Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis-Science versus Pseudoscience

a reply to: Byrd

That is interesting information and I will definitely check it out.

Something is still nagging at me though. There is significant land mass in the northern hemisphere far from the equator. Centrifical force should have that mass distributed around the equator yet it remains far away. That suggests to me that there is a significant force on that mass already, just not enough to move it. Which would follow to reason then, that the amount of force required to start it moving is far less than an object that would make an impact that created the moon. Once moving it would only need to scrub off enough energy to no longer overcome the friction keeping it in place.

I can still see a possibility where an impact could move land mass but not obliterate it. At least not all of it. I need to do more research, but, that is the part I like... :-)

originally posted by: Byrd

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.

geology rocks!

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))

I have no strong opinion either way. (true or not) but it would be something to experience, tho.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Byrd

That is interesting information and I will definitely check it out.

Something is still nagging at me though. There is significant land mass in the northern hemisphere far from the equator. Centrifical force should have that mass distributed around the equator yet it remains far away.

If you look at the Earth over time, the movement of the plates don't indicate that they're being moved by centrifugal force. Plates shift and migrate over time, but there isn't any particular time period when most of the land mass is at the equator. (set the video on 5x speed)

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Byrd

That is interesting information and I will definitely check it out.

Something is still nagging at me though. There is significant land mass in the northern hemisphere far from the equator. Centrifical force should have that mass distributed around the equator yet it remains far away. That suggests to me that there is a significant force on that mass already, just not enough to move it. Which would follow to reason then, that the amount of force required to start it moving is far less than an object that would make an impact that created the moon.

A land mass is either moving or not moving. If it's not moving, whatever forces are on it are probably largely in balance. We have small motions of plate tectonics which move the land masses maybe an inch a year, but that can be stick-slip-stick-slip at plate boundaries, and cause earthquakes during the slips.

One thing you need to remember, is the Earth has a bulge at the equator. So for a land mass to move down toward the equator, it would have to move uphill, and you know that is not a preferred direction of gravitational effects, right? So considering all the forces, the land masses are moving maybe an inch a year in whatever direction the force is the greatest. That movement is in different directions for different land masses, but centrifugal force isn't the only thing at work here. It can't be because at least part of the North American plate is moving northwest, while centrifugal force would have it moving south.

www.summitlearning.org...

This map of the tectonic plates includes arrows to show the direction of their movement. Based on this information, what can you say about the direction in which tectonic plates move?

This shows in even more detail, that there are other forces at work besides centrifugal force:
spotlight.unavco.org...

Figure 3.A map of the velocities predicted for a plate motion model. Plate boundaries are shown in white. (Credit: Pearson Prentice Hall.)

originally posted by: Byrd
Looking at the CV's for Ben Davidson and Professor Dave, I'm not entirely certain that I'd take the word of either of them about cosmology... at least, not without a whole lot of checking with some real astrophysicists.

The skill set required here is not to be an expert astrophysicist or cosmologist.

The skill set required is to be able to read a scientific paper, perhaps outside your area of scientific expertise, and get the general idea of what the paper is talking about, even if you don't completely understand all the details. Professor Dave seems to have the ability to do that.

It's not really possible to say whether Ben Davidson can do it or not. If you're generous to Davidson, you might claim he can't do it, so when he reads a scientific paper he's clueless about what it really says, and that's why his false interpretations are false. But considering he's trying to drum up a "doom porn lovers" following, I'm more inclined to think he doesn't even care what the paper really says, and may or may not even read it at all, but if he thinks he can convince a naive and gullible audience who he knows will never read the paper that it somehow supports his doomsday scenario, that's the interpretation he will try to claim the paper is about. But quite often the paper says something entirely different than what Davidson claims it does. And he can be pretty sure most of his followers will never read the papers to find that out. There are several examples of Davidson misrepresenting scientific papers in the following video (and of course the first thing he does in his debunking Dave video is misrepresent what Dave says, even in direct contradiction to the title at the top of Dave's slide he talks about).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: kloejen
Talking about "classified", even that statement is bull# !

Everyone knows Ben Davidson, the charlatan lawyer that feeds the masses with doom day pr0n and children books.
He's about wrong on every statement he makes, if you do the "research"

Here is a lil video debunking Ben:

a reply to: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Byrd


I mostly agree. As for the forces acting on a plate at any given time, there could be massive force on it, just not quite enough to get it moving. Opposing forces of equal strength = 0 force. Centrifical force must be acting on the plates. The heaviest plates will displace lighter plates when moving toward the equator, or any other direction for whatever reason. So a lighter plate moving away from the equator could still be due to centrifical force.

