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.

 

Hapgood's theory could place the Sphinx at 30,000 yrs ago

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Hello all,

In his 1958 (Pantheon Books) publication, Earth's Shifting Crust, wherein Einstein wrote the forward, Charles Hapgood suggested that the earth's crust shifted (intact) .. and that while maintaining the same rotational axis alignment .. the crust moved across the inner mantle. It was this part of the theory that Einstein agreed with.

Hapgood went on to suggest that crustal shift was a normal occurrence and that the following areas of the globe had shifted into the northern pole position: Alaska, an area near southern Greenland, Hudsons Bay, and finally the Arctic.

Hapgood's theory about the age of the Sphinx now relates to that era when the lands of Alaska occupied the pole position 30,000 years ago .. because with that geography, the resultant equatorial line would have gone through Easter Island; Nasca, Peru; Giza, Egypt; and the sacred lands of the Indus Valley of old India (now Pakistan).

We want to turn our attention now to the equatorial line as it passes over Giza, Egypt .. because an inspection of that ancient equatorial line reveals that it crosses (Giza and the Sphinx) at an angle of about 5 degrees [north of east].

Now let's look at the Sphinx. You'll notice that the body (over which the ancient equatorial line crosses) is directly in line (i.e., parallel) with this equator - but it's modernly reconstructed face looks directly east along the 31st parallel. Notice that you can see the breast and front of the paws .. but you cannot see the face!



Knowing as we do that everything ancient maintained strict cardinal alignments .. doesn't this suggest that the original construction of the Sphinx dates back to the Alaskan Era, 30,000 years ago?

bc
.


[edit on 29-4-2006 by beforebc]

[edit on 30-4-2006 by beforebc]

[edit on 30-4-2006 by beforebc]

[edit on 1-5-2006 by beforebc]

[edit on 2-5-2006 by beforebc]

[edit on 2-5-2006 by beforebc]

[edit on 2-5-2006 by beforebc]




posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Hello all,

Another interesting website that (while based on other criteria) has observed this same relationship between Easter Island, Nasca and Giza .. all laying on the same equatorial line as seen by going to this website and scrolling down part way.

bc
.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello all,
In his 1958 (Pantheon Books) publication, Earth's Shifting Crust, wherein Einstein wrote the forward, Charles Hapgood suggested that the earth's crust shifted (intact) .. and that while maintaining the same rotational axis alignment .. the crust moved across the inner mantle. It was this part of the theory that Einstein agreed with.

Here's an excerpt from an article at talkorigins that discusses this crustal displacement theory, only in the context of refuting the "documentary" Mysterious Origins of Man (MOM):

MOM then quotes a letter dated May 8, 1953 and published in The Path of the Pole by Dr. Charles Hapgood (1970) in which Dr. Albert Einstein wrote:

I find your arguments very impressive and have the impression that your hypothesis is correct. One can hardly doubt that significant shifts of the crust of the Earth have taken place repeatedly and within a short period of time.

When reading this quote, a person has to remember that it was made in 1953 long before much of what is now known about plate tectonics; the structure of the mantle and crust of the Earth; the Quaternary geology of Antarctica, Alaska, and Siberia; the creation of the "frozen" mammoths and other animals; and many other things had been discovered. No matter how brilliant a person might be, his conclusions can be only as good as the data that is available to them. In the case of Dr. Einstein, his conclusions are erroneous because they are built on data which research over the last 43 years have shown to be incorrect and obsolete.

Source:www.talkorigins.org...

The idea of the crustal shift (like the loosened skin of an orange I believe the metaphor was) has been completely bankrupt now for forty years. Just for a quick example, you can look at the chain that makes up the Hawaiian Islands. The existing above sea level islands make up the endpoint in a long string (or chain) of underwater (now extinct) volcanoes. Had the crust shifted as Hapgood thought, this "chain" wouldn't be very "chainlike" at all. There should be at least a couple of breaks in this underwater chain of volcanoes where the crust shifted and a new section of the crust arrived over the "hot spot" that causes these eruptions. There is no such break in this chain, hence the crust has not shifted.


