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.

 

A Pole Shift is Coming

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
No, there won't be a physical crust shift... and the idea that the ice shelf will cause any huge changes is, as Nygdan put it, untrue.



Here we go again. Now we've got TWO people coming on here and making absolute statements that they can't possibly prove. And it still doesn't change the fact that a pole shift is a possibility worth discussing.

We can't simply poo-poo these alternative theories off just because they are not what the scientific community is currently promoting. Majority rule does not a fact make.




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
For the sake of clarity, can we please diffrentiate between rotational axis shifts and magnetic pole shifts.

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
magnetic pole flip - reversal of magnetic poles; south becomes north polarity, north becomes south polarity

pole shift - physical displacement of crust so that a new location on the crust resides at the north pole (and south pole)


It is an interesting theory - one worthy of discussion without dismissing it. Yes, it is an extreme idea, but no one has proven it impossible.

[edit on 12-14-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
pole shift - physical displacement of crust so that a new location on the crust resides at the north pole (and south pole)


It is an interesting theory - one worthy of discussion without dismissing it. Yes, it is an extreme idea, but no one has proven it impossible.

[edit on 12-14-2005 by Valhall]


Can we agree at least, that the idea that a shift of the actual axis of rotation of the whole earth (not just the crust) is preposterous?

(That is, absent the impact of a sufficiently large planetary body, in which case, axis shift would be the least of our worries, and no, I will not consider planet X a valid theory)



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Can we agree at least, that the idea that a shift of the actual axis of rotation of the whole earth (not just the crust) is preposterous?




Shift of the axis? Nobody said anything about a shift of the axis. The axis of rotation remains the same, the crust goes through an angular displacement about a point that sweeps the landmass that is currently sitting at the north pole to a more southerly position and another location comes to rest at the north pole.

No, another planet whacking us is not the only theory on how this could occur.

[edit on 12-14-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
on here and making absolute statements that they can't possibly prove.

I think that here the burden of proof, or at least burden to show that something is remotely plausible, is on the people making the claim that ice combined with planetary spin can cause the crust of the planet to dettach and spin 180 degrees.

We can't simply poo-poo these alternative theories off

Nor should the be uncritically accepted. There has been nothing presented that is a reasonable mechanism for this happening, nothing even approaching a reasonable mechanism.

Ice can affect the crust, yes. It can compress it. When the ice sheets are gone, the crust springs back, like a sponze after squeezing. But it doesn't cause plates to form, there is no plate that can be moved by the ice here. Its a small portion of a larger plate.
If there was a plate, then what? We can agree that the ice can cause subduction, but its simply not reasonable to say that its going to extrude the plate between the lithosphere and ice, pushing other crustal plates along the way.

Anything is possible, granted.

But, it accomplishes nothing to say that. All that means is that this is as possible as gravity shutting down and people jumping to the moon.


one worthy of discussion without dismissing it.

Sure. But the discussion is short. As far as I can see anyway. Its worth considering, but it can be seen that its just not something that is going to happen.


Also lets consider the original forumlation here:

one side of the continent is much heavier than the other. if the ice shelf eventually became too heavy, the ice shelf would drift out to sea, and at 26 hours be far enuff out to shift the balnce of poles

Why is this peice of crust moving 'out to sea'? Why is that going to cause an imbalance, won't the other plates move in concert? Why is that imbalance going to result in dettachment of the crust at some level and then a 180 degree shift?

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I can see a number of problems with that theory off the bat.



  1. How does the theory account the fact that the Earth is not a perfect sphere?

  2. How does the theory account for the fact that the crust is not a uniform layer? Subduction zones and such would have to undergo significant “rearrangement” to “slide” over the mantle.

  3. How does this theory apply the law of conservation of angular momentum to the movement of the crustal mass?

  4. How does this theory account for the low viscosity of the upper mantle?




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
about 10000 years ago there was a planetqaary body that struck the earth where the hudson bay now is. this caused a bunch of wrath of god like stuff and caused the continents to shift and the poles move. for ex. the north pole used to be around northern canada. keep in mind for wat i said to happpen, it would be hard, but not impossible. keep ion mind taht the ice shelf is prettty big at 210,000 sq mi.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I always thought the theory was that massive amounts of ice would build at the poles causing the Earth to "wobble" similar to a football (American style). Eventually this "wobble" becomes great enough to cause a shift and the Earth would topple and change it's access while still remaining within it's current orbit.

