It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Polar reversal?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I was reading up on the whole World will end in 2012 thing, and IndiaDaily is saying that the N and S pole will reverse in 2012, causing big upheavals in the earths magnetic field.
Is this possible, and does anyone have any evidence of this?




posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
The poles have periodically reversed throughout earth's geological history. The process takes decades to switch, however. It is not instantaneous.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
As Dave said, this has happened several hundred times in the Earth's history. It's simply a reversal of the magnetic poles... your compasses will be off if they're magnetic based. We don't know the impact on migrating wildlife (minimal for some species but important for others, perhaps.)

Changes in the field suggest that yes, it's in progress and could flip any time in the next 1,000 years.

However, the Earth won't turn over in its orientation to the sun, it doesn't change the orbit, land masses do NOT shift around, and it's not linked to any ice age or other climatological change. Geopolar flips are not a cause of mass extinctions.

Remember the hysteria and hype over the year 2000 and the "impending computer doom" that was going to happen to all of us? That's about the equivalent to the Polar Shift Doom (or DooooooooooooooooooooooooMMMM!) theory.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
As Dave said, this has happened several hundred times in the Earth's history. It's simply a reversal of the magnetic poles... your compasses will be off if they're magnetic based...


The compasses will still work. They will just point to the new 'north', which is now south. Adjust the declination accordingly and navigate to your hearts content. The paper topo maps will still work fine. It shouldn't effect GPS systems or other electronic navigation aids. OOPS! My personal GPS has a mag compass built in, so I would have to adjust for declination there, but the rest of it will be fine.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
OK, cool. well thanks for all your input, that eases my mind. Gullible me, the thing i was reading was like " this will cause several problems with earth
1. Much higher radiation levels in nature, which would make cancer and the sort inevitable.
2. Meteorites and other space debris would become attracted to earth, so we would be hit by things a lot more."

among other things, but thank you all for setting this straight.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
what evidence do they have for magnetic reversal?



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
what evidence do they have for magnetic reversal?


Magnetic alignment in ferrous minerals.

The ferrous minerals point to mag north at the time the rock was formed. Date the rock and you know where mag north was at that time.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
This has happend while we humans where on this earth and building our civilizations. How we know that is in some clay pots or something the clay points north when it is fired (mircoscopicly) and useing a number of clay pots from different periods of time they've found that it has shifted a number of times. And we are still here today, so, it's safe to say that we'll be fine.

I agree though if the earths magnetic field is switching it will be weaker all around, perhaps that will let in more radiation from space.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Were any of your alive the last time the Poles Reversed? No, of course not. So then WHY!!! do you state a theory as a fact? This is sooo stupid.

You should start by saying ... the most popular theory is ...

Instead, you are making other people, who have less insight take your word as fact because that is how you are presenting it.


Pole Reversal ... "could" "in my opinion" cause flooding in new areas. As the magnetic field adjusts it could reposition the water deposits (oceans) here on Earth. Also, it might not be a Complete Flip. It could be a Slip. And the current Equator would become the new poles... and Antartica and Greenland could slowly become more tropical.

The Magnetic Field which serves as our protective shield, would fail at first ... before it is picked up again and the change is made. This would leave us vulnerable to attack from Space Debris. I highly doubt that it would reserve to the point where it would attract debris.

This could be, something ... but far from the End Of The World.

I would say this falls in line more with EDGAR CAYCE and his Earth changes.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Here's a nice little illustration or two of how it works.








posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
actually if you look at the first pic. they forgot to label the graph with the negative part.


its labeled high intensity and low intensity. they drew the line in the middle instead of the bottom where is it supposed to be. there is nowhere on the ocean floor where a north seeking compass wiill point south. there are no reverse polarity. that is another lie that supports that evolution theory. it was proven wrong. and its still used, im suprised you pulled that up.

did you know that if you heat magnetic material it loses its magnetic strength? maybe some of these pieces of magnetic material where arranged according to density (like sand in a jar) and thats how you get your second picture.

I honestly cannot believe that you pulled that up. that has been proven wrong a while ago. but if its what you believe than, thats on you.

may I point out, that there is not much salt in the ocean. if the earth is billions of years old, why isnt the water more salty? and why isnt there much accumilation at the bottom of the ocean of sediments and stuff. there is only enough to cover less than 10,000 years.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

they drew the line in the middle instead of the bottom where is it supposed to be.

? No they didn't.

it was proven wrong. and its still used, im suprised you pulled that up.

This is something that has been constantly reaffirmed.

Here's a pdf on the magnetic field in general and the relation to the crust and minerals.
Here is another pdf on geomagnetics.
Here's a paper from 1998 that deals with it.
Here's a paper form as recent as 2001 dealing with the exact same thing.
Here is a webpage that explains some of it,
Here is a neat page that has an update of the reversals information for as recently as 1995, and I am pretty sure there has been a widescale update in the last two years. And here is the original citation from Vines et al and some subsequent papers:

  1. Vine F.J., and D.H.Matthews. Magnetic anomalies over oceanic ridges. Nature, 199, 947-949, 1963.
  2. Vine F.J. Spreading of the ocean floor: new evidence. Science 154, 1405-1415, 1966.
  3. Gromme S., and F.J.Vine. Palaeomagnetism of Midway Atoll lavas and the northward movement of the Pacific Plate. Earth Planet. Sci. Letters, 17, 159-168, 1972.
  4. Vine, F.J. Ophiolites, ocean crust formation, and magnetic studies: A personal view. In: Ophiolite concept and the evolution of geological thought. Edited by Y. Dilek and S. Newcomb. Geological Society of America Special Paper 373, 65-75, 2003
  5. Vine, F.J. Reversals of Fortune. In: Plate Tectonics: An insider’s history of the modern theory of the Earth. Edited by N. Oreskes. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 46-66, 2001.