Originally posted by beforebcHapgood went on to suggest that crustal shift was a normal occurrence and that the following areas of the globe had shifted into the northern pole position: Alaska, an area near southern Greenland, Hudsons Bay, and finally the Arctic.
Hapgood's theory about the age of the Sphinx now relates to that era when the lands of Alaska occupied the pole position .. because with that geography, the resultant equatorial line would have gone through Easter Island; Nasca, Peru; Giza, Egypt; and the sacred lands of the Indus Valley of old India (now Pakistan).


I wonder why the equatorial location is so significant? Why must everything be on the equator? What possible reason?
This is a fallacious argument. First, find out how to get several old places to line up (ignoring a gigantic number of other, also ancient places) then decide that the crust must have shifted since, obviously, ancient people would (for some unstated reason) only build such monuments on the equator.


Originally posted by beforebc
Knowing as we do that everything ancient maintained strict cardinal alignments .. doesn't this suggest that the original construction of the Sphinx dates back to the Alaskan Era?
bc

Look, you're already calling it the "Alaskan Era?" What is that? Also, I fail to see any significance in your comments about the East-West alignment of the Sphinx. The Sphinx's face points due East, does it not? That is in alignment with the long axis of it's body, is it not? Then what are you saying, with your Sphinx photo?

Harte

[edit on 4/29/2006 by Harte]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Harte wrote]


The idea of the crustal shift (like the loosened skin of an orange I believe the metaphor was) has been completely bankrupt now for forty years. Just for a quick example, you can look at the chain that makes up the Hawaiian Islands. The existing above sea level islands make up the endpoint in a long string (or chain) of underwater (now extinct) volcanoes.


bc] The powers behind orthodoxy have been assailing this theory for years .. because it scares the wits out of 'um! So they come up with all kinds of tales and saturate the Internet with them to keep it all suppressed.

Let me invite everyone to do as Harte suggests - and look at a map of the Pacific Ocean basin (the National Geographic has published a very good one) .. because what you'll find (in addition) to the row of sea-mounts that go from the Hawaiian Islands to Midway .. is another row, called the Emperor chain, that extends from Midway, with a curved north-northwest orientation, that goes all the way to the Kamchatka peninsula south of Siberia.

And wonders of all wonders .. the entire row (from Hawaii to Kamchatka) are all virtually the same height .. they are all very nearly the same age - and cannot possibly be the result of some slow moving ocean basin.

That argument just doesn't hold any (ocean) water!

bc
.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Hello all,

Please go here to see the National geographic map of the Pacific Ocean basin .. and in that window "click" on (More Views). The map isn't very large - but you can click on (Zoom In) and you'll just make out the line of sea mounts that go from Hawaii to Kamchatka.

I think we can agree that that line of sea mounts was not made at 20 cm per year!

bc
.\



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc

Another interesting website ...Easter Island, Nasca and Giza .. all laying on the same equatorial line...



I looked at these world maps.
What popped out to my eye
was that the axle point for this geometry
appears to be Vancouver,BC, Canada not "Alaska" as the ancient N. Pole vicinity.

i personally lean towards Harte's point about the Hawiian chain over the ages. At 1st & 2nd glance, that 'proof' seems to knock the Alaska Era shift of the crust hypothesis off its tracks.

...
i also wonder if the geometry figures are accurate.. as the distances on the surface of the spherical earth will not jibe to lines drawn on a flat paper map...
~ Hapgood, wouldn't be that careless...would he? ~

in any case, if the whole crust shifted instead of smaller tectonic plate shifts,
then the Sphinx & Nazca & EasterIsle equatorial alignment had to have been significant to either humans or some earth visitors/entities when that situation was the natural order of the day...some millions of years ago (when geology allows for that shift, in the submerged Hawiian chain)
But, neither the Sphinx nor artifacts at E.I. or Nazca...could be perserved for anywhere near that span of time, according to accepted dating models.

