North/South poles: Synergy et alii (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Termyn8or -> North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/8/2007 11:16:29 PM)

(didn't want to hijack)

The poles flipping around seems to have been explained. At least it makes a heckofalota sense. It may not be true, but then it might.

The theory goes like this:

We live on the crust of this planet, it is literally floating on liquid. As such when the polar caps reach a certain mass, since nothing in nature is perfectly balanced (I mean center of gravity wise), the centripetal force of the poles rotates the crust of the Earth on it's core. The magnetic field has not changed, but the position of the crust on which we live has.

This accounts for the different polarizatioons of lodestone that have been found. They have also been dated, all which forms the body of evidence that the Earth's field changes, at least in relation to the crust, and of course the inhabitants. This theory goes a long way in explaining some of history.

I am not here to post links and give empirical evidence at this time. This is my presentation of possible fact, in the form I choose. This next piece of evidence came only from one source and I haven't confirmed it. It came from a documentary on TV of all places.

It supports the crust shifting theory, what they said is that in the days of like Christopher Columbus, they had maps that accurately depicted the land mass of Antarctica. Now just how did they get that ? Nowadays we need to use SONAR and computers to figure out where the land mass is. How did they do it ?

A possible answer is that they didn't. The map was created during a time when there were not tons of ice clung to Antarctica. Do you suppose people lived there before ?

The theorists who wrote that show postulated that they figured the crust shifted about every 15,000 years.

That would explain quite a bit.

I am not saying accept this as gospel, it is a theory. I wasn't there and I didn't do it, I didn't even do the theory, but it does make quite a few things fall into place, and fits very nicely with the laws of physics.

This is also my representation of it. There is no transcript (well maybe there is). As such I would add my own observation.

If these theorists are correct, understand this, it is not necessarily a cataclysmic change. At least not overnight let's say. If the last time it happened was let's just say for giggles, 7,500 years ago. Is it possible nobody noticed ? I don't mean didn't notice, but the change was not abrupt.

I really need to go Google something. If, from lodestones, the angle of declination from North to magnetic North could be determined, we could see the climatic tendendies of different regions in the past. This could be very telling in the pursuit of discovering the origins of Mankind. Dinosaurs are a foregone conclusion, they were cold blooded and it didn't take all that abrupt of a climate change to kill them, but Man was nomadic back then. Why ?

And why did Man travel to the specific places to which he traveled ?

Bear in mind that this is not my theory, but I thought I would run it by yall and see what you think.I think it has merit, what say you ?

Synergy, from what you said this theory is contrary to what you have accepted. The same was true of me at one time. They went on to cite other historical events, but there were few that actually proved their point. But then I was thinking about the theory, and how it would explain so much all at once. I think it is likely true.

I would go so far as to say I think we have gone through the last shift and are now at an equilibrium. If not they would have to report changes in the declination of the poles periodically. Perhaps it happens so slowly nobody notices. "Y'know, the sun was never directly overhead this time of year".

Everybody, I say this now. There is hope, not for us but at least the world. As they pollute with DU and who the hell knows what else, when everything gets sloshed around again it'll be fine ! When our poison goes down into the sea the whales will probably be pissed off, but they don't know who to be pissed at.

It has been said ; Welcome to Earth, third rock from the sun.

T



Sinergy -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/8/2007 11:28:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Dinosaurs are a foregone conclusion, they were cold blooded and it didn't take all that abrupt of a climate change to kill them, but Man was nomadic back then. Why ?



I read an article a few years ago in Discover (if I remember correctly) which had an anthropologist comparing the hip bones from a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a turkey.  Turns out there is an almost perfect match.  This is also important because if dinosaurs were cold blooded, how did a hundred ton megagiant dinosaur get it's blood warm enough to even move.

Makes sense.  The presumed behaviors of most dinosaurs do not correlate with cold blooded modern species, and easily correlate with warm blooded species.

