Pole Shifts, the effects on civilization?
- Thread starter stormbind
- Start date
Alice
Warlord
here's a good link (I think)
British Geological Survey
British Geological Survey
Thanks Alice, that's a great site! 
British Geological Survey suggests it's no biggy to mankind (other species may be stuffed), but they did not discredit Hapgood who suggested the poles and equator would effectively move.
That would mean a big climate change for many regions. Those already near the poles would be most adversly affected imho.
Where would the new north... erm, south pole be, and how close would the UK be to it?
British Geological Survey suggests it's no biggy to mankind (other species may be stuffed), but they did not discredit Hapgood who suggested the poles and equator would effectively move.
That would mean a big climate change for many regions. Those already near the poles would be most adversly affected imho.
Where would the new north... erm, south pole be, and how close would the UK be to it?
For what it's worth, here's what NASA had to say about it.
I think there was some kind of discussion on this a while ago, mb in another forum. There was also one of those discovery channel shows about it recently. At any rate, the impression I got was that there's nothing to worry about, and aside from seeing aurora at different places than usual, there'd be no real effect on peoples' lives.
Although, if you notice any world leaders starting to construct or move into giant underground bunkers, I'd worry a little.
I think there was some kind of discussion on this a while ago, mb in another forum. There was also one of those discovery channel shows about it recently. At any rate, the impression I got was that there's nothing to worry about, and aside from seeing aurora at different places than usual, there'd be no real effect on peoples' lives.
Although, if you notice any world leaders starting to construct or move into giant underground bunkers, I'd worry a little.
He's a geologist, who postulated the theory that the earth's crust moved around on its support of mantle, sort of like how an orange skin can be moved around on the orange flesh. Einstein thought well enough of the theory to write the foreword in Hapgood's book, 'Maps of the Ancient Sea-kings'.Originally posted by stormbind
What do we know about Mr Hapgood?
He based his works on a number of very ancient maps; themselves copies of more ancient ones.
But then, Isaac Newton was also an alchemist, so...
That was how I remembered he described it, sort of. Something along that line...
Drewcifer
Agent of Karma
PBS's main science show "Nova" did a show on this subject this season. Here is a link to that episodes web page.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/
How long is it supposed to take for N/S flip to occur?
Some sites say thousands of years for the reversal to complete fully.
Would the magnetic effects be felt by humans on the micro scale? i.e. Are our old floppy disks going to be erased?
Some sites say thousands of years for the reversal to complete fully.
Would the magnetic effects be felt by humans on the micro scale? i.e. Are our old floppy disks going to be erased?
Drewcifer
Agent of Karma
IIRC the Nova show said that it could take only a few years or less. I don't think it is a long process.
A thousand years is very fast in geological terms.
If it's a constant oscillation then it never really stops, only manifests itself at the each end of the movement.
This is my theory: The velocity of the core inside the earth changes direction, with the effect of the crust and core moving in different directions.
This is no big deal intself because they always move very slightly out of sync, but when the velocity inverses the difference is at it's strongest... and as you can imagine, the friction between crust and core isn't sufficient to keep the crust in sync with the sudden change, so it slips (causing the crust to move slightly in relation to the poles).
Energy loss would suggest that each polar flip would be less noticeable than the previous... which ties in pretty well with known history of the planet and the laws of physics; but I'm not a geologist and my theories may be wacky
Causes lots of seismic activity? Probably not a good idea to sit at the foot of mt. vesuvius to find out.
---
If my theory is correct then the pole shift will always be in the general opposite direction of the previous shift, but I wouldn't say it's an accurate inverse - look at how predictable the weather patterns are!
Looking at Hapgood's results to deduce which direction the last slip was in...
Pretty unpredictable, but they do not break the theory - they do move in the general oposite direction of the previous slip and the distance moved is less each time! How about that?
(About 3/4 distance of the previous slip?)
This would suggest the next pole will be closer the Greenland/Canada = warmer weather and watery coast for Siberia?
Now go ahead and discredit my theory... I don't mind. It just popped into my head in the same way as... ooh, time for coffee and a donut!
If it's a constant oscillation then it never really stops, only manifests itself at the each end of the movement.
This is my theory: The velocity of the core inside the earth changes direction, with the effect of the crust and core moving in different directions.
This is no big deal intself because they always move very slightly out of sync, but when the velocity inverses the difference is at it's strongest... and as you can imagine, the friction between crust and core isn't sufficient to keep the crust in sync with the sudden change, so it slips (causing the crust to move slightly in relation to the poles).
Energy loss would suggest that each polar flip would be less noticeable than the previous... which ties in pretty well with known history of the planet and the laws of physics; but I'm not a geologist and my theories may be wacky
Causes lots of seismic activity? Probably not a good idea to sit at the foot of mt. vesuvius to find out.
