Global Floods/Pole Shifts

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Pole shifts are a cataclysmic inversion of the planet's axis of rotation, up to 180 degrees; a sudden slippage of the planet's solid crust around the molten core. There are several major scientists of this century that also expouse this concept as an event that has happened before in Earth's past.

Geographic axis: man-made arbitrary north-south fixed reference that determines lines of longitude and latitude, and the geographic North and South Poles.

Axis of instantaneous rotation: the true astronomical axis; the rotation axis. The line drawn through the Earth about which it is actually rotating at any point in time. The points where the line cuts through the earth's surface are called the "rotation poles"; the visualised extention of the north axis line in space currently points to the star Polaris, the North Star.

Axis of maximum moment of inertia = the axis of figure: because the Earth is not a perfect sphere, but is physically an oblate spheroid, the position of the axis of figure is not a precise constant, but is affected by the constant change in the earth's distribution of total mass: (ie, by ocean tides, atmospheric cond- itions, plate tectonic movements, etc.).

The combinations, and movements, of these masses with gravitational, centrifugal and orbital velocity vector forces, create what we call the equatorial bulge, and thus, the axis of figure. If the Earth were a perfect sphere, there would not be such an axis. The angular difference between the astronomical axis and the axis of figure, called a "nutation", causes an Earth orbital spirical oscillation, known as the famous Chandler "wobble". The equatorial bulge, the rotation axis' angle of inclination to the ecliptic plane, the gravitational tidal forces of the Sun, Moon and planets, have an affect on the Earths' orbit that produces the famous precession of the equinoxes.

Axial Tilt: the ecliptic is the plane of the Earth's ellipsoidal orbital path around the sun; the rotation axis is currently inclined to the ecliptic by an angle of 23.5 degrees: this is called the obliquity, or tilt, of the axis. It is this axial tilt that causes our annual seasons. Due to orbital dynamics, the obliquity varies between a minimum of 21 degs. 39 mins. and a maximum of 24 degs. 36 mins. over a 41,000 year cycle. The axial tilt's rate of change, (angular differentiation), is currently measured as .013 degs. per century.

Geomagnetic axis: not to be confused with the geographical axis, as it often times is. The Earth's magnetic field (whose real source is still an ongoing scientific mystery, but generally attributed to the interactions between the interior molten convection currents and the nickle-iron core, generating an electromagnetic force field, coupled with the rotational and orbital forces), itself has, by its own lines of force through space, the magnetosphere, a north- south axis. At present, the angular difference between geographic and geo- magnetic north poles is about 11 degrees.

Through paleomagnetism, (the study of the magnetic properties of rocks), scientists now have solid proof that the earth's magnetic field, and thus the geomagnetic north and south poles, have reversed itself namy times in the past. Magnetic field polarity reversals are magnetic poleshifts. The geologic record also shows that the strength of the magnetic field varies widely in time, and fluctuates wildly during field reversals, sometimes dropping to zero gauss strength; ie: the field vanishes, disappears! It is also a proven fact that the magnetic poles wander, literally zig-zagging around its axis.

At the present time, the field strength is decreasing. Again, the mechanisms driving all of this still not understood very well.
--------------------------
"In a polar region there is a continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth's rotation acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses [of ice], and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the Earth's crust over the rest of the Earth's body, and this will displace the polar regions toward the equator. "

Albert Einstein quote: from The Path of the Pole by Charles Hapgood

See attached as well as bottom of link for continued:

Flood Myths

[Edited on 21-11-2002 by Toltec]




posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 06:39 PM
link   
As I've stated somewhere before...THE CRUST IS NOT GOING TO SLIDE ON THE MANTLE, no way in hell.

The mantel is has an extremely high ammount of friction, the crust does not slide on the mantle, rather the mantle VERY slowly moves, and carriest the crusts with it. NO way in hell is Ice going to be heavy enough to make the crust of the earth slip.

