Where are the stars?

I just checked and the North Star is in the same place that it has been since I was 8 years old. I am now 50. The poles may be shifting but if they are, it is very, very slowly. I sail a lot and use the North Star often. It appears to me to be where it has always been in my lifetime. Maybe ask someone older but It has not moved in my lifetime.

Look at any authentic Scientific data regarding Polar Reversal and read the facts for yourself then make your own mind up what this indicates.
My point is that Magnetic North which indicates true North South etc is shifting at an accelarated rate for reasons unseen.
It is the implications of what a Polar Shift would mean to us ie how it would affect our day to day lifes in such a dramatic fashion.

Originally posted by artistpoet
Look at any authentic Scientific data regarding Polar Reversal and read the facts for yourself then make your own mind up what this indicates.
My point is that Magnetic North which indicates true North South etc is shifting at an accelarated rate for reasons unseen.

Wrong. True north is not changing at an appreciable rate. Other than precession and the even smaller chandler wobble it's not changing at all. If it were, goto telescopes would stop working properly and permanently mounted scopes would stop tracking the sky properly. Neither of those things are happening.

Here is a recent pic of the moon

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by artistpoet
Look at any authentic Scientific data regarding Polar Reversal and read the facts for yourself then make your own mind up what this indicates.
My point is that Magnetic North which indicates true North South etc is shifting at an accelarated rate for reasons unseen.

Wrong. True north is not changing at an appreciable rate. Other than precession and the even smaller chandler wobble it's not changing at all. If it were, goto telescopes would stop working properly and permanently mounted scopes would stop tracking the sky properly. Neither of those things are happening.

True North is not magnetic North - True North indicates the cardinal points of where we are in relation to our position upon the Earths Crust.. Magnetic North indicates the inner movement of the Earths core

Originally posted by artistpoet

True North is not magnetic North - True North indicates the cardinal points of where we are in relation to our position upon the Earths Crust.. Magnetic North indicates the inner movement of the Earths core

The problem is, you said:

My point is that Magnetic North which indicates true North South etc is shifting at an accelarated rate for reasons unseen.

You seem to have gotten a bit mixed up. Magnetic north does not "indicate" true north, they are not related. True north is based on the axis of Earth's rotation.

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by artistpoet

True North is not magnetic North - True North indicates the cardinal points of where we are in relation to our position upon the Earths Crust.. Magnetic North indicates the inner movement of the Earths core

The problem is, you said:

My point is that Magnetic North which indicates true North South etc is shifting at an accelarated rate for reasons unseen.

You seem to have gotten a bit mixed up. Magnetic north does not "indicate" true north, they are not related. True north is based on the axis of Earth's rotation.

Yes you are correct I used the term True North originally in error. Though my last comment is valid of course.
Magnetic North is moving in an expendential curve ie its speeding up indicating the Polar Reversal I speak of.

Haven't looked for the n. star recently but will tonight. This has peaked my interest. Have to agree with the OP on the moon. Often appears to have a piece missing or indented in the wrong place like 'The Shadow' knows. Searching on these anomalies always brings me back to ATS - the only place they seem to get discussed.

Originally posted by artistpoet
True North is not magnetic North - True North indicates the cardinal points of where we are in relation to our position upon the Earths Crust.. Magnetic North indicates the inner movement of the Earths core

Ok, I'm all confused, before you said that the change in magnetic north indicates a change in true north. Aside from the phenomenon I already mentioned, true north isn't changing.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by artistpoet
True North is not magnetic North - True North indicates the cardinal points of where we are in relation to our position upon the Earths Crust.. Magnetic North indicates the inner movement of the Earths core

Ok, I'm all confused, before you said that the change in magnetic north indicates a change in true north. Aside from the phenomenon I already mentioned, true north isn't changing.

