Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis-Science versus Pseudoscience

a reply to: Byrd

Yes, I do think we're having wild weather.... however, it's getting similar to weather that the Earth had from much warmer time periods (Cretaceous.)

Sure, but there is where the problem lies: you are currently experiencing a Cretaceous climate that you shouldn't experience just because now is not the Creataceous age. It is the Anthropocene age. That's the anomaly.

originally posted by: doorhandle
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Is this similar to the spinning wingnut phenomena that freaked Russian cosmonauts out?

youtu.be...

Now that guy did a great job explaining that so that it is crystal clear. Maximum moment of inertia for each rotating object is the most stable and therefore Earth WILL NOT flip on it's poles. It still might move some if some force interacts on the Earth that is not interacting now. It will move a lot if a Jupiter sized planet hit us.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So if the claim is "pseudoarchaeology" as that description states, why did Albert Einstein write a foreward to Hapgood's book?

Because he was a kind and obliging man, but he didn't know beans about geology or anything BUT mathematics and physics.

"Scientist" is not shorthand for "godlike-being who knows everything" (I know that I sometimes come across like this, but trust me -- I do not know everything or even close to everything.) I have seen well-qualified anthropologists comment (very cringeworthy stuff) on ecology and evolution. I've seen biologists lecture on linguistics (we all want to hit them with a linguistics coursebook because their comments are So Freakin' Stupid), mathematicians commenting on geology, astronomers commenting on archaeology... and on and on and on.

It's kind of like your backyard mechanic sister who works on classic mustangs rambling on about industrial robots. She might be able to wrangle the heck out of your Apple II, but you shouldn't turn her loose on industrial robots or supercomputers.


I do agree with your summary of Einstein's attitude and the (absurd) "CIA classified" claim.

To sum up the pole shifts, evidence does support that they do happen, but very slowly, not rapidly as Hapgood's now discredited idea (which interested Einstein) hypothesized.

And not in the manner he suggests (planet flipping over.)

IF we may briefly pause on the part in BOLD.... I am sure CNN/MSNBC would beg to differ they think they can prove everything they want us to believe about "science" and how it is "settled" when they say it is. You make good pts here as Albert was not in his field of expertise if we are talking Geology. It does involve some Math to answer the how it occurs part, but it is important that scientists stay in their lane if I may paraphrase. But ask yourselves is it geology or Physics this inertia?

Well he was in his field then.

a reply to: Direne
When that sun expands it will be Global Warming time. Until Sol dies, our weather will be driven by the energy we receive from that star. When it expands Earth/Terra will likely be vaporized. We need a balance, and you were pointing that out IIRC.

We need to balance logic as much as any thing. Some people are so into Man caused this they can't handle the data that shows something else is happening. Man is too puny buy a lot arrogant.
s

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So you reference the wacko professor Dave video perhaps you could have given the rebuttal - a reference.

You could of also referenced the work of the person you slander instead of making up your own thoughts on what he is saying.
COSMIC DISASTER | CIA: Classified

If you really want to you could even email him and ask to attend a debate with him to prove your so smart. He says he'll accept.

At least he is out there submitting questions to the world of knowledge remember if no-one challenged the "Establish experts" the world would still be flat.


So what if he predicts an earthquake everyday and claims to be right when it happens. Not everything is known about the internal workings of Planets and the solar system, sometimes things are found by accident.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Byrd

Yes, I do think we're having wild weather.... however, it's getting similar to weather that the Earth had from much warmer time periods (Cretaceous.)

Sure, but there is where the problem lies: you are currently experiencing a Cretaceous climate that you shouldn't experience just because now is not the Creataceous age. It is the Anthropocene age. That's the anomaly.

Ah...no, we haven't hit the Cretaceous levels yet. We'd need more carbon dioxide and temperatures that are about 20 degrees (Fahrenheit) hotter than they are today. (darn hot)

You get whackin' big hurricanes that are so huge they leave imprints on the geology of the time.