...

how about, the Sphinx is that 'Angel' stationed by 'the creator' at entry to the former Garden that humans were expelled from?
The Nile, might be one of the rivers that bounded the 'garden'?

the "shift" might be a spiritual metaphor & not a physical shift of landmass?

~~
peace



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Hello all,

If we are to date the Sphinx then shouldn't we examine all the evidence? Clearly the face and the body do not align - that is not the way of the Ancients. The land clearly moved and a new face constructed to re-align the face eastward. That process cannot be tectonics it moves too slow! So let's clear the air on this .. (if as claimed by tectonics there is a molten layer below the crust) ... then we are bound to ask these questions:

1.] How did ["cold" mountain roots form] that mirror the mountains on the surface? And why don't they get in the way when pushed around by the "heat engine" of tectonics .. and how could they grow if they had to grow in an environment of molten lava? Perhaps a better question is "Where is all the brittle rock that produce the "rock slides" that make earthquake?".. if it's molten down there"

2.] How is it (if tectonics is responsible for pushing mountains up) that mountains cover 52% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22% of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa, and as a whole 24% of the Earth's land mass is mountainous. (From Internet Encyclopedia)

Isn't that a lot of mountains - and doesn't that cover a lot of square miles for a process that moves at a rate of only 20 cm per year? 20 cm is only about 8 inches!

3.] And how is it that the Frequency of Earthquakes Worldwide exceeds 1,400,000 .. if below the surface there is molten lava pushing the continents around willy nilly? How can shock waves penetrate that molten layer?

Don't we all know that shock waves can not penetrate hundreds and hundreds of miles of soft layers of molten lava and still hit the surface with devastating forces?

Could it be that we're so afraid to object in class that we let our value system suffer?

Hapgood had it right - it's a painful thought that we might all go at once - but (going all at once) is the fossil record - and, after all, the main purpose of tectonics was to provide a cover-up for the fossil (and artifact) record.

bc
.\


[edit on 30-4-2006 by beforebc]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello all,
If we are to date the Sphinx then shouldn't we examine all the evidence? Clearly the face and the body do not align - that is not the way of the Ancients. The land clearly moved and a new face constructed to re-align the face eastward.

BC,
There has been no "re-alignment" of the Sphinx's face. It has always faced due east, and remains so today, in alignment with the east-west axis of it's leonine body.

Originally posted by beforebcThat process cannot be tectonics it moves too slow! So let's clear the air on this .. (if as claimed by tectonics there is a molten layer below the crust) ... then we are bound to ask these questions:

Immediately below the continental crust, the mantle is not molten, but plastic. Look up what the word "plastic" means before you scoff.

Originally posted by beforebc1.] How did ["cold" mountain roots form] that mirror the mountains on the surface? And why don't they get in the way when pushed around by the "heat engine" of tectonics .. and how could they grow if they had to grow in an environment of molten lava? Perhaps a better question is "Where is all the brittle rock that produce the "rock slides" that make earthquake?".. if it's molten down there"

What you are calling "mountain roots" not only do not extend deep enough to reach the molten part of the mantle, they don't even extend deep enough to reach the plastic part of the mantle. Hence, they aren't in the way at all.

Mountains don't just "grow" up out of the ground. They are actually tiny wrinkles in the continental crusts, caused by the continent being compressed or uplifted through collision with another plate.


Originally posted by beforebc2.] How is it (if tectonics is responsible for pushing mountains up) that mountains cover 52% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22% of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa, and as a whole 24% of the Earth's land mass is mountainous. (From Internet Encyclopedia)

Mountain ranges exist far longer than the forces that build them. The Appalachian Range is a good example of this. The Appalachians were formed before the continents split apart, yet they are still there today.

