Armageddon Scenarios: Truth vs Fiction on ArmageddonOnline.org

[Andre]

HB
I'm afraid that my in my previous post has missed it's ironical intend. I was only playing the standard debunker like Mewhinney.

The point that I was trying to make is that something like a poleshift is no longer taken seriously at all. Especially with the high Cayce woo-woo level. It's the biggest taboo in geology. See also the previous comment of Russ Watters.

No a passing object like Venus could never have shifted the spin axis. Several big thinking errors. It's not about shifting axes at all.

The Venus mechanism could be one step short of something similar on Earth. I have a hypothetical physical possible construction ready for the ultimate result of a misalignment of the spin axes of Earths inner core and mantle.

But this site is very hostile against crackpots So I continue to manoeuvre cautiously, making sure that everything is both totally documented and physically sound. Mind you we have an enormous amount of data of the past Pleistocene ice age that needs to be re-interpretated as possible Rapid True Polar Wanders and the vision is blurred by the Clathrate gun.

But no-one will take it seriously until the next event in about 50-80,000 years.

You have seen http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/RPTW-system.jpg

 

[Human Being]

My point, regarding the concept of a "pole shift" event, is that even
those who suggest it may have happened in the past, can happen in
the future, or will happen in the "near" future, are subject to intense
amounts of resistance that can cause them to change their position.

Many prominent scientists, in fact, have theorized that we are currently experiencing a pole shift. What it is and what happens as a result of it, however, is nothing at all like what you are describing. If it happened overnight, the biggest problem we'd have is the decision of whether to re-label all of our maps or all of our compasses.

But I'm not talking about the type of shift that prominent, established scientists are describing. I know full well of magnetic pole shifts. And I guarantee you that even in the event of a magnetic pole shift, humanity would have more problems than with their compasses. Ecosystems would be severely modified, since the animal kingdom relies on the magnetic field for direction. This would affect ecologies on a not so small scale.

Andre - you have fallen victim to a common misunderstanding among pole shift catastrophe believers: the lack of understanding of the difference between and relationship between the magnetic and geographic poles. Trying to pin down which they are talking about may just change your axis of rotation! You are, of course, right that nothing less than Jupiter pasing close by could affect our rotational axis. Changing the magnetic poles is much easier, but don't try to explain the difference...

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, so your misunderstanding is really my fault. In spite of that, you've fallen victim to a common misunderstanding among pole shift catastrophe disbelievers: the lack of understanding of the difference between a magnetic pole shift and a geographic pole shift. As I said, I wasn't clear enough for you. If the core were to "suddenly" realign to a foreign magnetic field, whether it took a day or a decade, the lithosphere would be "dragged" in a similar direction. This would result in the physical reorientation of land and sea with respect to the ecliptic. When this foreign magnetic field became absent, the sun's magnetic field would resume its proper influence, and in time the Earth's core would realign with it. Furthermore, yes it would indeed take nothing less than a "Jupiter-class" body. I took care not to suggest what that object could be, but I assure you such an object which could induce a geographic pole shift would be several Jupiter masses. If you wish to pin down what I'm talking about, there are better ways, Russ, than the one your have chosen. It seems that Andre's initial sarcasm went over my head, but his subsequent post sheds light on what he was really getting at.

HB
I'm afraid that my in my previous post has missed it's ironical intend. I was only playing the standard debunker like Mewhinney.

The point that I was trying to make is that something like a poleshift is no longer taken seriously at all. Especially with the high Cayce woo-woo level. It's the biggest taboo in geology. See also the previous comment of Russ Watters.

No a passing object like Venus could never have shifted the spin axis. Several big thinking errors. It's not about shifting axes at all.

The Venus mechanism could be one step short of something similar on Earth. I have a hypothetical physical possible construction ready for the ultimate result of a misalignment of the spin axes of Earths inner core and mantle.

But this site is very hostile against crackpots So I continue to manoeuvre cautiously, making sure that everything is both totally documented and physically sound. Mind you we have an enormous amount of data of the past Pleistocene ice age that needs to be re-interpretated as possible Rapid True Polar Wanders and the vision is blurred by the Clathrate gun.

But no-one will take it seriously until the next event in about 50-80,000 years.