And yeah, humans have certainly changed the cycle with the CO2 and other greenhouse gases. But this isn't the point of this thread, so I don't want to get into that.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

After all if there were such a "Outsider" who were capable of such a feat would they not make themselves known to us?

What if "they" were "us" ?

Please define "Us".

Sometimes I do such just to get one thinking .
Go back and read your original post .

originally posted by: drinkbeker

originally posted by: Byrd
There is no "evil dark twin" out in the far reaches of the solar system (we'd know it by now) and simple physics overturns their statements quickly (the International Space Station orbits only 250 miles overhead and Earth's gravity is so small at that point that the astronauts are weightless. If there was an Evil Dark Twin affecting the Earth, they'd be pulled by those forces to that side of the ISS.).

Come on Byrd....I mean I respect you a whole lot but an astrophysicist you are not.

Dr. Konstantin Batygin certainly isn't a crackpot and is well respected in the scientific world.

Planet 9

This is somewhat different than the Zeta Talk stuff.

Planet Nine that he's talking about (I'm actually familiar with what he's saying) is a trans-Neptunian object in a stable orbit that's beyond the range right now of our best telescopes. It's not, however, a brown dwarf or (as Nancy kept claiming back in the day) careening wildly toward Earth dragging a comet's tail of moons behind it, or anything else like that.

The consensus seems to be that there's something out there and you can "kind of" tell where it is because of the effect it has on long-range comets.

But it ain't Niburu.

originally posted by: Byrd
Interesting. I hadn't read that Hapgood conceded that much. That's commendable (accepting that there's an error and looking for an alternate to explain a phenomena.)

Yes that is commendable. It's not easy to admit you were wrong, especially after you've written a book on the wrong idea.

As I dove down that rabbit hole, I noted that Hapgood was a PhD, but his degrees were in history (and physics, thus, wasn't directly in his path)...and that his ideas are secondhand from an electrical engineer, Hugh Auchincloss Brown. So a compelling idea promoted by people who didn't understand more than the basics of geology and physics and planetology.

That's not the first time someone had strayed well outside their field of expertise and come up with some wrong ideas. It still happens today, like with the man named Pierre Robitaille in the other thread that inspired this one. He's not an astrophysicist and seems to have no training in astrophysics that I can tell, yet essentiually his claims boil down to saying all the thousands of PhD astrophysicists on Earth are all wrong and none of them have any idea what they are doing, but he will give us the right answer.

originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So you reference the wacko professor Dave video perhaps you could have given the rebuttal -

a reference.

Ben Davidson has already started lying within the first minute of that video, starting at 38 seconds:

00:38: "These are what he claims the electric universe says, and from now on, I'm just going to use the proper name Plasma Cosmology, which by the way is his first mistake."

That's a lie, Plasma Cosmology is not a "proper name" for electric universe. That implies they are the same thing and one is a nickname and the other is a "proper name" but the reason it's a lie is because they are NOT the same thing, though they are related and there is some overlap.

So it wasn't a mistake by professor Dave, Electric Universe does claim those things (Professor Dave mentions thunderbolts project specifically as his main source for what he covers about electric universe).

This plasmacosmology site mentions some similarities and differences between "electric universe" and "plasma cosmology", and does not say plasma cosmology is a "proper name" for electric universe as Davidson claims:

www.plasmacosmology.net...

"The Electric Universe is a variant of Plasma Cosmology, and it is necessary to differentiate between the two. While they share more similarities than differences, it should be noted that EU ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more conservative approach of Plasma Cosmology.

While both viewpoints permit many ideas previously excluded by Big Bang Cosmology, The Electric Universe looks at the bigger picture, and promotes more radical ideas about the role of electricity in the universe, from ancient mythology to the mind-body connection."