Originally posted by beforebcIsn't that a lot of mountains - and doesn't that cover a lot of square miles for a process that moves at a rate of only 20 cm per year? 20 cm is only about 8 inches!

Not at all. See above. Mountains, once formed, stay around a while.
Consider what the roots of an oak can do to stone. What is the growth rate of tree roots? How is a thing that is softer than stone able to split stone?

Originally posted by beforebc3.] And how is it that the Frequency of Earthquakes Worldwide exceeds 1,400,000 .. if below the surface there is molten lava pushing the continents around willy nilly? How can shock waves penetrate that molten layer? Don't we all know that shock waves can not penetrate hundreds and hundreds of miles of soft layers of molten lava and still hit the surface with devastating forces?

What does a molten mantle have to do with this? The earthquakes occur in the solid crust not the mantle or outer core. Besides, if you think that having a molten mantle refutes geologists' theories on earthquakes (which, of course, it does not - in fact it only supports them), then how do you fit this fact in with Hapgood? I mean, he posits a molten mantle as well.

Shock waves do travel throughboth the solid and the molten parts of the mantle, as well as the outer (molten) core and inner (solid) core. The speed of the wave is slower in the molten areas. That's how we know, number one, that they are there, and, number two, where they are.

Originally posted by beforebcCould it be that we're so afraid to object in class that we let our value system suffer?

Now we reach the meat of your problem. I can make a few simple deductions about your grasp of science from the nonsense you have posted here. Let me put it this way:
One must actually attend class before one can be "afraid to object in class."

Originally posted by beforebcHapgood had it right - it's a painful thought that we might all go at once - but (going all at once) is the fossil record - and, after all, the main purpose of tectonics was to provide a cover-up for the fossil (and artifact) record.
bc

There has been no cover-up of any archaeological record, nor fossil record. Hapgood had it wrong, and if the general situation concerning pseudoscientists that exists today can be applied to Hapgood, then he knew full well he was wrong too. But, hey, a man's gotta earn a living, right?

Harte



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Hello all,

Harte said] There has been no "re-alignment" of the Sphinx's face

bc] I suggest that you look at this photo

Harte said] below the continental crust, the mantle is not molten, but plastic.

bc] The term "Plastic Zone" was coined by Don L. Anderson, in "The Plastic Layer of the Earth's Mantle," Scientific American, July 1962, No 1, Pg. 52-9. He defines it as a NON-active layer. It's a good read!

Harte said] ... earthquakes occur in the solid crust not the mantle or outer core.

bc] Deep earthquake have been recorded at depths of 400 miles. Are you suggesting that tectonics is pushing a crust that is over 400 miles thick?

Harte said] Mountains don't just "grow" up out of the ground ... caused by the continent being compressed

bc] I suggest that you study the engineering of foundation design and construction. What you'll find is that compressive forces (hence compressive stresses) are very quickly dissipated by shear, in a process identified as a compression cone. Real time examples are the bridge columns that sit on steal plates - that sit on concrete abutments - that sit on larger concrete footings.

Compression, except in small examples where the slenderness ratio exceeds 10 in the open air .. cannot push anything up, down, or sideways.

Get on the Net and look up compression cones and slenderness ratio. They kill tectonics!

bc
.\



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello all,

Harte said] There has been no "re-alignment" of the Sphinx's face

bc] I suggest that you look at this photo


There hasn't. The limestone of the plateau is made of several different layers, with different hardnesses.


bc] The term "Plastic Zone" was coined by Don L. Anderson, in "The Plastic Layer of the Earth's Mantle," Scientific American, July 1962, No 1, Pg. 52-9. He defines it as a NON-active layer. It's a good read!


All your sources come from the 1960's and earlier... just when the science of plate tectonics was in its infancy. I'll look you up later articles by these same people, and you'll see that they do indeed support tectonics.


bc] Deep earthquake have been recorded at depths of 400 miles. Are you suggesting that tectonics is pushing a crust that is over 400 miles thick?


