Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis-Science versus Pseudoscience

a reply to: YouSir

In fact after Hapgoods book didnt Einstein state there wouldn't be enough ice/weight to do what Hapgood stated and even Hapgood conceded this afterwards?

originally posted by: ColoradoTemplar
www.livescience.com...

"They found that the planet tilted 12 degrees relative to its axis around 84 million years ago, before fully returning to its original position over the next 5 million years."

Yes, shifting 12 degrees in 5 million years is well within reason. That's 2.4 degrees per million years. That's not anywhere near the sudden shift rates in the Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis.

originally posted by: Direne
The cataclysm would be losing the magnetic field: the Sun radiation would then be lethal.

Where the magnetic field poles are located, or whether they change or not, is irrelevant. The geographic poles are even more irrelavant, as they are only of interests to geographers which, on the other hand, are clearly irrelevant for what concerns a life supporting planet.

I wondered if the magnetic pole reversals could be related to any extinctions but I had a hard time trying to find evidence for that, so it appears the magnetic field doesn't go to zero long enough to cause significant extinctions even during a pole reversal.

But this thread isn't really about the magnetic fields, the Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis is about sudden shifts in Earth's crust. 2.4 degrees per million years is not sudden so I can't call that a source of a cataclysm. If it shifted so suddenly it caused huge tidal waves, then it would be relevant and a cataclysm. That's sort of the doomsday porn Suspicious Observers is trying to spread when he reads out of the Chan Thomas book which re-interprets the biblical book of genesis. That book is not even pseudoscience, since few would consider re-interpreting Genesis as science.

The Hapgood hypothesis was more plausible pending confirmation via evidence, but evidence has not supported the hypothesis that shifts can happen so rapidly. Evidence does support the much slower shifts like 2.4 degrees per million years, or typically even smaller shift rates like one degree per million years.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I see. The issue under discussion is obliquity. Hapgood, for all I understand, is simply worried by the fact that in his opinion it is the change of obliquity what caused major extinctions in the past. Actually, in page 380 of his book he states:

"It would appear from the evidence I have presented that the intervals between the beginnings of the last three dis- placements were about 40,000 years in length. It seems, also, that the last movement began between 26,000 and 17,000 years ago. If these assumptions are correct, and if the average of these movements holds for the future, it seems that the next displacement of the crust should not be expected for another 10,000 or 15,000 years."

What Mr. Hapgood did was to re-discover in fact the Milankovich Orbital Cycles, which are the ones with a 26,000 and 11,000 years repetition. Now, Milankovitch cycles has to do with obliquity, sure, but in combination with eccentricity and precession. Here is a good explanation of Milankovitch hypothesis:

Milankovitch Orbital Cycles

Eccentricity (and even precession) do not depend on the core, neither on the crust of a planet. They depend on orbital parameters of the bodies gravitationally affecting the planet. Obliquity, on the other hand, does depend on the dynamics of the crust and the core (though weakly).

Milankovitch was born 28 May 1879, and died on 12 December 1958. Charles Hutchins Hapgood was born May 17, 1904, and died on December 21, 1982. This means he must have known about Milankovitch theory, therefore I cannot see what new contribution he made, if he made any at all. In 1958, Hapgood published The Earth's Shifting Crust. That was the year Milankovitch died.

According to Wikipedia: In 1999, it was shown that variations in the isotopic composition of oxygen in the sediments at the bottom of the ocean follow Milankovitch theory. There are other recent studies that indicate the validity of the original Milankovitch theory.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

After all if there were such a "Outsider" who were capable of such a feat would they not make themselves known to us?

What if "they" were "us" ?

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I see. The issue under discussion is obliquity. Hapgood, for all I understand, is simply worried by the fact that in his opinion it is the change of obliquity what caused major extinctions in the past. Actually, in page 380 of his book he states:

"It would appear from the evidence I have presented that the intervals between the beginnings of the last three dis- placements were about 40,000 years in length. It seems, also, that the last movement began between 26,000 and 17,000 years ago. If these assumptions are correct, and if the average of these movements holds for the future, it seems that the next displacement of the crust should not be expected for another 10,000 or 15,000 years."

