To Andre, and All Interested Parties
I would like to perhaps incompletely respond to your statements, Andre,
before I expand upon the content and context of this discussion. Okay...
Andre said:
But HB, what is this?? Don't you know that a poleshift is physically impossibe? Ask any physisist.
It does not follow that any physicist, let alone a highly accomplished one,
knows everything, simply because they study physics. I believe the idea
that a pole shift is impossible to be a rush to judgment, via the application
of only a partially complete understanding of (astro)physics. So no, I don't
know that a pole shift is physically impossible. All scientists can do is to
suggest that it is, based on their current understanding of the known laws.
Andre said:
A rigid spinning symmetrical body maintains the direction of it's spinning axis unless a torque is acting on it. That would cause precession. So what on Earth could cause a poleshift?
Not to be facetious, but nothing "on Earth" could cause a pole shift. The
cause would be a celestial object passing Earth closely enough. Would
you say such an event is "impossible"? I surely wouldn't. Extrapolating
that possibility, one must ask what the local effects on this planet would
be. One can also ask if there is "evidence" for such an event having ever
happened in geologically recent times. Regarding the first, and the last,
question in the above quoted text, consider an electromagnetic torque.
I suggest that an electromagnetic field strong enough and close enough
to Earth would produce a "torque" via the stress it places on the core's
rotation. If oriented "appropriately", the "intruding" celestial body might
present a couple possible scenarios. A slowing core rotation without a
change in its tilt. A slowing core rotation with a subtle change in tilt. A
slowing core rotation to practical rotation stoppage, followed by partial
realignment of Earth's core axis to that of the "intruder's", followed by a
resumption of the planetary dynamo and "normal" rotation after the exit
of the intruder from the area of influence. I prefer to theorize that a pole
shift could happen, rather than defer to the statement it is impossible.
Andre said:
No, Hugh Auchincloss Brown, Charles Hapgood, John White have been thorougly debunked.
So because certain individuals have been the target of intense scrutiny
and examination, which has resulted in the dismissal of everything said
by them, one should not consider what they have considered? I'll refer
back to statements regarding how scientists can only opine on whether
a pole shift is possible. It is commonplace for radically different theories
to be resisted and even viciously attacked by those who feel as if their
possible merit will take away from science itself. Throughout history, it
is the case that radically different theories are resisted and attacked. In
some extreme cases, the theorist has been executed for the mere idea
they suggested. And on far more than one occasion, these theories are
eventually shown to be correct. Yes, I understand the art and science
of "debunkery" - it can easily be employed to draw attention away from
a larger work, by picking apart one aspect of that work. In the case of
Hapgood, part of his premise is that polar ice imbalance causes polar
shift. While that may be incorrect, the concept of polar shift itself may
not be incorrect. It may be caused by other unstated mechanisms. I'll
not get into other cases, as I'm not as familiar with their premises, but
my point is stated thoroughly enough anyway. Dozens of "alternative"
scientists are debunked every year - not necessarily because they're
wrong, but because it's "easy" to, and "necessary", in the eyes of the
mainstream academia. There are people who specialize in debunking.
Andre said:
And those other names like Velivkovsky and Cayce should not be mentioned at all in a physics phorum
Perhaps not, but to do so does not immediately invalidate the theory
they are being "brought into". I don't desire to focus much attention
on them, although personally I find Velikovsky to be far more credible
than Cayce. But when considering the science of millenia ago, one
must understand how they discussed their knowledge and passed it
down to further generations and civilizations. I think to ignore these
facts is akin to the "scientific tunnel vision" that Brown, and others,
have such concerns about. Science is not limited to numbers or the
application of them. It is about studying existence. Research about
mythology, which is a study of previous societies, can be as valued
as anthropology, also a study of previous socities but in a different
context. To pick and choose what one wants to consider "evidence"
is a dangerous game - one in which today's scientists play hard...
Andre said:
So the most taboo subject for Earth science is the poleshift and even if it was true, it would take a couple of hundred years to overcome the aversion against it. Forget it.
Many of my points thusly stated. It's a rare individual who is willing to
be called names and ridiculed for thinking "outside the box". Yet I will.
Andre said:
But how about the mammoth? the cuban city 2200 feet below sea level? Ice sheets below the great lakes in the USA? The fresh sea bottom diatoms below the ice sheet of West Antarctica? The pine needle underneath the ice sheet of Greenland? The lucious green Sahara during the ice age? Almost tropical conditions in Mid Asia during the ice age? etc, etc.
No it can't be. Can it?
Read/study the Venus thread. There is a BIG message in it for Earth.
You're speaking to one who finds value in those observations, not one
who finds them "taboo". I love learning about everything, whether it is
fact, theory, myth, disinformation, true, or false. Understanding reality
is not the exclusive realm of mainstream academia. Within the list of
observations in the above quote, COULD be evidence of pole shifting.
