A Pole Shift is Coming

Sorry Valhall

So I guess then we're left with a theory which may be valid but which has no supporters and no supporting evidence?

On the balance of probability I'd say it's dead in the water.....

But if someone out there has real, up to date, evidence that supports the theory, let's hear it

Well, reviewing the thread, I'm of the assumption that three pages of condescension has most likely scared everybody that appeared to have interest in discussing the pro side of this topic off.

Great job guys.

Let's go kill some more topics with absolute statements that can't be proven. Got any good targets in your scopes?

Well to be fair, the thread did start off with a highly imaginative proposition that had no grounding in physical possibility

Would you rather folk go around believing that a break away ice shelf can cause the entire Earth's crust to shift, killing us all? Or rest easy in their beds knowing it's a physical impossibility (according to all know laws of science)

Originally posted by Essan
Well to be fair, the thread did start off with a highly imaginative proposition that had no grounding in physical possibility

Would you rather folk go around believing that a break away ice shelf can cause the entire Earth's crust to shift, killing us all? Or rest easy in their beds knowing it's a physical impossibility (according to all know laws of science)

I am as much an opponent against bad science as anybody else who has posted in this thread in opposition to the entire polar shift theory. But there is a proper way to discuss the problems with a theory, and there is a highly unacceptable way to attack what you've personally decided you can't consider.

...now isn't there? This discussion could have taken place in a manner that a lot of people could have learned a lot of things.

it didn't.

How about I jump in the discussion by asking a question about the magnetic pole shift. This is something that doesn’t quite make sense to me, and maybe one of you experts can answer this. There was recent mention about the core of the Earth actually spinning faster than the outer crust. Doesn’t the core determine the magnetic pole? So if the magnetic pole is shifting, is the core shifting with it? Then it would not only be spinning faster, but might also be shifting, or have its own wobble?

Also you mentioned other planets magnet poles, don't they all lined up in opposition to the sun? Except for Neptune or Uranus, which I heard one or the other had been turned on its side by a planetary collision, but I believe it was the rotational axis. I don’t know about the magnetic pole.

I am going from experience with magnets here, so please forgive me. I know that magnets lined up opposite each other are attracted to each other, while magnets lined up the same oppose each other. So I would expect the poles of the planets to be opposite of the poles of the sun and any shift in the magnetic poles would be corrected by the much stronger force of the poles of the sun. I know the crust shows signs of magnetic pole reversal every 75,000 years. So I just wonder how it is possible for the magnet poles to reverse. Is it possible the north magnetic pole will eventually migrate back toward the northern rotational axis?

Thanks for any input.

Actually, about 15+ years ago, they did modeling on the dynamo effect of the molten core spinning within the earth and their computer model duplicated the periodic magnetic polarity flip.

I'll try to rustle something up on that work so that we might be able to get you better answers than me recalling what I learned in college too many moons ago.

This is most likely not the study I'm referring to, but it is the same modeling work.

www.psc.edu...

There is an animation at the bottom of the page.

Planetary magnetic fields vary

www.astronomynotes.com...

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.

Is what I outlined a plausable theory from a scientific sense? I'm curious.

No.

As the ice builds up, the bottom layers become plastic and even liquid due to the huge pressures. Thus gravity would tend to pull the ice down before it ever got that high.

Imagine trying to build a tower out of huge blocks of jello. Eventually the weight would cause the bottom blocks to squish out.

Try thinking of it this way:

How deep are the Earth’s oceans?

Have you ever heard the comparison of the Earth to an apple?

If the Earth were the size of an apple, the Earth’s oceans and lithosphere would be about the thickness of the skin of the apple.

The Earth would never get to be shaped like a football. Gravity would keep it round.

Thanks for the links Val and Howard, and I will look them over when I have more time, there is a lot of info there.

Originally posted by Valhall
o one has EVER postulated a 180 degree spin. It is an angular displacement of around 15 degrees I believe.

*smacks forehead*

Ok, I see. However, I don't think that this is what chicklestick or whatever is talking about, he seems to be talking about the crust moving. You are suggesting that the earth's axis of tilt is thrown off, or possibly its obliquity, I beleive.

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.