Then Ben Davidson says two of Dave's points don't have anything to do with plasma cosmology. Well the title of the slide doesn't say plasma cosmology, it says electric universe, and that's what Dave is talking about. If Ben fooled you into thinking Dave was wrong, I'm afraid you have cognitive deficiencies by not being able to keep track of Ben's deceptive topic switch. I guess he couldn't find anything Dave was really wrong about, so the first thing he gets into where he claims Dave was wrong is a fictitious error because of Ben trying to switch the topic to Plasma Cosmology from what Dave was really talking about, electric universe. It even says electric universe at the top of his slide!! It doesn't say plasma cosmology.

And then Ben does more of what Dave mentions in his other video (see below), which is to show a paper and give you his misinterpretation of it to imply it says something it doesn't actually say. If you actually start reading those papers cited by Ben (I know you don't read them or understand them because if you did, you wouldn't be promoting Ben Davidson here) you'll find Dave is right, they often don't say what Ben is claiming they say. Dave gives some specific examples in the following video, which I wasn't going to post in this thread, but since you want to bring this up here, watch this "Suspicious0bservers is a Pseudoscientific Doomsday Cult" for several examples of Ben Davidson's misrepresented interpretations of the papers he cites.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: kloejen
Talking about "classified", even that statement is bull# !

Everyone knows Ben Davidson, the charlatan lawyer that feeds the masses with doom day pr0n and children books.
He's about wrong on every statement he makes, if you do the "research"

Here is a lil video debunking Ben:

Looking at the CV's for Ben Davidson and Professor Dave, I'm not entirely certain that I'd take the word of either of them about cosmology... at least, not without a whole lot of checking with some real astrophysicists.

Geomagnetic polarity during the last 5 million years (Pliocene and Quaternary, late Cenozoic Era). Dark areas denote periods where the polarity matches today's normal polarity; light areas denote periods where that polarity is reversed.

My opinion is that the Earth's crust did in fact shift its floating mantle. It was not, however, "...easily displaced over its sub-stratum" as suggested. In fact, it took a monumentally huge event to make it happen.

I am talking about the impact that killed the dinosaurs. IF an object with enough energy were to impact the Earth, at a slight angle as opposed to travelling perpendicular to the surface plane of contact, land masses could be violently shifted in one large rapid event. This would create mountains in a matter of hours, displace oceans and lakes, perhaps even shatter land masses creating new coastlines or forcing land masses together making them one.

This explains why there are ocean fossils and salt on top of mountains and how massive civilizations were seemingly wiped from the face of the Earth. Some areas would be devastated while others may escape with relatively little damage. It depends on how far the area in question is from the center of the radius of gyration. Like a spinning wheel, the center does not travel, it only spins in the same place. The further you get from the center the faster it must move or it gets detached and thrown due to centrifical force.

The new locations of the land masses do not necessarily have to be placed at optimum locations in regard to centrifical force. They only need to move when the force acting on them is great enough to overcome the resistance to motion. Once the force again drops below that threshold the motion would cease, even if the masses were not rearranged efficiently as one might predict with centrifical force.

It was just a thought...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well you really love to stand in the shadows and attack people.

Suppose you've written a book and got it peer reviewed and published -- Do you have a link to something you've published or are you just a Dave -fanbiy?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I am talking about the impact that killed the dinosaurs. IF an object with enough energy were to impact the Earth, at a slight angle as opposed to travelling perpendicular to the surface plane of contact, land masses could be violently shifted in one large rapid event. This would create mountains in a matter of hours, displace oceans and lakes, perhaps even shatter land masses creating new coastlines or forcing land masses together making them one.

The bolide that hit around the end of the time of the dinosaurs was a face-on smack, not an oblique one. The last time a celestial object his the Earth with enough force to move the crust was when the Moon formed

This explains why there are ocean fossils and salt on top of mountains

Those are there because the landforms are being pushed up by plate tectonics. There wasn't just one period of mountain forming -- there were many, and mountains are still rising today. Other ranges (like the Ouachitas) are so old that they're buried under other sediments.

It's not because we're constantly being hit by crust-disrupting bolides.

The layers of the Earth tell a very complex story... but it's not one of big smackeroos that move the crust around.

