Armageddon Scenarios: Truth vs Fiction on ArmageddonOnline.org

[KillRide]

I've been coming across sites like these for quite some time : How much truth is there in the articles they represent?

http://www.armageddononline.org

Thoughts?

 

[Andre]

Well I guess there are plenty scenarios to erase mankind and destroy the world, and the real culprit may yet be unknown.

But there quite a likelyhood of potential disasters. I think that some super-vulcano scenario, perhaps like the http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Permian/SiberianTraps.html in several hundred-millions years from now, would score quite high. That is, if some pet idea of mine is right.

On the other site of the scale, to give the Mayan prognoses of 21 December 2012 a chance, requires a lot of confidence in unfounded and unrealistic hanky panky.

But could perhaps the Earth explode due to Global warming?

 

[Marijn]

Hmm, interesting story that mayan prophecy.
Guess i found one of the basis story's of Clive Cusslers "Atlantis Discovered "
All we miss is the " Fourth Reich " (if you've read it you know what i mean).

Never the less, doesn't annyone think old prophecy's like the mayans can hold some clues to events going to happen? (not an apocalys per-se).

 

[russ_watters]

A quick glance at their four featured articles: Yellowstone, mega-tsunami, nuclear war, and asteroids, all are reasonable, but you got to weigh the odds.

The Mayan one, on the other hand, has no basis in reality. All that is known for sure is the date that their calendar ends (and resets). Why anyone thinks there is any significance to that is beyond me.

 

[Marijn]

i'm not only referring to this particular story.
More in general.
Do any of you guys think ancient stories hold any value in predicting future disasters?

 

[Kerrie]

armageddon is just a fancy name for Earth changes that the religious human population has yet to experience...other then that, these Earth changes have happened before the time of the human population.

and russ...don't knock the mayans to harshly...they had a firm grip of mathematics which is quite close to the same reality we use today...

 

[Nereid]

i'm not only referring to this particular story.
More in general.
Do any of you guys think ancient stories hold any value in predicting future disasters?

No more than divining the fate of the empire based on the cracks in tortoise (?) bones when stuck with a hot poker! (or the entrails of a slain goat, or ...)

 

[Locrian]

and russ...don't knock the mayans to harshly...they had a firm grip of mathematics which is quite close to the same reality we use today...

What does mathematics have to do with end of the world predictions?

 

[russ_watters]

Do any of you guys think ancient stories hold any value in predicting future disasters?

No. None whatsoever. Not even biblical Revelations (and I'm a Christian).

and russ...don't knock the mayans to harshly...they had a firm grip of mathematics which is quite close to the same reality we use today...

I'm not knocking them at all. The fact that they had a calendar (and it worked) is a major achievement for the time. What I'm "knocking" is the conspiracists who read-into that things that aren't there. The Mayan didn't make this prediction - some guy selling a book did.

 

[Kerrie]

What does mathematics have to do with end of the world predictions?

i don't know, you tell me? why did you ask this?

 

[Chrono]

armageddon is just a fancy name for Earth changes that the religious human population has yet to experience...other then that, these Earth changes have happened before the time of the human population.

Wasn't the term "armageddon" coined in the Bible?

 

[Kerrie]

Wasn't the term "armageddon" coined in the Bible?

hopefully most of us here know that
i was avoiding that word altogether.

 

[KillRide]

The word armageddon is derived from Mount (Har in Hebrew) Megiddo, the site of the Battle of Megiddo and other battles. Armageddon in Christianity is also anticipated as the final battle between the forces of good (Jesus and his angels) and the forces of evil (Satan and his demons). It is the time of final judgement for the wicked humans of Earth and the salvation for the just and good humans of earth. It is known as the final purification of the Earth's sin.

But the way most people interpret it is the end of the world.

I recently watched NOVA on pbs, they did the best job I've ever seen in laying out the formation of the galaxy, and showing how species are born, and ultimatly have faced extinction.

Would most of you say the scenarios COULD (big could) happen, but aren't likely in the next few hundred years?

 

[Nereid]

Welcome to Physics Forums KillRide!

Of the four 'featured' scenarios (mega-volcano, asteroid/comet impact, tsunami, 30,000 nukes), the second and third are related (or maybe it's the first and third), so there's really only three to consider. Of these, the last (nukes) isn't 'natural' - humans will make the decisions that lead up to it. Possibility in 'the next few hundred years'? IMHO, anyone who claims to be able to make anything but a speculative guess on that is either a fool or a knave.

The possibility of a 'killer asteroid' (or comet) - at least of the Tunguska variety - hitting the Earth in 'the next few hundred years' is very high; how much death and destruction it does depends on where it lands; of the KT extinction kind, quite low.

Krakatoa-sized volcanic eruptions are very likely in 'the next few hundred years'; how much death and destruction they do depends on where they are, and how much warning there is. Deccan Traps type flood volcanism? I have no idea (but Andre probably does).