Apologies I was rather confused myself. Polar Reversal can cause crust displacement and freakish weather.
Imagine where the flag was planted at the North Pole.we call this True North however this is not the same position as Magnetic North. Magnetic North is shifting at an expedential rate meaning it is speeding up. This indicates Pole Reversal.
When this occurs it could mean displacement of the Earths crust would ensue and cuase other realted occurances such as land rising and falling at the techtonic plates fault lines, also our night sky would look different in that we would view it from a different position due to movement of the Earths crust. The Earths crust of course does move very slowly over a long time period but an unprecidented event such as a long over due Polar Reversal would affect the Earths Crust Dramatically. We would witness Tsunamis Volcanic activity on a large scale amongst many other effects.
One note of interest is that in many Ancient texts they speak of such events - in their descriptions they say that the stars appear to fall from the sky which can be interpreted to mean the position of the Earth in relation to them is altered.
However for now yes True North is still the same.

reply to post by artistpoet


I don't think it's time for panic just yet....

gnetic North is shifting at an expedential rate meaning it is speeding up.

Care to provide proof, and citations for that? (And I thin most of us here know, already, what the word "exponential" means).

Pole Reversal would affect the Earths Crust Dramatically.

Again, sources? Geological studies have indicated past pole reversals, true. There should, also then, be indications of the sorts of upheavals suggested in that sentence, from the records. So, sources?

However for now yes True North is still the same.

Yes, because the planet has a tremendous amount of rotational (angular) momentum. A dramatic shift in the physical axis of rotation would likely wreak all sorts of havok. As you described. However, there isn't any evidence of such dramatic changes (and there's a strong indication that that is mostly likely due to the stabilizing influence of the Moon). However, in "ancient" times (and, well before Man arose on the planet, so discounting any texts as mere superstitions ramblings), in the very distant past, the planet very well may have been more "wobbly"....the minimal precession we see today being the after-effects.


But, as to the shifting of Mag North --- you do know what "vartiation" is, correct? (or, "declination" more precisely).

Every pilot learns this (and sailors, I'd imagine) since navigational charts are drawn referenced to True North, and routes are plotted referenced to Mag North. So, the "magnetic variation" ("declination") angle for every part of the Earth's surface is printed on charts, to adjust calculations...(back in the days before GPS, this was vitally important knowledge to have...if you wished for some accuracy in your navigating....)

Point is, a MAJOR and extremely RAPID shift in the Mag North's loaxcation would be immediately noticed, by every pilot on Earth (not to mention ship's crew, as well).

Here, you can brush up on 'declination'....and scroll down to see a plot of how Mag North has moved from year 1900 to 2005.

This map shows how the north magnetic pole has shifted over the past century. Notice that it has picked up speed and has moved more in the last 15 years than in the 50 years before that, now moving about 25 miles per year on its way out of Canada and heading to Russia.

So, how does this effect compass use and navigation? Well, if you follow your compass north this year, you will be drawn towards a different place than 15 years ago. Declinations are constantly changing and that means what is written on a map you buy this year will be incorrect next year.

That was an excerpted text next to the diagram I mentioned, and from THIS web site.

Still, all-in-all, the increased rate of movement is noted, but obviously it's still not causing problems....because, really, it's a big planet. AND, I don't know if the reason is known, or theorized. Will try to find....

reply to post by artistpoet

We could be in the midst of a geomagnetic reversal but there is no reason for a magnetic shift to result in crustal displacement.

The last magnetic reversal occurred about 800,000 years ago. What evidence is there of a crustal displacement at that time?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks for the link and you info it is much appreciated

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by artistpoet

 

We could be in the midst of a geomagnetic reversal but there is no reason for a magnetic shift to result in crustal displacement.

The last magnetic reversal occurred about 800,000 years ago. What evidence is there of a crustal displacement at that time?

Crust displacemaent does happen in dramatic fashion - in a way a volcanic eruption is a displacement of the Earths Crust.A good example to look at is Machupichu in Peru- They found sea bed fossils thousands of feet up in the mountains indicating a great upheaval.
I admit I am no scientist by any stretch of the imagination but I know massive upheavals have occured before.
I would think that during Polar Reversal the magma would be seriously affected.
The earthquake in Sumatra awhile ago measuring 9 was monitered by NASA.
NASA stated that the earthquake caused the Earth itself to wobble slightly though this wobble was only slight NASA could measure it as well as a measurable shrinkage in the Earths size again very slight.

reply to post by artistpoet

A volcanic eruption is movement of magma and gasses from deep in the crust to the surface. It is not a crustal displacement.