Pangaea was centered, by mass, on the equator but reached to both poles also. Of course plates are more than what we see above sea level, so their distribution upon breaking apart was not visibly centered on the equator but may have been by mass.

I disagree that the plates would be moving uphill. The bottom of the ocean is still part of that plate as well as mass well below that. The whole thing, uphill, downhill and in between, are all moving together. Subduction forces one plate down and raises the other. Creeping plates that move only inches per year are not what I was referring to. The 'stick slip stick slip' pattern involves periods of rapid movement but short duration. The duration could be significantly greater if enough force were applied initially to get the whole thing started. That was my theory involving impact. Not enough to destroy everything in sight, but enough to jump start the motion and move it further than would typically be expected.

I know there are more plausible explanations but this is theory and relies only on possibility. I am typically of the belief that in an infinite universe anything possible is likely to occur at least once.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Byrd


I mostly agree. As for the forces acting on a plate at any given time, there could be massive force on it, just not quite enough to get it moving. Opposing forces of equal strength = 0 force. Centrifical force must be acting on the plates. The heaviest plates will displace lighter plates when moving toward the equator, or any other direction for whatever reason. So a lighter plate moving away from the equator could still be due to centrifical force.

Except that this doesn't seem to be the case.

Pangaea was centered, by mass, on the equator but reached to both poles also.

Not really. Looks to be larger in both the north and the south (at least as far as land masses go.)

Of course plates are more than what we see above sea level, so their distribution upon breaking apart was not visibly centered on the equator but may have been by mass.

The problem with this idea is that things should have moved to wherever they were going to move, changing the rate of spin of the Earth, and the plates would quit moving. The plates haven't quit moving and don't seem to be slowing.

The duration could be significantly greater if enough force were applied initially to get the whole thing started. That was my theory involving impact. Not enough to destroy everything in sight, but enough to jump start the motion and move it further than would typically be expected.

Violates the laws of motion.

Think of a pie crust. Now shift one piece of it in any direction with your finger. It moves as far as you push it and then stops because of the drag of the goo underneath. Same with the Earth.

a reply to: Byrd

You make some good points and gave me things to think about. But I also think you missed my point.

There are always forces acting on the plates including centrifical. (I am old school and prefer centrifical to centrifugal.) Those forces are just slightly less than what would be required for a large single shift in position but enough to maintain the slow tectonic creep we are seeing. That is why I believe a single significant impact could result in one large shift in position of greater duration than a typical seismic event. When the friction scrubs off enough energy the plates would return to their typical slow creep of inches per year.

Pangaea looks larger in the north and south but the mass is not just what is visible, it is also the mass below sea level. As you pointed out earlier, the crust is 2,000 miles thick. The laws of motion dictate that somewhere down there the mass is distributed properly. However, there are always forces acting on those plates and they are always moving, each with its own set of characteristics that cause its motion to be unique.

The pie is a good example. Picture that pie spinning on a table. Centrifical force is acting on it, just not enough to break it apart. Now smack it laterally from one side, hard enough to move it but not hard enough to destroy it. It rapidly changes position, some parts move more than others, changes its rotation - but only until the force dissipates, then it returns to a more stable rotation. Of course the Earth, unlike the pie, has enough gravity to pull itself round.

My recent research has shown me multiple theories that oppose mine. I can not say, however, that I have found conclusive proof that mine is not possible. Regardless, I am enjoying the search and the discussion. Thank you for indulging me. I like to be challenged. It makes me look further and learn more. :-)

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I like to be challenged. It makes me look further and learn more. :-)

You can start by paying more attention to what's written here, and would it kill you to use a dictionary? Instead of writing all this explanation about how you're old school, you could have looked it up and found your "old school" word doesn't even exist, except as a typo in some people's minds, possibly a mispronunciation of the word centrifugal.

There are always forces acting on the plates including centrifical. (I am old school and prefer centrifical to centrifugal.)

