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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Hello all,

In Earth's Shifting Crust, Hapgood identified three polar positions that existed prior to today's Arctic. They were Greenland (p 288), Alaska (p 303) and Hudsons Bay (p 273). Each of these positions, he noted in accordance with modern maps, had one thing in common; the furthest extension of accumulation (did not relate to latitude) .. but rather the outer-limits encircled identifiable centers in (what had been the Pole) in Greenland, Alaska, and Hudsons Bay.

As a modern day example, Antarctica is covered with seven million cubic miles of ice, that represents some 90 percent of the world's total, and it extends (as in all times past) radially from the Pole outward to the limiting factors of supporting land-mass and temperatures. Antarctica at the southern pole, looks today as Greenland, and Alaska, and Hudsons Bay looked in their day when, in turn, they occupied the northern Pole position. Crustal Displacement caused each in turn move toward the equator and the Ice Age of the time began as melting back took place.

In Table III, p 342, Hapgood published data on the centrifugal forces caused by the off-set of the mass of the glacial ice on Antarctica. Of interest is the tangential component that would drive the crust toward the equator. This value, at a latitude of 85 degrees, was stated as 6.8x10^12 tons. On the methodology .. Hapgood wrote of Einstein's response, (p 363)


After examining each step in the argument twice, Dr. Einstein had the impression that the principles were right, and that the effects were of the right order of magnitude.


bc
.\




posted on May, 8 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
And what value did he use for the forces holding the crust together and preventing it from rotating about the earth?



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Hello all,

I'd stated that in Table III, p 342 of [Earth's Shifting Crust, Hapgood had listed the tangential component of the centrifugal force (i.e., moving toward the equator) acting on Antarctic's ice as 6.8x10^12 tons at 85 degrees latitude. Following is data for other latitudes.

65 degrees: 31.099x10^12 tons

45 degrees: 40.006x10^12 tons

bc
.\



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
and what is the force of the crust holding itself together that has to be overcome in order for that force to be effective and the crust to move? The crust will have some resistance to being moved, you've presented the force pulling the ice torwards the equator, whats the other forces under cosideration?



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Moreover, what's the friction force that would prevent just the ice itself from "moving toward the Equator" Why must the ice drag the entire crust of the Earth along with it, and not just slide along the surface of the crust toward the equator?

With these huge forces, why is it that storms don't tend toward the equator - in fact, just the opposite? I mean, storms are pretty much free floating, nothing should be holding them back. What huge force is more than compensating for these gigantic forces you've written about, and moving storms away from the equator, and where does this force come from?

Harte



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I think, and someone can correct me if I am wrong please, that the idea is that the mass of the ice is depressing the land at the poles (which it is), and that this bulging is what causes the uneven distribution of forces through the crust, which is why storms wouldn't be effected.

Indeed though Harte, if the Coriolis force can set up the rotaions of water and air across the planet, then surely this force would, if it were being applied to all masses.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello all,

In Earth's Shifting Crust, Hapgood identified three polar positions that existed prior to today's Arctic. They were Greenland (p 288), Alaska (p 303) and Hudsons Bay (p 273). Each of these positions, he noted in accordance with modern maps, had one thing in common; the furthest extension of accumulation (did not relate to latitude) .. but rather the outer-limits encircled identifiable centers in (what had been the Pole) in Greenland, Alaska, and Hudsons Bay.



However, the current N Hemisphere ice sheet is not centred on the North Pole. It's centred on Greenland. And during the Little Ice Age new ice caps becan to appear on Baffin Island - even further from the N Pole and in the same area that the Laurentian Ice Sheet developed during the last Glacial. Climatologists have identified Baffin Island and the Labarador Highlands as the areas in which a new ice sheet is most likely to form when we enter a new Glacial.

Proximity to the pole is not itself a prime requirement for the creation of an ice sheet. This, in my opinion, was the main error that Hapgood (and other after him have made).

I'm also unaware of any geological evidence in support of an ice sheet centred on Alaska - if I recall rightly Hapgood puts that around 90 thousand years ago? (please correct me if I'm wrong!) - which would be in the early stages of the last Glacial (according to current accepted chronology).



