, since they are rotating masses. In fact, there is a rough correlation between angular momentum and magnetic field strength. If the Earth and other objects have a net electric charge, that could explain a lot. Maybe this needs to be looked into. William B Stoecker
Correlation does not equal causation. Similar results don't always come from similar causes.
--Jaylemurph
QUOTE(questionmark @ Oct 10 2007, 11:32 AM)
Thanks for the tip, but we have been there, seen it and thought it was a riot. Please continue with your satire.
Dear Questionmark,
I think at this point the only the only thing you have correct is your symbol you use for your identification. Perhaps if you spent more time examining evidence rather then discrediting, we could all work together towards the answers to these questions. If you have information to put forward please share with the group.
We discovered that the Earth is not flat, but round, due to the sharing of information and facts that were put forward in that time frame. Perhaps this information may help lead to a new conclusion aswell.
Thanks
John
QUOTE(Joe Atlantis @ Oct 10 2007, 01:52 PM)
Dear Questionmark,
I think at this point the only the only thing you have correct is your symbol you use for your identification. Perhaps if you spent more time examining evidence rather then discrediting, we could all work together towards the answers to these questions. If you have information to put forward please share with the group.
We discovered that the Earth is not flat, but round, due to the sharing of information and facts that were put forward in that time frame. Perhaps this information may help lead to a new conclusion aswell.
Thanks
John
I think at this point the only the only thing you have correct is your symbol you use for your identification. Perhaps if you spent more time examining evidence rather then discrediting, we could all work together towards the answers to these questions. If you have information to put forward please share with the group.
We discovered that the Earth is not flat, but round, due to the sharing of information and facts that were put forward in that time frame. Perhaps this information may help lead to a new conclusion aswell.
Thanks
John
It seems to me that the discrediting of evidence comes because of, not instead of, examining.
Can you tell us why we should even start looking for a city whose origin lies in a work of fiction -- and, as said before, should we be looking for Hogwarts, as well?
--Jaylemurph
capeo, never quote that long of a post again, ok? It needlessly tortures and kills kittens worldwide.
Well, Cant we all keep an open mind?
When galileo said that the earth revolved around the sun and not the sun around the earth. The Top scientists of his era were unconinced and made fun of him. B ut galileo was proved correct.
What if a certain theory/idea/statement in science which is trashed by the top level scientists of today is suddenly proved to be correct? Then those scientists will have to eat their words!
So its better to keep an open mind rather than pronounce your judgement from the confines of your easy chair.
We are here to debate, we are not here to pronounce our judgements!
Edited for Typos!
When galileo said that the earth revolved around the sun and not the sun around the earth. The Top scientists of his era were unconinced and made fun of him. B ut galileo was proved correct.
What if a certain theory/idea/statement in science which is trashed by the top level scientists of today is suddenly proved to be correct? Then those scientists will have to eat their words!
So its better to keep an open mind rather than pronounce your judgement from the confines of your easy chair.
We are here to debate, we are not here to pronounce our judgements!
Edited for Typos!
and William instead of posting the entire thing in one post, split it into parts and post consecutively.
trying to read the entire thing gave me a headache!
trying to read the entire thing gave me a headache!
QUOTE(coredrill @ Oct 10 2007, 10:54 PM)
Well, Cant we all keep an open mind?
When galileo said that the earth revolved around the sun and not the sun around the earth. The Top scientists of his era were unconinced and made fun of him. B ut galileo was proved correct.
What if a certain theory/idea/statement in science which is trashed by the top level scientists of today is suddenly proved to be correct? Then those scientists will have to eat their words!
So its better to keep an open mind rather than pronounce your judgement from the confines of your easy chair.
We are here to debate, we are not here to pronounce our judgements!
Edited for Typos!
When galileo said that the earth revolved around the sun and not the sun around the earth. The Top scientists of his era were unconinced and made fun of him. B ut galileo was proved correct.
What if a certain theory/idea/statement in science which is trashed by the top level scientists of today is suddenly proved to be correct? Then those scientists will have to eat their words!
So its better to keep an open mind rather than pronounce your judgement from the confines of your easy chair.
We are here to debate, we are not here to pronounce our judgements!
Edited for Typos!
We just had this last month, just check three pages down. This is not about a open mind, this is more about some people who think if they repeat something often enough it will be true.