 

[Andre]

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=fbasalts is an informative page about the relation between mantle plumes and traps or flood basalt volcanism.

Dynamic mantle plumes could theoritically be identified by local gravity anomalies and seismographic exploiration. Can't find the link right back with the current mantle plumes. There seems to be a big one underneath Africa.

So in a few million years, we could have incredible volcanic flood basalt eruptions.

 

[Chrono]

Krakatoa-sized volcanic eruptions are very likely in 'the next few hundred years'; how much death and destruction they do depends on where they are, and how much warning there is.

I'd say they're more likely than that. There isn't much warning for andesitic and rhyolitic volcano explosions. Geologists can say something is going to happen, but when, is a total guess.

 

[LURCH]

I didn't see "viral epidemic" anywhere on that page. If we're talking about destruction of mankind in particular, I'd say that one's the most likely.

 

[Chrono]

What about over-population? Would that be considered an appropriate scenario? It's the most environmental threat out there.

 

[KillRide]

I never got a chance to thank any of you - and hats off to this forum. I read here every day ;)

Keep up the good work.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

IIRC, based on the historical record of impacts, in principle a person has about the same chance of dying from an asteroid impact as a plane crash - the reason being that so many will die when an asteroid finally hits.

Something else is the threat a science experiment going wrong. When we set off the first bomb, some scientists had calculated that a very small chance existed that the entire atmosphere would either ignite, or become a part of the reaction [I'm not sure of the exact claim anymore]. Anyway, with all of our tampering [which I mostly support] we might one day make a huge mistake. I have often wondered what gives anyone the right to take such risks with all of humanity... in spite of my own enthusiasm for fundamental research.

One concern of late was that of the great, grey goo disaster! Recently we were informed that death by goo is not as likely as we thought.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040609072100.htm

 

[Locrian]

What about over-population? Would that be considered an appropriate scenario? It's the most environmental threat out there.

I'd say there is nearly zero chance of overpopulation being a real killer, with the one exception of bacterial and viral illnesses it can create.

 

[NanoTech]

Actually over-population is a very good reason. It's the variables that spring up from overpopulation that are truly devastating. Over the evolution of organisms, watch what over-population does to it's surroundings and other organisms.

 

[Locrian]

Yes, comparing humans with bacteria and mice is a common argument for the dangers of overpopulation.

Those comparisons are fundamentally flawed for the following reason: they assume that humans, like other animals, grow in population until recources are used up. This statement is not currently true of humans. There are places in the world with zero population growth that could very well afford to grow. This proves that, although some people may grow till recources are gone, not all do. I further argue that those populations not growing all have common societal traits.

The "overpopulation problem" is really just another way of saying "if people were dead, we'd have no problems." Although tautologically true, it nevertheless seems to miss the point of solving problems that allow people to live and live well.

 

[sage]

no locrian. overpopulation is a very grave problem. as things stand today the planet is already overpopulated and have resulted in a general devastation of world's ecological resources. even an optimistic scenario envisages human population to peak at 12 billion by 2080 even if current population controls are rigidly enforced. but they are not being enforced today and there is scant chances of any progress in this regard in future in agrarian countries of the world. so not only will population exceed 12 billion it will mostly be concentrated in the poorer countries who would not be able to deal with it. consider the facts. population will be doubled in 80 years in poor and already densly populated countries of asia, latin america and africa. they would have to produce twice the food they are doing today. this is just not possible but there will be a desperate efforts to aceess new resources at the cost of forests, rivers and other natural treasures.i am not saying that this will happen but that there is a very good chance of this becoming a reality unless great efforts are made to manage this inevitable "bottleneck" that is just waiting to happen.even if population is controlled, a stagnant population will result is dramatic alteration in young/old ratio that will become a cause for serious strain in the economics of the world at large. to tell the truth as yet i see no way how we could get out of this "catch 22" unscathed. it is certain we will not go extinct, but human society and civilisation may be badly hit or at least permanently altered.

 

[tumor]

I didn't see "viral epidemic" anywhere on that page. If we're talking about destruction of mankind in particular, I'd say that one's the most likely.

I also think this one might be the most propable scenario.