Why not? The diameter of the Earth is 7,900 miles. A 400 mile crust is a mere 5% of that. The magma layer below that 400 mile crust is around 80% of the remaining diameter. Why don't you think that this is sufficient to shift a mere 400 miles of crust?


bc] I suggest that you study the engineering of foundation design and construction. What you'll find is that compressive forces (hence compressive stresses) are very quickly dissipated by shear, in a process identified as a compression cone. Real time examples are the bridge columns that sit on steal plates - that sit on concrete abutments - that sit on larger concrete footings.


Except they aren't flat, they don't have plasticity, and the dynamics aren't quite the same. Look at ice, instead. You don't get mountains forming when two sheets of ice ram into each other. You DO get "mountains" of ice when one sheet runs over the top of another or over the top of land. Just like in tektonics.


Get on the Net and look up compression cones and slenderness ratio. They kill tectonics!


Not really. You're looking at the wrong equations, for one thing.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I thought you gave up on our little site, beforebc? You certainly abandoned that other thread that you started:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why are you starting another thread now?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

bc] Deep earthquake have been recorded at depths of 400 miles. Are you suggesting that tectonics is pushing a crust that is over 400 miles thick?


Why not? The diameter of the Earth is 7,900 miles. A 400 mile crust is a mere 5% of that. The magma layer below that 400 mile crust is around 80% of the remaining diameter. Why don't you think that this is sufficient to shift a mere 400 miles of crust?

Byrd,
Beforebc is correct, as far as it goes, about these "deep quakes." Far less common that shallow quakes which occur entirely in the crust/lithosphere, deep quakes occur in areas that should be free-flowing plastic mantle. They are (most likely) caused by phase changes occuring in "slabs" (subducted portions of tectonic plates):

As the lithospheric plates making up Earth's outer shell interact, some are plunged downward into the underlying mantle. As they exit the plate-tectonic game they get a new name: slabs. At first the slabs, rubbing against the overlying plate and bending under the stress, produce shallow-type subduction earthquakes. These are well explained. But as a slab goes deeper than 70 km, the shocks continue. Several factors are thought to help:
The mantle is not homogeneous but rather is full of variety. Some parts remain brittle or cold for very long times. The cold slab can find something solid to push against, producing shallow-type quakes, quite a bit deeper than the averages suggest.
Minerals in the slab begin to change under pressure. Metamorphosed basalt and gabbro in the slab changes to blueschist, which in turn changes into garnet around 100 km depth. Water is released at each step in the process while the rocks become more compact and grow more brittle. This dehydration embrittlement strongly affects the stresses underground.
Under growing pressure, serpentine minerals in the slab decompose into the minerals olivine and enstatite plus water. This is the reverse of the serpentine formation that happened when the plate was young. It is thought to be complete around 160 km depth.
Water can trigger localized melting in the slab. Melted rocks, like nearly all liquids, are less dense than solids, thus melting can break fractures even at great depths.
Over a wide depth range averaging 410 km, olivine begins to change to a different crystal form identical to that of the mineral spinel. This is what mineralogists call a phase change rather than a chemical change; only the volume of the mineral is affected. Olivine-spinel changes again to a perovskite form at around 650 km. (These two depths mark the mantle's transition zone.)
Other notable phase changes include enstatite-to-ilmenite and garnet-to-perovskite at depths below 500 km.
Thus there are plenty of candidates for the energy behind deep earthquakes at all depths between 70 and 700 km—perhaps too many. And the roles of temperature and water are important at all depths as well, though not precisely known. As scientists say, the problem is still poorly constrained.

Source:geology.about.com...

Here is a portion of the summary of an article you can buy from Science Magazine on the subject:

Deep earthquakes can take place in subducting slabs owing to the complex phase transformations that occur as minerals are heated and put under pressure as they are pushed deeper. Conference participants debated current models of deep seismic activity and their limitations...