You are absolutely right, Andre. Very few people take the possibility of a geographic pole shift seriously. They often twist it, pun intended, into a magnetic pole shift, and then state how harmless one of those would be. I agree that Venus would not have shifted Earth's poles in the manner I describe, but it could have caused other dramatic effects that "inspired" mankind to retell the event through the ages. I also try to tread cautiously here, since I understand this is the type of forum where references to published data are highly preferred. I agree that an enormous amount of data of past eras is likely misinterpreted by academia. Yet, I disagree that it will be thousands of millenia before the next "global catastrophe" happens. Perhaps Russ would like to take up discussion of this scenario more seriously. Regardless, as I am a "professional layman" I don't expect my ideas to be warmly welcomed by the majority of the membership here.

 

[sage]

BEWARE OF ANDRE! his ideas are pretty crazy but his research is so exhausting that we ametaurs have no hope of debunking them. are there any real qualified geologists and paleontologists out there? please take a look at andre's work and point out its merits and flaws. dear Andre, please talk to a specialist . convincing us is not going to do any good is it? to me at least they SEEM convincing enough, but what do i know? meanwhile i would like to hear your views about topics other than ice age and rapid true polar wonder.

 

[sage]

i do not get it. future food and resource(like drinking water) shortages due to high population density is not a problem due to overpopulation? whether this will cause human extinction is another matter, it will not. but human civilisation may suffer a setback- that's serious enough. i said ageing as it is linked to population demographics. so let me refine my statement.POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS WILL CAUSE SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO HUMAN CIVILISATION. is that good enough?

 

[Andre]

HB
Why not use the standard scientific method to identify and prove your poleshift.

Let's see
Step 1.

Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

what do we observe:
There were mammoths, horses and antilopes walking around to the right, in high arctic Siberia and Arctic ice sheets to the left, deep down in the States. All dated around the same time. Arctic Ice sheets are related to Arctic areas. And antilopes are not associated with polar areas. Actually many paleoclimatic discoveries are inconsistent with lattitude. Something is definitely not right http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/mmm.gif .

step 2(a).

Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

That's easy, if the North Pole was somewhere else, in North Canada for instance, in that time, the associated climates compared to lattitude, would make perfect sense .

step 2(b).

In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

Oops Earth is physics and we need either a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. The latter seems rather impossible. So we need a causal mechanism. That's a thoug one. HAB and John White had none. Charles Hapgood had the Earth Crust Displacement but debunking that is taking candy from a baby, I'm afraid. Velikovki had Venus passing by. This has nothing to do with reality whatsoever. No wonder that something like a poleshift can make serious geophysisists very angry.

You seem to have something magnetic but this seems to be rather difficult and not really explainable.

step 3.

Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

There you go. If Earth has done strange things there must be other phenomena and observations that supports that motion. And we have zillions of tons of observations, paleomagnetics, OPD ocean cores, Greenland and Antarctica Ice cores, Lake sediment cores, dendrochronology, paleonthologic evidence, fossil leaf stomata count. Does any of them show your poleshift(s)? Do you know how? do you know what to look for?

It's clear that none of the oceanographists, paleo magnetographists, dendrochronologists or other quartenary geologists have shouted: "Eureka, I have found the smoking gun of the poleshift".

But it's http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/RPTW-system.jpg , if you know what you are seeing and if you've really studied all specialities into sufficient detail.

step 4.

Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If you have not overcome step 3, step 4 is not yet in scope. But I do have a few predictions running.

 

[russ_watters]

I probably shouldn't bother, but I so dislike misinformation I feel compelled:

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, so your misunderstanding is really my fault. In spite of that, you've fallen victim to a common misunderstanding among pole shift catastrophe disbelievers: the lack of understanding of the difference between a magnetic pole shift and a geographic pole shift. As I said, I wasn't clear enough for you. If the core were to "suddenly" realign to a foreign magnetic field, whether it took a day or a decade, the lithosphere would be "dragged" in a similar direction.

A natural magnetic pole flip does not involve the core of the Earth physically flipping. And a magnet flying by that's powerful enough to move our core(setting aside for a moment the absurdity of that proposition) would certainly rip every ferromagnetic piece of metal off the earth.

...yes it would indeed take nothing less than a "Jupiter-class" body. I took care not to suggest what that object could be...

But that's exactly the problem: the lack of evidence for existence of such an object is the biggest reason why this proposition is so absurd. If I claimed there was an invisible purple elephant in my garage, there would be several problems with that - but the biggest is that there is no evidence such a thing exists.

Perhaps Russ would like to take up discussion of this scenario more seriously.

I'm afraid that just isn't possible: there simply isn't anything serious about this scenario. If, as Andre suggests, you apply the scientific method to it and you still think it has serious merit, by all means explain why. But I think you will find if you try to address it seriously, that it falls apart completely.

