Why So Many Earthquakes? The Hapgood Einstein Hancock Earth Crust Displacement Theory

I was wondering why so many earthquakes, with increasing magnitude have been occurring recently. I ran across several articles and found it to be of some interest.
Charles Hapgood was not a geologist; he was a professor of the history of science at Keene College in New Hampshire. He also pursued ancient cartography. He noticed that a southern continent had been depicted on several maps, together with streams and pre-glacial topography. These Middle Age’s maps show a continent about 30 degrees further north, in a temperate climate. Antarctica was not officially discovered until 1820.
With continental drift and plate tectonics it would take millions, if not hundreds of millions years for Antarctica to drift to it’s current polar position. So Professor Hapgood developed a theory called Earth Crust Displacement (ECD) which could account the shift, and yet not contradict the theory of continental drift. The basic notion of ECD is that the earth’s lithosphere, although composed of individual plates, can at times move as a whole over the asthenosphere.
Now, visualize a loose-fitting jig-saw puzzle on a table. If you tried to move these pieces with uneven pressure, they would come apart and slip underneath each other.
This is like plate tectonics and continental drift. Next, push evenly on the bottom edge, it is possible to slide the whole puzzle across the table without disrupting the pieces. This is the core of Earth Crust Displacement. According to Steve Kruse, “Hapgood claimed that towards the end of the last ice age, around 12,000 years ago, the extensive mass of glacial ice covering the northern continents caused the lithosphere to ‘slip’ over the asthenosphere, moving Antarctica, during a period of at most several centuries, from a position in the middle latitudes to its current location, and at the same time rotating the other continents. Antarctica’s movement to the polar region precipitated the development of its ice cap. Similarly, by shifting the northern ice sheets out of the arctic zone, the end of the ice age was facilitated.” Interesting enough, Admiral Byrd collected sedimentary cores from the bottom of the Ross Sea that provide evidence that great rivers carried down fine sediments into the sea.
www.archive.org...

This theory caught the attention of Professor Albert Einstein, who writes,” 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 have taken place repeatedly and within a short time.”
Hapgood then published his findings in the book Earth's Shifting Crust: a Key to Some Basic Problems of Earth Science (published in 1958 by Pantheon Books, New York).
Professor Einstein even wrote the forward. Here is some paraphrasing of Dr Einstein’s forward.
“I frequently receive communications from people who wish to consult me concerning their unpublished ideas. It goes without saying that these ideas are very seldom possessed of scientific validity. The very first communication, however, that I received from Mr. Hapgood electrified me. His idea is original, of great simplicity, and -- if it continues to prove itself -- of great importance to everything that is related to the history of the earth's surface... data indicate… climatic changes have taken place, apparently quite suddenly.
This is explicable if the virtually rigid outer crust of the earth undergoes, from time to time, extensive displacement over the viscous, plastic, possibly fluid inner layers. Such displacements may take place as the consequence of comparatively slight forces exerted on the crust, derived from the earth's momentum of rotation, which in turn will tend to alter the axis of rotation of the earth's crust. In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth's rotation acts on these unsymmetrically(sic) deposited masses, 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. If the earth's crust is really so easily displaced over its substratum as this theory requires, then the rigid masses near the earth's surface must be distributed in such a way that they give rise to no other considerable centrifugal momentum, which would tend to displace the crust by centrifugal effect. I think that this deduction might be capable of verification, at least approximately. This centrifugal momentum should in any case be smaller than that produced by the masses of deposited ice.”
Professor Einstein died, just 2 week after the publication.
Sadly, the geological community dispelled this theory, back in the 1960’s.
Enter Graham Hancock, a former correspondent for The Economist. He states Hancock states: “ that the great build-up of ice in the northern hemisphere was not situated symmetrically, and that as the earth rotated on its axis, this imbalance caused the lithosphere to ‘slip’ catastrophically, much as the skin of an orange, if it were loose, might shift over the inner part of the orange all in one piece.” He reasoned if Antarctica shifted south, and parts of the northern hemisphere moved out of the arctic zone, this implies other areas must have shifted into the arctic area and become colder. Which would explain various flora and fauna have been found frozen.
There is a problem from the concept of isostacy, which is “the balance or equilibrium between adjacent blocks of crust resting on a plastic mantle” (Plummer and McGeary, 1996, p. 521), and, the existence of hot spots, which are areas of “volcanic eruptions and high heat above a rising mantle plume” (Plummer, 1996, p. 521). This goes beyond my college education. However, with the resent sun spot activity, the massive growth of concrete and steel cities (similar to the heavy polar ice fields), and increase in earthquakes, this theory begs to be re-explored.
covertress.blogspot.com...
www.skrause.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

excelllent post , well done ,

i am currently reading a great book on the subject of tectonics, i will be reading the links you have provided and will be getting back to you,

many thanks

snoopyuk

For me, I start more and more to belive, that it is possible a growing planet...
What about this Theory?







I know this sounds strange, but the damn continents are fitting perfectly around 360 degrees, so earth grows, right?

reply to post by cushycrux


This is beyond being Brilliant. Einstein said you have to keep things simple, and this is an excellent example. It is above being plausible, in fact ECD supports this without a doubt. Why isn’t this out there?
I gave you a star for this discovery.