Besides as with anything moving in a spinning object, the rearrangement of mass would be enough to put our spin on a wobble, the current stability of our rotation shows that we have had a stable spin for many billions of years, would you not agree?

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Don't need to worr about the crust or mantle.

Worry about the Antartic Ice shelf. There is a chunk of ice(really really large chunk of ice) that is connected to land by being frozen. But if it were to break off, it would float out of its place. If so, the weight of the planet in its spin would fluxuate. If so, it be like two kids spinning on a see saw. One kid 200lbs, the other 100lbs. All of a sudden, the 200lb kid loses 70 pounds, the spin fluxuates violently, and the 100lb kid flies off.

In the end, not good.



posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I would tend to disagree Freemason the legend of such events catalogued in the link attached are not the only ones I am aware of, as a result I would side with Einstein.

Don't feel James is such a thing could happen its going to be a while. By then who knows what man can discover.



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 01:45 AM
link   
That makes sense James, although maybe there are other holes in it, however the hole I see is this....

...comparing to your analogy, if you were to reallocate the mass on the 200 lbs. kid in the same ratio as the mass of the ice is to the earth, it would be as if you took an ounce of the fat kid's body, not 70 lbs. The spin may be affected, but by such a little amount, that it wouldn't "amount" to anything


Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
If so, the weight of the planet in its spin would fluxuate.


Where did you hear this piece of silliness?



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Okay, let me see if I've got the summary, Toltec:

1) The earth's MAGNETIC pole shifts periodically (no argument here)

2) Rocks provide us with approximate known times of the pole shifts (no argument here)

But you're ALSO saying that:
3) The pole shift causes ice ages
4) The pole shift caused the crust to slide.
5) The crustal slide is related to the flood mentioned in the Bible
6) The Biblical Flood was universal (really did happen and covered up the whole earth, including Mt. Everest)


I'm just trying to get the basic points straight before I leap in with a debate. Saves mucho foot-in-mouthitis.



posted on Nov, 23 2002 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Actually Ice ages cause pole shifts which are crustal slides. As far as global flood I could see the issue of some period of time in which much of the surface of the planet was under water. Although more in relation to land we humans generally
occupy.



posted on Nov, 23 2002 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Do you have anything to back that up Toltec?



posted on Nov, 23 2002 @ 09:05 AM
link   
..I sense the Mayan calendar, doom in 2012 and Atlantis just around the corner. this "pole shift" Mulligan stew is a happy hunting ground for the "imaginative".
Please let's not confuse magnetic and geographic poles. let's not forget that the entire mass of the polar ice-cap is negligible compared to the earth's mass or that the mass of accumulating ice would cause changes beneath it that would tend to redistribute mass elsewhere.
Let us remember that nothing is sliding around on anything -the crust and mantle are pretty much "welded" together, as far as we know.
How can "Ice Ages" CAUSE pole shift? At the most an Ice Age could be another effect of something that did cause pole shift.
And -while the case for pole shift is a scientifically accessible theory (it's not "proved"), the case for a universal Biblical flood is closed to any and all rational investigation.
They're attacking S&T now -Kano, save us!



posted on Nov, 23 2002 @ 01:34 PM
link   
"In a polar region there is a continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth's rotation acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses [of ice], and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the Earth's crust over the rest of the Earth's body, and this will displace the polar regions toward the equator. "

Albert Einstein quote: from The Path of the Pole by Charles Hapgood

-------------------

Estragon its me not "truth." What you are sensing is yesterdays dinner. Such an event is not in my opinion something we will not have to be concerned about for quite some time.

Relax and take some antacid


Kano the above quote was in response to your query, furthermore would add that in an ice age (Which could occur in the distant future), there is already Ice in the polar caps and the change in climate adds a lot more. As far as welded crust and mantle have no knowledge of such welds. From what I understand the crust just sits on the mantle and sufficient force (weight) can cause it to move.

Beyond that the original link posted which does portend to cultures world wide claiming that such a flood occurred. As well my personal knowledge of legends which as well do confirm such events as pole shifts do occur.

