Astronomers Say Earth Changed Position to its Axis

[Vitalux]

Posted by Robert J. Niewiadomski (here)
Come on Gary, share your knowledge pleeease... If you want to discuss honestly please do not hide behind your time invested in research. What will TPTW gain from our not knowing about flip? If we know or do not know they have more resources to rescue themselves than we the miserables... Please tell what you know... You started serious topic so be serious yourself. Ok?

Well I guess it started with me studying a great deal of ancient history.
I would suggest if you wish to gain some insight, you might wish to read the following books for start.

IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY - Ages in Chaos
IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY - Earth in Upheaval
IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY - WORLDS IN COLLISION

When you are done reading those books ...message me back and I can give you the next few books and documents to read as well.

[Robert J. Niewiadomski]

Gary, thank you for your answer Now I know

[Hervé]

Posted by gary-arsenault (here)
[[...]
One of my friends who has nearly completed his Ph.D has actually been up in the arctic circle studying climate changes.
[...]

I have literally been there and done that as a postdoctoral fellow in another field... very much related to the one we are "discussing" here... hence my call for disambiguation...

[Bill Ryan]

-------

If the earth had shifted even one degree physically, none of the many thousands of amateur astronomers (who are not funded or employed by any institutions) would be able to locate (i.e. focus on) any distant astronomical objects any more.

This is because there are computer programs which assist astronomers to find things based on very exact celestial co-ordinates. They would immediately notice if everything in the sky had moved!

The claim that "Astronomers say Earth has Changed positions to its Axis" (sic) is 100% nonsense. No competent astronomers have ever said anything of the kind. The effects would be immediately obvious, dramatic, and quite impossible to suppress or contain.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
Thanks Bill for your input. The magnetic pole cannot be in the crust else it could not shift seperately - it must be in the core. If a magnetic shift is the core spinning in relation to the crust and a physical shift is the crust spinning across the crystaline core (with magma as the lube), than I would certainly think there is the potential for one to effect the other as one is just the spinning around (or within) the other. Unless I got some facts wrong here about what the magnetic pole really is .. which is possible.

The magnetic field in which our planet earth is embedded does not end at the surface of the earth, nor (more importantly) is it simply an isolated magnetic dipole caused by circulating magnetic material (aka molten iron) in the earth's core. It is more like the magnetic field inside an electric motor, where in this case the main rotor is the sun and the earth is more analogous to one of the permanent magnets within the motor. The earth's shifting position within the solar system and within the galaxy, and the solar system's ever changing dynamics, all result in compass North shifting over time, as mountain climbing, map reading, Bill reports.

I personally have little doubt that the shifting magnetic fields in which physical planet is embedded do indeed cause changes in the physical position and movement of this earth -- just as a house fly landing on a charging rhinoceros changes the course of that rhino. I'm still going to do my best to jump out of the way of that rhino however ... that deflection will have no noticeable affect on the extend of my injuries if the rhino catches up to me.

So I am not saying the changing magnetic fields have precisely zero affect on the motion, orientation or position of the physical planet. Precise zeros are an uncommon reality. I'm saying the affect is and will remain too small to notice, short of perhaps highly specialized measurement efforts.

[Ernie Nemeth]

The idea of the physical movement of the entire lithosphere (?) was first proposed by Hapgood and endorsed by Einstein himself.

This is an excerpt from this site:
http://www.skrause.org/writing/paper..._and_ecd.shtml

Hapgood claimed that towards the end of the last ice age, around 12,000 years ago, the extensive mass of glacial ice covering the northern continents caused the lithosphere to ‘slip’ over the asthenosphere, moving Antarctica, during a period of at most several centuries, from a position in the middle latitudes to its current location, and at the same time rotating the other continents. Antarctica’s movement to the polar region precipitated the development of its ice cap. Similarly, by shifting the northern ice sheets out of the arctic zone, the end of the ice age was facilitated.

Support for this theory was given in a forward by Albert Einstein to one of Hapgood’s books in 1953:

In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth’s rotation acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses, and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the earth’s crust over the rest of the earth’s body... (Hapgood, 1958, p. 1)
The claim is that the great build-up of ice in the northern hemisphere was not situated symmetrically, and that as the earth rotated on its axis, this imbalance caused the lithosphere to ‘slip’ catastrophically, as Hancock states: “much as the skin of an orange, if it were loose, might shift over the inner part of the orange all in one piece.” (Hancock, 1995, p. 10) Naturally, if Antarctica shifted south, and parts of the northern hemisphere moved out of the arctic zone, this implies other areas must have shifted into the arctic area and become colder. Indeed, this is what Hancock claims happened.