Milankovich cycles do in fact deal with obliquity (which is a synonym for axial tilt), among other things, so you're right about that, but I think you've misinterpreted Hapgood's work if you think he was talking about shifts in obliquity aka axial tilt. He was talking about crustal shifts. This is from the Wikipedia link I posted in the OP:

Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis

Charles Hapgood is now perhaps the best remembered early proponent. In his books The Earth's Shifting Crust (1958) (which includes a foreword by Albert Einstein)[12][13] and Path of the Pole (1970), Hapgood speculated that accumulated polar ice mass destabilizes Earth's rotation, causing crustal displacement but not disturbing Earth's axial orientation. Hapgood argued that shifts (of no more than 40 degrees) occurred about every 5,000 years, interrupting 20,000- to 30,000-year periods of polar stability. He cited recent North Pole locations in Hudson Bay (60°N, 73°W), the Atlantic Ocean between Iceland and Norway (72°N, 10°E) and the Yukon (63°N, 135°W).[14] However, in his subsequent work The Path of the Pole, Hapgood conceded Einstein's point that the weight of the polar ice is insufficient to cause polar shift. Instead, Hapgood argued that causative forces must be located below the surface.

originally posted by: gvilleuncfan
a reply to: YouSir

In fact after Hapgoods book didnt Einstein state there wouldn't be enough ice/weight to do what Hapgood stated and even Hapgood conceded this afterwards?

Yes, but then he said it must be something besides the ice causing the shift, below the surface, see above.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm reminded of Scott Creighton's thread and the "tippy top" theory...

Combined with Dr. Konstantin Batygin"s planet 9 I found it a pretty fun explanation.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Is this similar to the spinning wingnut phenomena that freaked Russian cosmonauts out?

youtu.be...

originally posted by: doorhandle
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Is this similar to the spinning wingnut phenomena that freaked Russian cosmonauts out?

youtu.be...

No. The earth will not physically flip like that as explained in the video.
The earth's magnetic field does flip, but not with that kind of regularity so it's a different, complex and not well understood nor predictable phenomenon that results in magnetic field flips.

That is a fascinating phenomenon however and as Derek says, it's not intuitive. Apparently after the cosmonauts discovered the wingnut behavior, some Russians were afraid they had discovered some possible doom porn, but, that turned out to not be the case.

This theory lacks "outside perspective". But first we need to identify our place in the Milky Way Galaxy. We are not a dinner plate spinning on a stick.



We are a vortex moving, rather predictably throughout the galactic plane. What the above video doesn't state is that we have a dark twin, some 18-19 pluto to sun distances between us and our binary dark star.

Balance is key in all things. There has to be another gravity well to keep our solar system in this spiral.

We also have a rubberband keeping us in this pathway.

The red dwarf, yes, you may not believe, but the signs are already manifesting.

When double shines the single sun

India News

Firestorms up top; do you think that those pretty rainbow clouds are just for show? It is oil.

Ignited Petrol

The water turning to blood, that is Iron Oxide, rust. That will help the algae bloom in the oceans, double edged sword; fresh water, undrinkable.

It isn't 15000 years this happens. It is much sooner, and so soon it shall be.

Earthquakes are already happening. Very active volcanoes, are happening
Just you wait, our little usa is about to have it's a$$hole ripped into a new one. Look to the Mississippi River. Bridges will collapse.

Oh, and our Schumann Resonance, the spikes, the electromagnetic storms? Same thing. It is from this red dwarf. When the mid-atlantic riff faces the sun, rotation slows, and the earth groans. The wild weather (cold temps one week and heat the next) is the Earth wobble. Surly you have noticed that the sun is not where it is suppose to be this time of year.
Schumann Resonance Waterfall graph
This is updated every 15 mins. When the lines hit the bottom, I can't sleep.