PS: Estragon as far as what the Mayan's claim will occur in 2012 its was called the "End of Days." Which to my knowledge has nothing to do with the end of the world as it is often depicted. But in fact is more related to such legends as that of the "Rising sun." To say the very least despite the rhetoric we are talking apples and oranges.

So Estragon might I suggest that after the antacid a stout Guinness and lets get on with the discussion.

[Edited on 23-11-2002 by Toltec]



posted on Nov, 23 2002 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Is there any verification of that Einstein quote? The reason I ask is that the mass of the ice is so small it would be comparable to a tack on the surface of an orange. I'm not sure just how fast you'd have to spin that orange before the tack produced any appreciable change in the skin of the orange.

Being that he was a physicist, I think he'd be able to calculate mass and momentum and find it hard to believe that he'd come to such a conclusion.

[Edited on 24-11-2002 by Byrd]



posted on Nov, 23 2002 @ 11:51 PM
link   
An orange is a bad example in this case as far as a tack how do you figure?

The mantle and crust are not actually connected in any way. So we are not dealing with a mass of the earth but rather the mass of the crust.

Also how much ice forms in the poles during an ice age? As I understand it at it peak the last one formed what are called the Great Lakes.

You can't take an orange stick a hole in it and move the skin around the fruit inside.
But in the case of the earth with enough torque that does apply. Also the mantle is practically a fluid (viscous). Again how much more ice forms on the poles than is already present when an Ice age forms.

As far as the Reference see link

hallscience.com...


[Edited on 24-11-2002 by Toltec]



posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Erm, arent earthquakes caused because the mantle and crust are so firmly attached? Ie the mantle moves and takes the crust with it, sometimes breaking up the crust in the process.

Incidentally, another quick clarification.. Just because in diagrams the joine between the crust and mantle is shown as a nice bold line, that isnt how it really is, the mantle and crust both protrude in and out of each other and kind of blend in.

Also, as far as ice ages go, it is accepted they can cause compression and some slight disfigurement of the crust. But lets remember the ice is really only frozen water, and we cant get more water than we already have. Lets also remember that while 70% of the earths surface is water, the depth of the ocean only averages out to 3km or so. Whereas the crust is up to 25km thick. Also that the material that makes up the crust is far far denser than the ocean, making its mass even more out of proportion with that of the oceans. Also that the whole ocean does not relocate during an ice age, only a relatively small proportion of it does.

So really, still, the total mass of the ice with respect to the crust is still very small.
Not to mention the mass of the ice with respect to the earth. Far from being enough to introduce a wobble to its spin or dislodge the crust.

(Plus we all seem to be forgetting this little thing called gravity that is conveniently holding the whole shebang together, the earth isnt exactly a top spinning in space Toltec...)



posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I don't have the books, but I did find several pages mentioning that Hapgood himself eventually came to the conclusion that the weight of the ice wasn't enough to cause the crust to move and so he dropped that from his theory when he republished the book.

In his revised version, he also has the shifts taking place very slowly... over a space of 5,000 years.

www.crystalinks.com...

Now, that longer timeframe makes sense from a geologic standpoint, though I'd like to study it more.

At any rate, 5,000 years isn't "catastrophic."



posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Hey Kano....

Not sure as to your sources in relation to Earthquakes but did locate this link.

www.olympus.net...

Byrd as well continuing to look at other sites for more information and did locate this data.
---------------------

Charles Hapgood (1904-1982)

After graduating from Harvard, Charles Hapgood taught history at Keene State College in New Hampshire. In 1949 one of his students asked about Atlantis, and he transformed the query into a research project, questioning the gradualist rules of geology and seeking evidence of a catastrophe large enough to destroy the fabled land. For 10 years, aided by his eager students, Hapgood worked on his theory of earth crust displacement - an update of Hugh Auchincloss Brownís theory that the entire planet has previously capsized. Brownís theory simply stated that as the Antarctic polar ice cap gains weight [9], the planet becomes less stable, eventually becomes unbalanced and topples over. The relative weights are more akin to a speck of dust on an automobile tyre than anything more serious ñ the Antarctic icecap weighs less than one millionth of the entire planet. Hapgood doubted that an accumulation of ice at the poles was enough to tip the entire planet over. He believed that only the crust shifted.