That sort of destroys your credibility when you use a made-up word and write a comment about how you prefer your made up word instead of looking it up to find out it's not even a word. Even worse, the made up word you chose to use is at the heart of your (flawed) hypothesis. Ever hear of a "centrifuge"? It's a device which uses centrifugal forces. Not surprisingly it's related to the word "centrifugal".

Here's what I see as a main flaw in your idea. Run a centrifuge in a hypothetical experiment for 4.5 billion years. It probably didn't change the contents significantly in the last 4 billion years. Whatever it was going to do it probably did in the first 0.5 billion years, and probably most of that happened in the first 5 minutes.

The point being centrifugal force suddenly applied to a system will change the system, but with a rotating body, eventually the centrifugal forces are going to reach some kind of equilibrium with the other forces such as gravitational force. This equibrium is why there's a bulge at the Earth's equator, but the bulge doesn't keep getting bigger. The equilibrium in these forces is a fact you don't seem to recognize in your approach to this issue.

You also seem to be ignoring observations, showing there is no preferential movement of the land masses in the direction you hypothesize with your flawed preference with the word you made up to replace "centrifugal", as illustrated by the plate movements I posted previously.

As you pointed out earlier, the crust is 2,000 miles thick.

That's not true, and Byrd didn't say that, he said the mantle was that thick. The crust is typically a much thinner layer on top of the mantle.

The pie is a good example. Picture that pie spinning on a table. Centrifical force is acting on it, just not enough to break it apart. Now smack it laterally from one side, hard enough to move it but not hard enough to destroy it.

It's painful to read you going on about your idea which is now based on a made up word that you were too lazy to look up. But if you really want to go this route you would need to do some math. Specifically, what is the mass distribution and angular momentum of the pie, the pie filling, and what is the mass and momentum of the object striking the pie? Then you can calculate what could happen to the angular momentum of the pie if objects of various mass and momentum struck the pie at various angles and positions.

Obviously if you hit the pie with a golf ball it will make a mess of the pie, and I'm sure Theia made a mess of the Earth when it struck Earth and formed the moon. But Byrd's point which seems to have not sunk in for you is that Theia was a small planet, not some much smaller asteroid. If you fire a grain of sand at the pie, it's not going to affect the pie like the golf ball did. So maybe you should run through some numbers on the mass of the earth and the masses of the impactors you are considering. It's unlikely there would be any more Theia-like objects left to impact the Earth, in fact we have a fairly comprehensive catalog of all the large objects which could potentially impact the Earth. Here is one of the largest, Florence, which even has 2 tiny moons which help us estimate the mass and density:

Florence

How does the mass of Florence compare with the mass of the earth? To say it's a small fraction would be an understatement.
If Florence has a mean radius of 2.15 km and a density of 1.4 g/cc, then a spherical object with those dimensions would have a mass of 5.83E13 kg or about 58 thousand billion kilograms. This is not a precise number due to the uncertainties and irregularity of the shape, but a ballpark estimate to illustrate my point.

The mass of the Earth is 5.9722E24 kg or about 11 orders of magnitude greater.

So now we know the difference in mass is 11 orders of magnitude, how does this scale to the pie?

For easy calculations let's give the pie a mass of one kilogram (2.2 pounds).
11 orders of magnitude smaller than that is 0.00000001 gram, or about one one-hundredth of a microgram.

How much does a grain of sand weigh? It depends on the sand, but someone claims to have bought sand at a store (maybe sand to fill a children's sandbox?) and came up with an average mass of 46 grams for a million or about 46 micrograms each.

How Much Does 1 Grain Of Sand Weigh?

So a single grain of sand at 46 micrograms is 4600 times more massive than the scaled-down rough mass estimate for Florence of one one-hundredth of a microgram when the mass of the Earth is scaled down to the mass of a 1000 gram pie.

How much would the 46 microgram grain of sand impact affect the pie? And how much less effect if the object is 4600 times less massive? You can do your own calculations if you want, and I don't claim these are exact numbers, but as estimates they do support Byrd's point made here:

originally posted by: Byrd
The mantle is almost 2,000 miles thick miles thick and makes up 84% of the Earth's volume. So you're not going to push that around with anything smaller than a planetoid-sized object.

If you scale down the Earth to the mass of a 1 kilogram pie, then similarly scaling down the mass of Flornce confirms what Byrd said, because something 4600 times less massive than a grain of sand is going to have a very miniscule effect on the pie's momentum when it hits.