Look to the sun, it is coming.

Say this is doom porn all you want. Hell, I WISH this wasn't true. Those with eyes will see.

Attack the message, not the messenger.

originally posted by: Skada
Surly you have noticed that the sun is not where it is suppose to be this time of year.

I don't see how anything in your post has anything to do with the science or the pseudoscience of the cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis, but I would like to know, where exactly is the sun supposed to be this time of year? How far is it from where it's supposed to be, and how did you determine this?

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So if the claim is "pseudoarchaeology" as that description states, why did Albert Einstein write a foreward to Hapgood's book?

Because he was a kind and obliging man, but he didn't know beans about geology or anything BUT mathematics and physics.

"Scientist" is not shorthand for "godlike-being who knows everything" (I know that I sometimes come across like this, but trust me -- I do not know everything or even close to everything.) I have seen well-qualified anthropologists comment (very cringeworthy stuff) on ecology and evolution. I've seen biologists lecture on linguistics (we all want to hit them with a linguistics coursebook because their comments are So Freakin' Stupid), mathematicians commenting on geology, astronomers commenting on archaeology... and on and on and on.

It's kind of like your backyard mechanic sister who works on classic mustangs rambling on about industrial robots. She might be able to wrangle the heck out of your Apple II, but you shouldn't turn her loose on industrial robots or supercomputers.


I do agree with your summary of Einstein's attitude and the (absurd) "CIA classified" claim.

To sum up the pole shifts, evidence does support that they do happen, but very slowly, not rapidly as Hapgood's now discredited idea (which interested Einstein) hypothesized.

And not in the manner he suggests (planet flipping over.)

originally posted by: Skada

Ignited Petrol

Ah Zeta Talk. They have quite the history (unreliable, misinformation, doom porn) and I believe were considered unfit to link here.

Oh, and our Schumann Resonance, the spikes, the electromagnetic storms? Same thing. It is from this red dwarf. When the mid-atlantic riff faces the sun, rotation slows, and the earth groans. The wild weather (cold temps one week and heat the next) is the Earth wobble. Surly you have noticed that the sun is not where it is suppose to be this time of year.

You'll be fine. Seriously. It's been "any minute now" since 1995 or so (I've been following them since 1999). Most folks quit after her multiple failed predictions from 1999 through 2003 (sadly, many people gave up land and other things they valued because they absolutely believed that in 2003 Niburu was coming and there were only a few safe places. It was... kind of sad, like Heavens' Gate ... only thankfully no suicides that I remember.


If you want the real scoop about why her information is wrong, check out all the links at the top of the Bad Astronomy webpage

originally posted by: Byrd
"So if the claim is "pseudoarchaeology" as that description states, why did Albert Einstein write a foreward to Hapgood's book?"

Because he was a kind and obliging man, but he didn't know beans about geology or anything BUT mathematics and physics.

Einstein perhaps couldn't tell you one rock from another so I agree his knowledge of geology was limited in that respect. But as you say he did know physics and Hapgood's hypothesis involved some physics. Einstein eventually convinced Hapgood that there simply wasn't enough ice to do what Hapgood proposed, and I think that argument was based in physics. Hapgood eventually conceded Einstein's point and tried to come up with something other than ice to explain his idea, something under the surface. But of course that didn't really work out either.

a reply to: Byrd

Ah... Attack the messenger. Classic Logical Fallacy.

To me, and in my Location, yesterday the high was 90°F, today, high is 63°F. and this pattern has been happening for the last few months. To me, that is the wobble in affect. The floods are due to plate subduction, the plate tilts down. 3 gorges dam is getting very full these days.

Just keep your eyes open as well as your mind. Don't discredit the message because the messenger doesn't fit with your preconceived notions.
Wild weather we are having, don't you think?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Byrd
"So if the claim is "pseudoarchaeology" as that description states, why did Albert Einstein write a foreward to Hapgood's book?"