Source:www.sciencemag.org...

Here's part of a paper published a couple of years before that last one, by the same authors:

...Numerical simulations of reaction rates show that the olivine -> spinel transformation should be kinetically hindered in old, cold slabs descending into the transition zone. Thus wedge-shaped zones of metastable peridotite probably persist to depths of more than 600 km. Laboratory deformation experiments on some metastable minerals display a shear instability called transformational faulting. This instability involves sudden failure by localized superplasticity in thin shear zones where the metastable host mineral transforms to a denser, finer-grained phase. Hence in cold slabs, such faulting is expected for the polymorphic reactions in which olivine transforms to the spinel structure and clinoenstatite transforms to ilmenite. It is thus natural to hypothesize that deep earthquakes result from transformational faulting in metastable peridotite wedges within cold slabs.
(my emphasis)
Source

It is therefore valid to say that deep earthquakes as described by bc actually support tectonics, rather than refute it.

Harte



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Hello all,

If the continents (always pictured in their present form) had been grouped to form Pangea - then all subsequent movement would have caused then to separate. Thus [tension] between them - [not compression].

Lacking the compressive forces .. we are without reasonable means to form the mountains .. unless the claim is that they were indigenous to Pangea hundreds, or thousands, of millions of years ago.

In which case there is no defensible case - as many mountains ranges (the Andes, by example) are relatively new!

And if some insist upon an ancient origin - then again there is no defensible case - as waterfalls (common of all mountains everywhere in the world) erode by nature, and their elevated hosts would have ceased to exist eons ago.

bc
.\



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
the entire row (from Hawaii to Kamchatka) are all virtually the same height .. they are all very nearly the same age - and cannot possibly be the result of some slow moving ocean basin.



Nearly the same height? To the nearest 10,000 feet maybe.......


Obviously once they've eroded down to sea level they don't drop much lower as there's nowt to erode them.

But in any case, what are you suggesting? That they all formed after the last ECD? Or that they're not formed by a mantle plume at all and it's just pure coincidence that they all lie in aline and that that line coincides with the direction the Pacific plate is currently moving?

And moving on, since climate scientists have no truck with disproving ECD theories, how do you reckon they've all got their interpretation of ice cores so totally and utterly wrong? I assume you must have read Richard Alley's The Mile Time Machine in order to understand why climate scientists have made such a huge mistake? Unless of course they haven't....

Oh, and my last comment on ECD for now: were you aware that during the Little Ice Age, new ice sheets began to grow on Baffin Island? Not at the North Pole. Not in Siberia. But in N Canada. Just like during the last Glacial. There's no need for the N Pole to be situated in Hudson Bay - we know that for absolute fact


You really should catch up on some modern research Jim



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
This sweeping, foundless generalisation baffles me:


Knowing as we do that everything ancient maintained strict cardinal alignments...


What do you mean? What is "everything"? And what is ancient? And why are you stating such rubbish?

Cheers.

Rob.

[edit on 2-5-2006 by d60944]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   


This sweeping, foundless generalisation baffles me:

What do you mean? What is "everything"? And what is ancient? And why are stating such rubbish?#

Cheers.

Rob.

It's funny coz it's true! But what I think he meant is that many of the most prominant ancient sites (with questionable age) maintained these alignments before the 'crusts movement' occured. But places like ankor wat are supposedly 14th century or something (I thought) so I don't know how that fits in.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Hello Harte, Byrd, Nygdan, Essan and all,

bc] It's an extraordinary fact that Dr. Albert Einstein respected Charles Hapgood to the point of granting him audience, and then to read the original manuscript for Hapgood's Earth's Shifting Crust and then to agree to write the forward.