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Hello all,

Hapgood's Earth's Shifting Crust 1958, Pantheon Books, is 438 pages long. In it are literally thousands of individual items of research that he gathered from reading original source, and melded into a comprehensive scientific paper.

There are 465 citations, most of which come from scientific journals and papers, written as they were, by the most eminent scientists in their respective fields.

Hapgood's second book on Crustal Shift, The Path of the Pole is currently in print, and available. But having read both Earth's Shifting Crust and The Path of the Pole, it's my opinion that Shifting Crust is the better of the two.

Hapgood lived in New Hampshire, and as it was of interest, my wife, Charles Hapgood's cousin and I visited Keene, New Hampshire where he taught, and we visited his home. This person, knew and was respected by Einstein, and there was an aura of greatness that one sensed as we walked through his house where these extraordinary books were written.

Google can't come within a Universe's distance in describing his work!

bc
.\



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Hello Nygdan and ATS all,

Our objective here is to examine every detail of Hapgood's work, with the one thought in mind - does Crustal Shift lead us to the conclusion that the equator of the Alaskan Era go, as he and others have said, through Easter Island; Nasca, Peru; Giza; and the Indus Valley of Old India.

Once established that it does, we can look at dating the Sphinx more accurately than the suggested 30,000 years.

The next step we're going to take, is to look at one of the comments that Einstein made in the Forward to Earth's Shifting Crust


Without a doubt the earth's crust is strong enough not to give way proportionately as the ice is deposited. The only doubtful assumption is that the earth's crust can be moved easily enough over the inner layers.


To address Einstein's concern, we must look at the work I published in 1998, which identified the forces that will equip the crust's ability to move across the inner layers, as being the solar gravitational forces that hold earth in solar orbit.

This is new discovery and will require the reader's study. The physical tenets to this premise (some are listed below) are Newtonian and are easily understood.

1.] We must orient ourselves to the ecliptic .. because all Solar and Lunar gravitational forces and all energy .. apply to the earth along the plane of the ecliptic.

2.] Then we must picture in our minds the earth's exact motion as it orbits the sun.

... a.] The axis is tilted at about 23.5 degrees relative to the ecliptic;

... b.] The earth's axis always points in the direction of the polar skies (modernly that's Polaris).

... c.] In orbit the earth obeys Newton's 1st Law: a body in motion will follow a straight line unless acted upon by an external force;

... d.] Orbital motion is not intrinsic .. rather, orbital motion is caused by the constant acceleration imposed by the sun's gravity to change Newton's "straight line motion," into curvilinear orbital motion.

... e.] Without the sun's constant acceleration to curvilinear motion, earth would fly out into deep space in accordance with Newton's 1st Law.

More next post.

bc
.\



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Again, what values is hapgood using in opposition to his solar-gravitational pull?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
...The physical tenets to this premise (some are listed below) are Newtonian and are easily understood.

1.] We must orient ourselves to the ecliptic .. because all Solar and Lunar gravitational forces and all energy .. apply to the earth along the plane of the ecliptic.

This statement makes very little sense. If by "all energy" you mean all energy from the sun, then, yes, energy from the Sun that affects the Earth does travel in a straightline fashion (what you call "the plane of the ecliptic" from the Sun to the Earth. But energy from the Sun does not make up all the energy the Earth receives.
Also, the gravitational effect from the Moon on the Earth does not "apply to the Earth along the plane of the ecliptic." If this were true, we'd have a solar eclipse every day, and a lunar eclipse every night.


Originally posted by beforebc... d.] Orbital motion is not intrinsic .. rather, orbital motion is caused by the constant acceleration imposed by the sun's gravity to change Newton's "straight line motion," into curvilinear orbital motion.

This may be Newton's interpretation of orbital mechanics, but it is not a modern one, and does not agree with General Relativity, which says that the Earth is traveling in a straight line already, it's the line (space itself) that has been bent by the gravity well of the Sun.

