It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Byrd
No, there won't be a physical crust shift... and the idea that the ice shelf will cause any huge changes is, as Nygdan put it, untrue.
Originally posted by Valhall
pole shift - physical displacement of crust so that a new location on the crust resides at the north pole (and south pole)
It is an interesting theory - one worthy of discussion without dismissing it. Yes, it is an extreme idea, but no one has proven it impossible.
[edit on 12-14-2005 by Valhall]
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Can we agree at least, that the idea that a shift of the actual axis of rotation of the whole earth (not just the crust) is preposterous?
Originally posted by Valhall
on here and making absolute statements that they can't possibly prove.
We can't simply poo-poo these alternative theories off
one worthy of discussion without dismissing it.
one side of the continent is much heavier than the other. if the ice shelf eventually became too heavy, the ice shelf would drift out to sea, and at 26 hours be far enuff out to shift the balnce of poles
keep ion mind taht the ice shelf is prettty big at 210,000 sq mi.
Originally posted by Valhall
It is an interesting theory - one worthy of discussion without dismissing it. Yes, it is an extreme idea, but no one has proven it impossible.
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by Byrd
No, there won't be a physical crust shift... and the idea that the ice shelf will cause any huge changes is, as Nygdan put it, untrue.
Here we go again. Now we've got TWO people coming on here and making absolute statements that they can't possibly prove.
Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
I always thought the theory was that massive amounts of ice would build at the poles causing the Earth to "wobble" similar to a football (American style).
Eventually this "wobble" becomes great enough to cause a shift and the Earth would topple and change it's access while still remaining within it's current orbit.
Originally posted by Nygdan
I think that here the burden of proof, or at least burden to show that something is remotely plausible, is on the people making the claim that ice combined with planetary spin can cause the crust of the planet to dettach and spin 180 degrees.
Originally posted by Valhall
No - the burden of proof is NOT on those who consider this to be a theory not yet proven impossible.
Until you prove something is absolutely impossible and use only physical laws (not other interpretation based on premises of OTHER theories) to prove that, you are in VIOLENT OPPOSITION to the scientific method.
Originally posted by Valhall
No - the burden of proof is NOT on those who consider this to be a theory not yet proven impossible. See, that's the whole point. Until you prove something is absolutely impossible and use only physical laws (not other interpretation based on premises of OTHER theories) to prove that, you are in VIOLENT OPPOSITION to the scientific method.
Originally posted by Byrd
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by Byrd
No, there won't be a physical crust shift... and the idea that the ice shelf will cause any huge changes is, as Nygdan put it, untrue.
Here we go again. Now we've got TWO people coming on here and making absolute statements that they can't possibly prove.
Well, what data would you like to see?
That there were previous ice ages and that the globe warmed up afterwards? I can certainly provide you with links (of course, they're scientific...) to show that, including the various measurements of the earth.
That there wasn't massive movement of the crust after the ice ages ended? Yes, I can show you direct links to local geologies along major fault lines that rather clearly show this (if you're not familiar with the geologic layers and formations and how they were laid down this might not be convincing... but you don't need to be a geologist or geophysics expert to understand what the rocks are showing.)
I'm interested to know what you find so unbelievable about the scientific evidence.
I know you're certainly NOT anti-science... so what are the gaps in the evidence that you think you see?
We science geeks will be glad to point you in the direction of published evidence (or evidence that you can simply walk out and see... after all, there've been nearly 50 magnetic pole shifts in the past 10 million years (www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk...). and there's never been any sudden shift of continents or plates since the earth cooled to form continents. (www.nhm.ac.uk... and home.entouch.net... (tirade there by an angry geologist who explains geologic columns and how they are determined) and so on and so forth.)
Remember that planetary motion obeys physics. That was a simple "thought problem" but it summarizes how planets' poles don't always match the axis of their spin. As you can see, the motion of the axis of spin would have to be both huge and noticeable for the planet to roll over.
Once it started rolling over, it would continue that motion.
There is a planet with an unusual axis of rotation... Neptune... which is believed to be a captured object of our solar system. However, it's not wobbling itself back upright. It's stable (and so is its orbit) and will stay that way until something huge (like a collision with a planetoid) disrupts it.
Actually, it is -- unless you're doing a "King Kong can beat up He-Man" type of fantasy speculation.
In the world of Marvel Comics, Thor could shove the continents around with Mjollinir. Or Gigantor could get into a battle with Silver Surfer and their weapons and psyonic blasts could cause the crust to become unstable and wiggle around.
BUT... if you're not doing a comics book conversation and want to promote "the crust suddenly moves around" then you need to explain how it's done and what kinds of evidence there is to show that you have a decent idea that's worth disucssion and not some "what if King Kong met Godzilla" tyep of speculation.
So what mechanisms are you proposing that cause the huge continental plates to suddenly slip and slide around within a period of days or years (rather than, say, millions or billions of years.
Originally posted by Essan
So what you're saying Valhall is that you interpret the evidence differently to everyone else and therefore your theory must be seen as equally valid?
I'm sure flat earthers and hollow earthers could say much the same......