If Florence hit the Earth, it could cause a mass extinction, because Earth's ecosystem is relatively fragile under such stress, but the planet itself would have just another scar like scars from other impacts we have found, which resulted in past mass extinctions.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Centrifical is not a made up word, it was the word used at the time. Now the preferred word is centrifugal. No, it is not a mispronunciation. BTW, I found literally thousands of examples of its use, the earliest in 1879. It is no longer the preferred word, and it may never have been. However, when I was young it was the word used. Blame my science teacher if you must. I am sure he will be thrilled to hear your rebuke. And I am sure he would agree that today the preferred word is centrifugal.

Yes, I have heard of a centrifuge. I have used them at work. In fact, I designed the critical components in many of the centrifuges we used. In R&D that is the kind of thing we researchers/scientists do. (Yes that was me. I even used a microscope at work...weeeeeee it was fun) Geology and tectonics is not my specialty nor is it a field in which I spent any significant time. I do, however, have an interest and a theory I am enjoying exploring. I do not, however, break the cardinal rule of research: do not possess a foregone conclusion. No matter how hard you try to minimize the effect, having a foregone conclusion influences the discovery, acknowledgement, and assessment of evidence. To be true to the nature of science you must remain open minded.

Your belief that my entire theory is undermined by your misguided belief that I made up a word is just plain ignorant. Even if I misspoke and used the incorrect word, in context you should be able to understand what I meant and judge the theory on its own merits, not its inclusion of a word who's history and derivation you disagree with.

Your 4.5 billion year test does not include the fact that the land masses are always changing. Eroding, breaking apart, sheering, cleaving, etc. And who knows how much it changes 2,000 miles below the surface? Every time it changes so does the dynamics.

I said crust but I meant mantle. My mistake. The mantle is 2,000 miles thick.

You use a golf ball and a grain of sand to make your point. Neither is what I am referring to. In my theory, and this I clearly stated, the object is much smaller than the one that created the moon. It is just large enough to get the mantle moving at an accelerated rate, no larger. As soon as energy is scrubbed off the mantle would return to its normal state. So no, not a grain of sand and not a golf ball. A marble perhaps, a pebble, more likely a small ball bearing.

You want to do math? Fine. Lets do some simple math. For ease of discussion lets say it takes 100# of force to make the mantle move. There is a constant 101# of force on the mantle, it is always moving. That last 1# of force results in 1 inch per year of movement. Simple. Now lets say a temporary force of an additional 15# of oblique force was added. Perpendicular force would try to crush the mantle, the rest of the planet is in the way. Oblique force would shove the planet, but the planet is rotating so instead of the entire planet being moved it just rotates the mantle a little faster until the force dissipates due to friction. In that brief time we had 15 years worth of movement. (Yes, I know the idea of every force being equal at all times is ludicrous - I did say for ease of discussion...)

It doesn't take a massive impact to make a 2,000 mile thick mantle move. The mantle is already moving. I don't have to overcome the object at rest, it is not resting now. I just want to temporarily speed it up. That is well within the realm of possibility. If the mantle is soooo heavy, and it takes soooo much force to move it, why is it always moving now? Because sufficient force to move the mantle is already present. So a temporary additional force of great enough magnitude could move the mantle farther and faster, without completely destroying it and sending the detritus into space.

Talk about paying more attention to what is written here...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

There are always forces acting on the plates including centrifical. (I am old school and prefer centrifical to centrifugal.)

That sort of destroys your credibility when you use a made-up word and write a comment about how you prefer your made up word instead of looking it up to find out it's not even a word. Even worse, the made up word you chose to use is at the heart of your (flawed) hypothesis. Ever hear of a "centrifuge"? It's a device which uses centrifugal forces. Not surprisingly it's related to the word "centrifugal".

English is a living language but a language non the less. And with languages is doesn’t matter how you convey the information that is meant to be conveyed, only that you are able to convey the information. Made up word or not, if the information was conveyed it was a successful word to use.

Also yes centrifical is a word though most use centrifugal. Or maybe not. It could be just one of those write as you say errors. But air conditioning engineers use it a lot. Centrifical chillers is the term used.

