Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
We've endured many magnetic reversals, several since humans evolved into their modern form but none in recorded history. Most likely, you will have to buy brand new batteries.
Pole Shifts, the effects on civilization?
- Thread starter stormbind
- Start date
What about the biblical texts (and similar stories), couldn't some of those have been derived from the effects of seismic activity.
Things like flooding, falling skies, rivers of blood etc.. they all fit with how people might explain their unexplained sightings.
I've even heard some loony stuff like Atlantis being Great Britain, it floated all the way from the South Atlantic to the North Sea.
If that doesn't make you laugh, I give up
Point being. By comparisson, the biblical stories are scientifically sound
Things like flooding, falling skies, rivers of blood etc.. they all fit with how people might explain their unexplained sightings.
I've even heard some loony stuff like Atlantis being Great Britain, it floated all the way from the South Atlantic to the North Sea.
If that doesn't make you laugh, I give up
Point being. By comparisson, the biblical stories are scientifically sound
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
No. God did those.
*Sigh.*
At least three or four separate ideas getting mixed up into one big mess of wrong-headedness, as is usual from the typical conspiracy-theory-end-of-days-religious-wacko-nutjob.
Idea #1: Magnetic pole reversal. As has been already pointed out, this has sufficient scientific support to be considered all-but-fact; it happens every few million years, on average. The cause is still being debated. Magnetic pole reversal has nothing to do with physical pole reversal, crustal slippage or anything else mentioned in the article, and does not appear to have any significant effect on life on earth, since there is no pattern of extinctions coinciding with pole reversals.
#2 (maybe): Precession/nutation of the earth's axis. The earth's rotational axis precesses like a top over a period of roughly 26,000 years and also wobbles a bit (nutation) over a range of a few degrees. The latter effect might have some effect on seasonality; I'm not positive. In any case, the stabilizing effect of the moon keeps the earth from ever varying more than those few degrees from its average tilt; it would never physically flip over unless the moon were to disappear (and even then it would be far from a sudden thing).
#3: Plate techtonics. An embryonic form of this theory is what I think Einstein was talking about. Crustal plates do move over the surface of the earth, driven by forces in the mantle that I don't really understand. The effect of these forces, though, is pretty well understood nowadays (it was not in Einstein's time): continents move over the surface of the earth on their plates, driven apart at spreading zones, pulled under at subduction zones, occasionally colliding and uplifting mountains. Antarctica was indeed once located at temperate latitudes, but the breakup of a protocontinent pushed it to where it now is. So here we in fact have crustal material moving over the surface of the earth, but it's over geological time scales, and the crustal material moves in plates, not all at once in some sort of cataclysmic pole flip.
As has been already pointed out: the earth is not top-heavy. Crustal plates can be considered to be 'floating' on the mantle only in a loose sense; they are less dense, so they are on top, but it's hardly a smooth and frictionless boundary between the two. Flipping the crust 'like the skin of an orange' would be about as likely on that count as ... as the inside of an orange suddenly flipping around in its skin, actually, with all the white stringy stuff still attached. Ain't gonna happen.
Oh and that mammoth with a daisy in its mouth stuff? The creationist websites like this one, too. The flowers were found in mammoths' stomachs, not mouths, and none of them were other than tundra vegetation.
That good enough for you, stormbind? I could dig up actual references with a few moments work with Google. As could've you, for that matter ....
Cheers,
Renata
At least three or four separate ideas getting mixed up into one big mess of wrong-headedness, as is usual from the typical conspiracy-theory-end-of-days-religious-wacko-nutjob.
Idea #1: Magnetic pole reversal. As has been already pointed out, this has sufficient scientific support to be considered all-but-fact; it happens every few million years, on average. The cause is still being debated. Magnetic pole reversal has nothing to do with physical pole reversal, crustal slippage or anything else mentioned in the article, and does not appear to have any significant effect on life on earth, since there is no pattern of extinctions coinciding with pole reversals.
#2 (maybe): Precession/nutation of the earth's axis. The earth's rotational axis precesses like a top over a period of roughly 26,000 years and also wobbles a bit (nutation) over a range of a few degrees. The latter effect might have some effect on seasonality; I'm not positive. In any case, the stabilizing effect of the moon keeps the earth from ever varying more than those few degrees from its average tilt; it would never physically flip over unless the moon were to disappear (and even then it would be far from a sudden thing).