Is what I outlined a plausable theory from a scientific sense? I'm curious.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Hudson bay

Even if that were an impact crater, it would not have been big enough to cause the type of devastation that you propose.


keep ion mind taht the ice shelf is prettty big at 210,000 sq mi.


So what. It is floating in the ocean. If it detached and moved, sea water of the same mass would simply take its place.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
It is an interesting theory - one worthy of discussion without dismissing it. Yes, it is an extreme idea, but no one has proven it impossible.

Am I on global ignore? I'm sure I used the word "impossible" in my post... Or did I post in Afrikaans again?


[edit on 15-12-2005 by Gemwolf]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Byrd
No, there won't be a physical crust shift... and the idea that the ice shelf will cause any huge changes is, as Nygdan put it, untrue.



Here we go again. Now we've got TWO people coming on here and making absolute statements that they can't possibly prove.


Well, what data would you like to see?

That there were previous ice ages and that the globe warmed up afterwards? I can certainly provide you with links (of course, they're scientific...) to show that, including the various measurements of the earth.

That there wasn't massive movement of the crust after the ice ages ended? Yes, I can show you direct links to local geologies along major fault lines that rather clearly show this (if you're not familiar with the geologic layers and formations and how they were laid down this might not be convincing... but you don't need to be a geologist or geophysics expert to understand what the rocks are showing.)

I'm interested to know what you find so unbelievable about the scientific evidence.

I know you're certainly NOT anti-science... so what are the gaps in the evidence that you think you see? We science geeks will be glad to point you in the direction of published evidence (or evidence that you can simply walk out and see... after all, there've been nearly 50 magnetic pole shifts in the past 10 million years (www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk...). and there's never been any sudden shift of continents or plates since the earth cooled to form continents. (www.nhm.ac.uk... and home.entouch.net... (tirade there by an angry geologist who explains geologic columns and how they are determined) and so on and so forth.)

So I hope that you'll tell us what pieces of the evidence you think points otherwise (particularly given the thickness of the crust and the physics of the energy of displacement and the shape of the crust.)



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
I always thought the theory was that massive amounts of ice would build at the poles causing the Earth to "wobble" similar to a football (American style).

The Earth DOES wobble, Zedd. It's called "precession of the equinoxes" and is one of the factors in creating an Ice Age ("Milankovich cycle".) But the wobble is very very slow.


Eventually this "wobble" becomes great enough to cause a shift and the Earth would topple and change it's access while still remaining within it's current orbit.


That would indicate a pattern of continual wobble (once wobbling, it doesn't stop.) Try this... spin a ball on a table (and mark a "north pole" with an "x".) Now, turn the "north pole" on its side and spin the ball in place again (so that the "north pole" of the spin keeps the ball in one pace (you don't want to go chasing it all over creation) but the "x" pole moves.)

On the Earth, the "x" for the pole is just a tiny distance away from the spin of the axis. How long would you have to let the ball spin before the spin caused the "x" (which moves in a tiny circle around the center of the spin) to change from being up on top where you can see it to down on the bottom of the ball?

Remember that planetary motion obeys physics. That was a simple "thought problem" but it summarizes how planets' poles don't always match the axis of their spin. As you can see, the motion of the axis of spin would have to be both huge and noticeable for the planet to roll over.

Once it started rolling over, it would continue that motion.

There is a planet with an unusual axis of rotation... Neptune... which is believed to be a captured object of our solar system. However, it's not wobbling itself back upright. It's stable (and so is its orbit) and will stay that way until something huge (like a collision with a planetoid) disrupts it.




Yes, I realize the example is EXTREMELY general (and generously so)... but you honestly didn't want to read the long explaination. It's out there, though:

www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov...
web.austin.utexas.edu...