Aw common 33.3333333 isn't a good thing?


Magneto sphere restructuring and the pole going off the wobble from the moons ever de-creasing influence and that of Mars' pole re-firing and getting back on-line.

If we look to Venus yay hot poison gas earth, if we look to Mars yay oceans drowned the core cooling it off and just about a good time for it to kick start and become a new earth without our help and stupid ideas all over it but the best and most advanced idea is leave it alone until we reeeeally need it to support us. Then adapt to it... knowing what we know.

Eventually earth will become like Mars core drowned out and cooled off magnetosphere stopped and dead in the water... let's just hope the damned moon doesn't escape and strike the new earth/mars when it does.

I guess "The crazy autistic is ignored".
I was never given an opinion on the videos posted. Not even a witty deflection reminiscent of most gov disinfo agents?
Reminds me of the time I asked an astrophysicist from nasa these same things. Their response was, I wasnt seeing what I was seeing.

a reply to: Byrd

I agree that it is not a case of Earth constantly being hit by crust disrupting bodies. I only suggested it happened once. I understand plate tectonics and subduction. But I have found no evidence that tectonics and subduction are the only possible reason to explain the phenomena I described.

Imagine an oblique impact that hits in the Gulf of Mexico travelling north. If the bulk of the object was below sea level at the moment of impact it would be more of a direct impact than if it glanced off the surface. If the mantle is in deed floating, and it is, then it is possible to apply enough force to move it without creating a new moon.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Byrd

I agree that it is not a case of Earth constantly being hit by crust disrupting bodies. I only suggested it happened once.

It did, but the result was the Moon.

I understand plate tectonics and subduction. But I have found no evidence that tectonics and subduction are the only possible reason to explain the phenomena I described.

It really is. The amount of force needed to move and push a plate upwards would melt the Earth's crust if it was done all at once and would leave global evidence that was very easy to see.

Imagine an oblique impact that hits in the Gulf of Mexico travelling north. If the bulk of the object was below sea level at the moment of impact it would be more of a direct impact than if it glanced off the surface. If the mantle is in deed floating, and it is, then it is possible to apply enough force to move it without creating a new moon.

Not really. The mantle is almost 2,000 miles thick miles thick and makes up 84% of the Earth's volume. So you're not going to push that around with anything smaller than a planetoid-sized object.

You can check it out at Impact Earth - a simulator that simulates what happens when things hit the Earth (and remember, they leave traces, so there would be evidence).

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

After all if there were such a "Outsider" who were capable of such a feat would they not make themselves known to us?

What if "they" were "us" ?

Please define "Us".

Sometimes I do such just to get one thinking .
Go back and read your original post .

Yes, it was quite thought provoking, wasn't it?

Who was "They", and who is "Us".

While in the Air Force I was taught to solve some problems you have to think outside of the paradigm, sometimes. Once you exit the paradigm (Matrix) you can see many things in different categories. The major problem, with humanity, is they are intellectually, spiritually, enslaved to the paradigm. To remedy the problem, on a individual level, has been traditionally to, die. Nothing traditionally comes back from that realm so we have no way to know if freedom was attained.

I don't think many would argue that this planet, and all others, are upon creation, sterile of any living life form, or living in our perspective. Something or someone must initiate the process. So, who are "Us", and "Who" are "them".

To me there are two primary categories, those in the flesh and most recognizable to us, and those "Spirits" that have transcended from the flesh, or have never been of the flesh. Of the flesh we have at least two primary forms, reptilian, and mammalian. There may be other types in the deepness of space to include a water based life form but based in the flesh. Or any combination thereof.

Now, who initiated life on this planet, and who started terraforming it 70 million years ago. Are "They" of the same origins, or different? Life had been here for a very long time, before 70 mil. Many life forms were destroyed by those actions. Those, are not the actions, of a "Creator", but, of a murder.

Now I ask again, who is "Us". For the last category are creator and destroyer. Who are "Us" and who are "them".