Still, nothing to get hung up on and off topic by.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Your likely correct, but I just want to comment that maybe could have worded your response a little more politely to Vroomfondel who I think was asking his question quite sincerely. Getting hung up on spelling? oh please, that’s so last century.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You are likely correct, but I just want to comment that maybe could have worded your response a little more politely to Vroomfondel who I think was asking his question quite sincerely. Getting hung up on spelling? oh please, that’s so last century.

originally posted by: DaRAGE

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

There are always forces acting on the plates including centrifical. (I am old school and prefer centrifical to centrifugal.)

That sort of destroys your credibility when you use a made-up word and write a comment about how you prefer your made up word instead of looking it up to find out it's not even a word. Even worse, the made up word you chose to use is at the heart of your (flawed) hypothesis. Ever hear of a "centrifuge"? It's a device which uses centrifugal forces. Not surprisingly it's related to the word "centrifugal".

English is a living language but a language non the less. And with languages is doesn’t matter how you convey the information that is meant to be conveyed, only that you are able to convey the information. Made up word or not, if the information was conveyed it was a successful word to use.

I have to disagree with this. Perhaps it is acceptable in a day to day discussion about layman's terms. However when dealing with science, the accuracy of the information and how it is conveyed are indeed crucial. Especially so when most people don't seem to understand the difference between Centrifugal and Centripetal. So insisting that incorrect spellings of crucial terminology is counterproductive in my opinion. The oldest reference of the 3000 found on Google dates to 1879. Even then it was a misspelling of Centrifugal. Just because an error has been perpetuated doesn't mean it magically is no longer an error.

Also yes centrifical is a word though most use centrifugal. Or maybe not. It could be just one of those write as you say errors. But air conditioning engineers use it a lot. Centrifical chillers is the term used.

Not to be overly pedantic but actually, no they are Centrifugal Chillers.

energy-models.com...

Still, nothing to get hung up on and off topic by.

Slightly off topic...a little. A harsh response by Arbitrageur, sure. In a discussion pertaining to science, errors, even something perceived as minor, accuracy is crucial. It shows that you care enough about the discussion to at least engage in due diligence.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You use a golf ball and a grain of sand to make your point. Neither is what I am referring to. In my theory, and this I clearly stated, the object is much smaller than the one that created the moon. It is just large enough to get the mantle moving at an accelerated rate, no larger. As soon as energy is scrubbed off the mantle would return to its normal state. So no, not a grain of sand and not a golf ball. A marble perhaps, a pebble, more likely a small ball bearing.

Still not workable. Try it out on the simulator I linked.

You want to do math? Fine. Lets do some simple math. For ease of discussion lets say it takes 100# of force to make the mantle move. There is a constant 101# of force on the mantle, it is always moving. That last 1# of force results in 1 inch per year of movement. Simple. Now lets say a temporary force of an additional 15# of oblique force was added.

I don't think you realize just how much mass there is or what it takes to move it. I found an "average weight of a cubic foot of rock" (145 lbs) and took the lighter number, multiplied that by one mile, and then multiplied it by 2,000 miles (thickness of the mantle) to get a fairly wrong (didn't take into account the mass of a cubic foot of mantle. Just pretended it was rock) but usable answer of 1,531,200,000 pounds.

A billion and a half pounds. 694,540,637 kilograms. With F=M*A (force = mass * acceleration) the calculators say it will take 69,454.0637 Newtons to shove this column one millimeter in an hour. The South American Plate is the smallest plate (I looked it up) and it covers 43 million square kilometers.

It'd take 4.62848148E14 ergs of force just to shove that plate one millimeter in any direction... and that's assuming you can find a spot that makes the whole plate move. BUT... the plate isn't adamantium or Unobtanium and that means that when you hit it, rock can break. Going back to the newtons, it takes 253.3 GN to crush granite -- so applying that force wouldn't push the plate... it would shatter the plate into powder. Even applied sideways.

Chixulub didn't cause the plates to move or change direction.

Now, I may have made a mistake in the math and I sure made some assumptions that could be corrected. However, the figures (and the model) show that by the time you get something that can hit the Earth and move a continental plate, you've pretty much destroyed the whole planet.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hey, I realize that I am late to this party, but I just spent some time looking at all the evidence, and since the Earth's metallic core is not a uniform sphere, and instead has lobes that reach up beneath Africa, and then again also on the other side of the planet (under the pacific ocean?), if a strong enough magnetic field from outside the solar system intervened (for instance: the changing polarity of crossing the galactic current sheet), wouldn't it be possible to 'torque' the whole planet sideways from within without moving the crust over the mantle beneath? I mean, a strong enough magnet can move a magnetic spheroid, such as is the Earth, and even cause its poles / polarity to reverse, like the changing magnetic field of Earth we currently are seeing. This would happen even more if the spheroid's own density and magnetism were lopsided or uneven. The metal lobes projecting up from the core would become like ' handles '. What say you?