As far as the comment on homo sapiens; dinosaurs died out on our planet thousands of years prior to humans appearing.

The evidence of magnetic pole flipping is found in rocks.  If I remember right this has been proven using something akin to carbon dating, but I have no expertise on this subject.

I am not certain what I said which contradicts your position.  My general approach in life is to research all sorts of positions in depth without picking a side, per se.

Sinergy



RobertCloud -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/8/2007 11:58:50 PM)

The current theory is that Dinosaurs were NOT cold blooded but warm blooded, fast, and colorful creatures. That many were pack or family oriented, and some like T-Rex was both a Predator and a Scavenger, but mainly a Scavenger, more like the Dinosaur equivalent of a Vulture or Hyena.

The primary Predators were small, what we call not velociraptor type species.

As far as what wiped out the Dinosaurs, the current theory is that an Asteroid plunged into part of the Gulf of Mexico and the Dinosaurs could not survive the changes necessary to adapt.

As far as whether man was around or not, actually there is some debate, because there is also some debate as to when the last of the Dinosaurs truly died. Look at legends such as Saint George and the Dragon, and so forth, some of the earliest paintings of this occurence the Dragon appears to be what we now know to be a velociraptor, yet they did not know of those back then.

Could it be that some did survive? I actually think from all the legends of it that it is highly possible that a few did, but that there are no longer any alive, and unfortunately as with St. George, they were so afraid the Dragon would come back that they cremated its remains. That was a common practice, and it is unlikely we will ever find any remains of skeletons younger and if we do our preconceived notions that they are actually millions of years old will not allow us to carbon date them at younger, we will assume the test are wrong.

Now, I too saw the show you are speaking of about the shift of the Earth's crust. There have been actually a couple of different shows that have discussed this theory and some have even gone into great depth about some of the lost civilizations that once existed and their religious practices. One had a Gate called the Gate of the Sun, and yet the sun does not come anywhere near the alignment of this gate, but 12,000 years ago, where they believe the poles were aligned, this gate would have lined up perfectly with the rising of the sun. It would also have placed Antarctica closer to the Equator and it would have been a very rich and lush continent, teeming with life. North America would have been under Ice, which according to our records and knowledge of the ICE AGE 12,000 years ago, it was. all the way down into Indiana across Ohio and so forth.. All of Canada was under Ice. The North Pole would have been in the midst of Canadian Soil.

Yes, this would have also put Australia under ICE which we also know that at one time it was. So, the explanation is very logical. However, you got part of the show wrong. The shift occurs roughly every 12,000 years and the last shift occurred roughly 12,000 years ago. That is right, we are due for a shift at any time. It could begin any moment or within decades or centuries, but it is unlikely that it will be another millenia before it happens.

Also according to the show it was a sudden shift, it was not slow, but catastrophic, that is why the civilizations that existed 12,000 years ago just suddenly ceased. They had to begin all over because they were almost wiped out.

The show did say that it did not mean that every shift would be sudden, that it could happen slowly, but the last one was obviously catastrophic.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/9/2007 12:18:59 AM)

Hmmmm, walks off to buy huge swaths of tundra, for pennies. 



meatcleaver -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/9/2007 1:22:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

Hmmmm, walks off to buy huge swaths of tundra, for pennies. 


Now that is as speculative as the science in question.



mgdartist -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/9/2007 1:45:10 AM)

Well I dont wanna hijack either, and tho I'm unsure if this is on topic, the mention of the polar caps. and the earths axis made me remember something  I'd seen here, which truly gave me pause:

quote:

...in the near future the magnetic axis of the earth will shift. The message of the
greatest importance is that after the shift, ELECTRICITY WILL NOT WORK. The new Earth
polarity will not allow present generators to gather magnetic molecular structures from the
ionosphere and then form them into electrons.


can this be fact? and that all our electromagnetic power is in that sense some sort of fluke? Sorta scary to think, but sure would serve these greedy utility barons right. I know little of the science behind this, so I upped the ebook so those who did could refer to it's actual text. Makes you wonder if the pole shift is really the worst in store for us.