?
The method woudl require that the idea be based on observations, that it come from the observations themself. What observations lead to this idea?
Then the method would have us test the idea, we can presumably do this more or less by looking at some of the details and quantities involved.

For my part, I don't see how glacial ice is going to throw off the tilt of the planet, at all. I don't see any evidence that the extreme buildups of ice in the past have done this either.
I would think that this could be detected by looking at changes in the electromagnatic field, as recorded by Mid Atlantic Ridge seafloor spreading, that as the degree of tilt changes, that this results in a change that can be recorded, as the field is affected by the solar wind, and movement through this field might leave some sort of evidence of its occurance.
A nice thing to see would be an experiment with a spinning ball that has a relative difference in the distribution of its mass that is similar ot the accumlation of a thicker ice sheet.

I beleive that there are also records of the changes in the astronomical characteristics of the earth, the milankovitch scale changes, and that a change in tilt would not only have to be recorded in the same proxies use to reconstruct that record, but also that it would mean that the pattern that we have now is wrong.

Yes, these can be used in support of the alternative theory

Indeed, but how is the alternative theory a better explanation of that data than the "consensus" theory?

What you can show me is interpretations of geologic structures.

Are you suggesting that the interpretations are incorrect? How does the tilt-shift better explain the structures?

That's the beauty of the scientific method. I don't have to agree with your interpretation when it hasn't been proven

No interpretation is ever going to be proven. That doesn't mean that the science based on those interpretations doesn't work.
[quote\]I believe the current thread is postulating one mechanism. Unfortunately, that point has been (hopefully not deliberately) lost in white noise and comic relief.
The original presentation was the recent snow in the antarctic was going to smoosh the crust under the "rosden" ice shelf, that it would move out into the atlantic, and then the whole of the crust would spin to shift the crust at the south pole to the north pole.

If this isn't what Mr Chiclestick meant when he made his opening post, well, then he should've been more clear. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that when I read his idea, I considered it, and recognized that it was utterly preposterous, and, while perhaps since nothing is immpossible in this crazy universe we're in, that it was sufficiently close to an immpossibility.

What you are talking about is a shift in the tilt of the earth. This, obviously, is, in broad terms, possible, of course. BUT, triggered by a years snow-fall? Or even a thousand year's worth of snow-fall? I don't think that anyone should have to create a mini-earth to see that the mass of the snow, while enough to cause a local compression of the crust, is simply not going to be enough to affect the planet in this way.

That, BY DEFINITION, leaves open the possibility that there could be other explanations;

Catastrophism doesn't permit us to examine the past in any meaningful way, least of all to be able to determine if anything like a tilt-shift can occur, since it states that what happens now and is examinable by man is useful in understanding the past. Uniformatarianism, on the other hand, permits us to look at things like experiments, such as the compression of crust by ice, or the mass that builds up with accumulating ice, and try to understand the past. And onceit does that, it permits us to have things like the record of the effects of milankovitch scale events and use that to try to understand if sudden and dramatic changes in the earth's axis have or have not occured. True, its allways, therefore, based on an understand that things can be understood by examining the current world and experiments, but how is that a fault? Its certainly not unscientific. There is no science to catastrophism. This is why, (moves onto foreign territory ruled by valhal), say, velikosvsky wasn't too important in getting man to the moon.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Valhall
o one has EVER postulated a 180 degree spin. It is an angular displacement of around 15 degrees I believe.

*smacks forehead*

Ok, I see. However, I don't think that this is what chicklestick or whatever is talking about, he seems to be talking about the crust moving. You are suggesting that the earth's axis of tilt is thrown off, or possibly its obliquity, I beleive.

LOL! No I'm not. I'm talking about the same thing chicklestick is talking about. The theory of crustal displacement polar shift postulates that the crust displaces through a limited angle. It slides across the mantle through some 15 degrees or so. When it comes to rest, the axis of rotation is then pointing through a new geographic location (the axis or rotation remained stationary, the crust moved) because that location moved into the position of the stationary axis of rotation.