, “Hapgood claimed that towards the end of the last ice age, around 12,000 years ago, the extensive mass of glacial ice covering the northern continents caused the lithosphere to ‘slip’ over the asthenosphere, moving Antarctica, during a period of at most several centuries, from a position in the middle latitudes to its current location, and at the same time rotating the other continents.

While i find the "earth crust displacement theory" to be fascinating... it is this part of the theory that leads me to believe that we cannot be approaching another shift...

With the ice caps in retreat... and less ice in the polar regions than at any time in the last couple of thousand years... How can the "extensive mass of the ice" cause another shift?

I admit that i this is not one of my strong areas so forgive me if i have missed something obvious


S+F though for interesting OP

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Muckster]

reply to post by Muckster


The video provided by cushycrux is fascinating, and fills in some of the holes in the OP. Add to this, If indeed, our planet was once smaller, with an inner, and outer hotter core much larger, and a smaller cooler mantle and crust than today. Would it not be basically like a globe of a gas, liquid, solid substance? As the outer core cools and expands (becoming more of the mantle), the inner core gets even hotter and more pressurized? It must be released through the planets volcanism. The states of matter here apply. As the planet cools, it expands, as it expands, our rotation slows down.
Thank you for the S&F

reply to post by snoopyuk


Thank you.
You may also want to review cushycrux's Youtube video.

I like the growing Earth one myself.

S&F

reply to post by Violater1


The growing earth theory also explains why dinosaurs were able to move around despite their weight and why their bones weren't crushed under their massive weight. According to Neal Adams, smaller earth meant less gravity. His theory says that the earth(and all heavenly bodies) are growing because matter is continually being added to them some how. I forgot how he explained it.

www.nealadams.com...

[edit on 2/28/2010 by MissSmartypants]

reply to post by dgtempe


Thank you.
I am leaning more toward the small earth theory myself.
However, I must add that Dr Albert Einstein was on to something.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Violater1]

Originally posted by Muckster
While i find the "earth crust displacement theory" to be fascinating... it is this part of the theory that leads me to believe that we cannot be approaching another shift...

With the ice caps in retreat... and less ice in the polar regions than at any time in the last couple of thousand years... How can the "extensive mass of the ice" cause another shift?

I admit that i this is not one of my strong areas so forgive me if i have missed something obvious

It could be that we aren't approaching another shift, more like we are in one right now. The ice cap retreat and the shifting of the location of magnetic north sure do point to it.

reply to post by cushycrux


I like the growing earth theory. The only thing that bothers me about it is... where did all the water come from? Anyone care to theorize?

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


I submit the theory that the oceans are made of the blood of the old gods. Those slain by their own children in the ancient tales. And, at the same time, the breath of the ancient dragon. Both are that which watered the earth, made it fertile, and caused it to grow.



Am I doing it right?


David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy

Um, wow.

That is a remarkable theory
Thank you for your contribution.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by cushycrux

 

I like the growing earth theory. The only thing that bothers me about it is... where did all the water come from? Anyone care to theorize?

The answer would make most people mad. Having said this you probably know what I am holding back.

Where did all the Water come from?
Consider the possibility that it came from another planet by way of a cosmic cataclysm. Salt water at that. The origin of The amount of salt in the oceans is a puzzle to scientists.

www.knowledge.co.uk...

"When the Earth Nearly Died carefully documents the fascinating story - which has never been told before in such detail - of how this Golden Age of peaceful conditions and equable climates ended traumatically in a tremendous catastrophe about 11,500 years ago. This was part of a cataclysm which disturbed the whole solar system, destroyed at least one sizable planet and its satellite, and also severely devastated Mars and Earth.

Among the fundamental geophysical effects experienced by Earth were a massive fracturing of the crust, a realignment of Earth's axis, elevation of new mountains, and widespread rearrangement of land and sea. These changes were accompanied by an appalling global conflagration, a gigantic flood, and what has been described as 'collapsed sky' conditions. A bombardment by debris from the disintegrated satellite of the destroyed planet added to the worldwide chaos. "

This is another expanding Earth site:
www.expanding-earth.org...
There are lots of interesting articles .
Aside from Earth's expansion there are also millions of tons of cosmic dust and rocks falling to Earth every day.

reply to post by OhZone


I am in full agreement with you on that one OhZone. The date of the event I'm not too sure about. I figure a large chuck of the exploded planet that smashed into earth was largely made up of sodium chloride. This is where most of the sea salt came from. I believe the Dead Sea in the Middle East and Salt Lake, in Utah were hit by sodium chloride asteroids.

Good theory.. to bad it wont give much love on here.. its much to popular to blame harpp and the united states government for natural occurrences.. then to use real theory....

Originally posted by The Alamo Ripper
Good theory.. to bad it wont give much love on here.. its much to popular to blame harpp and the united states government for natural occurrences.. then to use real theory....

How true. Now we have the China, Chile and Japan earthquake being so large that the earth was changed in one way or another.

reply to post by Violater1


Violator check out some of the conjectures in my thread here, they might interest you. I have a feeling that what you posted about Hapgood's theory might actually have some legs!