QUOTE
We are here to debate, we are not here to pronounce our judgements!
Speak for yourself. I'm judging people here left and right!
QUOTE(William B Stoecker @ Oct 10 2007, 11:56 AM)
Regarding my posting, "The Pole Shift Myth," this is a topic that does need to be addressed, since not only does Rand Flem Ath continue to push the myth on his web site, but so does the very influential Graham Hancock. The fact that Hancock also supports the global warming lie has made me begin to wonder just what his agenda is.
Hancock isn't infuential. He's a crackpot. BTW Global Warming has plenty of factual support.
QUOTE(William B Stoecker @ Oct 10 2007, 11:56 AM)
Regarding the Earth's magnetic field, it has not been explained. The theory that it is somehow caused by currents in the core is just that, a theory. Yet science textbooks and magazine articles state it as if it were a proven fact. Supposedly the currents exist because the Earth rotates like a generator in its own magnetic field, but you need the field to generate the current and the current to create the field, so how did it get started? And how does the theory explain the fact that the magnetic poles are offset from the geographic poles and slowly wander around? And why does the Earth's magnetic field periodically die out and then reform with the poles reversed? And Earth has a nickel-iron core, but the Sun has a magnetic field and a hydrogen plasma core; Jupiter has a field and a metallic hydrogen core; neutron stars are all neutrons and have a field; black holes are no longer matter as we understand it and have magnetic fields, and the entire galaxy has a magnetic field and is not even a solid object.
To generate a magnetic field all you need is a conductor in motion. A conductor can be any charged substance if there is enough energy involved. Heat convection in the earths out core causes molten conductors to move. This creates a magnetic field. Then you have magma outside of that being aligned by corellian effects due to the spin of the earth. A magnetic field within a magnetic field is, roughly speaking, a dynamo. Plasma is a conductor, so the sun is no surprise, nor is jupiter given that it's highly charged atmosphere alone would create a massive field without the rotating core it very likely has. Nuetron stars are not just neutrons, they are composed of protons and electrons as well and very likely have a superliquid core that spins slower than outer, more electron heavy, layer. Black holes and galaxies are going to have magnetic fields. All energetic systems of such magnitude will create huge magnetic fields. It's harder to find something without a magnetic field.
QUOTE(William B Stoecker @ Oct 10 2007, 11:56 AM)
Should we not at least suspect some common cause? All of the above celestial objects have angular momentum, since they are rotating masses. In fact, there is a rough correlation between angular momentum and magnetic field strength. If the Earth and other objects have a net electric charge, that could explain a lot. Maybe this needs to be looked into. William B Stoecker
Angular momentum will increase magnetic fields because they are polar. Hence motors and generators.
QUOTE
Recent work by scientists and geologists Adam Maloof of Princeton University and Galen Halverson of Paul Sabatier University in Toulouse, France, indicates that Earth indeed rebalanced itself around 800 million years ago during the Precambrian time period.[10] They tested this idea by studying magnetic minerals in sedimentary rocks in a Norwegian archipelago. Using these minerals, Maloof and Halverson found that the north pole shifted more than 50 degrees — about the current distance between Alaska and the equator — in less than 20 million years. This reasoning is supported by a record of changes in sea level and ocean chemistry in the Norwegian sediments that could be explained by true polar wander, the team reports in the September–October 2006 issue of the Geological Society of America Bulletin.[11]
Research using GPS, conducted by Geoffrey Blewitt of the University of Nevada, has shown that normal seasonal changes in the distribution of ice and water cause minor movements of the poles.[12]
Source : Wikipedia.Research using GPS, conducted by Geoffrey Blewitt of the University of Nevada, has shown that normal seasonal changes in the distribution of ice and water cause minor movements of the poles.[12]
There is the possibility of Minor changes of the location of the poles. But not on a catastrophical level as claimed by the psuedo sciences!
QUOTE(coredrill @ Oct 10 2007, 11:25 PM)
Source : Wikipedia.
There is the possibility of Minor changes of the location of the poles. But not on a catastrophical level as claimed by the psuedo sciences!
There is the possibility of Minor changes of the location of the poles. But not on a catastrophical level as claimed by the psuedo sciences!