There were no equivocations in Einstein's endorsement of Hapgood's work, as he made clear in the wording in the forward:


The author has not confined himself to a simple presentation of this data. He has also set forth, cautiously and comprehensively, the extraordinary rich material that supports his displacement theory. I think that this rather astonishing, even fascinating, idea deserves the serious attention of anyone who concerns himself with the theory of the earth's development.


We should also note that there were but few people in the 20th Century that ever received such an unqualified endorsement from such an eminent scientist as Einstein .. Hapgood (who went on to get his PhD), was one of those few.

As a last point .. we all know [while still wondering how many of them ever read the book] that the Net is cluttered with attack mode propaganda designed to discredit Hapgood! But in the final analysis the science that Hapgood proposed (which is pure and simple Newtonian physics) will prevail over these nameless attackers. And one day Crustal Shift will surely be the order of the day!

bc
.\
P.S. I've made multiple efforts to edit my original post to clear up an ambiguity in the wording. But the system won't take the change. The correct wording should be: that [while the inner earth maintains the same rotational axis alignment] .. the crust moved across the inner mantle.
.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello all,

If the continents (always pictured in their present form) had been grouped to form Pangea - then all subsequent movement would have caused then to separate.

?
If I pull apart a peice of clay, I can certianly have parts of it compact back into one another.


Thus [tension] between them - [not compression].

Excluding for those times where the plates are colliding with one another.



Lacking the compressive forces .. we are without reasonable means to form the mountains

Since we do have the compression forces, and we can see that mountains are made up for materials that have been faulted and folded as they would when under compression, this doesn't stand.


.. unless the claim is that they were indigenous to Pangea hundreds, or thousands, of millions of years ago.

Keep in mind that pangea wasn't the only super-continent.


In which case there is no defensible case - as many mountains ranges (the Andes, by example) are relatively new!

Yes, they are the result of more recent collisions between plates, or, in much of the andes case, volcanism.


It's an extraordinary fact that Dr. Albert Einstein respected Charles Hapgood to the point of granting him audience

Not for nothing but, who cares if enistein liked the guy? Einstein barely passed high school math, and had no training in geology. He was good at abstract physics and mathematics, but thats about it.


quoting einstein from an uncited source
I think that this rather astonishing, even fascinating, idea deserves the serious attention of anyone who concerns himself with the theory of the earth's development.

All he seems to be saying in the above is that people should consider this guys stuff, not that he is endorsing or agreeing with it.

What information do you feel has been neglected, what needs to be looked at?


will prevail over these nameless attackers

Ok, so why don't you present some of that science???? You talked about "Rotational Bending" in the previous thread, and that was torn apart, once you finally explained it in more detail. So why don't you explain Hapgood's ideas?



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello Harte, Byrd, Nygdan, Essan and all,

bc] It's an extraordinary fact that Dr. Albert Einstein respected Charles Hapgood to the point of granting him audience, and then to read the original manuscript for Hapgood's Earth's Shifting Crust and then to agree to write the forward.


Einstein was not a polymath. He was only good in physics -- and he was EXTRAORDINARY in physics. His endorsement has about as much weight as if Babe Ruth wrote a glowing introduction to that book.

Polymath geniuses are extremely rare -- Richard Feynmann and Issac Asimov would qualify....but I'm getting sidetracked.

So where are the geologists and geophysicists and paleontologists who are glowingly endorsing the book?



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc

And if some insist upon an ancient origin - then again there is no defensible case - as waterfalls (common of all mountains everywhere in the world) erode by nature, and their elevated hosts would have ceased to exist eons ago.

bc
.\

This is laughable rubbish, frankly. For a start waterfalls are caused by water flowing down through mountains. They don't somehow magically appear above them, floating in the air dropping water down on to the peak, wearing the mountain down to nothing. Or perhaps they do in your bizarre version of reality.

You are essentially suggesting that water errodes rock much quicker than any geologist suggests - do you have any data to back this up? (The Old Testament doesn't count)




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join