#3: Plate techtonics. An embryonic form of this theory is what I think Einstein was talking about. Crustal plates do move over the surface of the earth, driven by forces in the mantle that I don't really understand. The effect of these forces, though, is pretty well understood nowadays (it was not in Einstein's time): continents move over the surface of the earth on their plates, driven apart at spreading zones, pulled under at subduction zones, occasionally colliding and uplifting mountains. Antarctica was indeed once located at temperate latitudes, but the breakup of a protocontinent pushed it to where it now is. So here we in fact have crustal material moving over the surface of the earth, but it's over geological time scales, and the crustal material moves in plates, not all at once in some sort of cataclysmic pole flip.
As has been already pointed out: the earth is not top-heavy. Crustal plates can be considered to be 'floating' on the mantle only in a loose sense; they are less dense, so they are on top, but it's hardly a smooth and frictionless boundary between the two. Flipping the crust 'like the skin of an orange' would be about as likely on that count as ... as the inside of an orange suddenly flipping around in its skin, actually, with all the white stringy stuff still attached. Ain't gonna happen.
Oh and that mammoth with a daisy in its mouth stuff? The creationist websites like this one, too. The flowers were found in mammoths' stomachs, not mouths, and none of them were other than tundra vegetation.
That good enough for you, stormbind? I could dig up actual references with a few moments work with Google. As could've you, for that matter ....
Cheers,
Renata
Bwahaha...
Which article? I certainly never advocated physical pole reversal, only pole shifting which is well supported by the evidence accumulated by Mr Hapgood.
This may be very true, but the evidence of Mr Hapgood shows there have also been relatively quick changes.
The existence on one phenomena does not disprove the existence of another.
Again, none here has advocated a physical flip of the world. However, as you point out the moon has an effect on the Earth... and Einstein suggested bigger planets would also have an effect on Earth when they line up. I don't know if that's true; I have so far ignored the hypothesis.
Again, the existence of one phenomina does not disprove others.
If they did, you would now have the tricky decision of deciding which of plate techtonics vs nutation of the axis was false
No. I already had a good laugh [and cry - metaphorically speaking
] at that site myself and much more reputable sources have been linked to since.Thanks for showing an interest though
Little Raven
On Walkabout
We might be seeing a magnetic pole shift, though that's far from certain. And even if we are...so what? Humans have been through this before. It's no biggie. Probably the only people that need to be concerned are people who live at REALLY high altitudes, since it's possible that our protection against harmful solar radiation might diminish somewhat during the switch. It might have some negative effects on our electronic infrastructure, but it will also be a very slow process, giving us plenty of time to adapt.
On the list of "Things to Worry About," I'd say this doesn't even make the top 2500.
On the list of "Things to Worry About," I'd say this doesn't even make the top 2500.
I'm considering the possibility that a magnetic flip will result in a physical shift.
That would make a difference, it would change where the equator is and where the poles are. It won't make much of a difference to mankind as a species, but it could make a big difference to some communities.
Some silly global effects:
1. Will our printed maps with N-W-S-E will be obsolete?
2. Will our magnetic storage mediums will be erased?
3. Will our computers will crash (RAM will be confusticated?). Urk!
Any more... ?
That link shows that "frozen carcasses" fail to be credible evidence of any catastrophe around 12,000 B.P.
It would be a much more valuable source if it had an explanation for the mammoth death's that contradicted the pole shift theory.
Sadly, however, it supplies no such evidence.
It's just like say...
Theory: The car has red paint.
Evidence: Here is proof that the car has green paint.
Who said it can't have both?
Here is clear evidence that the source has misunderstood the theory. The theory in question actually suggests Canada and Siberia had cold spells at different times, thus not both in 12,000 BP.
It would be a much more valuable source if it had an explanation for the mammoth death's that contradicted the pole shift theory.
Sadly, however, it supplies no such evidence.
It's just like say...
Theory: The car has red paint.
Evidence: Here is proof that the car has green paint.