 

[tfleming]

what is the armagedden prophecy?

this is an interesting thread centreing on science, but let's look at what the 'good book' says: for instance Matthew 24: 24 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not shed her light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the celestial powers will be shaken"; (Christ is talking here)

for the excercise treat it like the 'evidence' is before your eyes, i.e you have the answer, now how do you do work backwards through the maths and physics??

to my mind, this passage describes a shift in Earth's orbit (eccentricity) due to some celestial 'perturbation', and it looks like a shift from a lower to a higher state (further out). if that happens then Earth goes into a sort of 'free-fall' until it (the Earth and the solar system) reaches some other balanced state. during the free-fall shift energy is given off (in the form of photons) and hence the sun and the moon's reflection of the sun will darken until we reach the stable orbit. at this point, the Earth's 'day' will be longer, the 'year' might also be longer (who knows but it will be different)

all this may or may not be accompanied by a pole flip depending on the highly non-linear 'spectroscopy' involved and if energy shifts occur such as any galactic input. think of the atom changing state; its outer electron for instance changes orbital distance and during the transition the electron 'falls' from one radial distance to the next valid state. if Earth does something similar, during the 'free-fall' the sky (the heavens in the passage) will be spinning unlike any other (known) period in history.

how long might this 'free-fall' take? well I'm not sure what radial distances we might be talking about, but for example let's take a 1% change of about 1 million miles outwards, and let's say Earth is moving at about 20,000 miles per hour, then this free-fall takes about 50 hours, i.e 2 days and then we are left in a colder orbit, so the Earth would be colder??, so let's say the galactic input is now removed some time later, then the reverse process might happen, we move closer in again??

and don't forget, the sun itself might undergo some change in state as it moves and spins around the galactic centre.

speculation, sure, but the bible does suggest something like the above imho.

please don't shoot the messenger :shy:

 

[Andre]

BEWARE OF ANDRE! his ideas are pretty crazy but his research is so exhausting that we ametaurs have no hope of debunking them. are there any real qualified geologists and paleontologists out there? please take a look at andre's work and point out its merits and flaws. dear Andre, please talk to a specialist . convincing us is not going to do any good is it? to me at least they SEEM convincing enough, but what do i know? meanwhile i would like to hear your views about topics other than ice age and rapid true polar wonder.

Sage,

Thanks, you're too kind.
I'm talking to specialists, my friend. And that's exactly the problem. Specialism. There is no answer in front of our particular specialism. Only a few hints at best. The answer is behind our backs, the done deals, into the full extent of all specialisms. The scholar textbooks, build on assumptions of an eon ago, were unaware of all the discoveries yet to come. But they are written laws for the specialists.

When specialists become specialists, they have to adapt to a framework first, that becomes a thight box, impossible to think out of. I started studying the real latests discoveries before referring to textbooks. And believe me, that world is totally different.

My view of other topix? Well look around here. I do have my thoughts about global warming, accumulating in Andre's first law of maintaining menace . However, trying to understand multiple specialities takes a lot of brain power. So not too many deep thoughts about economics, human sciences or whatever.

 

[Andre]

seeing the Earth magnetic discussion, perhaps I could add a few thoughts.

To date, the most promising hypothesis for the origine of the Earth magnetic field is the http://www.uni-geophys.gwdg.de/~urc/dynamo.html. The idea is that convective currents in the (possibly iononized) fluid outer core of the Earth each create a very strong magnetic field. But since the convective cells counter rotate with their neighbours the corresponding magnetic fields are opposite in direction and hence, cancel each other. The coriolis force acting upon the convective current is disrupting the perfect symmetry and this causes a nett resultant magnetic field bigger than zero.

The strenght of the hypothesis is that simulation models were able to duplicate the behavior (Glatzmaier)of the Earth magnetic field, thus answering fully to the scientific method.

Now there are two pecularities of the Earth magnetic field, sudden collapses a.k.a. paleo magnetic excursions and, Russ, magnetic pole reversals. Well, if the convective cells change a little in magnitude, the sum of all the magnetic fields that is near zero, could easily go below zero, causing a magnetic reversal. So that's all of a sudden no mystery anymore.

The problem however, is solid inner core stabilisation for precession, exactly as I argued for Venus. The thermal convection cells may play a major role in stabilizing the solid inner core's spin axis. Now, if during the paleo magnetic excursions, the convection cells collapse, as has been argued in Glatzmaiers model, this would also take away the core stabilisation mechanism. This would allow the inner core spin axis to follow it's own precession logic perhaps with devastating results.