I don't think the crust would even need to slide or change position over the underlying material, if the whole globe was magnetically torqued like this. It is a moot point if the crust 'slides' over the mantle beneath .... moot, if the magnetic field reversal is strong enough.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

See your nemesis Ben has put his name to a 4 part series. If your are so confident why not go and inform him of his lack of understanding using you own name of course?


You could even link to how you destroy him.


Unless of course you would rather remain somewhere you feel all safe and superior.

A very good idea! It could put some things to rest and shut some people up.
I'm all for accurate science, no matter who does it, his or her credentials or who explains it, as long as it's accurate.
Having said that, I severely doubt this showdown will ever happen.


a reply to: puzzled2

I am by no means a scientist, but when, at least, four independent people, foundations and organizations appear to corroborate each other's findings, I take note. In this case I am talking about:

Ben Davidson
YT channel: SuspiciousObservers

Brien Foerster
YT channel: HiddenIncaTours

Douglas B. Vogt
YT channel: Diehold Foundation

David Talbott, Drew Hall and ....
YT channel: The Thunderbolts Project

These four (amongst many others) have changed my entire perspective on our current established scientific community, our history and the universe we live in. Because, regardless if you're a scientist or not, what they present is, at least for me, easy to follow and understand. And from what I have gathered, they are confirming the other guy's findings on at least a couple of theories. I just happen to think they are right.

There are a couple videos that convinced me that:
1. we do indeed live in an electric universe
2. earth is subject to repetitive cataclysms, one of which occurs every 12.068 years.
3. there is proof in places like cuzco, saksaiwaman, gizeh, pumapunku etc. of a recent cataclysmic event, and severe heat that melted stone.
4. earth was populated by one or more very advanced civilizations, before the most recent cataclysmic event, who built massive polygonal structures all over the world, that were later rediscovered by the survivors of the cataclysm, people like the incas and the faraoic egyptians for instance.
5. Most mountains were created by electricity, not (always) by subduction or volcanic events.

What convinced me?
What convinced me that we live in an electric universe, was a video called "symbols of an alien sky" pt. II, presented by the thunderbolts project, founded by David Talbott and others.
Especially the part that explains the existence of "Vales Marineris" (large grand canyon like scar on Mars). The evidence is so easy to comprehend, it is overwhelmingly clear what caused it, namely plasma discharge on a grand scale. All the evidence points to electricity. From olympus mons to vales marineris, from string craters to rim craters, from (positive and negative) dendritic scars to fulgerites, they all point to the same suspect; electricity. I encourage anyone to watch the video. You will not be disappointed, guaranteed.

The same goes for the series on the ice age, presented by Douglas B. Vogt of the diehold foundation. As far as I am concerned, he's spot on. In fact, I truly hope someone is able to debunk his theories, because the alternative is dire, and coming relatively soon. People like Brien Foerster of hiddenincatours seem to confirm those theories however, by presenting physical evidence of both cataclysmic events as well as proof of advanced predeluvial civilizations, who probably knew of these cataclisms and perhaps even tried to warn us with their enormous impossible (for the time frame) polygonal structures.

Anyway, I would like to see people explain away the videos I mentioned above and below. By all means! Because if these theories are true, we are being lied to on an unimaginable scale, our future is grimm, and it explains the current state we're in, and why we can never trust those in power, because they know,.......they know.....

Video 1.
Symbols of an Alien Sky part II (vales marineris, craters, dendrites, fulgerites)
youtu.be...



Video 2.
Causes of the Ice Age and reversals (solar nova)
youtube.com...





Video 3.
Craks in Theory (some mountains are created by electricity)
youtu.be...


Video 4.
Physical proof of cataclysms, vitrification, advanced predeluvial civilizations etc.
youtube.com...
See videos on channel.

Now I'm sure there's tonnes of other people I could have mentioned, but in this case I took the four who seemed to corroborate each others findings. Are they 100% right in everything they claim, I think not, but, so far, I haven't seen any other information that convincingly disproves what they say either.