Pole shift in 2012?

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


I am not making up the term. I am using the term as used by Hancock who coined the term. He started the use of the term. I think it is wise to continue using the term that way.


What Hancock, and you describe is Continental shift which does happen.
The crust able to slip and slide over the Mantel, this has happened before and can be seen in the geologic time scale.

No, Hancock is the one describing rapid shifts of the crusts and some in recent times. Continental drift is Wegener's theory which is not the same as plate tectonics. Continental drift does not happen. That was envisioned as the continents being like ships that moved through the crust. In plate tectonics the continents are imbedded in plate. The entire plate moves, not just the continent. Hancock would have the entire crust move in a poleshift. That is not the same as continental drift, or plate tectonics.


A pole shift, which does happen is the true magnetic reversal of the magnetic poles.
This happens to the sun every decade or so which causes in increase in sun spots which we are currently seeing.

The term poleshift comes from Hancock and he is talking about his version of crustal movement which is similar to the ECDs described by Hapgood. Magnetic pole changes are not what is meant by the term coined by Hancock.


Can the crust slip and slide? Yes there is plenty of evidence of that.
Does it slip and slide with every pole reversal? No.

Actually the answer to that is pretty much no. There is an event from 800Ma that might be a pole shift.


Want evidence? look at the sea bed.
The sea bed shows the different pole shifts our earth has undergone.
If the crust shifted drastically with every pole shift the magnetic evidence would be consumed up by the crust movement and recycled.
Either ground into small material which we can not tell it's orientation, or pushed under the crust to form lava.

The paleomagnetic record seen in rocks records changed in the direction of Earth's magnetic field. There is no pole shift associated with those events.


Put simply Hancock is wrong, and by phrasing your question the way you did you are propagating incorrect information.

Hancock is only right in the sense that he invented the term and used the term to describe a crustal event. As far as do pole shifts happen the answer is not in the manner described by Hancock.


Don't phrase your question by defining a pole shift in terms of something it is not.
You spread very bad information that way...

I used the term correctly. You might want to read about Hancock's use of the term.

Here is a page from Hancock's website where you can see how the person coining the term uses it. He begins with Hapgood who first suggested that this might happen. Then he continues on with more suggestions about how crustal events happen.
www.grahamhancock.com...
edit on 17-6-2012 by stereologist because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   


I am not making up the term. I am using the term as used by Hancock who coined the term. He started the use of the term. I think it is wise to continue using the term that way.

I didn't say you were making the term up. I said the term he is using is wrong. It also predates him so he did not coin the term. People have been talking about the magnetic pole shifting since the 17 and 18 hundreds when global navigation began.


No, Hancock is the one describing rapid shifts of the crusts and some in recent times. Continental drift is Wegener's theory which is not the same as plate tectonics. Continental drift does not happen. That was envisioned as the continents being like ships that moved through the crust. In plate tectonics the continents are imbedded in plate. The entire plate moves, not just the continent. Hancock would have the entire crust move in a poleshift. That is not the same as continental drift, or plate tectonics.

Continental drive does happen, though not as you described. I am not saying that the only the continent moves. The entire plate it is on moves. At the margins where 2 plates meet there are several things that can occur, they can push into each other, one can push under the other, or they can separate being pushed apart as material from the Mantel comes up.
As far as Hancock saying the entire crust moving that is possible, it's not called a pole shift though. A pole shift is when the magnetic poles drift, the pole itself drifts not the crust. It happens now, our north pole wobbles, that is a pole shift, more accurately polar drift, as the pole itself moves about and isn't an anchored item. It has nothing to do with the crust moving. The crust can move, but when it does it is not called a pole shift. Hancock did not coin the term and he is using it incorrectly.



The term poleshift comes from Hancock and he is talking about his version of crustal movement which is similar to the ECDs described by Hapgood. Magnetic pole changes are not what is meant by the term coined by Hancock.

He is using the term wrong, it existed long before him as a navigational term used to describe how over time the north pole wobbles. It does not mean the crust moved. Describing a pole shift in terms of the crust moving is wrong. Hancock is wrong.


Actually the answer to that is pretty much no. There is an event from 800Ma that might be a pole shift.

So you're saying something might be a pole shift as evidence of a pole shift meaning the crust moves. Does the crust move? Yes. That is not called a pole #. At one point Antarctica was in the tropics, now it is at the south pole. The pole did not shift the crust did. Hancock is wrong in describing plate movement in terms of the poles. The poles while they do wobble and drift maintain their orientation about the axis. It's the crust that moves. Hancock is using the wrong terminology to describe the movement of the crust.


The paleomagnetic record seen in rocks records changed in the direction of Earth's magnetic field. There is no pole shift associated with those events.

For acute angle changes in the rocks there is a minor change in the direction of magnetic in the rock. I am not talking about the acute changes, I am speaking of when the north pole resides in the southern hemisphere. There is evidence going back to at least WW2 with submarine mapping showing the alignment of the rocks. The alignment shows that the north pole and south pole shift hemispheres. It also shows this occurs without totally destroying the crust as the evidence would have been destroyed with it.


Hancock is only right in the sense that he invented the term and used the term to describe a crustal event. As far as do pole shifts happen the answer is not in the manner described by Hancock.