MGD

additional link to ebook



Rule -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/9/2007 2:57:28 AM)

Han Kloosterman, a geologist and a friend of mine, has interpreted geological evidence as showing that our planet once reversed its direction of rotation and later reversed its direction of rotation back to what it was. That means that our planet must have turned upside down and then back again.
 
There are planets (Venus and Uranus) and one moon if I recall correctly, that are also upside down.



Sinergy -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/9/2007 8:01:47 AM)

 
Hello,

I watch very little television.  I have read about the poles flipping and ice ages and the like in magazines or books such as Scientific American, Discover, etc.

http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-02/rd/breaktopsy/

I read about continental drift, archeology, etc., in books like Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.  If I really like the book I start ordering things from the bibliography, and so on, and so forth.  Helps to have a job which gives me tons of free time to stand in one place, book in hand, expressing my morpheme.

http://www.collarchat.com/m_20650/mpage_1/key_morpheme/tm.htm

It was when I started researching chaos theory and complexity that I started to be cranky I drank my way through 2 years of math in college, because I dont have the math background to really understand the intricacies.  I am going back to graduate school when I finish my probationary period in the union.  Maybe I will attempt to scale the math wall once more.

Sinergy



DomKen -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/9/2007 11:42:46 AM)

Some details from my hobby and then from my former career.

Hobby:
Dinosaurs were almost certainly warm blooded to some degree. The Chixiculb(sp?) impact was ~65M years ago and no uncontested evidence of dinosaurs that aren't birds exists after this point. If bones were found from a more recent dinosaur, say a few thousand years old, we wouldn't need radiometric dating to know it was younger than expected. It would likely not be mineralized, truly ancient fossil bones are really rocks where minerals in solution slowly replaced the organic material, and would be found in sediment of the age when the animal died not buried in 65+ million year old rock.

As to accurate maps of Antartica made prior to the 20th century, I've seen a number of such claims and they have yet to pan out. Ice cores and other dating techniques show that Antartica has been under thousands of feet of ice for far longer than mankind has existed.

Profession:
Electric generators do not rely on the Earth's magnetic field. A generator spins a magnetic rod inside a coil of wire which induces current as the magnetic field in various parts of the wire coil fluctuates. So unless flipping the poles were to also demagnetize every natural and artifical magnet, which is nonsensical, we would still have electricty.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/9/2007 12:05:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


Profession:
Electric generators do not rely on the Earth's magnetic field. A generator spins a magnetic rod inside a coil of wire which induces current as the magnetic field in various parts of the wire coil fluctuates. So unless flipping the poles were to also demagnetize every natural and artifical magnet, which is nonsensical, we would still have electricty.


This is true, I'd disgard any notion or credibility to that e-book. I'm 100 percent sure this would have been observed on the moon missions, or even shuttle missions. If one needs proof that should be enough, not to mention the probes we send out all over the solar system.



FirmhandKY -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/9/2007 5:12:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

I would go so far as to say I think we have gone through the last shift and are now at an equilibrium. If not they would have to report changes in the declination of the poles periodically. Perhaps it happens so slowly nobody notices. "Y'know, the sun was never directly overhead this time of year".


The magnetic declination changes constantly, because the north magnetic pole moves around constantly, still.

Depending on what part of the world you are in, and the angle and relationships between the old and new pole locations, the declination shift on maps can be from nothing, to 2, 3, 4 degrees or more.

If you deal with USGS topo maps, which have been published and updated for decades, the shift in the magnetic declination is one of the first things you look for.

FirmKY



sleazy -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/9/2007 5:25:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

I would go so far as to say I think we have gone through the last shift and are now at an equilibrium. If not they would have to report changes in the declination of the poles periodically. Perhaps it happens so slowly nobody notices. "Y'know, the sun was never directly overhead this time of year".