Who said it can't have both?Here is clear evidence that the source has misunderstood the theory. The theory in question actually suggests Canada and Siberia had cold spells at different times, thus not both in 12,000 BP.
The asthenosphere is attached to the crust, it is a thick goo, and it moves independently of the crust; not quickly (from aprox 1km/year).
If it's moving at a constant rate then the crust will be dragged allong with it, causing the earth to spin more or less syncronised. The crust is thin (small mass) and thus the inferior of the bodies.
If a new force is applied to the core or asthenosphere, then the crust will be slowly dragged in that other direction. It's all gradual because the masses are huge and subject to inertia.
Now I'm hypothesising that the core changes direction first and in turn drags the crust but the crust will resist and try to maintain it's original path.
Because the asthenosphere is viscous, the crust can slip; not by much, but enough to influence the climate of some communities.
If it's moving at a constant rate then the crust will be dragged allong with it, causing the earth to spin more or less syncronised. The crust is thin (small mass) and thus the inferior of the bodies.
If a new force is applied to the core or asthenosphere, then the crust will be slowly dragged in that other direction. It's all gradual because the masses are huge and subject to inertia.
Now I'm hypothesising that the core changes direction first and in turn drags the crust but the crust will resist and try to maintain it's original path.
Because the asthenosphere is viscous, the crust can slip; not by much, but enough to influence the climate of some communities.
I give up; I think you're just trying to be annoying. You do know, I suspect, that science works quite differently: hypothesize whatever the heck you want, but it isn't accepted as a respectable theory until it's got actual support for it.
This "theory"s support would blow over in a balmy tropical breeze.
Renata
This "theory"s support would blow over in a balmy tropical breeze.
Renata
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
Renata, check your PMs...
Humn. Immagine starting with a core and crust that move together, syncronised, as they are now - more or less.
The Earth is subjected to a new force when the magnetic poles flip. Magnetism on such a large scale is quite powerful.
In such an event the core of the earth could be greatly affected and the crust would almost certainly be unaffected.
Thus the hypothesis is that, for a time, the two bodies will have different velocities.
That's nice and to the point. Just disprove that and I'll be happy
The Earth is subjected to a new force when the magnetic poles flip. Magnetism on such a large scale is quite powerful.
In such an event the core of the earth could be greatly affected and the crust would almost certainly be unaffected.
Thus the hypothesis is that, for a time, the two bodies will have different velocities.
That's nice and to the point. Just disprove that and I'll be happy
Perfection
The Great Head.
No, it's not like that, the actual movement changes very slightly with a polarity change, it doesn't "reverse velocity" like you say it does. Only the orientation of the magnetic stuff changes, it's like a millions of little magnets fliping over, not one huge magnet. Otherwise it would cause nasty changes in earths rotation.
It wouldn't do a lot to the rotation because it's only applying a force, which meets resistance... so there is change but it's slow (from our perspective) but fast (geological perspective).
And yes, the magnetic particles all flip over but many permanent/resistant magnetic materials are being push/pulled in one direction at the moment and when it flips; they will be push/pulled in the opposite direction and surely across the whole world that's going to create a big push inside the planet?
I'm not sure how common permanent magnets are, and I'm not sure how many metals are resistant to the change; but I think it's a sizeable mass.
And anyway, even Iron which is known to have very little resistance to magnetic change will have some resistance. There's so much of it that it has to be a measurable effect.
And yes, the magnetic particles all flip over but many permanent/resistant magnetic materials are being push/pulled in one direction at the moment and when it flips; they will be push/pulled in the opposite direction and surely across the whole world that's going to create a big push inside the planet?
I'm not sure how common permanent magnets are, and I'm not sure how many metals are resistant to the change; but I think it's a sizeable mass.
And anyway, even Iron which is known to have very little resistance to magnetic change will have some resistance. There's so much of it that it has to be a measurable effect.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
@stormbind:
The bible was written by men who did not even know why rain fell or clouds formed.
Hence, it is anything but scientific - it is a codex of primitive men.
I felt obliged to point out your fallacy.
The bible was written by men who did not even know why rain fell or clouds formed.
Hence, it is anything but scientific - it is a codex of primitive men.
I felt obliged to point out your fallacy.