I honestly cannot believe that you pulled that up. that has been proven wrong a while ago. but if its what you believe than, thats on you.

I have no idea where you got the completely erroneous idea that these things had been 'refuted' or rejected. They have not been, they are used in science, to this very day, because they are well supported and have stood up to scrutiny from the scientific community.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
so you are saying that if I went down to the ocean floor, I would find a spot or two where my north-seeking compass would point south. is that what you are saying? cuz if it is, then your belief in this "science" is flawed.

this is one of the things they use to support pangea. and even that is flawed



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Expert999, these bands on the graph illustrate ferrous rich material that was spewed out of an undersea volcano. If you were to hold a compass above a reverse polarity band, your compass would still point north, that is, unless you were very close to it and the magnetic field was strong. In that case you compass wouldn't work at all. Your compass will always point north because of the orientation the the Earth's magnetic field, not because of the small bands on the ocean floor.

These bands are just snapshots of the earth's orientation at the time. Dave gave a good explaination of this. The volcano spews out lava through tens of thousands of years, and from this we can deduce the period of time the Earth was alligned North, South, and when there was Zero magnetic field. I believe we are in a decline now. After the magnetic field dissipates we will begin our southern orientation.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   
no see, here is what is really is. these graphs that you are showing me, are illustrations trying to cover up for an embarrassing problem.

see, there is not enough sediments on the ocean floor for billions of years bot even millions, and actually not even 10,000 years. the oldest desert in the world is less than 4400 years old. and the oldest reef in the world is the barrier reef in australia.

and check this out. lets just say that clams cannot climb moutains very well. but for some reason, there are many petrified clams found on the tallest moutain in the world, mount everest. Pangea tries to cover up for the lackof sediments on the ocean floor.

see if you look at the big picture, it looks like the earth is very young. and the poles are not reversing. if you dont know, supercold ice is magnetic and probably has an effect on the earths magnetic field by altering its path of magnitude. just because the magnetic field is out of place, does not mean that it has always been moving and still is moving. just like the continents, just because they are slowly moving, does not mean that they have always been moving and at the same rate.

the earth is young, people disreguard the idea that there might be a creator because if there is then that means that they are responsible for every action and will one day be judged, and most people cant deal with that.

so they make up a dumb theory (evolution) and believe in it hoping that it would be true.

and you probably wonder why I keep bring up evolution.. well if you look at the world or even the universe, you can only come to two conclusions.

1. Some made the universe
or
2. The universe made itself

no other choices there



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I'm sorry, but those magnetic stripes are proof enough really of a pole shift. can you offer proof as to why they are insignificant?. As for the argument about the Earth being young because of sediment deposits: You forget that there are subduction zones in which new material is constantly created. Deviate further from these subduction zones to the continental margins and you'll see deeper levels of sediments that correspond with the earth being at the very least 150 million years old. Radiometric dating and measurements of the rates of sea floor spreading also corresond to these dates.



Young-earth "proof" #21: Given the rate of sediment transport into the ocean by the world's rivers, the ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sediment than they actually have. Only a small amount of sediment is on the ocean floor, indicating a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to those who worship evolution. (The present influx of sediment into the oceans is 27.5 x 109 tons per year; the present mass of sediment in the oceans is 820 x 1015 tons. That yields 30 million years.)



21. This is the other half of Nevins' argument (see point #15). Dr. Hovind has botched it further by asserting that only a few thousand year's worth of sediment is on the ocean floor! In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, the sediment varies in thickness. The thinnest sediment is near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where new sea floor is currently being generated. That is to say, sediment thickness there is zero. The thickest sediment hugs the continental margins, which certainly have more than a few thousand years of accumulation. Try around 150 million year's worth! Funny, that the measured rate of sea floor spreading, when extrapolated backwards in time, gives the same age for the Atlantic sea floor as does radiometric dating. Funny, how the sediment gets thicker and thicker as one moves away from the sea floor spreading zone! That is, the farther we get from the Mid-Atlantic ridge the thicker the sediment tends to get; that thickness correlates with increased age of the sea floor as determined by radiometric dating as well as the known rate at which the Atlantic is widening. (Funny, how Dr. Hovind always comes up with "a few thousand years" no matter what we are looking at!)



What are the odds of such a triple "coincidence" occurring? It boggles the mind! It's easy to see why scientists "bet" on an old-earth. And what about those magnetic stripes on the Atlantic sea floor? If that ocean floor is indeed spreading, then the thickness of those stripes and their distance from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge preserve a chronological record of magnetic field reversals. When those distances and widths are divided by the sea floor spreading rate, do we get a match with the magnetic reversal chronology based on the radiometric dating of continental rocks? Yes, we do!


www.talkorigins.org...




[edit on 22-6-2005 by zhangmaster]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
so you are saying that if I went down to the ocean floor, I would find a spot or two where my north-seeking compass would point south.

IF you had read the resources, or any basic explanation of these magnetic anomolies, then you wouldn't be asking that question.

see, there is not enough sediments on the ocean floor for billions of years bot even millions

Ah, so now that you basically just don't understand the magnetic anomoly information, you've decided to trot out another red herring.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Everyone needs to remember that when the poles are shifting, there is NO field in between- exposing us to Solar Flares, massive radiation, and many other dangerous effects due to the loss of the magnetic protection the earth offers.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Yes, that is definately true. Some people wrongfully believe the pole shift will occur instantaneously when it fact it takes years, perhaps even decades if I remember correctly. Better get out the SPF 1500!



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
ok and how long does it take for the poles to switch. and what caused it to start? or has it always been shifting?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join