The magnetic declination changes constantly, because the north magnetic pole moves around constantly, still.

Depending on what part of the world you are in, and the angle and relationships between the old and new pole locations, the declination shift on maps can be from nothing, to 2, 3, 4 degrees or more.

If you deal with USGS topo maps, which have been published and updated for decades, the shift in the magnetic declination is one of the first things you look for.

FirmKY


I remember teaching navigation. At the time I seem to recall a deviation in the region of 4.5 degrees in the late 80s/early 90s with a shift of -1 degree every six years or thereabouts (UK figures and a poor memory!). Of course the difference varies according to your position on the planet :) The number of times I had to try and explain MUGS and GUMA and try make sure folks got them the right way round lest they get a little locatioanaly challenged.




Termyn8or -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/9/2007 9:50:50 PM)

(had to jump through, sorry)

Sinergy;

Your first reply. Actually you did not say anything that was contradictory. Perhaps ill chosen words on my part. But it was your words in the other thread.

Pretty much you do believe the poles have shifted. What I was trying to point out foremost, is that it may have not been the poles that shifted, it was us, or the dinos or whatever.

I used to think "Everbody's compass' would be screwed up", when in reality they wouldn't. I do not, however, believe the change would be sudden.

___

Thanks all for the evidence and input., alot of it can be checked through normal historical resources. There are two theories though. An asteroid or meteor could well have landed on [what once wasn't] the gulf of Mexico. The crust shift negates the need for something like that to have happened to cause the current situation. Anthorpology and like sciences do require backward thinking at times.

However there is an older theory out there that would blow all of this out of the water if true. Pangea. Pangea was described by theorists as a sort of proto-continent and marked the shorelines of Europe and the West, noting that they would fit together perfectly.

Let's not blow out the water yet. Would it be unreasonable to think that back then there were only three continents, and the biggest one broke up ? Actually they say that the continents are moving apart, but I can only assume they mean as measured in the Atlantic. It is a slow movement, but measureable.

Perhaps Pangea was flowing with lakes and rivers all over the place and between erosion and some siesmic activitry, created the Atlantic ocean. Perhaps the Atlantic should be defined as a sea then. That means one ocean, the Pacific and at one time most of the land mass was on one hemisphere.

Perhaps something can be learned from examining the various depths, I think I read that the Pacific has places way deeper than the Atlantic. Just like Lake Superior is way deeper than the rest. That should tell us something. Perhaps Lake Superior should be classified as a sea ? Maybe not.

Much good info has been presented. I did not realize that they do indeed report the new actual angle of declination periodically. That post also suggests that the declination seems to be oscillating around a comfortable set point. If that is the case a major crust shift may never happen again, as long as the excursions outside the mean are equal and opposite.

I'll get up to speed, I know there is alot more.

T



DomKen -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/10/2007 7:57:04 AM)

Time for the paleontology hobby to come in useful again.

First, there is no doubt that a meteor struck the Yucatan ~65 million years ago. The physical evidence including the remnants of the impact crater is overwhelming.

As to Pangea, it is also pretty well established. However by the end of the Mesozoic, the extinction of the dinos, Pangea ahd been broken up for quite some time. The initial breakup of Pangea in Laurasia and Gondwanaland, northern and southern supercontinents respectively, occured ~200 million years ago. What is now North America had split off from Laurasia some time before and the Atlantic Ocean was much narrower than it is now but it certainly existed.



Termyn8or -> RE: North/South poles: Synergy et alii (1/13/2007 11:29:18 PM)

OK I did a jump through.

And I still can't reply to everything.

I don't know how this got started but started it is, The thing about dragons.

"Slay the dragon" they said. Did the concept of a dragon exist ? and where did it come from ? Fiction written throughout ages repleat with dragons to be slain, just where does this come from.?

I think it a very interesting point, and strangely, through fiction we may find the truth. Examining mythology is not new, it is just underrated.

This is all kinda blowing my mind right now.I'll be back.

T



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125