Crustal displacement, from Hapgoodís point of view, is a very violent and sudden shifting of only the "skin" of the planet Earth (the crustís thickness is only 0.005% of the equatorial diameter). This shift causes various disasters, with each disaster triggering another, and so on. Hapgood suggested that each Ice Age would not affect the whole earth at the same time, but only two regions of it - those that shifted into polar regions.

If it were only the skin that shifted, as Hapgood proposed, then the ice cap mechanism becomes more likely. However I do wonder whether this process could be infinitely repeatable, for if the poles ever ended up in oceanic areas, then sufficient ice would never be able to accumulate.

In 1958 an in depth explanation was published in his book titled Earth's Shifting Crust, with its endorsement by Albert Einstein. Perhaps his ideas were just too radical for, despite the endorsement, and although he managed to avoid the ridicule previously allocated to Velikovsky, academics and the public alike ignored his book.

Undaunted by this lack of acclaim, he continued to work on his theory, with a major update being published in 1970, re-named The Path of the Pole. Helped by recent advances in geology, Hapgood replaced the ice cap mechanism with a trigger coming from within the Earth itself. Although he was unsure precisely what that trigger was, it was most likely something involving gravitational imbalances and centrifugal forces. In the introduction he wrote:

"Polar wandering is based on the idea that the outer shell of the earth shifts about from time to time, moving some continents toward and others away from the poles, changing their climates. Continental drift is based on the idea that the continents move individually... A few writers have suggested that perhaps continental drift causes polar wandering. This book advances the notion that polar wandering is primary and causes the displacement of continents.... This book will present evidence that the last shift of the earth's crust (the lithosphere) took place in recent time, at the close of the last ice age, and that it was the cause of the improvement in climate."[10]

Hapgood suggested three previous locations of the poles. The most recent North Pole is Hudson Bay, which was the epicentre of the North American ice sheet during the last Ice Age. The previous sites were in the Greenland Sea, and the Yukon district of Canada, although his evidence for these is totally dependant on radio-carbon dating.[11] Each shift was approximately 30ƒ. These diagrams show where the previous North Poles were located, with their corresponding equators:

Yukon
Greenland Sea
Hudson Bay
Present Pole



1. Yukon



2. Greenland Sea


3. Hudson Bay


Interestingly, the Amazon jungle has remained at the equator during each of these shifts, which may account for its enormity.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


James Bowles

James Bowles is a retired civil engineer who worked for NASA sub-contractors on the Apollo moon program. In his book The Gods, Gemini, and the Great Pyramid, gives us a straightforward, easy to grasp theory on how the crust can shift.

On the day of the pig roast everything was ready. The spit mechanism was in place, the pit had been dug, there were all kinds of charcoal, and all the guests were milling about. All we needed to start the festivities was the pig and a match. So my dear wife, along with Bonny, led us into the bathroom where the pig was laying covered with ice in the bathtub. But one look at the pig and I knew we were in trouble! Ö Iíd figured on a fifty pound pig, because thatís what weíd talked about, but this had to be 100 pounds if it was an ounceÖ.

Well now that one and a half inch of galvanized water pipe looked like a tooth pick next to the pig, but it was too late to do anything about it at this point, besides somebody had lit the charcoalÖ. Half way through the night, the pipe broke, and the pig fell into the fireÖ. Well to make a long story short, a friend of mine and I went into town and got a bigger pipe from behind the garage and put everything back together again.[11a]

The Spit Mechanism




The point is that the pipe didnít just break, it broke from fatigue.