---
If my theory is correct then the pole shift will always be in the general opposite direction of the previous shift, but I wouldn't say it's an accurate inverse - look at how predictable the weather patterns are!
Looking at Hapgood's results to deduce which direction the last slip was in...
Pretty unpredictable, but they do not break the theory - they do move in the general oposite direction of the previous slip and the distance moved is less each time! How about that?
(About 3/4 distance of the previous slip?)
This would suggest the next pole will be closer the Greenland/Canada = warmer weather and watery coast for Siberia?
Now go ahead and discredit my theory... I don't mind. It just popped into my head in the same way as... ooh, time for coffee and a donut!
*sigh of disapointment*
I braced myself for the staunch discrediting of my post almost two hours ago, but nobody has replied. I'm very impatient. Where are the physicists and mathematicians hiding?
What's the matter, too spicey for you?
I braced myself for the staunch discrediting of my post almost two hours ago, but nobody has replied. I'm very impatient. Where are the physicists and mathematicians hiding?
What's the matter, too spicey for you?
Perfection
The Great Head.
OH don't be so impatient, it's goddamn early!
I'm not exactly sure what you surmising (geo-physics isn't exactly my field of expertise). I'm seeing some flaws though. Number one is that the core doesn't change direction just reverse magnetic polarity, if the core spinning changed direction in a matter of years, well, our planet's spinning (to conserve angular momentum), would go all wacky and it just would be nasty, since there is no evidence that this nsastiness occured, we can reasonible assume that the core's veleocity change is insignificant during a pole reversal.
Additionally I wouldn't give a wooden nickel based on predictions based on three data points, that's got trouble written all over it.
I'm not exactly sure what you surmising (geo-physics isn't exactly my field of expertise). I'm seeing some flaws though. Number one is that the core doesn't change direction just reverse magnetic polarity, if the core spinning changed direction in a matter of years, well, our planet's spinning (to conserve angular momentum), would go all wacky and it just would be nasty, since there is no evidence that this nsastiness occured, we can reasonible assume that the core's veleocity change is insignificant during a pole reversal.
Additionally I wouldn't give a wooden nickel based on predictions based on three data points, that's got trouble written all over it.
Drewcifer
Agent of Karma
You should take a look in detail at the link I posted. It seems to spell it out pretty well.Originally posted by stormbind
*sigh of disapointment*
I braced myself for the staunch discrediting of my post almost two hours ago, but nobody has replied. I'm very impatient. Where are the physicists and mathematicians hiding?
What's the matter, too spicey for you?
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well, a sudden velocity reversal would cause the outside to want to spin in the opposite direction, the result being the earth's rotation going all wacky and stuff, which past reversals indicate doesn't occur.
It wouldn't be a sudden velocity reversal on the outside. It would be a gradual slowing.
It's like two magnets being pushed together, one of them flips around. The one that flips is on the inside but it's only liquid (molten metal) so the outside is affected but is still bound the law of inertia - it doesn't just emmediately change direction.
Like a boat on a wave, the wave moves but the boat stays where it is.
Here I'm making a heck of a lot of unsubstanciated guestimates << emphasis
Past reversals suggest there would be some effects on the crust but not to the extent that you assume.
If it's an oscilation that loses energy with each reversal then the effects would be less each time, this is supported by the 4 known points and by the history of the earth.
We saw massive disruption and world-wide "reset buttons" in the early years of life on earth.
We see "ice age" effects; now assumed to be the poles in different locations. Fairly recent history.
We are told of sudden but relatively mild disruption in ancient stories of mans history.
Each time it gets weaker until eventually the field collapses and you end up with heavy radiation similar to the surface of Mars?
It's like two magnets being pushed together, one of them flips around. The one that flips is on the inside but it's only liquid (molten metal) so the outside is affected but is still bound the law of inertia - it doesn't just emmediately change direction.
Like a boat on a wave, the wave moves but the boat stays where it is.
Here I'm making a heck of a lot of unsubstanciated guestimates << emphasis
Past reversals suggest there would be some effects on the crust but not to the extent that you assume.
If it's an oscilation that loses energy with each reversal then the effects would be less each time, this is supported by the 4 known points and by the history of the earth.
We saw massive disruption and world-wide "reset buttons" in the early years of life on earth.
We see "ice age" effects; now assumed to be the poles in different locations. Fairly recent history.
We are told of sudden but relatively mild disruption in ancient stories of mans history.
Each time it gets weaker until eventually the field collapses and you end up with heavy radiation similar to the surface of Mars?
Similar threads