The magnetic poles shift constantly, albeit by fractions of degrees every year. Yet this shift is important enough to force navigators to change their charts if they want to precision navigate their vessels every year. And no catastrophe, no matter how small, save some dumbass not changing his charts and running aground, has ever been proven connected to this.
QUOTE(coredrill @ Oct 10 2007, 03:54 PM)
Well, Cant we all keep an open mind?
When galileo said that the earth revolved around the sun and not the sun around the earth. The Top scientists of his era were unconinced and made fun of him. B ut galileo was proved correct.
What if a certain theory/idea/statement in science which is trashed by the top level scientists of today is suddenly proved to be correct? Then those scientists will have to eat their words!
So its better to keep an open mind rather than pronounce your judgement from the confines of your easy chair.
We are here to debate, we are not here to pronounce our judgements!
Edited for Typos!
When galileo said that the earth revolved around the sun and not the sun around the earth. The Top scientists of his era were unconinced and made fun of him. B ut galileo was proved correct.
What if a certain theory/idea/statement in science which is trashed by the top level scientists of today is suddenly proved to be correct? Then those scientists will have to eat their words!
So its better to keep an open mind rather than pronounce your judgement from the confines of your easy chair.
We are here to debate, we are not here to pronounce our judgements!
Edited for Typos!
Galileo was sort of the youngest of the generation that disproved Aristotelean geocentric models of the solar system. Copernicus, Brahe, and Kepler were all of the same generation in Europe, all working basically to the same end.
It was the Catholic church that gave Galileo grief.
--Jaylemurph
Pole shift, of course, refers to the theory, first popularized by Charles Hapgood, that the entire crust of the Earth can suddenly, in only a few years or less, slide as much as thirty degrees or so over the mantle, moving polar caps into warmer latitudes and bringing ice free zones into polar areas, forming new ice caps.The theory has been used to explain the ice ages, when much of northern Europe and northern North America was covered by immense glacial ice caps.
Small question: Could the landing of a sufficiently large meteor in a strategic place on the planet suffice to cause the poles to shift?
Small question: Could the landing of a sufficiently large meteor in a strategic place on the planet suffice to cause the poles to shift?
QUOTE(Compline @ Oct 11 2007, 03:35 PM)
Pole shift, of course, refers to the theory, first popularized by Charles Hapgood, that the entire crust of the Earth can suddenly, in only a few years or less, slide as much as thirty degrees or so over the mantle, moving polar caps into warmer latitudes and bringing ice free zones into polar areas, forming new ice caps.The theory has been used to explain the ice ages, when much of northern Europe and northern North America was covered by immense glacial ice caps.
Small question: Could the landing of a sufficiently large meteor in a strategic place on the planet suffice to cause the poles to shift?
Small question: Could the landing of a sufficiently large meteor in a strategic place on the planet suffice to cause the poles to shift?
I cannot even begin to comprehend the Geophysical mechanisms required to support his nonsense. Can you even begin to imagine the truly enormous forces that would be generated in such an event. You might as well put your head between your knees and kiss your...... a fond farewell!
We would probably be talking Global extinction of just about every living thing, which Uhh.... didnt happen in the last ice age. Perhaps you need to think a little more lucidly.
QUOTE(Compline @ Oct 11 2007, 02:35 PM)
Small question: Could the landing of a sufficiently large meteor in a strategic place on the planet suffice to cause the poles to shift?
It'd have to be a very large object indeed to have that effect. More significant would be the annihilation of almost all life on earth as a result of the impact ....
Incidently, with regards Hapgood's theory (which was postulated back in the 1950s before tectonics was properly understood) - he actually lists a number of areas for further research which would validate his theory. Or prove it wrong. As it happens much of that research has since been carried out. Guess what?
Hapgood's was a good theory for its time. He just didn't have access to the last 50 years worth of research is all
QUOTE(keithisco @ Oct 11 2007, 09:00 AM)
I cannot even begin to comprehend the Geophysical mechanisms required to support his nonsense. Can you even begin to imagine the truly enormous forces that would be generated in such an event. You might as well put your head between your knees and kiss your...... a fond farewell!
We would probably be talking Global extinction of just about every living thing, which Uhh.... didnt happen in the last ice age. Perhaps you need to think a little more lucidly.
We would probably be talking Global extinction of just about every living thing, which Uhh.... didnt happen in the last ice age. Perhaps you need to think a little more lucidly.