Sage, I have asked Glatzmaier, if he had taken precession effects into account. The answer was no. It was complicated enough without precession.

perhaps scientists tend to simplifly problems too much. To the astrophyisists Earth is mostly a solid rock with complicated "celestial 'perturbations"; to geophysisists, Earth is mostly a complicated semi-sphere with solid - elastic - fluid properties, standing still in the universe.

Well only if we think of Earth as a complicated semi-sphere with solid - elastic - fluid properties, with complicated multidimensional celestial perturbations, we may find the answer.

And HB, as Russ stated, no passing celestial body could have any substantial influence on this process and yet, leave Earth in it's orbit unharmed.

 

[tfleming]

andre i tend to agree with your 'composite' thoughts; i see these flips as either coming from a 'local' physics or a 'celestial' physics. it's probably a combination of both; after all who said physics was simple except physicists!

i would like to see a fly-by of Jupiter at the time of a solar flare. we may find some interesting answers to see if Jupiter matches temporally with the sun and its flips. if there's a delay between any observed flips this may be intersting too.

 

[Andre]

As I noted the parallel thread I have reacted to Jupiter https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=409760&posted=1#post409760.

 

[sage]

ANDRE, how exactly do scientists measure past values of precession and tilt of Earth's axis? a cyclical change of these values have been extended as an explanation of ice ages as far as i remember. but how did they measure them?

 

[Andre]

Well Sage, the first to measure the precession of the equinoxes was Hipparchus of Nicea.

This site explains how. It also elaborates on the Milankovitch cycles and the ice age. But the tale about the 100,000 years cycle is wrong, as can be seen http://geography.otago.ac.nz/Courses/283_389/Lectures/283lect05.html

More later. Time pressed, I'm afraid

 

[Andre]

Anyway, if you compare the certainty of all those ice age explaining sites with http://www.geosci.unc.edu/faculty/rial/ESRreviewpaper.pdf , then it may be clear that the ice age is still a mystery.

...However, there are failures too that indicate that much work is still
ahead. What seems increasingly clear is that, even ifthe climate turns out to be astronomically driven, one should not expect the proxy time series to contain a
faithful record of insolation changes. Rather, one should expect a complex mixture of distorted frequencies, amplitudes and phases reflecting the equally complex interaction of the forcing with the many climate subsystems involved.

...

Many models may be able to simulate key features of the climate records; however, uncertainties about the processes, the role of feedbacks, and boundary conditions need to be resolved. Even the carefully crafted models of Berger et al. 1999 are
described by the authors as too simplified a representation of climate processes, especially as far as the roles of cloud–climate feedback and albedo–water–
temperature feedbacks are concerned.

In conclusion, we say that support for Milankovitch’s astronomical theory of the climate is hard to come by, but subtle clues say astronomical forcing is there, contained in the data. The old dictum absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence applies well here, especially to the missing 413 ky eccentricity signal. This said, it is still clear that several puzzles some of which have been discussed in the present paper do not seem to be easily explained by the orbital theory alone. For
instance, the relatively abrupt mid-Pleistocene transition and the onset of the 100 ky cycle about 900 ky ago, creates serious concern about the extent to which continental ice volume reflects orbital variations. ...etc

There you are. It's one big puzzle and HB, here is you chance to explain the unexplained with your poleshift(s).

 

[Andre]

Sage, while I have to admit not to know how they did it, but Urbain Leverrier (1843), James Croll (1875), Ludwig Pilgrim (1904) and Milutin Milankovitch (1941) formulated and calculated the pertubations known as Milankovitch cycles.

http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~wu/TUDelft/IceAgeIceModel.pdf looks like a very informative site but don't trust the conclusions.

 

[sage]

it seems that all scientists have assumed that amount of precession etc. related to milankovich cycle have remained constant through time without any evidence to that effect. how can one be sure that precession today is the same as precession say 10 million years ago?

 

[Andre]

Well, the rate of the precession of the equinoxes is a function of the obliquity of the Earth spin axis, the actual angular momentum, and the momentary distance of the sun and moon. The precession of aphelion and perihelion, or the actual Milankovitch precession is also depending on the position and orbit of Jupiter. All are intertwined and all change over time. So yes, the rate changes constantly but only slightly. Geophysicists don't really care about the accuracy in numbers of decimals.