For example, Hancock cites “huge numbers of warm-blooded, temperate adapted mammal species were instantly frozen, and then their bodies preserved in the permafrost [...] the bulk of the destruction seems to have taken place during the eleventh millennium BC“ (Hancock, 1995, p. 479). The assumption is, if temperate climate regions were suddenly thrust into polar conditions, large numbers of animals, unable to adapt and/or flee, would perish. Another piece of evidence claims that portions of the Antarctic ice sheet are much younger than previously thought, and that in reality portions of Antarctica remained glacier-free until the end of the last ice age or even later. Hancock writes:

...sedimentary cores collected from the bottom of the Ross Sea by one of the Byrd Antarctic Expeditions provide conclusive evidence that ’great rivers, carrying down fine well grained sediments’ did flow in this part of Antarctica until perhaps as late as 4000 BC (Hancock, 1995, p. 477).
Supposedly, if Antarctica still had flowing rivers, then it could not have been completely covered by ice, and in that case, since we know it is now in a polar location where it is too cold for such rivers, it would make sense if it were previously located outside of a polar climate.

Hope that helps.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
Thanks Bill for your input. The magnetic pole cannot be in the crust else it could not shift seperately - it must be in the core. If a magnetic shift is the core spinning in relation to the crust and a physical shift is the crust spinning across the crystaline core (with magma as the lube), than I would certainly think there is the potential for one to effect the other as one is just the spinning around (or within) the other. Unless I got some facts wrong here about what the magnetic pole really is .. which is possible.

The magnetic field in which our planet earth is embedded does not end at the surface of the earth, nor (more importantly) is it simply an isolated magnetic dipole caused by circulating magnetic material (aka molten iron) in the earth's core. It is more like the magnetic field inside an electric motor, where in this case the main rotor is the sun and the earth is more analogous to one of the permanent magnets within the motor. The earth's shifting position within the solar system and within the galaxy, and the solar system's ever changing dynamics, all result in compass North shifting over time, as mountain climbing, map reading, Bill reports.

I personally have little doubt that the shifting magnetic fields in which physical planet is embedded do indeed cause changes in the physical position and movement of this earth -- just as a house fly landing on a charging rhinoceros changes the course of that rhino. I'm still going to do my best to jump out of the way of that rhino however ... that deflection will have no noticeable affect on the extend of my injuries if the rhino catches up to me.

So I am not saying the changing magnetic fields have precisely zero affect on the motion, orientation or position of the physical planet. Precise zeros are an uncommon reality. I'm saying the affect is and will remain too small to notice, short of perhaps highly specialized measurement efforts.

Thanks for your input Paul. When I was in school we were taught that the magnetic north pole was caused by a magnetic "thing". A convergance of the earth's magnetic field makes more sense - like the fields of a magnet - but earth as a whole unit would have to be very magnetic for that - which it may well be. But then again any "fact" is only valid until a new persepective is gained, then it needs to be re-evaluated - an example being what I was taught as "fact" in school and what is known today are vastly different in many cases. And that is fine by me - process is goal - we should always be seeking to disprove our "facts" because everytime we do we get better "facts".

[Vitalux]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

You're confusing a magnetic pole shift with a physical pole shift.

With a magnetic pole shift -- currently in process, and this is well-known and well-understood -- there's no physical movement.

I wonder if one has an influence on the other? Any thoughts on this Bill?

A magnetic pole shift, or even a magnetic pole reversal -- which has happened regularly throughout history: ask any geologist -- has no effect on a physical pole shift. The magnetic poles are always on the move.

I used to be a very active mountaineer, and in all my expeditions I always needed to use a compass to navigate. In the days before GPS, the paper maps always stated clearly what the predicted 'drift' of the magnetic pole was per year (in degrees) so that one could calculate and compensate.

This was because the map was hard-copy-printed in a particular year, and then the pole would shift around, each year, after that. For instance, if one was using a 10-year old map, and needed to navigate precisely at night to avoid walking off a cliff (really!), you'd need to know that magnetic north was (say) now exactly 3.5 degrees further to the east from what it was when the map was printed.

The extent to which the angle of magnetic north needs to be recalculated depends on where you are in the world. For example, the magnetic variation in Scotland is very different from that in the Canadian Rockies (I've climbed and hiked a lot in both places). All mountaineers and hikers understand this, and it's part of all basic mountain leader training.

Bill have you ever read or studied any of the writings or lectures of Immanuel Velikovsky?
For example there is a very good book called Earth in Upheaval.
I can email you a ebook copy if you wish. It makes for some very interesting reading.
Would you like me to email you the books?

