Pole Shift and Hawaiian Islands

There's been a lot of talk about Pole Shift and how that may have caused various civilizations (like Atlantis) go to extinct.

However, I'm wondering whether there is any geological evidence for "pole shift", and I'm inclined to think that there isn't any.. especially when you consider the Hawaiian Islands. They've been forming under a "hot spot" in the mantle for about 70 million years, and have left a trail of (underwater) sea mounts out as far as Midway island. If there are regular pole shifts, you would expect the direction and orientation of the sea mounts to change regularly, although they don't. They're a straight line out as far as Midway:



More info on Hawaiian sea mount

Note, however, that there is a kink in the sea mounts out at Midway Island, where they turn north and head up to the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. Soo.. maybe there was a pole shift 70 million years ago, but I don't think pole shifts are in any way "regular" and I don't think they can explain something as recent as "atlantis" (or what not).

there is evidence of pole shifts in geological records. it can be seen in the magnetic orientations of the sediment. at one depth it may be one way, while a few feet or meters lower it may be an entirely different direction.

i fail to see why it would have any effect on the formation of volcanic islands, much less where the volcanic vents in the ocean are. also, isn't volcanic rock nonmagnetic? perhaps that's why it's hard to determine a record there. another thing is that the lava flows have eroded these magnetic records.

I think we're talking about two different kinds of pole shift. Yes, the magnetic poles do reverse from time to time.. that's well established (as you indicate).

What I'm talking about is the Hapgood model of "pole shift", where the entire crust of the earth slips (like an orange peel) around the mantle of the earth, creating new "rotational" north and south poles (

Originally posted by mongoose
I think we're talking about two different kinds of pole shift. Yes, the magnetic poles do reverse from time to time.. that's well established (as you indicate).

What I'm talking about is the Hapgood model of "pole shift", where the entire crust of the earth slips (like an orange peel) around the mantle of the earth, creating new "rotational" north and south poles (

yes, I'm inclined to agree! It's an interesting theory, but I don't think there's much evidence for it (and in fact, like I said above, I think the existence of the Hawaiian island chain would argue quite convincingly against it.. you couldn't get a straight chain of islands like that - over 70 million years - if rotational poles kept slipping all the time).

This is a pretty outstanding arguement. I could argue against it with more or less effect, but I could counter my arguements to a stalemate. Your explanation holds water in most respects.

There is one question which requires an answer. Why does the chain bend? The movement of the plate would have to change by over 90 degrees to produce that bend. I can think of two explanations, but they rely on things which I do not know to be true.
1. Could a pole shift reverse the spin of the Earth and propel plates the opposite direction?, causing resistance to be in a different direction, and thus shifting the progress of a hotspot's signiture?
2. What are the odds that the axis of a crustal displacement was exactly on the location of that hotspot, at the point where it changed direction?

Actually, I've come up with one more question. Why don't all island chains show the same pattern? The aleutians don't have that bend, only a very slight arch.

Yes, hot spots like the one under the Hawaiians are amongst the best evidence against an Earth Crust Displacement. Some people (eg Rand Flem-Ath in 'The Atlantis Blueprint') are now suggesting that the whole mantle slipped, relative to the core, to get around this.....

The Aleutians don't show the same bend because they're formed in a different way: a subduction zone where the Pacific Plate dips down into the mantle, whereas the Hawaiian islands are on that Pacific Plate moving over a fixed hot spot in the mantle.

As for the kink: I don't think geologists know for sure. The latest theory is that the hot spot has moved:-

Their reconstruction indicates that, for its first 37 million years, the hot spot was moving at about the same rate as the Pacific plate, but in a different direction. The southerly direction of the Emperor Seamount Chain is the result of the sum of the motions of the hot spot and the plate. Forty-three million years ago, however, the hot spot became stationary while the plate continued to move. That is when it began producing the Hawaiian Island chain

www.vanderbilt.edu...

Originally posted by mongoose
yes, I'm inclined to agree! It's an interesting theory, but I don't think there's much evidence for it (and in fact, like I said above, I think the existence of the Hawaiian island chain would argue quite convincingly against it.. you couldn't get a straight chain of islands like that - over 70 million years - if rotational poles kept slipping all the time).

I hope our Real Geologist will show up here and answer this (we do have one onboard, in fact) but, in the meantime...

Yes, there's evidence of the crust slipping and moving around (tektonic plate movement.) HOWEVER... it takes place over hundreds of millions of years. The crust doesn't suddenly shake itself loose from the lower layers of the Earth and go aimlessly wandering about.

How do we know?

Well, the land masses aren't composed of a substance that is attracted to one pole or the other (otherwise all the continents would be jammed up into the polar regions.

We can trace the movement of the molten core of the Earth and its movements and currents do not cause huge changes on the surface of the Earth (in fact, as far as I know they have no impact.

The continental drift we see nowadays is consistant with what we know of tektonic movement... inches (or less) per year of movement.

Essan -- thanks for the comments... that's spot on about the Hawaiian islands and the Aleutians.

Vagabond, a complete reversal of the Earth's spin would scrape the crust AND the oceans off the surface of the Earth. And a "reversal of the Earth's spin" didn't happen as far as we know... remember that we have ancient monuments tracking the sun and the stars, and there's no evidence that the Earth's rotation is anything but what it is today.

Originally posted by Byrd
Vagabond, a complete reversal of the Earth's spin would scrape the crust AND the oceans off the surface of the Earth. And a "reversal of the Earth's spin" didn't happen as far as we know... remember that we have ancient monuments tracking the sun and the stars, and there's no evidence that the Earth's rotation is anything but what it is today.

I wasn't suggesting it happened, I was fishing for someone to explain the bend, and tossing out a "what if" for consideration, which reflects my knowledge of geology.

Ok the geologist is here. I think a few things need to be cleared up. The Vagabond seems to be on the right lines though

1. Pole Shifts - It is well know in the geological record that the magnetic poles have flipped over time. Volcanic rocks are magnetic, not in the sense of a ordinary magnet, say in your fridge, but very weakly magnetic, so as the rocks erupt and cool at the spreading ridges they preserve the orientation of the magnetic field at that particular point in time, i.e the time they erupted, so over the course of millions of years a record of the magnetic pole of the earth is built up.

2. Crust Slippage - This theory is a complete load of rubbish, I've just visited this site, and I've never hear of so much innane babble in my entire life.

3. Hawaii - Emperor Sea Chain - The generally regarded view is that this chain is the result of a the pacific plate moving over a hotspot, or mantle plume, as they are usually referred too by geologists. As for the kink, that is visible, their is currently a hot debate going on. The problem is initially the kink was explained by geologists being the result of the pacific plate change it's direction of movement over the plume. However the magnetic record, such as those mentioned above, do not show any change in direction as would occur if the pacific plate had changed direction. Some geologists are now claiming that the entire mantle plume "hotspot" theory is not true, however the evidence for a hot upwelling mantle plume is substantial. So how was the kink formed?? Well it is unlikely that mantle plumes stay completely stationary at one point, and periodically shift on occasions. One way to think about it is smoke coming up from an extinguished candle, it rarely tends to go straight upwards but drifts around. So Essan your are on the right lines

Hope this has cleared a few things up

As for my last post I meant Byrd not Vagabond