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

I think that here the burden of proof, or at least burden to show that something is remotely plausible, is on the people making the claim that ice combined with planetary spin can cause the crust of the planet to dettach and spin 180 degrees.


I'm going to keep you and Byrd within the envelope of the theory if it kills me. No one has EVER postulated a 180 degree spin. It is an angular displacement of around 15 degrees I believe.

No - the burden of proof is NOT on those who consider this to be a theory not yet proven impossible. See, that's the whole point. Until you prove something is absolutely impossible and use only physical laws (not other interpretation based on premises of OTHER theories) to prove that, you are in VIOLENT OPPOSITION to the scientific method.

To Byrd - the statements above apply to what you are offering to present here. By all means, present away, but what you will be presenting are intepretations of geologic processes and structures in SUPPORT OF the current scientific theory. That is NOT evidence that proves alternative theories to catastrophic geological events are impossible.

They are NOT the same.




[edit on 12-15-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
No - the burden of proof is NOT on those who consider this to be a theory not yet proven impossible.


Actually, it is -- unless you're doing a "King Kong can beat up He-Man" type of fantasy speculation.

In the world of Marvel Comics, Thor could shove the continents around with Mjollinir. Or Gigantor could get into a battle with Silver Surfer and their weapons and psyonic blasts could cause the crust to become unstable and wiggle around.

BUT... if you're not doing a comics book conversation and want to promote "the crust suddenly moves around" then you need to explain how it's done and what kinds of evidence there is to show that you have a decent idea that's worth disucssion and not some "what if King Kong met Godzilla" tyep of speculation.


Until you prove something is absolutely impossible and use only physical laws (not other interpretation based on premises of OTHER theories) to prove that, you are in VIOLENT OPPOSITION to the scientific method.


So what mechanisms are you proposing that cause the huge continental plates to suddenly slip and slide around within a period of days or years (rather than, say, millions or billions of years.

I think we would certainly agree on the "the continents could move from the north pole to the south pole" if the time period was "billions of years." There's support and known and measured mechanisms for that.

But not for long distance sudden catastrophic moves.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

No - the burden of proof is NOT on those who consider this to be a theory not yet proven impossible. See, that's the whole point. Until you prove something is absolutely impossible and use only physical laws (not other interpretation based on premises of OTHER theories) to prove that, you are in VIOLENT OPPOSITION to the scientific method.


To prove something to be absolutely impossible one would have to be omnipotent


However, in this case we have, as it were, 2 conflicting theories. One says a build up of polar ice can cause a crustal displacement. The other says it cannot. The first has no evidence in support of it. The second is supported by the fact that all accepted geological, glaciological, oceanographic and palaeoclimatic evidence points to no such crustal displacement having occured at least within recent geological time.

That is not to say that at some point in the further new evidence may arise that leads to a reassessment.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Surface rock that harden from molten state preserve the directionality of the Earth's magnetic poles and examining these rocks does show reversals of 180 degrees in the earth's past, yet the gradual nature of continental drift during those time frames seems to contradict the rock evidence. The idea of less-than-180 degree geographic-pole-and-rotational-axis shift has been occasionally predicted by seers who claim otherworldly knowledge. I think that about sums up what I'd have to say on the subject, except that assymetric ice-distribution in sub polar regions in the presence of spherical rotation intuitively does seem the likeliest mechanism for such a subtotal shift.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Byrd
No, there won't be a physical crust shift... and the idea that the ice shelf will cause any huge changes is, as Nygdan put it, untrue.



Here we go again. Now we've got TWO people coming on here and making absolute statements that they can't possibly prove.


Well, what data would you like to see?

That there were previous ice ages and that the globe warmed up afterwards? I can certainly provide you with links (of course, they're scientific...) to show that, including the various measurements of the earth.


Yes, these can be used in support of the alternative theory - not just the current "accepted" theory.



That there wasn't massive movement of the crust after the ice ages ended? Yes, I can show you direct links to local geologies along major fault lines that rather clearly show this (if you're not familiar with the geologic layers and formations and how they were laid down this might not be convincing... but you don't need to be a geologist or geophysics expert to understand what the rocks are showing.)