I first heard of the earth flipping as part of our ancient history back in the early 1970's from one of my history teachers. It was he that actually encouraged me to study some of books by the above author.
Since then, my travels with studying the past always brought me back and forth across this understanding.

For example we know there there certainly have been reports in the media that positions and astronomical alignments have changed in reference to the position of the sun and stars up in the North.

Like I said before, is it just a coincidence that the magnetic poles are rapidly moving while at the same time it is reported in the media that the earth axis has changed?

[Hervé]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
[...]
For example, Hancock cites “huge numbers of warm-blooded, temperate adapted mammal species were instantly frozen, and then their bodies preserved in the permafrost [...] the bulk of the destruction seems to have taken place during the eleventh millennium BC“ (Hancock, 1995, p. 479). The assumption is, if temperate climate regions were suddenly thrust into polar conditions, large numbers of animals, unable to adapt and/or flee, would perish.
[...]

There is one very BIG problem with these "Flash Frozen" mastodonts: even if a crustal slip/shift was instantaneous, the vegetation inside the stomachs of these mastodonts wouldn't have been flash frozen but in various states of decay. Something else happened then and I don't what (the equivalent of being drowned in liquid nitrogen) but it definitely was significant!

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
[...]
For example, Hancock cites “huge numbers of warm-blooded, temperate adapted mammal species were instantly frozen, and then their bodies preserved in the permafrost [...] the bulk of the destruction seems to have taken place during the eleventh millennium BC“ (Hancock, 1995, p. 479). The assumption is, if temperate climate regions were suddenly thrust into polar conditions, large numbers of animals, unable to adapt and/or flee, would perish.
[...]

There is one very BIG problem with these "Flash Frozen" mastodonts: even if a crustal slip/shift was instantaneous, the vegetation inside the stomachs of these mastodonts wouldn't have been flash frozen but in various states of decay. Something else happened then and I don't what (the equivalent of being drown in liquid nitrogen) but it definitely was significant!

Hmmm ... I wonder how long it takes to freeze a mastodon at x temperature ... I wish I had a mastodon freezing chart ;-) That might give us a clue ...

[Hervé]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)
[...]
For example, Hancock cites “huge numbers of warm-blooded, temperate adapted mammal species were instantly frozen, and then their bodies preserved in the permafrost [...] the bulk of the destruction seems to have taken place during the eleventh millennium BC“ (Hancock, 1995, p. 479). The assumption is, if temperate climate regions were suddenly thrust into polar conditions, large numbers of animals, unable to adapt and/or flee, would perish.
[...]

There is one very BIG problem with these "Flash Frozen" mastodonts: even if a crustal slip/shift was instantaneous, the vegetation inside the stomachs of these mastodonts wouldn't have been flash frozen but in various states of decay. Something else happened then and I don't what (the equivalent of being drown in liquid nitrogen) but it definitely was significant!

Hmmm ... I wonder how long it takes to freeze a mastodon at x temperature ... I wish I had a mastodon freezing chart ;-) That might give us a clue ...

Indeed!

Closest is being thrown in a pool of liquid nitrogen, because that's a huge, warm mass to freeze instantly for stomach vegetation to be preserved.

I think (to be verified) that it's in the order of less than 60 seconds for vegetables....

[Vitalux]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by gary-arsenault (here)
[[...]
One of my friends who has nearly completed his Ph.D has actually been up in the arctic circle studying climate changes.
[...]

I have literally been there and done that as a postdoctoral fellow in another field... very much related to the one we are "discussing" here... hence my call for disambiguation...

Like I said earlier in my post. When I sit around the living room or kitchen table and we have discussions while socializing, with various friends that are currently involved in either school or various places in the work field, I can not use their names and quote any words that they have spoken. It would not be fair and you above all should realize that ones personal views can often contradict with the official views of their institutions.


Much the same way as you would be hard pressed to get many air line pilots publicly admitting they seen flying saucers, or politicians admitting the they took bribes.

My mentioning the discussions with the friend that had been to the arctic circle was more so people could understand that I was gaining some interesting insights through listening to the thoughts and opinions of someone that was researching climate.
That being said, I am aware that just because someone has a university degree does not mean they are necessarily all that bright, it more could mean that they just have the ability to be a very well trained parrot.
As this same group sits in discussion it is a joke to them on how the public is fed this hog wash about carbon gas causing global warming....but that is another story.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by gary-arsenault (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

You're confusing a magnetic pole shift with a physical pole shift.

