It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Global Floods/Pole Shifts

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 06:55 PM
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 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

posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 12:20 AM
Gentlemen look carefully at the second post dated 11/24/02 that is posted by me

What are your thoughts?

[Edited on 26-11-2002 by Toltec]

posted on Nov, 29 2002 @ 12:48 AM
Erm toltec, I did respond to that post, and pointed out the fact that it doesnt really have anything to do with what you are talking about.

Your post before that was a little too ranting and drifting off topic to respond to, so much so that it has been nominated by other posters as worthy of a certain award. Please please try to learn some simple basic principles of a topic before posting with authority on them.

posted on Nov, 29 2002 @ 10:22 PM
Not sure what you are talking about Kano to be honest sounds like you are doing the ranting


Flavio Barbiero

Summary : - Evidence exists that the poles have changed position during the past ages. This possibility, however, so far has been disregarded on the basis that such a phenomenon is thought to be physically impossible. The following article shows the possibility of very rapid shifts of the poles due to the impact of astronomical objects as small as a half-kilometer diameter asteroid.

Why is this of topic??

PS: The topic is Global Floods/Pole Shifts what are you talking about??

[Edited on 30-11-2002 by Toltec]

posted on Nov, 29 2002 @ 10:39 PM
While I agree that the MAGNETIC POLES shift, wander, and swap, I disagree that continents and the earth's crust moves rapidly. There's no evidence for that.

Also, there's no evidence for a global flood. There's evidences of LOCAL floods at various times. But (unlike the iridium layer that formed when a huge asteroid struck Earth) there is no evidence of a worldwide flood.

There's no mechanism for it, either. Completely melting the ice caps (ice takes up more space than water does) would not flood the entire Earth.

posted on Nov, 29 2002 @ 11:08 PM
As mentioned before Byrd when it was suggested that this conversation be moved to another board. I am perfectly aware the nature of this issue. Nonetheless I have presented the information as best as I can. I would invite anyone to present information which substantially denies what has been suggested by the links I have placed in this thread. VERY literally this is not a pet theory am I am simply presenting the information. I respect your response but would suggest that someone present a more specific denial of the information suggested (Math). This rather than sounding like (some) overbearing politician. Many pesudo-science posting have been made at this thread and those with specific information, which point to there being incorrect have presented alternative responses to the words "ERM."

I guess at present my main question to the "Master of Ceremonies" is why this is so difficult to do?? There are many who come here with a lot of false beliefs and rather than playing God. Might I suggest that in such a circumstance a few sentences mingled with some clear information might just about, be as simple as saying "Em" and calling information which is not off topic as such.

The polar caps melting would probably not cause a world wide flood I can agree with that. As far as my first post in which the link presented the many cultures. Which claim to have a some point in time experienced a flood, they could have all done so at different times.

Kano would you be so kind as to present the Mathematical evidence which presents the reposted thread as incorrect?

Also is there anyone else which would be so kind as to offer such a conclusion?

See there are people in the world who think it is possible, so would those of you have the capacity to claim otherswise please go beyond the word "ERM"

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 12:11 PM
There are people in the world that think anything is possible, it seems.

Firstly, lets go back through the thread shall we toltec? Before you lose any more of that foot...

I called your link about an asteroid effecting the earths spin and axis irrelevant because it is precisely that. Sure its interesting, but it has nothing to do with your theories of an ice build up causing the crust to slip over the mantle. I don't think anyone here doubted for a minute the idea that an impact by an external object would effect the earths course. (Anyone here that has done even extremely basic physics that is).

Lets see, one more time with the ice build up. And one more time explaining to you about our little friend called gravity.

You see toltec, at any point on the earths surface, the overwhelming force exerted on any mass is that of the earths gravitational pull. Yes there is also a centrifugal force caused by the earths rotation, but the centrifugal force is so comparatively minute, that for pretty much all calculations we can ignore it completely.

Now, let me explain that again in perhaps simpler terms.
It seems you believe that if you had a large enough mass of ice build up in one area the centrifugal force would cause it to slip towards the equator. The thing that you have been, and seem to continue to overlook, is good old gravity.

Yes there will be a centrifugal force pulling on the ice, but in addition to that, there is also the far far greater pull of gravity. The more ice, the greater the centrifugal force on the total mass, but also the greater the gravitational pull on the total mass.

Now lets see, if we think back to our basic statics forces here, if we have 2 or more forces affecting a mass we can just sum the vectors to find out the net force.

So thanks to gravity we have a massive force vector pointing towards the centre of the earth, and thanks to centrifugal force we have a far far smaller vector pointing directly away from the earths geographical axis and at right angles to it. If we sum these vectors we end up with our net force vector (aiming from the mass) pointing very close to the centre of the earth, but missing on the near side (with respect to the mass) due to the centrifugal forces effect on the net force.

By a happy coincidence, due to the earths bulge. This net force vector also happens to be pointing directly down with respect to the earths surface. So, our ice, and the crust with it. Arent going anywhere.

Coincidentally, it is this combination of forces that causes the earths bulge, and thats how we can be sure the combined force always pulls a mass directly down anywhere on the earths surface.

(Yes and I was too lazy to draw up a force diagram for the sake of 2 forces, draw it yourself if you dont understand, I've given the direction of the forces. If you are really keen you could go to the trouble of working out the size (with respect to m) of the forces involved.)

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 12:56 PM
Thank you Kano I will admit that had considered the potential of Ice as a factor (especially in relation to the words of Einstein). But as soon as I saw the link which you confirm as possible I immediately posted it, realizing that is was a more reasonable explanation.