Harte



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I'm still afraid I don't see in the pictures where the "new" head on the Sphinx has a different angular alignment than the paws and the rest of the body. Is there a better photo to illustrate this? And how much of a divergence is it?

As for an age of 30,000 years, that seems a little high. The body is exposed to a variety of weathering forces along with just rain.

Maybe if we could compare it to another 30,000 year old construction, we could get a better understanding of it. But I'm not aware of any.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Hermes Trismegitus]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Hello everybody:

Einstein's equations and laws (i.e., premises) do not - never have - never will supplant - supercede - or affect Newton's.

They play in different arenas

.. Newton is strictly observable velocities, "v".

.. Einstein is strictly near, or at the speed of light, "c"

.\




[edit on 10-5-2006 by beforebc]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by beforebc
Hello everybody:

Einstein's equations and laws (i.e., premises) do not - never have - never will supplant - supercede - or affect Newton's.

They play in different arenas

.. Newton is strictly observable velocities, "v".

.. Einstein is strictly near, or at the speed of light, "c"

.\

Somebody else wanna take this one? It's a softball.

harte



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Hello all,

I've added three tenets to those previously posted. Again, this is new discovery and will require the reader's study.

3.] The crust is separated from the inner mantle (not by layers of molten lava) but by two inactive zones, that are pliant in nature. One is the MOHO .. it was discovered years ago and is described in most geology books. The second is the "Plastic Zone." This term was coined by Don L. Anderson, in "The Plastic Layer of the Earth's Mantle," Scientific American, July 1962, No 1, Pg. 52-9.

4.] These two pliant layers give the earth's crust a slight degree of freedom of motion that results in the crust extending toward the sun as the earth turns and the crust sees the first rays of sunlight. This extension toward the sun is quite independent of the inner mantle.

5.] As the earth orbits, being as it is in simultaneous rotation, and being that the rotational axis is tilted at an angle of about 23.5 degrees, the crust is caused to yield and bend in a most un-natural fashion. This causes crustal motions, that are mistakenly called tectonic . They are obviously NOT tectonic - they are solar orbital forces.
_____________________________________________
Following are the tenets I listed previously

1.] We must orient ourselves to the ecliptic .. because all Solar and Lunar gravitational forces and all energy .. apply to the earth along the plane of the ecliptic.

2.] Then we must picture in our minds the earth's exact motion as it orbits the sun.

... a.] The axis is tilted at about 23.5 degrees relative to the ecliptic;

... b.] The earth's axis always points in the direction of the polar skies (modernly that's Polaris).

... c.] In orbit the earth obeys Newton's 1st Law: a body in motion will follow a straight line unless acted upon by an external force;

... d.] Orbital motion is not intrinsic .. rather, orbital motion is caused by the constant acceleration imposed by the sun's gravity to change Newton's "straight line motion," into curvilinear orbital motion.

... e.] Without the sun's constant acceleration to curvilinear motion, earth would fly out into deep space in accordance with Newton's 1st Law.


bc
.\



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Moreover, what's the friction force that would prevent just the ice itself from "moving toward the Equator" Why must the ice drag the entire crust of the Earth along with it, and not just slide along the surface of the crust toward the equator?

Harte


Hi Harte

It's Called Permafrost, and is fixed to the earth. That's why it 'pulls the earth' with it. Certianly at some point the Inner Earth Layers would be warmed to a Positive Side, but the outer layers would be, for lack of a better word, stone, from Ice to Below the permafrost.

Just thought you overlooked this.

Ciao

Shane



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


And Single Line replys and responses are a No No.

Sorry, Nygdan, just having fun.

Very lively discussion on a whole, and I am about to throw the Monkey Wrench into the Mix, since the Origins of this thread pertained to how old the Sphinx is.

As for the Polar, Ice Cap, Spinning Outer Mantle talk, it is way beyond my contributions, other than to offer, I recall, a period of time, during a challenge by Baal Worshippers (or some other pagan delight), and the Sun stood in it's place for some considerable period of time.

I am not certain just now, but will review my texts and update that for a Link for review.