Clearly, the observations indicate a climate much different than that
of present times. There are several ways in which the past climates
could have existed, but some are considered "taboo" and debunked.
Andre said:
But let's keep it strictly physical, no tales of floods or so, no Velikovsky-Cayce hanky panky
If you wish to refrain from exploring outside the realm of acceptable
science, that is your right. I'm not trying to alter the context of this
discussion to that of prophets alone. I myself believe there to be a
potential use for some information which most others quickly throw
away. Tales of floods are not fiction. Several independent societies
have passed down knowledge of them, in one form or another. And
again, to ignore this knowledge seems more dangerous than to see
it for what it could be - a small but significant "piece of the puzzle".
The very "science" of "armageddon scenarios" is by default without
"scientific precedent", without "evidence", without verifiability, and
without falsification. It is pure theory, and as such sometimes pure
theory must be implemented in discussing it. I wish to discuss it.
Now, I would like to add several further comments on this matter...
In the world of academia, there are "professionals" and there are "laymen".
If I may paraphrase, I would consider you a "layman professional", whereas
I would consider myself a "professional layman". That is said without ANY
knowledge of your academic background or accomplishments, but respect
for your apparent ability to think both inside and outside "the box". For me,
I can only clarify that while I prefer thinking outside of it, I also think inside
of it fairly well. You seem quite close to losing the "layman" I have placed
in front of the word "professional", whereas I am seemingly "at my limit" -
I will only continue to be "layman" albeit at a level above that of "amateur".
That said, I'd like to highlight some of your statements at BadAstronomy,
a place where I also post occasionally (over 100 now) and a place where
being a "professional layman", I have come across as a "kook", among
other unflattering labels. It does seem that within certain circles, anyone
suggesting ideas which don't fit nicely into standardized, preestablished
"slots" must be immediately debunked and/or discredited. Often times,
this process amounts to something resembling religious dogmatism. In
several threads at BA, I've been treated as a child, ridiculed, and called
names like "woowoo" and "troll". And I have seen this type of treatment
doled out to many who also consider themselves "professional laymen".
Too many times, reliance on verificationism, "evidence", and sadly, on
"Occam's Razor" has been a shortcut to the dismissal of ideas which
might be logical and valid, but which "fly in the face" of what's "known".
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=12818&start=19
Andre said:
I know, in the business of persecuting paradigms, it’s not wise to state anything without robust substantiation
But what have we here? “Counterintuitive”? It’s natural to appeal to intuition or common sense (the prejudice acquired by age eighteen - Albert Einstein) but you, Astronomers, are very used to gigantic phenomenons, super novas, big bangs, black holes, nothing is too weird, yet the moment that we deliberate terrestrial planets with some unusual gigantic phenonenons, “intuition” kicks in. ;) Personally I think physical laws defeat intuition. Precession for instance is not something you would have thought of intuitively. Anyway.
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=12818&start=26
Andre said:
No more objections agains Venus big brake? Perhaps it is allowed to philosophise a bit about Earths big brake. I know, I'm triggering all your http://www.carlsagan.com/revamp/carlsagan/baloney.html [fingerwag] But rest assured; all the evidence is in peer reviewed publications.
I also ran across a thread here on PF that highlights my dismay at the
"status quo". I find that resistance to new ideas is directly proportional
to the strangeness of the idea, while being inversely proportional to the
size of the idea suggester's "academic dossier". Resistance is also in
direct proportion to the strength in which one believes what is "known".
Established theories are often accepted on the premise that scientists
"know" best, and that there's not much "mystery" left to discover, if it
hasn't already been discovered yet. At the highest levels, academia is
taking on the worst aspects of capitalism and theism - case in point,
the branch called "Egyptology". But that is a matter for another time.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=174442
deda said:
It’s been more than two years since I’m member here on PF. At first I only had a hunch that something’s not right with the traditional physics but, now I’m sure and I know exactly the reason for it. It’s Newton’s mechanics being incompatible with the law of lever. Nowadays you cannot publish something not based on something else previously accepted by the authorities. My question is: How Newton managed to publish his mechanics though it’s against the physics of lever accepted years before Newton’s time? Because today’s physics starts with Newton’s mechanics instead of the law of lever it’s entirely wrong.
It seems that PF is a Mega Maze where folks with revolutionary ideas end up lost in the effort to get to the public opinion and remedy it. PF is Mega Maze where folks like me end up fighting windmills. What’s the point of PF any way? Talk, talk, just talk and do nothing. I think I had enough of it. But before I leave I want you all to make my time and money spent here worthy a while. I want those of you experienced in publishing to help me compose solid undeniable scientific paper and submit it in some physics journal. Let's do finally something that matters. Make my effort finally effective.