With a magnetic pole shift -- currently in process, and this is well-known and well-understood -- there's no physical movement.

I wonder if one has an influence on the other? Any thoughts on this Bill?

A magnetic pole shift, or even a magnetic pole reversal -- which has happened regularly throughout history: ask any geologist -- has no effect on a physical pole shift. The magnetic poles are always on the move.

I used to be a very active mountaineer, and in all my expeditions I always needed to use a compass to navigate. In the days before GPS, the paper maps always stated clearly what the predicted 'drift' of the magnetic pole was per year (in degrees) so that one could calculate and compensate.

This was because the map was hard-copy-printed in a particular year, and then the pole would shift around, each year, after that. For instance, if one was using a 10-year old map, and needed to navigate precisely at night to avoid walking off a cliff (really!), you'd need to know that magnetic north was (say) now exactly 3.5 degrees further to the east from what it was when the map was printed.

The extent to which the angle of magnetic north needs to be recalculated depends on where you are in the world. For example, the magnetic variation in Scotland is very different from that in the Canadian Rockies (I've climbed and hiked a lot in both places). All mountaineers and hikers understand this, and it's part of all basic mountain leader training.

Bill have you ever read or studied any of the writings or lectures of Immanuel Velikovsky?

Yes, for sure -- the earth has certainly shifted on its poles before.

[Hervé]

Posted by gary-arsenault (here)

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
... hence my call for disambiguation...

Like I said earlier in my post. When I sit around the living room or kitchen table and we have discussions while socializing, with various friends that are currently involved in either school or various places in the work field, I can not use their names and quote any words that they have spoken. It would not be fair and you above all should realize that ones personal views can often contradict with the official views of their institutions.


Much the same way as you would be hard pressed to get many air line pilots publicly admitting they seen flying saucers, or politicians admitting the they took bribes.

My mentioning the discussions with the friend that had been to the arctic circle was more so people could understand that I was gaining some interesting insights through listening to the thoughts and opinions of someone that was researching climate.
That being said, I am aware that just because someone has a university degree does not mean they are necessarily all that bright, it more could mean that they just have the ability to be a very well trained parrot.
As this same group sits in discussion it is a joke to them on how the public is fed this hog wash about carbon gas causing global warming....but that is another story.

Ok... what about the disambiguation so that any reader can understand what is what?

[Vitalux]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
-------

If the earth had shifted even one degree physically, none of the many thousands of amateur astronomers (who are not funded or employed by any institutions) would be able to locate (i.e. focus on) any distant astronomical objects any more.

This is because there are computer programs which assist astronomers to find things based on very exact celestial co-ordinates. They would immediately notice if everything in the sky had moved!

The claim that "Astronomers say Earth has Changed positions to its Axis" (sic) is 100% nonsense. No competent astronomers have ever said anything of the kind. The effects would be immediately obvious, dramatic, and quite impossible to suppress or contain.

Gee Wizz Bill I am a bit confused when i read articles such as the ones listed below.....what are they discussing then?

Japan Earthquake Alters Coast Line, Changes Earth's Axis
The massive earthquake that hit Japan on Friday was so powerful that it changed the shape of the country's coastline and shifted the earth's axis.

Geophysicist Kenneth Hudnut, who works for the U.S. Geological Survey, told CNN that the quake moved part of Japan's land mass by nearly 2.5 meters.

Experts say that the huge shake, caused by a shift in the tectonic plates deep underwater, also threw the earth off its axis point by at least 8 centimeters.

Url at http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...117857349.html

Chilean Quake May Have Shortened Earth Days

The Feb. 27 magnitude 8.8 earthquake in Chile may have shortened the length of each Earth day.

JPL research scientist Richard Gross computed how Earth's rotation should have changed as a result of the Feb. 27 quake. Using a complex model, he and fellow scientists came up with a preliminary calculation that the quake should have shortened the length of an Earth day by about 1.26 microseconds (a microsecond is one millionth of a second).

url http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...-20100301.html


So Bill how come the astronomers never mentioned they had problems recalibrating their telescopes? Just curious? any thoughts?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Yes, for sure -- the earth has certainly shifted on its poles before.

Bill do you believe that history can repeat itself?

[DeDukshyn]

Well if you assume that the earth has not changed in any way (other than magnetic poles moving - that is obvious - they are moving really fast these days), then was all that talk of a new astrological age disinfo? are all the eyewitnesses of this phenomon part of this disinfo program? Let's assume that is also true (at least to explain it). Someone(s) in "high" powers is getting very desperate if this is the case -- and well possible.