This is torque, forces created by rotation. Bowles calls it Rotational-Bending, or the RB-Effect. If enough tension is happening within our planet, and it is constant, then one day something must give, slip or break. Everything that suffers stress will eventually crack. In our planetís case it would be the semi-plastic attachment of the crust to the asthenosphere. The stress would also create heat, and this could be a simple explanation for volcanoes - an outlet valve for all the heat created by the stresses within the earth. Bowles points out that an easy way to break a piece of wire is to bend it backwards and forwards, over and over, until it snaps. The ends of the broken wire will be quite hot ñ heat being a by-product of stress.

Bowles uses the analogy of cargo on a ship to further clarify his idea: When cargo is tied securely, it will ride with the ship and not come to any harm. But if the ropes are loose, and the cargo slips and slides, then damage can occur.

The earthís crust is not securely tied; rather it is connected to the core via a series of semi-plastic layers, some of which are seas of molten rock and liquid iron. The waves in the cargo analogy correspond to the gravitational pulls of the moon, sun and (to a much lesser extent) the other planets. Our situation is that we have a crust that is 99.9% securely tied to the planetís core. The sun and moon are constantly tugging away, testing the attachment. Eventually something has to give.






The centrifugal forces try to shift matter towards the equator. This is where the stress is. We talk about a pole shift, but technically itís the entire crust that shifts, around two fulcrum points, due to stresses towards the equator. I came across a science Q&A website run by NASA, and found questions regarding the number of earthquakes in Antarctica. Here are the expertís answers:

Antarctica is unusual in that there are very few earthquakes there. Of all the seven or nine continents, or of all the 7 or 25 plates (depending on how you count), it has the fewest earthquakes, and it has none of the big, damaging kind.There are very few earthquakes in Antarctica. It is one of the questions we are trying to answer out there. There are numbers of plate boundaries and we have always been astonished that we haven't seen more earthquakes. We have wanted to see them, we have tried to record them, but Antarctica is a real puzzle because there are very few earthquakes. There should be many more considering the type of plate boundaries there are, and the type of continental structures there are, but there aren't that many. We are trying to work it out. But now it is still a puzzle.



The polar regions of this globe are unaffected by the forces at work, hence very few earthquakes.


It is a puzzle if the standard continental drift model remains in use. The R-B Effect theory of Bowles declares that the closer to the equator you get, the more earthquakes there are, due to the forces of tension and compression.

When I went to high school, I was shown a trick that fascinated me. Firstly, you wedge a ballpoint pen into your desk somehow. Then you get the spring from inside a broken pen, and you stretch it out. Using this wire like a two person wood saw, you cut through the bottom of the penís clip, and saw right through to the top of the pen. It has to be done fast. This action cuts the plastic, but friction creates heat and causes the plastic to melt together again, just behind the cutting action. The result is a pen with a surgical scar where the clip joins. I figure this is what happens to the earth when the crust slips ñ it breaks away, and then cements itself in place again.

In recent times orthodox scientists are re-assessing our planetís internal mechanics, and have finally started to accept pole shifts as a possibility:

July 1996: Scientists at Columbia University in New York confirmed that the earth's inner core was spinning faster than the planet itself, by approximately 1/3 of a second per day, allowing it to lap the Earth's surface approximately once every 400 years. This may help explain Earthís magnetic fields, and why they periodically reverse.

1997: Researchers at the California Institute of Technology reported that an evolutionary big bang, with relative evolutionary rates of more than 20 times normal, coincided with another apparently unique event in earth history; a 90-degree change in the direction of Earth's spin axis relative to the continents.

The poleshift began about 530 million years ago, taking roughly 15 million years to complete. [Throughout this book I ask that you ignore these large time periods, and allow that current dating techniques might, for some reason, be fallible.]