Because he was a kind and obliging man, but he didn't know beans about geology or anything BUT mathematics and physics.

Einstein perhaps couldn't tell you one rock from another so I agree his knowledge of geology was limited in that respect. But as you say he did know physics and Hapgood's hypothesis involved some physics. Einstein eventually convinced Hapgood that there simply wasn't enough ice to do what Hapgood proposed, and I think that argument was based in physics. Hapgood eventually conceded Einstein's point and tried to come up with something other than ice to explain his idea, something under the surface. But of course that didn't really work out either.

Interesting. I hadn't read that Hapgood conceded that much. That's commendable (accepting that there's an error and looking for an alternate to explain a phenomena.)

As I dove down that rabbit hole, I noted that Hapgood was a PhD, but his degrees were in history (and physics, thus, wasn't directly in his path)...and that his ideas are secondhand from an electrical engineer, Hugh Auchincloss Brown. So a compelling idea promoted by people who didn't understand more than the basics of geology and physics and planetology.



Anyway... I just spent an hour of my morning falling down rabbit holes chasing that darn bunny (including a bio of Rand Flem-Ath, which had a Wikipedia link that led back to an interview with him... on ATS.) I blame YOU for that, you know! (okay...and my infernal curiosity, but, still... (grin))

originally posted by: Skada
a reply to: Byrd

Ah... Attack the messenger. Classic Logical Fallacy.

To me, and in my Location, yesterday the high was 90°F, today, high is 63°F. and this pattern has been happening for the last few months. To me, that is the wobble in affect. The floods are due to plate subduction, the plate tilts down. 3 gorges dam is getting very full these days.

Just keep your eyes open as well as your mind. Don't discredit the message because the messenger doesn't fit with your preconceived notions.
Wild weather we are having, don't you think?

I think it's "attack the messenger" that's the "classical logical fallacy"... not "attack the message." In classical logic, you respond to the information and not the informant. In playground tactics you respond to the informant and not the information. In any case, as I said, I've followed Zeta Talk off and on since 1999, so I'm not completely uninformed about what they've been saying and when they said it.

As to the rest...

Yes, I do think we're having wild weather.... however, it's getting similar to weather that the Earth had from much warmer time periods (Cretaceous.) Plate subduction is very slow (on the rate of an inch or less per year), which is negligible to something the size of our planet.

BUT... we were talking pole shift, here. And Hapgood. Magnetic pole shifts don't correlate with any climate change. Orbital wobble, however, does (Milinkovic Cycle, as Arbitrageur says.) And that's also a very gradual thing. I'm not sure where we are in the Milinkovic Cycle, to be honest, whether we're on the "warming" end or the "cooling" end. There is no "evil dark twin" out in the far reaches of the solar system (we'd know it by now) and simple physics overturns their statements quickly (the International Space Station orbits only 250 miles overhead and Earth's gravity is so small at that point that the astronauts are weightless. If there was an Evil Dark Twin affecting the Earth, they'd be pulled by those forces to that side of the ISS.).

originally posted by: Byrd
There is no "evil dark twin" out in the far reaches of the solar system (we'd know it by now) and simple physics overturns their statements quickly (the International Space Station orbits only 250 miles overhead and Earth's gravity is so small at that point that the astronauts are weightless. If there was an Evil Dark Twin affecting the Earth, they'd be pulled by those forces to that side of the ISS.).

Come on Byrd....I mean I respect you a whole lot but an astrophysicist you are not.

Dr. Konstantin Batygin certainly isn't a crackpot and is well respected in the scientific world.

Planet 9

a reply to: Byrd

I was posting videos that just so happen to be on zetatalk followers.
The fireballs in the sky, were not rocks, they would be faster moving. Petrol burning is more consistent in the falling path of that video.
And what of the india news video? certainly that lends credence to the issue at hand.

So, what do you think about those videos? What is your opinion?

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

After all if there were such a "Outsider" who were capable of such a feat would they not make themselves known to us?

What if "they" were "us" ?

Please define "Us".