Global Floods/Pole Shifts, page 2

A shift of the Earths crust is commonly understood as a pole shift. Global floods as a result of this is not a long term effect. Locations near water are an ideal place to live so while Mount Everest is not something that would be covered but who in ancient days would know. In fact the majority of human life does not live its life above an altitude of about 7000 ft. So if after a Hurricane flooding can destroy cities, what are the effects of a pole shift on those same locations?

This is not about a tilt in the axis (as for instance what was discovered in relation to Neptune's condition) rather the crust moves in response to a motivator in the direction of least resistance. In response there is a force which is generated downwards and that causes it to stop.

I have not posted unrelated things these are things related to the topic. If the topic is pole shifts and Global floods how can any information that exist be termed not a part of the topic?

The mantle is fluid therefore its reaction to a force is in response to its condition as a fluid.

[Quote]
Behaviour of a semifluid gyroscope like the Earth
The behaviour of the Earth when subjected to a disturbing torque is exactly the same as that of a gyroscope, with a fundamental difference due to the fact that the planet is not a homogenous and rigid solid, made up, as it is, of liquid parts inside and outside an intermediate plastic shell. Every rotational component of the planet exercises on its parts a centrifugal force, which causes deformations and/or displacements of them.

If we force a gyroscope to rotate around an axis different from the main, it develops a reaction torque constant in time . The Earth too, forced to rotate around an axis different from the main, would at first develop a reaction torque. The same centrifugal force responsible for this torque, however, would act on solid and liquid masses causing deformations and /or displacements tending to restore the equatorial bulge around the new axis of rotation. As a consequence the reaction torque would decrease, until completely spent after a while.

We do not know forces capable of making the Earth rotate around an axis different from the main, for a time long enough to complete such a process. But we do know that the planet is periodically hit by large celestial bodies at high speed, which develop an impulsive torque, that can have a very high peak value, as high as the highest reaction torque possibly developed by Earth (see following paragraph and relative calculus).

Graphics of fig.2 and fig.4, can help us to understand what happens in this case.

As soon as the torque developed by the impact starts growing, the i moves in the direction of pa, parallel to the direction of impact. If the impact develops a torque of sufficient value, i will coincides with pa. On that instant the axis of pa becomes axis of permanent rotation. As soon as the torque value decreases, the axis of i returns quickly towards the main axis, but following a different path as shown in fig. 4. As soon as the shock ceases, an instant later, the Earth should again return to rotate around its natural axis, without any further repercussion. But it is not necessarily so.

To cancel the "memory" of the new axis of rotation, and have the gyroscope rotating again around the main axis, it is necessary that the torque be completely spent. Unfortunately, there are good probabilities that this may not happen. We know that the Earth is permanently subjected to a torque generated by the gravitational forces of the sun and the moon on the equatorial bulge. This torque is millions of times smaller than the one developed by the impact, but its role is fundamental.

If at that moment it has a different direction than the one developed by the impact itself, as soon as the shock is exhausted, the Earth instantly recovers its previous axis of rotation and all ends there. The only consequences would be the destruction resulting from the impact.

If, however, the torque due to the Sun-Moon attraction has the same direction of the torque caused by the celestial body, it is added to this, and contributes in its small way to the instantaneous change of the position of the poles. A few instants later the shock exhausts itself while the Sun-Moon gravitational attraction continues, and however small, it nonetheless develops a torque higher than zero. Therefore the "memory" of the axis around which the Earth has rotated during the impact, even for a very short moment, cannot be cancelled.

In this case the Earth actually behaves like a gyroscope whose main axis coincides with the one adopted during the impact, subjected to a disturbing torque equal but opposite to the torque generated by the impact. The overall motion is apparently exactly the same, but in reality there are fundamental differences, as illustrated in fig.5 .

One of the factors of gravity is that an object in motion tends to stay that way unless acted upon by another force. A crust sitting on a liquid will respond to a stresses by moving in the opposite direction. Like a spinning wheel not all the fluid existing between the crust and core need have to move in order for the crust
to as be shifted. But it would have to be a force equivalent in power to that of the crust and some percentage of the mantle, causing the crust to move.

Something about a 1000 meters in diameter striking the earth can do that

What are your thoughts?