As slow as this sounds, normal continental drift cannot account for movement at such a speed. Dr. Joseph Kirschvink, a geologist and lead author of the study, speculates that it was due to:

ìtrue polar wanderî which is caused by ìan imbalance in the mass distribution of the planet itself, which the laws of physics force to equalise in comparatively rapid time scales. During this redistribution, the entire solid part of the planet moves together, avoiding the internal shearing effects which impose the speed limit on conventional plate motions.î [12]

The study speculates that changing weather patterns broke up ecosystems into smaller, isolated communities, thus promoting rapid evolution.

The study also implies that poleshifts and evolution have occurred in unison, although a different reason for this will be explained in Chapter XX

January 2000: Professor Sagar of Texas A&M University and Anthony Koppers of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography have, while studying underwater volcanoes, found evidence of poles shifting, albeit 84 million years ago. The shift consisted of ìrapid latitude changes in various localesî, with rapid meaning a relatively rapid period of two million years.

ìWe calculate that the sites of Washington D.C. and Dakar, Senegal would have shifted south by 15 to 20 degreesî.

The article is highly technical but it appears they locate a previous pole at 58.9ƒN, 337.4ƒE[13]

How long will it be before a poleshift of 10,000 years ago is validated by scientists?

Next page: 5. Evidence of a Poleshift, Part I


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[9] Note: there have been numerous studies undertaken and as many show that the Antarctic ice cap is growing as those that show it to be melting.

[10] Charles Hapgood, Path of the Pole, Authorís Note, page xvi

[11] Hapgood stated that as hard as it was to find evidence for the Hudson Bay location, the difficulties in locating the previous poles were much greater. Earthís Shifting Crust, page 275

[11a] James Bowles, The Gods, Gemini, and the Great Pyramid, Gemini Books, 1998, pages 33-34

[12] Science, July 25, 1997 - Evidence for a Large-Scale Reorganization of Early Cambrian Continental Masses by Inertial Interchange True Polar Wander by Joseph L. Kirschvink, Robert L. Ripperdan, and David A. Evans

[13] Science, Jan 21, 2000, p455-459



posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 01:36 AM
link   
An interesting alternative theoretical approach math included.

See link:

wwwesterni.unibg.it...



[Edited on 24-11-2002 by Toltec]



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 11:25 AM
link   
What do you mean my source for earthquakes? Someone with more specific knowledge jump in here if you like, but I thought tectonic plate shifts (which cause earthquakes) are caused by the mantle slowly flowing around, and taking the crust with it.

Also again jump in if you know more, but I was pretty sure that the fact that the earth sits in a gravity well largely cancelled out the centrifugal force. (hence we walk around and such
) sure large scale weight shifting could change the earths axis of spin. But the centrifugal force that would otherwise rip the planet apart is far exceeded by gravity, it would seem. Last I checked, when you hung a mass from a string, anywhere in the world, the string hangs straight down. The overriding force exerted on the string being gravity. Even if the mass was as massive as the arctic ice sheet, should it be expected to do any different? It is still far far smaller than the mass of the earth, and hence the gravity well it is trapped in.

Erm, I didnt read the whole link you posted, but isnt it talking about a geographic shift of the poles caused by an impact on earth by asteroids and the like. Nothing about crust slides due to ice build up.

[Edited on 11-25-2002 by Kano]



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Very nice Toltec i must admit ..nice topic.

I agree with the fact that pole shifts would have caused the flood, and lemme get this staright your saying ice ages cause the pole shifts?? not the other way round? hmm..interesting.

Earthquakes comming from pole shifting...that is wrong.

Well there Toltec there is no arguing with the fact that pole shifting would no doubt cause major damage! are you saying that it was the pole shifting that caused the Earth to split up, ?? well thats what i think..is it what caused atlantis and countless other civilizations to perish? Well maybe most!

hmm..lemme do a little more reading on this since you sparked my interest on it

Thanks and God Bless
OrionSirius



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Yup, Kano, that is how it was taught to me, but I must add the disclaimer that I am the educational product of American public education and numerous years of American collegiate education. In other words, 2+2 is about 4, depending on how I feel about myself on any given day!





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join