 

[Human Being]

"Pole Shift"

I notice that Armageddon Online does not list, under "Causality by Natural",
a "Pole Shift" entry. Without dilly-dallying around, I'll say that a "pole shift"
is the scenario I find most likely. Please, don't jump my case about certain
individuals whom have ascribed to such a scenario. For example, Immanuel
Velikovsky, Charles Hapgood, or John White. Many people with solid math
and science backgrounds who have proposed such a scenario, both in our
planet's past and future. Intuitively, one explanation of how a pole shift is
possible makes sense to me. Consider a celestial body with a very strong
magnetic field, several times stronger than Jupiter's. If such a body were
to pass through this solar system, depending on its positioning it might be
highly influential on Earth. The interaction, between the foreign magnetic
field and Earth's, could produce internal stress within our planet's core...
which can result in things like strong vulcanism and tectonic movement.
If the body were to pass closely enough, it's theorized that Earth could
temporarily "realign" to the orientation of said body. One mechanism for
this behavior could be a slowing of the core's rotation, due to resistance
provided by this foreign magnetic field. If the core were spinning slowly
enough, it is possible that the north and south poles would be internally
affected, resulting in a partial axial rotation. This would be accompanied
by a shifting of the lithosphere, as the core and mantle moved under it.
Punctuated equilibrium, in the context of planetary evolution, would say
that long periods of "continental drift" can be interrupted by short, quick
periods of "continental shift". Such a shifting of the tectonic plates may
produce several "side effects", such as extreme vulcanism, earthquakes,
oceanic "surges", and sudden global climate changes. Now, all that said,
such a thing could be "predictable", if enough knowledge is available on
the foreign celestial body. Such a thing is, of course, theorized to have
happened in past millenia. The myths of a "great flood" are present in a
great many cultures around the world. These myths aren't solely about
flooding - other events happened as well. It is statistically possible that
these seemingly mutually exclusive stories are, in fact, a simultaneously
experienced event. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that the myths
are based not upon overactive imaginations, but a normally active solar
system. Mankind seems to think that the solar system is quite static...
but then again, our current civilization has been learning for such a tiny
amount of time, galactically speaking. In closing, I must address these
issues from a "prophetic" standpoint. People have long spoke of events
to come, which would be catastrophic but survivable. Their words can't
be solely depended upon, but they can be interleaved with a knowledge
base involving math, science, mythology, and eschatology. For example,
Nostradamus, Mother Shipton, Edgar Cayce, and Robert Ghost Wolf, are
not simply people to listen to once and then ignore. What they say can
be valuable information when considered with all other knowledge about
the potentiality of a global catastrophe. This subject, of "armageddon",
is immensely deep, and heavily interdisciplinary. Most people would not
prefer to discuss it frankly and without prejudice toward discounting it.
I happen to find the topic not only fascinating, but pertinent to current
events and potential future events - maybe in our lifetimes, maybe not.

 

[Andre]

But HB, what is this?? Don't you know that a poleshift is physically impossibe? Ask any physisist. 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?

No, Hugh Auchincloss Brown, Charles Hapgood, John White have been thorougly debunked. And those other names like Velivkovsky and Cayce should not be mentioned at all in a physics phorum

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.

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 https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2974 thread. There is a BIG message in it for Earth.

But let's keep it strictly physical, no tales of floods or so, no Velikovsky-Cayce hanky panky

 

[Locrian]

so not only will population exceed 12 billion it will mostly be concentrated in the poorer countries who would not be able to deal with it.

Of course it will be concentrated in poor countries; rich ones are not growing in population. So is population the problem, or is economics the problem?

even if population is controlled, a stagnant population will result is dramatic alteration in young/old ratio that will become a cause for serious strain in the economics of the world at large.

So population growth isn't the problem, but aging is.

You have made no case for overpopulation being a problem. You are on your way to making good cases that underdevelopment is a problem. You are on your way to making a case that social welfare for the aging is a problem. You could make a case that there are areas in which population density is a problem. But you have made no case that population growth itself is the problem.

This habit of overlooking real problems and simply blaming people for being alive is unproductive and unacceptable.

 

[Human Being]

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, comparing humans with bacteria and mice is a common argument for the dangers of overpopulation.

Those comparisons are fundamentally flawed for the following reason: they assume that humans, like other animals, grow in population until recources are used up. This statement is not currently true of humans. There are places in the world with zero population growth that could very well afford to grow. This proves that, although some people may grow till recources are gone, not all do. I further argue that those populations not growing all have common societal traits.

The "overpopulation problem" is really just another way of saying "if people were dead, we'd have no problems." Although tautologically true, it nevertheless seems to miss the point of solving problems that allow people to live and live well.

One thing to add that supports your thesis, but you didn't say:

Humans differ from mice and bacteria in a pretty fundamental way: we are aware of our environment and the fact that resources are limited (and, of course, capable of affecting that). Thus we are capable of dealing with the problem and preventing a calamity. sage, Locrain isn't saying this isn't a problem, its just a problem that can be dealt with so isn't necessarily that big of a problem.

I didn't see "viral epidemic" anywhere on that page. If we're talking about destruction of mankind in particular, I'd say that one's the most likely.

Its already here: AIDS is "fixing" Africa's overpopulation problem in a pretty decisive way. Right now people are talking about infection rates, but in 10 or 20 years, the death rates due to AIDS in many African countries will be upwards of 50% (lifetime). And I don't think there is any stopping it.

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.

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...

 

[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.