True, deda quickly "retracted" the sentiment to leave PF altogether, but
the above quote is telling in regard to the frustration many people face
regarding today's scientific process. Furthermore, I accept the point of
this forum as being above and beyond the mere discussion of theories.
But all too often, when said discussion gravitates toward the unknown,
there's a recognizable hesitancy to consider these "radical" new ideas
as logical, realistic, or possible. When dealing with something so new,
it is extremely difficult to explain such things via accepted knowledge.
Consider the theory of Charles Hapgood - that on three occasions over
the past 80,000 years, the locations of the north and south poles have
changed by a significant distance. Granted, he states that these shifts
took millenia, but considering the resistance to his theory as stated,
can you imagine how much more strongly it would be discredited if he
said it could happen relatively quickly? If it could happen in one day?
Openly considering his theory, it is stated (not without evidence) that
around 50,000 years ago, the north pole was located in what is now
Hudson Bay. This location matches precisely a graphic you posted,
Andre, in your thread about Venus over at the BadAstronomy forum.
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=12818&start=38
Andre said:
Let me give one example of that evidence. After working our way trough much recent geologic work we reconstructed the North Pole during MIS-3, roughly 55-30,000 years ago:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/mmm.gif
[/URL]
I should begin to mention that I personally believe it is possible for a
planet to experience tremendous stress on its electromagnetic field.
This can be caused by a celestial object passing close enough to it.
Such an event would result in "change at a distance" - no impact is
necessary. It would not be the result of polar ice imbalance, as the
theory by Hapgood suggests. And, it could happen in a far shorter
amount of time than established academia thinks possible. Maybe
the formulae these scientists are basing their conclusions on aren't
as thorough as they would have people believe. But to agree with a
theory so radical, and go on record saying that it IS possible, is the
virtual equivalent of "career suicide". Scientists don't often "bite the
hand that funds them". Capitalism has invaded the pursuit of ideas
by advantaging those which can increase profit for some company.
Pure science is often pushed to the rear, and especially when the
ideas being pursued result in questions and suggestions which are
starkly different to what has already been stamped with approval...
For example, we should consider John White, author of the book,
"Pole Shift". I own this book, although I admit to having read only
a fraction of it. We can only speculate why, but it seems that in
recent years, White has "backtracked" from controversial ideas
he presented
http://www.nhne.com/articles/sapoleshift.html
David Sunfellow said:
When John White first published "Pole Shift" in 1980, his book sent re-affirming shocks waves through the Earth changes community. Many Earth change believers (including this reporter) believed White's book "proved" that Edgar Cayce, and a host of other psychics, had correctly foreseen a global catastrophe that would destroy much of the planet along with major portions of the human race. White's book was particularly powerful because it was written by a man with serious professional credentials and, perhaps more importantly, because it seamlessly wed modern scientific data with contemporary psychics and ancient myths and prophecies. While White refused to say in "Pole Shift" that he was absolutely certain that a pole shift was coming, he left no doubt that he thought one might strike sometime near the year 2000.
Now, however, White has publicly said that he doesn't believe there is going to be a pole shift -- at least the kind of cataclysmic variety envisioned by Cayce, Gordon-Michael Scallion, and others. And while "Pole Shift" is still selling like hot cakes (it is presently being published by the A.R.E., Edgar Cayce's organization), the 1995 edition now contains an epilogue that discusses why a pole shift WON'T be visiting planet Earth anytime soon. White also challenged the themes championed in "Pole Shift" in another book of his published in 1990, "The Meeting of Science and Spirit." In that book he writes, "On the basis of a decade's hindsight, I think that the possibility of a catastrophic pole shift at the end of this century is increasingly unlikely. To be more precise, I do not think a pole shift will occur as predicted."
Since then, White has apparently become even more convinced that a pole shift won't happen. In an interview that appears in the current issue of ATLANTIS RISING (Number 9), White called the possibility of a geological pole shift around the year 2000 "nonsense and fantasy." Furthermore, he also believes that there has probably NEVER been a pole shift, although he doesn't rule out the possibility that it could occur someday in the distant future. White is, however, careful to distinguish the difference between a magnetic pole shift and a geological one. While acknowledging that there have been at least 181 occasions recognized by science when the magnetic field of the Earth has completely collapsed and re-established itself in the opposite polarity, White says that these reversals were never accompanied by catastrophes. "Or," says White, "certainly not catastrophes of the sort predicted by pole shift theorists and predictors." White also said that as far as he knows, such magnetic shifts do not occur on any cyclical basis, nor are they triggered by outer-space events.
Why, exactly, does White believe a pole shift won't happen?
Delving further into that article, Andre, you will find some information
regarding MAMMOTHS, which may be of particular interest to you...
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.
To be cute, the paradigm I just described in the last sentence does
match the paradigm I describe regarding our planet. Under intense
external resistance to what something is doing, it will often change
what it is doing. I look forward to further discussion on this matter.