I reflect on this, since there was some 'again ancient peoples' with 'tales' of a Night that did not end, and the extreme problems that occured, (Earthquakes and such) that ruined cities, and from my view, this seemed to point to a period that confirmed this Biblical account, but more on that in the Next Post.

Now I am truly sorry, but to the Point, we have several considerations to take into account.

BeforeBC, Einstein and The Writer under attack, have a valid consideration, that certainly no one can dismiss.

Egyptologist have another.

And Egypt has it's own. (The Place, not the People)

I am starting to see an aweful lot of commentary, in respects to Dates, and from what I have noted over the course of the last few day, a very strong arguement has been putforth to suggest this Sphinx is about 12000-11000 Years Old.

The premise is based upon Egypt's (not Egyptians) understanding or knowledge of the Stars, and their belief that Leo was the Start of the Zodiac. It also suggested the Face was female originally, and was an omen of sorts or a prophetic indicator of changes, much like the Mayan Calender, noting the change to come in 2012.

For this reason, alone, the suggestion was that Egyptians (By Locale Only) has constructed it during this period.

I also found some amazing suggestions that would indicate the Flood took place during the Age of Leo as well, but closer to the later part of it's age, while entering Cancer.

And I found this also unique. Unlike the pages or links that I have become used to seeing thrown back into my face when discussing Thoughts and Considerations, none, from what I could tell, where the Word for Word Verbatim arguement that one can find on 100's of disclaimers. (Byrd) I was refreshing to see original thoughts, rather than 1 point of veiw argued 100 times word for word, but I digress.

I will work on getting these links all together to be reviewed, but I was really wondering what some of you, (Harte, Essan, Nygdan, BeforeBC, and of course my friend Byrd) had heard of such a thing.

It is all new, as a concept, to me.

It does of course come close to the age I would put on the Sphinx, 9600-8800 BC, but this is based solely on My Beliefs, Nothing to do with Leo.

If you guys would like to remark, I would appreicate it.

And BeforeBC, keep up the excellent thoughts. I note discouragement is abundant, but nothing comes easy.

Ciao

Shane

P.S. I have also noted this in the Wikipedia Link, although by no means is this a source of Factual Info. Although they do infer 8800 BC was not far off. Maybe they are right!
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Hello all,

The solar orbital forces (that act on the crust as it rotates within the sun's gravitational field) are given by Newton's Law of Gravitation. Newton's Law states that two celestial bodies of mass m(1) and m(2) are mutually attracted by a force, F, given by this formula.

1.] F=G(m[1] x m[2])/r^2

Where:

F = The gravitational attractive force.
G = Universal constant of gravitation.
r = Distance between the mass centers of the two bodies.

The mass of the sun, m[1], is well known and presents no problem!

However, the mass, and the mass center of earth's crust (as viewed from the perspective of the ecliptic) .. had never been calculated before, and it posed quite a problem. Working with a professor from the math dept of MSU, we completed the task and determined the forces on the earth's crust from solar orbital gravitation.

They were: 2.38E21 or 2.38 x 10^21 pounds for each 100 miles of latitude above the ecliptic ; or 2,380,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds. This force is part of that system that holds earth in solar orbit. They are provable, they can be calculated, and they are in accordance with with Newton's, Kepler's, and all known applicable Laws of physics.

It should be noted: That Newton's Principles of the Law of Gravitation are based on experimental evidence and cannot be derived mathematically. Their universality has been challenged by Einstein's theory of relativity, but in applications where system velocities "v" are small compared to the speed of light, "c" they have yet to be disproved.

bc
.\



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane


And BeforeBC, keep up the excellent thoughts. I note discouragement is abundant, but nothing comes easy.


It's not intended as discouragement - from from it! Rather, it's intended as encouragement to read more recent materials which have significant bearings on the subject under discussion.

The lack of answers to some question is a bit discouraging at times though


Anyway, we're discussing physics now - not my strongest subject so I'll leave that area to those who know it better. I'll be back with the weather forecast in 8,000BC when you're ready



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join