Dear Keithisco,
Perhaps you are overestimating the amount of energy released as you consider total extinction. Possibly less energy was released resulting in what we would consider a major extinction which did occur. The energy released would depend on many things. Consider a major impact on a miles thick ice feild, the positive energy reaching landmass may be reduced. All I am saying is that we have much more information to gather.
Thanks
John
QUOTE(Compline @ Oct 11 2007, 04:35 PM)
Pole shift, of course, refers to the theory, first popularized by Charles Hapgood, that the entire crust of the Earth can suddenly, in only a few years or less, slide as much as thirty degrees or so over the mantle, moving polar caps into warmer latitudes and bringing ice free zones into polar areas, forming new ice caps.The theory has been used to explain the ice ages, when much of northern Europe and northern North America was covered by immense glacial ice caps.
Small question: Could the landing of a sufficiently large meteor in a strategic place on the planet suffice to cause the poles to shift?
Small question: Could the landing of a sufficiently large meteor in a strategic place on the planet suffice to cause the poles to shift?
Could, but it would probably release enough power to blow the planet into several pieces. The only possibility I see is an oblique hit, but that would imply that the meteorite could change direction once in the atmosphere... pretty improbable (yet not impossible)
do not mess with capeo, thats one smart cookie
Just skimming through all this....and I had a thought....don't think it was mentioned..
Anyway....re. pole shifts....
The land masses of the earth seems to fit together like a jigsaw...I once did a very scientific experiment
with a piece of thin cardboard and a pair of scissors.
.....the countries more or less fit together..as if at one time earth was a rocky sphere...then expanded, and then there was water and land.
Perhaps the earth is slowly expanding and the areas of weight are shifting....so gradually the spin adjusts
everything and the poles and their positions are altered?
QUOTE(bee @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 PM)
Just skimming through all this....and I had a thought....don't think it was mentioned..
Anyway....re. pole shifts....
The land masses of the earth seems to fit together like a jigsaw...I once did a very scientific experiment
with a piece of thin cardboard and a pair of scissors. .....the countries more or less fit together..
as if at one time earth was a rocky sphere...then expanded, and then there was water and land.
Perhaps the earth is slowly expanding and the areas of weight are shifting....so gradually the spin adjusts
everything and the poles and their positions are altered?
Anyway....re. pole shifts....
The land masses of the earth seems to fit together like a jigsaw...I once did a very scientific experiment
with a piece of thin cardboard and a pair of scissors.
.....the countries more or less fit together..as if at one time earth was a rocky sphere...then expanded, and then there was water and land.
Perhaps the earth is slowly expanding and the areas of weight are shifting....so gradually the spin adjusts
everything and the poles and their positions are altered?
any top could demonstrate that this is not so, as long as the spin continues in a certain direction all that could happen is that the earth bounces a little, such as a unbalanced wheel. But then again, the speed of rotation and the small amount of mass that the crust represents would not even get that to happen.
QUOTE(questionmark @ Oct 11 2007, 08:33 PM)
any top could demonstrate that this is not so, as long as the spin continues in a certain direction all that could happen is that the earth bounces a little, such as a unbalanced wheel. But then again, the speed of rotation and the small amount of mass that the crust represents would not even get that to happen.
OK....thanks for reply
Have you any thoughts about the land masses kind of fitting together...as if they have been
broken apart over time?
QUOTE(bee @ Oct 11 2007, 10:41 PM)
OK....thanks for reply
Have you any thoughts about the land masses kind of fitting together...as if they have been
broken apart over time?
Have you any thoughts about the land masses kind of fitting together...as if they have been
broken apart over time?
I guess the Continental drift theory is about that, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
QUOTE(questionmark @ Oct 11 2007, 08:44 PM)
I guess the Continental drift theory is about that, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
Thanks...Just looked at that....I surpose the difference with the continental drift theory and the
results of my thin cardboard and scissors experiment....is that it looked to me as if there wasn't
just one land mass + ocean.....but as if the whole lot seemed to fit together as a complete sphere...
.....Just pondering...
QUOTE(bee @ Oct 11 2007, 10:58 PM)
Thanks...Just looked at that....I surpose the difference with the continental drift theory and the
results of my thin cardboard and scissors experiment....is that it looked to me as if there wasn't
just one land mass + ocean.....but as if the whole lot seemed to fit together as a complete sphere...