Fossils of sea life are found in mountains everywhere. Ancient seabeds have been lifted, because of tectonic activity, over millions of years. I suppose you could call that crustal displacement but it has nothing to do with the magnetic poles.

Why would magma be affected by a magnetic reversal? The Earth's magnetic field is very weak (though large). Even if the ferrous content of magma were high enough, molten metal is far above the curie point and is not affected by magnetism.

Why would a magnetic reversal, which occurs over a period of thousands of years, cause earthquakes? There was no measured "wobble" of the Earth as a result of the Sumatra earthquake.

The Earth rotation Center of the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS) at the Observatory of Paris has in particular the role of follow-up in quasi-real time of the variations of the earth motion by using the observations resulting from various space techniques like the GPS, interferometry on extragalactic radio sources as well as laser telemetry on satellites and the Moon. The fine analyses of the variations observed in the "polhodie" (see figure 1) did not show a discernible effect.

www.obspm.fr...

There were localized movement, as to be expected in such a large earthquake, I am not aware of any measured "shrinkage" of the Earth's size.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by artistpoet

 

A volcanic eruption is movement of magma and gasses from deep in the crust to the surface. It is not a crustal displacement.

Fossils of sea life are found in mountains everywhere. Ancient seabeds have been lifted, because of tectonic activity, over millions of years. I suppose you could call that crustal displacement but it has nothing to do with the magnetic poles.

Why would magma be affected by a magnetic reversal? The Earth's magnetic field is very weak (though large). Even if the ferrous content of magma were high enough, molten metal is far above the curie point and is not affected by magnetism.

Why would a magnetic reversal, which occurs over a period of thousands of years, cause earthquakes? There was no measured "wobble" of the Earth as a result of the Sumatra earthquake.

The Earth rotation Center of the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS) at the Observatory of Paris has in particular the role of follow-up in quasi-real time of the variations of the earth motion by using the observations resulting from various space techniques like the GPS, interferometry on extragalactic radio sources as well as laser telemetry on satellites and the Moon. The fine analyses of the variations observed in the "polhodie" (see figure 1) did not show a discernible effect.

www.obspm.fr...

There were localized movement, as to be expected in such a large earthquake, I am not aware of any measured "shrinkage" of the Earth's size.

edit on 9/20/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The elecro magnetic field of cosmic bodys does affect volcanic activity.
When Io is closest to it's parent planet Jupiter it is compressed by the gravity of Jupiter.
Causing an increase in volcanic activity on Io.
You seem knowlegable on such matters and I would like to ask you a question that I am wondering about-
Is gravity the result of electro magnetic fields?

I'm telling you not 20 mins ago i said to my wife "is it me or is there a new spot on the moon and why does it (the moon) look odd"?

reply to post by artistpoet

You cannot compare what happens on Io to what happens on Earth. Earth's volcanic activity is a result of internal heating caused by residual heat from its formation and radioactive decay. The activity on Io is caused by external forces.

Io is not compressed by the gravity of Jupiter. Gravity only "compresses" the body producing it. The tidal effects of Jupiter's gravity, because it is so powerful, coupled with that of the other moons of Jupiter puts a great deal of stress on Io. The tidal forces try to tear the moon apart, while its own gravity tries to hold it together. This stress melts the material of the interior of Io leading to the volcanic activity.

Gravity is not the result of electromagnetic fields. Venus has no global magnetic field yet it has gravity. Mars has no global magnetic field yet it has gravity. The Moon has no global magnetic field yet it has gravity. Gravity is a property of matter unrelated to its magnetic properties.

reply to post by Phage


Thank you for the information and taking time to explain it.
I have just been looking up some aspects of Gravity.
As I understand it - It seems that it is a force around cosmic bodys and also objects.
I know this has gone way off the original thread so I wont go on about it apart from to say.
This is all so fascinating.

Was able to find the n. star tonight...that's not to say it will still be there tomorrow night. The moon, however, has a flat portion at 4 to 5 o'clock. The n. star was about 40 degrees west of north. Sighted up from the last star in the ladle portion of the Big Dipper and next to Cassiopeia. Will look again tomorrow.