Catastrophism doesn't permit us to examine the past in any meaningful way, least of all to be able to determine if anything like a tilt-shift can occur, since it states that what happens now and is examinable by man is useful in understanding the past. There is no science to catastrophism

Well, we have at least one data point now that we can lovingly caress in the world of catastrophism. We'll keep our eye out for more

P.S. One advantage in catstrophism is that the data points are REAL EASY to see. LOL!


[edit on 12-20-2005 by Valhall]

A pole/crust shift is very serious. Check out the free book on kataclysm.webs.com.... (no gimmick or hook at the site) It gives a complete summary of the problem and pending crisis.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Valhall
If this happened there would be mighty big earthquakes, winds, tidal waves...

Yes, but this can't happen. I am curious to see if the idea of the crustal slip-flip originated seperately from the idea of a (magnetic) 'pole reversal', or was later confused with it. But often people say one and mean both.

tsk tsk nygdan. You saying that doesn't make it impossible! For the sake of what will most assuredly be an interesting discussion....

Assuming it could...

and requiring that there be a causal force to put the shift in play, the Lt. General Chickelshnit has an interesting theory. I have read recently that models are showing that while the north pole ice cap is melting (due to global warming), the models show that there will be a near conservation of icedom (if you will) where the south pole increases at almost the same rate as the rate of loss of the north ice cap. This could cause a rather wobbly and stressful situation for our little crust.

Perhaps, but it's like saying "Assuming I crap rainbow sherbet, what should I eat to ensure good coloration?" The whole idea is nonsense. There's no point in discussing an idea this stupid beyond "plate tectonics don't work that way."

Science can't tell you if anything at all is right, but it can definitely tell you if something is wrong. A literal shift of the north pole to the south and south pole to the north is laughable.

Furthermore, unless the ice shelf is resting on the ground, it doesn't make any difference if it's attached to more ice in the general area, molten, or broken into drink-sized ice cubes. It's all floating; it displaces it's weight in water. if it weren't there, it's weight in water would be there instead. Not to mention that this thread seems to be the only occurrence of an ice shelf called "rosden".

Magnetic pole shifts occur every once in a while, and are mostly harmless, but physical pole shifts have never happened, and the mechanics are mind boggling and laughable, whether the idea is that the earth's axis changes, or the crust slips around on the earth so the area that was once the north pole is south, and some new place is the north pole.

We can make absolute statements against alternative theories when they're so at odds with observed reality that the proponents may as well be living in a different universe.

There is (under a reasonable set of axioms) only one reality (that concerns us), and if you're trying to infer truth about it (and I assume here that people on this forum are at least *tangentially* interested in truth), you can't just make (pound sign) up, or repeat something you've heard on the internet on some dubious website. *Not* anything is possible. We don't know for sure what is, and what isn't, but we've got a fair idea for things at reasonable temperatures, sizes, densities and distances.

I don't see how ocean displasements can affect the gravitational forces on this eartth. If anything ' I would say there is alot to what astronemers are saying about the Winter Solstice Alignnment ; and maybe you throw in Nibiru and you have your pole shift .

reply to post by Hal9000


LET ME EXPLAIN IT THIS WAY :
THE EARTH'S CORE IS SPEEDING UP.
MOLTEN LAVA IS TRAVELING NORTH TO SOUTH BETWEEN THE THE TWO POLES.
THIS PROCESS WILL HELP THE EARTH MELT AWAY THE CURRENT ICE AT THE TWO POLES.
THIS PROCESS ALSO WILL AFFECT WEATHER WORLDWIDE.
....AFTER THIS EVENT...ONLY 1.5 MILLION OUT OF 9 BILLION PEOPLE WILL SURVIVE

Second super-fast flip of Earth's poles found

SOME 16 million years ago, north became south in a matter of years. Such fast flips are impossible, according to models of the Earth's core, but this is now the second time that evidence has been found.

The magnetic poles swap every 300,000 years, a process that normally takes up to 5000 years. In 1995 an ancient lava flow with an unusual magnetic pattern was discovered in Oregon. It suggested that the field at the time was moving by 6 degrees a day - at least 10,000 times faster than usual. "Not many people believed it," says Scott Bogue of Occidental College in Los Angeles.

Source:
www.newscientist.com...

Thread her:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 4/9/2010 by kloejen]