.....Just pondering...
results of my thin cardboard and scissors experiment....is that it looked to me as if there wasn't
just one land mass + ocean.....but as if the whole lot seemed to fit together as a complete sphere...
.....Just pondering...
There is a similar experiment, water in a pot on a turntable. put some oil (better oil with some food coloring) o the water and let the pot turn.
QUOTE(Joe Atlantis @ Oct 11 2007, 08:19 PM)
Dear Keithisco,
Perhaps you are overestimating the amount of energy released as you consider total extinction. Possibly less energy was released resulting in what we would consider a major extinction which did occur. The energy released would depend on many things. Consider a major impact on a miles thick ice feild, the positive energy reaching landmass may be reduced. All I am saying is that we have much more information to gather.
Thanks
John
Perhaps you are overestimating the amount of energy released as you consider total extinction. Possibly less energy was released resulting in what we would consider a major extinction which did occur. The energy released would depend on many things. Consider a major impact on a miles thick ice feild, the positive energy reaching landmass may be reduced. All I am saying is that we have much more information to gather.
Thanks
John
Hey John,
Imagine the enormous energies released in an earthquake, caused by a miniscule rough movement of a plate margin being subducted. Now imagine the entire crust (this includes oceanic plates as well) slipping 50º in just a couple of years. The Earth is not a sphere, and the crust itself is fractured like a broken egg, so there would be tremendous "buckling" forces at work creating new mountain ranges, truly massive vulcanism on an almost unimaginable scale. The inimical-to-life gases released would envelop the earth in a day or two, there would be no sunlight reaching the earths surface, photosyntheis would stop soon afterwards and a global extinction - save possibly for some oceanic species, would very much be the scenario. IF this slipping ocurred then only friction would stop it, but I cannot see the mechanism involved for this to occur globally in the first place.
Regards Keith
QUOTE(keithisco @ Oct 12 2007, 04:45 AM)
Hey John,
Imagine the enormous energies released in an earthquake, caused by a miniscule rough movement of a plate margin being subducted. Now imagine the entire crust (this includes oceanic plates as well) slipping 50º in just a couple of years. The Earth is not a sphere, and the crust itself is fractured like a broken egg, so there would be tremendous "buckling" forces at work creating new mountain ranges, truly massive vulcanism on an almost unimaginable scale. The inimical-to-life gases released would envelop the earth in a day or two, there would be no sunlight reaching the earths surface, photosyntheis would stop soon afterwards and a global extinction - save possibly for some oceanic species, would very much be the scenario. IF this slipping ocurred then only friction would stop it, but I cannot see the mechanism involved for this to occur globally in the first place.
Regards Keith
Imagine the enormous energies released in an earthquake, caused by a miniscule rough movement of a plate margin being subducted. Now imagine the entire crust (this includes oceanic plates as well) slipping 50º in just a couple of years. The Earth is not a sphere, and the crust itself is fractured like a broken egg, so there would be tremendous "buckling" forces at work creating new mountain ranges, truly massive vulcanism on an almost unimaginable scale. The inimical-to-life gases released would envelop the earth in a day or two, there would be no sunlight reaching the earths surface, photosyntheis would stop soon afterwards and a global extinction - save possibly for some oceanic species, would very much be the scenario. IF this slipping ocurred then only friction would stop it, but I cannot see the mechanism involved for this to occur globally in the first place.
Regards Keith
Hi Keith,
The reference you made to the disappearing sun raised my curiosity, wondering if perhaps thats what the Ancients refered to as "The Sky Falling".
Thanks John
QUOTE(Joe Atlantis @ Oct 12 2007, 10:11 PM)
Hi Keith,
The reference you made to the disappearing sun raised my curiosity, wondering if perhaps thats what the Ancients refered to as "The Sky Falling".
Thanks John
The reference you made to the disappearing sun raised my curiosity, wondering if perhaps thats what the Ancients refered to as "The Sky Falling".
Thanks John
John,
I am not really qualified when it comes to "Ancients" beliefs, but I am sure that someone will pick up this idea and possibly have a factual response.
As pure conjecture, I could imagine that Ash clouds from volcanic activity might well be interpreted as the sky falling. It was after all, volcanic ash that buried Pompeii and Ercalano, and not lava.
Keith
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.