Scientist have always considered that nothing is impossible, only highly improbable. As far as my foot Kano I am not double jointed so the only mouths it can go into is of those who would support me. To be honest the more reasonable explanation is an impact from an asteroid or other object. And would like to point out one who origin would be based purely in nature.

posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 10:35 PM
Math makes my eyes cross, but we do happen to have two geologists (one who minored in it in college back in the 1970's and a working geologist) in the family. Both showed up at our family reunion and I asked them about this.

As it turns out, Toltec, you ARE correct to some degree-- the weight of the polar ice packs does have an impact on the Earth. I was told that it is pushing down on the continent of Greenland so that most of it is actually below sea level. If these ice packs were to melt, the land would slowly rise (this came as a complete surprise to me, by the way.)

Niether of them believed that the weight of the ice would affect continent drift in a large way, however. The difference in the core spin and the crustal spin is also known, but niether of them had an answer.

So... as a mechanism for a "global flood", no.

As to a "mechanism for the ice age", the next thing to do would be look up the dates of the ice ages and the location of the poles at that time. See if there's a 1-to-1 correlation.

As to other things he wrote about:
I'm tempted to dismiss the maps... but that would be rude and arrogant and rather closed-minded of me. If I get some time, I'll look for them on interlibrary loan and see what I think after I read the material.

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 01:33 AM
Question toltec, what exactly is your point?

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 02:19 AM
Pole shifts occur Kano, Global flooding is a symptom.

Have they occured in Human history?


Could they occur again?


Can we do something about that?

I think so

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 02:33 AM
Well lets hear a little more on your theories to that extent. So far you have posted many other unrelated things.

Was anyone even challenging the idea that the magnetic poles can move around? Seeing as though it happens measurable in human lifespans?

Or are we talking a shift of the earths geographical axis?

How rapid and spontaneous do you believe these shifts are? Obviously anything hitting earth from space is going to affect the path/tilt/spin of the earth. But that is very much a different kettle of fish to a spontaneous shift. As far as global floods go, do you have anything linking pole shifts to them? Or proof they even occured? Where does all this water come from?

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 04:02 AM
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.

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?

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 04:38 AM
Also Kano during an ice age glaciers like what has formed around Greenland are as far north as Ohio.

And we have found remnants of cities under water. So in relation to where the water comes from might I sugest. That at some point in time in history those cites
were not under water.

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 09:46 AM
Question Toltec, have you done any courses or know anything about physics? Or any related topic to this? Or are you just pasting blindly?

Naturally a massive enough or fast enough moving object of extraterrestrial origin will have a huge effect on the earth in general. Can we say 'der' ?

But werent you on about spontaneous pole shifts caused by the earths crust slipping around the mantle? Earthquakes, and movements of the crust caused by the mantle moving are also a different kettle of fish. They happen to be a well known and documented phenomenon known as earthquakes...

Can you show any evidence that your 'ancient underground cities' and floods where not just caused by simple earthquakes?

also out of curiosity, is english your first language? maybe its just a communication problem here, we've had that problem before.

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 10:31 AM
Kano is sounds like you trying to base your point on sematics. Perhaps you are double jointed, might I sugest that you are not having a problem with your foot.

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 05:16 PM
(bleah. 'topic review' isn't working, so I'll have to cut and paste):

A shift of the Earths crust is commonly understood as a pole shift.

Okay... beg to differ with you on that one. A shift of the EARTH'S MAGNETIC POLE is called a "pole shift." Continents moving through the polar area is just called "continental drift."

Global floods as a result of this is not a long term effect.

Global floods/large local floods in coastlines as a result of MAGNETIC POLE SHIFT apparently don't happen.

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?

If you're talking about crustal movement, the continents don't move that fast. You don't suddenly get California setting sail for Alaska on a whim (or pressure or whatever) and have it end up there in a few years or months. Greenland has been in the exact same spot for all of recorded human history... ice caps and all. It hasn't wandered down to the Bermuda Triangle, either.

Continental drift wouldn't produce floods. The continents haven't moved more than a mile or so in all of recorded human history (which isn't that long, actually.)

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 05:46 PM
Actually Byrd the math says it can happen, the continental palates can move as a whole. This as a reuslt of a force which is equivalent to an object striking earth that is 1000 meters in diameter.

A force is a force and energy is energy, enough energy can cause the crust to move abruptly and sudenly generating earthquakes and other phenomenon.

A thousand miles of movement may not seem a lot, even 500 miles may seem insignificant. But for what is on the surface of the Earth, well lets just say that that society will not survive. That is unless something can be done to avoid such a problem.

As it turns out, Toltec, you ARE correct to some degree-- the weight of the polar ice packs does have an impact on the Earth. I was told that it is pushing down on the continent of Greenland so that most of it is actually below sea level. If these ice packs were to melt, the land would slowly rise (this came as a complete surprise to me, by the way.)

Niether of them believed that the weight of the ice would affect continent drift in a large way, however. The difference in the core spin and the crustal spin is also known, but niether of them had an answer.

Ask them what would happen in the Ice packs were to increase?

posted on Dec, 1 2002 @ 10:40 PM
Then you would assume the land underneath would be further compressed.

Well, at least you have changed your hypothesis to something remotely believable there toltec. (Although I believe for something to change the earths spin by enough to shake the crust around it would have to be far greater than 1km, as the majority of the energy would be consumed in the massive explosion that would occur on impact.

Either way though, if you are going to keep changing your arguments theres no point continuing. An asteroid too small or too slow to knock the crust around can still be catastrophic enough for us all.

posted on Dec, 2 2002 @ 12:22 AM
Hey Kano....

You know that Asteroid the US landed a Satelite on a several months ago. I heard that it was 90% nickle and iron, seems we now have two reasons for turing all those Asteroids into rubble.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in