So he is right because he is wrong? That's a horrible argument. His theory may be sound, but he is high jacking a term that existed long before him. Taking an already existing term and re-branding it doesn't make the use of the term right. He is attempting to change the definition of an already existing term.


I used the term correctly. You might want to read about Hancock's use of the term.

You used his term, that does not mean you used the term correctly as you were quoting a flawed source. He is using a term that means something else and has meant something else for ages.
Using the term as he did propagates an inaccuracy. His theory and his term do not line up as the term existed for something else before his theory. Using a term that means something else only adds confusion to the matter. It will lead others astray and give them false information. It's his term that is flawed not his theory.

Using the wrong term is a disservice to those who wish to learn.
Propagating the miss use of a term isn't helpful either.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


I am well aware of all you have stated. That is why the OP explicitly states the following.

A pole shift is an idea promoted by Hancock that the outer part of the crust shifts over the bulk of the Earth. When that happens the spot on Earth which used to be the North and South Pole are no longer in the places they used to be. This shift of the poles means that there is a new pair of spots that are the poles and there is a new equator. There are new tropical zones and new temperate zones and new arctic zones.


I am no defender of Hancock. I think he is a fraud and purposely misrepresents issues. I would be interested in seeing pole shift predate Hancock's use of the term. Simply claiming that others knew that the magnetic poles change position is not the same as coining a term.


Continental drive does happen, though not as you described.

You are describing plate tectonics and calling it continental drift. That is wrong. Please read Wegener's book. I have. Continental drift involves movement of the continents. Wegener was not aware of plates. Continental drift is a theory predating plate tectonics by about 40 years.


A pole shift is when the magnetic poles drift, the pole itself drifts not the crust.

That is not the definition I am using in this thread. That is why I wrote what I did in the OP.


He is using the term wrong, it existed long before him as a navigational term used to describe how over time the north pole wobbles. It does not mean the crust moved. Describing a pole shift in terms of the crust moving is wrong. Hancock is wrong.

Many terms have multiple meanings which is why I defined the term in the OP. Hancock also defined the term in his book. I would have to say you are quibble for naught since Hancock is free to define and use the term as he sees fit.


So you're saying something might be a pole shift as evidence of a pole shift meaning the crust moves. Does the crust move? Yes. That is not called a pole #. At one point Antarctica was in the tropics, now it is at the south pole. The pole did not shift the crust did. Hancock is wrong in describing plate movement in terms of the poles. The poles while they do wobble and drift maintain their orientation about the axis. It's the crust that moves. Hancock is using the wrong terminology to describe the movement of the crust.

Now you are quite wrong. You are confusing APWs and TPWs. The change in position of Antarctica from a tropical zone to z polar zone is an apparent polar wander, not a true polar wander. The event from 800Ma was a TPW.

Using the definition in the OP there is no pole shift associated with a magnetic reversal.


You used his term, that does not mean you used the term correctly as you were quoting a flawed source. He is using a term that means something else and has meant something else for ages.

Are you going to condemn physicists because they use the term work although it was a term long in use before that? I doubt it. Hancock is free to use a term and to define it for his purposes. To claim he is wrong is probably wrong.


Using the wrong term is a disservice to those who wish to learn.
Propagating the miss use of a term isn't helpful either.

If you want to play that game then please show all of us that the term pole shift was in use in the 17th century as you claim. Even if you do it wouldn't matter since Hancock chose a term and made that definition clear just as other sciences have used their own jargon borrowed from other sciences and common language.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I do not think so.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by 37human
 


What do you mean by "don't think so"?

Did you have something to add about the idea of poleshifts?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


It has never happened before, and it will never happen again!

You speak with much conviction, like you have insider knowledge. I think it has happened more than once, in fact, I believe it happens every 26-30,000 years or so. Look at the world right now.
The ice packs are melting, whole glaciers are disappearing.
Wild weather and forest fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis.
More and more fluorocarbons in the atmosphere each day.
Heat waves and cold spells all over the world.

I would say Earth is long overdue for a polar shift, in our lifetime. To deny it just offhand is not denying ignorance, it is embracing it.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 



You speak with much conviction, like you have insider knowledge. I think it has happened more than once, in fact, I believe it happens every 26-30,000 years or so. Look at the world right now.
The ice packs are melting, whole glaciers are disappearing.
Wild weather and forest fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis.
More and more fluorocarbons in the atmosphere each day.
Heat waves and cold spells all over the world.

I would say Earth is long overdue for a polar shift, in our lifetime. To deny it just offhand is not denying ignorance, it is embracing it.

How do any of those things suggest a pole shift?

Fluorocarbons are manmade. Forest fires are not new. Some of the worst ever in the US were in the early 1900s. I'm unclear why any of these would happen before a pole shift.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 
According to the Book of Mormon , all of the continents of the earth will all at once come together in less than a year, giving one supercontinent. This will take place soon. It's obvious that these continents will "float" over the liquid mantle to come together and the inhabitants will see the sun rise from a new Eastern horizon.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by siluriancryptic
 


Religious texts make all sorts of mistaken claims. So what?

I really doubt that the Book of Mormon describes what you say for the simple matter that the Book of Mormon was revealed in 1830. The existence of the mantle would not have been known until 1936 when the Earth was realized to have a mantle and core. The notion of Pangaea comes from the late 1920s.

If you would like to tell us more about the Book of Mormon and this claim of the formation of a super continent I think people would like to see it.





top topics
 
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join