Second super-fast flip of Earth's poles found

reply to post by dragnet53


Videos are a huge waste of time. A 5 minute write up takes 60 minutes of video.

reply to post by detachedindividual


It's not the mantle that shifts in a pole shift. The claim is that the crust slips over the mantle.

The problem with your claim is that you think the only method of studying these TPWs is magnetized rocks. That is not the case. There are other lines of evidence that suggest the movements and rates of the crust. Take a look at hot spots and see that these are also used to study plate motions.

BTW, flipping the Earth over would require a huge amount of energy.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by dragnet53

 

Videos are a huge waste of time. A 5 minute write up takes 60 minutes of video.

I totally disagree.

Many times there is a lot more information in a video than a quick write-up. You miss way too much by not taking the time to watch them. I linked the video from timeline2012.com - this is a great example. Very good explanations contained in that video.

reply to post by CUin2013?


I totally disagree. The comments in a video are much quicker to read that listen to.

The timeline2012 site is a hoax site perpetuating falsehoods. I'm sure the videos are full of what I laughingly refer to as Cocktail party answers. Good luck being misled by their nonsense.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by CUin2013?

 

I totally disagree. The comments in a video are much quicker to read that listen to.

The timeline2012 site is a hoax site perpetuating falsehoods. I'm sure the videos are full of what I laughingly refer to as Cocktail party answers. Good luck being misled by their nonsense.

How would you know if you don't watch them

Your posts are meaningless unless you have all the information provided. Since you refuse to watch videos, you are uninformed.

reply to post by CUin2013?


Since you watch videos you are uninformed.

I have been to the website and read. And you don't need to read all of the junk to realize that the site is a hoax site. Get real with the silly claims that I have to read all of the stupidity to know its a hoax. That's laughable.

Here is some of the gibberish from this site:
1. Calls a TPW a theory. No it is a fact, not a theory.
2. the idiotic claim that the Earth's tilt is recent.
3. the idiotic notion that the Earth's tilt is due to a TPW
4. the claim that a TPW has happened in the last 450K years
5. the flash frozen mammoth claim
6. the baloney claim that science thinks an external force is required for a TPW
7. the claim that a comet could cause a TPW
8. the idiotic claim that the paths of celestial objects are due to magnetic forces
9. the claim that TPWs are fast

I did not get to the end of the page to see that the claims are beyond stupid. I can imagine that the videos would be even stupider than these claims. Say little and put up some glitzy graphics and there you have it - pretty stupidity.

I got this rubbish from the following:
time line 2012 - a hoax site

reply to post by CUin2013?


It just means he is at work and his work doesn't allow him to watch videos on youtube.

Forgetting for the moment a shift in geophysical poles, just magnetic poles ... I think there are many questions about what impact there would or would not be for a magnetic pole shift.

There any many animals who's migrations we don't really understand (understand how they navigate that is). Also, aren't there magnetic belts around the earth that effect the way solar radiation interacts with the Earth?

I suspect that a major shift in Magnetic poles could contribute to a shift in the Magnetic belts, and that could effect all kinds of things. Maybe not a doomsday scenario, but problems with radio-based communication (including GPS signals used for navigation) terrestrial radio communication, satellite radio communication, and possibly effects on migration of various animals. More like a limited version of the old Y2K scenario (but possibly with some birds or something effected), than like the 2012 scenarios typically spun.

As far as potential weather impacts, at least Aurora would be effected (if we want to call them "weather" - which is probably a stretch). Beyond that, it is hard to see how a Magnetic pole shift could effect weather. That would probably need a geophysical pole shift - to change Earth's tilt, to effect how sunlight strength is different on different parts of the planet, resulting in different heat/cool patters - which (if I'm correct?) is what really drives most of the weather on the planet.

reply to post by EnhancedInterrogator


There is a magnetic field. There are charged particles that are restricted to belts. Not sure what you mean by magnetic belts. Magnetic reversals happen often - geologically speaking. They have happened during the existence of humans. The idea of a pole shift where the physical poles shift is called a TPW int he geological literature. It takes millions of years to happen. Since we have not measured a magnetic reversal we can only estimate the time that it takes for one to happen. These types of events appear to take place in the range 5000 years. There is some evidence that these events could happen quicker.

Remember that the magnetic field of the Earth is not strong. It barely moves a compass needle. Ont he other hand we know that the field has been decreasing in strength since the field was first measured by Gauss.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

It's not the mantle that shifts in a pole shift. The claim is that the crust slips over the mantle.

The problem with your claim is that you think the only method of studying these TPWs is magnetized rocks. That is not the case. There are other lines of evidence that suggest the movements and rates of the crust. Take a look at hot spots and see that these are also used to study plate motions.

BTW, flipping the Earth over would require a huge amount of energy.

I agree, the crust has no effect on the flipping of the poles. We are talking about the thickness of an egg shell to an egg (or less) in material. Also the vast majority of the heavy elements has long drifted to the center, so even talking mass we have even less in the crust to reduce any influence on the earth…if anything the crust is totally dependent to everything else..

reply to post by stereologist


Do you agree that the next mayan long count calendar cycle end dates to the 21st December 2012?

Originally posted by rajaten
reply to post by stereologist

 

Do you agree that the next mayan long count calendar cycle end dates to the 21st December 2012?

Do you agree that our 2010 calendar ends dec 31st? Not much difference here other than how long the count is.

reply to post by rajaten


Only using the CMT correlation. I believe Xtrozero has expressed my setiment quite well.

It's a calendar that does not end. It has a wrap on the dates. This is as exciting as watching a car's odometer turn a lot of right hand digits to 0. Are you going to throw a party for the car event?

reply to post by stereologist


So you concur that the 21st December 2012 date is correct for the end of the current mayan cycle?

reply to post by rajaten


Only according to one Long Count calendar. There are others that continue for thousands of more years, yet no one seems to care about these. So, let me ask a question I've asked numerous times and been ignored on. What makes the 13 baktun calendar more legitimate than, say, the 20 baktun calendar?

reply to post by rajaten


As I said, this is only correct under the CMT correlation. How much simpler do I have to make it. It represents only 1 calendar, the Haab, and not an age.

Let me help you out. The notion of parts of calendars such as the Sixties or Seventies or the 18th century or the start of the new millennium on Jan 1, 2001 are artifices imposed by human fascination with numbers.

So you want to assign an age or some other thinking to a date when a calendar wraps and continues counting. That date when the Haab calendar wraps is what under the CMT correlation?

On the date you mentioned, is that the last day of the current baktun, or the first day of the next baktun?