That would be untrue. What you can show me is interpretations of geologic structures.



I'm interested to know what you find so unbelievable about the scientific evidence.


I'm interested in knowing why you think I think the scientific evidence (on any theory) is unbelievable. I didn't say that....in any terms.



I know you're certainly NOT anti-science... so what are the gaps in the evidence that you think you see?


Actually, I am a bit anti-science if you are referring to the modern dogmatic scientific community that has bastardized - or most the time outright abandoned - the scientific method. What you are correct in is that I am absolutely NOT anti-science in the true since of the word "science" which mandates following the scientific method.



We science geeks will be glad to point you in the direction of published evidence (or evidence that you can simply walk out and see... after all, there've been nearly 50 magnetic pole shifts in the past 10 million years (www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk...). and there's never been any sudden shift of continents or plates since the earth cooled to form continents. (www.nhm.ac.uk... and home.entouch.net... (tirade there by an angry geologist who explains geologic columns and how they are determined) and so on and so forth.)


I'm a science geek as well. I don't agree with your interpretation. That's the beauty of the scientific method. I don't have to agree with your interpretation when it hasn't been proven. Which leaves open the discussion of alternative hypotheses.



Remember that planetary motion obeys physics. That was a simple "thought problem" but it summarizes how planets' poles don't always match the axis of their spin. As you can see, the motion of the axis of spin would have to be both huge and noticeable for the planet to roll over.

Once it started rolling over, it would continue that motion.

There is a planet with an unusual axis of rotation... Neptune... which is believed to be a captured object of our solar system. However, it's not wobbling itself back upright. It's stable (and so is its orbit) and will stay that way until something huge (like a collision with a planetoid) disrupts it.


The only planet of unusual axis of rotation is Uranus. Neptune does have an unusual orbital path, and it has a mismatched magnetic field to its axis of rotation, but it does not have an unusual axis of rotation.


Actually, it is -- unless you're doing a "King Kong can beat up He-Man" type of fantasy speculation.

In the world of Marvel Comics, Thor could shove the continents around with Mjollinir. Or Gigantor could get into a battle with Silver Surfer and their weapons and psyonic blasts could cause the crust to become unstable and wiggle around.

BUT... if you're not doing a comics book conversation and want to promote "the crust suddenly moves around" then you need to explain how it's done and what kinds of evidence there is to show that you have a decent idea that's worth disucssion and not some "what if King Kong met Godzilla" tyep of speculation.


Every statement in the above quote is beneath me - and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's beneath you. If you want to deal in Marvel Comics, then go for it. But I've never read a Marvel Comic, and therefore have been unable (let alone unwilling) to apply anything from them to science.


So what mechanisms are you proposing that cause the huge continental plates to suddenly slip and slide around within a period of days or years (rather than, say, millions or billions of years.


I believe the current thread is postulating one mechanism. Unfortunately, that point has been (hopefully not deliberately) lost in white noise and comic relief.

[edit on 12-19-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   
So what you're saying Valhall is that you interpret the evidence differently to everyone else and therefore your theory must be seen as equally valid?

I'm sure flat earthers and hollow earthers could say much the same......



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
So what you're saying Valhall is that you interpret the evidence differently to everyone else and therefore your theory must be seen as equally valid?

I'm sure flat earthers and hollow earthers could say much the same......


First off, I have no theory. I have none whatsoever. I promote no theory. I support no theory. So I'm not sure when the big ebay auction occurred and I bought this theory.

I defend the original poster's right to discuss this theory. I defend the right for anyone to speak of catastrophism versus gradual tectonic process because right now the only thing that precludes the first is an interpretation with a theory attached to it for the latter. That, BY DEFINITION, leaves open the possibility that there could be other explanations; and therefore exist other theories. If that puts me in the boat with "flat earthers or hollow earthers" in your eyes, so be it. It doesn't in mine.

[edit on 12-20-2005 by Valhall]




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join