A Pole Shift is Coming

Sorry Valhall

So I guess then we're left with a theory which may be valid but which has no supporters and no supporting evidence?

On the balance of probability I'd say it's dead in the water.....

But if someone out there has real, up to date, evidence that supports the theory, let's hear it

Well, reviewing the thread, I'm of the assumption that three pages of condescension has most likely scared everybody that appeared to have interest in discussing the pro side of this topic off.

Great job guys.

Let's go kill some more topics with absolute statements that can't be proven. Got any good targets in your scopes?

Well to be fair, the thread did start off with a highly imaginative proposition that had no grounding in physical possibility

Would you rather folk go around believing that a break away ice shelf can cause the entire Earth's crust to shift, killing us all? Or rest easy in their beds knowing it's a physical impossibility (according to all know laws of science)

I am as much an opponent against bad science as anybody else who has posted in this thread in opposition to the entire polar shift theory. But there is a proper way to discuss the problems with a theory, and there is a highly unacceptable way to attack what you've personally decided you can't consider.

...now isn't there? This discussion could have taken place in a manner that a lot of people could have learned a lot of things.

it didn't.

How about I jump in the discussion by asking a question about the magnetic pole shift. This is something that doesn’t quite make sense to me, and maybe one of you experts can answer this. There was recent mention about the core of the Earth actually spinning faster than the outer crust. Doesn’t the core determine the magnetic pole? So if the magnetic pole is shifting, is the core shifting with it? Then it would not only be spinning faster, but might also be shifting, or have its own wobble?

Also you mentioned other planets magnet poles, don't they all lined up in opposition to the sun? Except for Neptune or Uranus, which I heard one or the other had been turned on its side by a planetary collision, but I believe it was the rotational axis. I don’t know about the magnetic pole.

I am going from experience with magnets here, so please forgive me. I know that magnets lined up opposite each other are attracted to each other, while magnets lined up the same oppose each other. So I would expect the poles of the planets to be opposite of the poles of the sun and any shift in the magnetic poles would be corrected by the much stronger force of the poles of the sun. I know the crust shows signs of magnetic pole reversal every 75,000 years. So I just wonder how it is possible for the magnet poles to reverse. Is it possible the north magnetic pole will eventually migrate back toward the northern rotational axis?

Thanks for any input.

Actually, about 15+ years ago, they did modeling on the dynamo effect of the molten core spinning within the earth and their computer model duplicated the periodic magnetic polarity flip.

I'll try to rustle something up on that work so that we might be able to get you better answers than me recalling what I learned in college too many moons ago.

This is most likely not the study I'm referring to, but it is the same modeling work.

www.psc.edu...

There is an animation at the bottom of the page.

Planetary magnetic fields vary

www.astronomynotes.com...

No.

As the ice builds up, the bottom layers become plastic and even liquid due to the huge pressures. Thus gravity would tend to pull the ice down before it ever got that high.

Imagine trying to build a tower out of huge blocks of jello. Eventually the weight would cause the bottom blocks to squish out.

Try thinking of it this way:

How deep are the Earth’s oceans?

Have you ever heard the comparison of the Earth to an apple?

If the Earth were the size of an apple, the Earth’s oceans and lithosphere would be about the thickness of the skin of the apple.

The Earth would never get to be shaped like a football. Gravity would keep it round.

Thanks for the links Val and Howard, and I will look them over when I have more time, there is a lot of info there.

*smacks forehead*

Ok, I see. However, I don't think that this is what chicklestick or whatever is talking about, he seems to be talking about the crust moving. You are suggesting that the earth's axis of tilt is thrown off, or possibly its obliquity, I beleive.



?
The method woudl require that the idea be based on observations, that it come from the observations themself. What observations lead to this idea?
Then the method would have us test the idea, we can presumably do this more or less by looking at some of the details and quantities involved.

For my part, I don't see how glacial ice is going to throw off the tilt of the planet, at all. I don't see any evidence that the extreme buildups of ice in the past have done this either.
I would think that this could be detected by looking at changes in the electromagnatic field, as recorded by Mid Atlantic Ridge seafloor spreading, that as the degree of tilt changes, that this results in a change that can be recorded, as the field is affected by the solar wind, and movement through this field might leave some sort of evidence of its occurance.
A nice thing to see would be an experiment with a spinning ball that has a relative difference in the distribution of its mass that is similar ot the accumlation of a thicker ice sheet.

I beleive that there are also records of the changes in the astronomical characteristics of the earth, the milankovitch scale changes, and that a change in tilt would not only have to be recorded in the same proxies use to reconstruct that record, but also that it would mean that the pattern that we have now is wrong.


Indeed, but how is the alternative theory a better explanation of that data than the "consensus" theory?

Are you suggesting that the interpretations are incorrect? How does the tilt-shift better explain the structures?

No interpretation is ever going to be proven. That doesn't mean that the science based on those interpretations doesn't work.
[quote\]I believe the current thread is postulating one mechanism. Unfortunately, that point has been (hopefully not deliberately) lost in white noise and comic relief.

LOL! No I'm not. I'm talking about the same thing chicklestick is talking about. The theory of crustal displacement polar shift postulates that the crust displaces through a limited angle. It slides across the mantle through some 15 degrees or so. When it comes to rest, the axis of rotation is then pointing through a new geographic location (the axis or rotation remained stationary, the crust moved) because that location moved into the position of the stationary axis of rotation.




Well, we have at least one data point now that we can lovingly caress in the world of catastrophism. We'll keep our eye out for more

P.S. One advantage in catstrophism is that the data points are REAL EASY to see. LOL!


[edit on 12-20-2005 by Valhall]

A pole/crust shift is very serious. Check out the free book on kataclysm.webs.com.... (no gimmick or hook at the site) It gives a complete summary of the problem and pending crisis.

Perhaps, but it's like saying "Assuming I crap rainbow sherbet, what should I eat to ensure good coloration?" The whole idea is nonsense. There's no point in discussing an idea this stupid beyond "plate tectonics don't work that way."

Science can't tell you if anything at all is right, but it can definitely tell you if something is wrong. A literal shift of the north pole to the south and south pole to the north is laughable.

Furthermore, unless the ice shelf is resting on the ground, it doesn't make any difference if it's attached to more ice in the general area, molten, or broken into drink-sized ice cubes. It's all floating; it displaces it's weight in water. if it weren't there, it's weight in water would be there instead. Not to mention that this thread seems to be the only occurrence of an ice shelf called "rosden".

Magnetic pole shifts occur every once in a while, and are mostly harmless, but physical pole shifts have never happened, and the mechanics are mind boggling and laughable, whether the idea is that the earth's axis changes, or the crust slips around on the earth so the area that was once the north pole is south, and some new place is the north pole.

We can make absolute statements against alternative theories when they're so at odds with observed reality that the proponents may as well be living in a different universe.

There is (under a reasonable set of axioms) only one reality (that concerns us), and if you're trying to infer truth about it (and I assume here that people on this forum are at least *tangentially* interested in truth), you can't just make (pound sign) up, or repeat something you've heard on the internet on some dubious website. *Not* anything is possible. We don't know for sure what is, and what isn't, but we've got a fair idea for things at reasonable temperatures, sizes, densities and distances.

I don't see how ocean displasements can affect the gravitational forces on this eartth. If anything ' I would say there is alot to what astronemers are saying about the Winter Solstice Alignnment ; and maybe you throw in Nibiru and you have your pole shift .