However, I'm still not thoroughly convinced that a physical shift and a magnetic shift have zero effect on one another - when you turn a magnet - it's fields turn (they stay relative to the poles of the magnet itself) - if the earth is a permanent magnet (to use Paul's analogy) and it itself is not moving, what is causing earth's magnetic fields to move seperately from the earth itself? What has changed that this is happening now and not before? Is it cyclical planetary alignments? if so, why is this not predicted or predictable? - ancients mapped the precesion -- why not the pole shifts? Surely if it is due to the interactions between planets it can be easily modelled and predicted? And what of the frozen mastodons and other ancient mammals as Amzer suggested, plants found frozen alive under miles of ice in the antarctic. There's more to this than meets the eye ... I don't have the answers, but I'm good at making more questions

[Vitalux]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
Ok... what about the disambiguation so that any reader can understand what is what?

I am providing the viewer with youtube video links.
I am providing the viewer with book links.
I am attempting to answer dialogue with reference to the topic.

I am not sitting here saying I am a scientist or an expert.
If you want me to prove something, than I am at a loss. I can't even prove to you the moon is real.
My goal is just to provide this forum with food for consideration or thought.
It is up to each individual to research and determine what can exist or not exist in their reality.

This information would bring a state of cognitive Indifference to most because they are not even aware that this flipping of the planet has happened many times over our history and brought about the dark ages.

[Hervé]

Posted by gary-arsenault (here)
[...]

Geophysicist Kenneth Hudnut, who works for the U.S. Geological Survey, told CNN that the quake moved part of Japan's land mass by nearly 2.5 meters.

Experts say that the huge shake, caused by a shift in the tectonic plates deep underwater, also threw the earth off its axis point by at least 8 centimeters[/I].[/CENTER]

That's the trouble with sensationalistic news (CNN that got it from Reuters... big red flag right there) when trying to make something "real." The magnitude of the EQ kept increasing by the hour in an attempt to explain the size of the tsunami when the quake itself caused less physical damages than the Kobe EQ (other threads on this forum).

Moreover, if even that were true, that the axis was thrown off by 8 cm, did they mention if it came back to position? (try with a top or a gyroscope)

[Vitalux]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by gary-arsenault (here)
[...]

Geophysicist Kenneth Hudnut, who works for the U.S. Geological Survey, told CNN that the quake moved part of Japan's land mass by nearly 2.5 meters.

Experts say that the huge shake, caused by a shift in the tectonic plates deep underwater, also threw the earth off its axis point by at least 8 centimeters[/I].[/CENTER]

That's the trouble with sensationalistic news (CNN that got it from Reuters... big red flag right there) when trying to make something "real." The magnitude of the EQ kept increasing by the hour in an attempt to explain the size of the tsunami when the quake itself caused less physical damages than the Kobe EQ (other threads on this forum).

Moreover, if even that were true, that the axis was thrown off by 8 cm, did they mention if it came back to position? (try with a top or a gyroscope)

Not that I have any great faith in NASA but;

Would a report from NASA carry more 'scientific merit or weight?

NASA: Chile quake shortened earth’s days, bumped planet off axis

The magnitude 8.8 earthquake that hit Chile over the weekend—killing hundreds, and leaving hundreds of thousands homeless—may have shortened the length of each Earth day, according to JPL research scientist Richard Gross.
Perhaps more impressive is how much the quake shifted Earth's axis. Gross calculates the quake should have moved Earth's figure axis (the axis about which Earth's mass is balanced) by 2.7 milliarcseconds (about 8 centimeters, or 3 inches). Earth's figure axis is not the same as its north-south axis; they are offset by about 10 meters (about 33 feet).

url http://boingboing.net/2010/03/01/nas...quake-sho.html

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
Moreover, if even that were true, that the axis was thrown off by 8 cm, did they mention if it came back to position? (try with a top or a gyroscope)

Perhaps you can enlighten us with some information as to the the earth coming back into position. So far to date, you appear to be the first person I have encountered that has offerred such a statement that things went back to 'position like a gyroscope'
Can you share any links to such conclusions?

[Hervé]

Posted by gary-arsenault (here)

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
Ok... what about the disambiguation so that any reader can understand what is what?

I am providing the viewer with youtube video links.
I am providing the viewer with book links.
I am attempting to answer dialogue with reference to the topic.

I am not sitting here saying I am a scientist or an expert.
If you want me to prove something, than I am at a loss. I can't even prove to you the moon is real.
My goal is just to provide this forum with food for consideration or thought.
It is up to each individual to research and determine what can exist or not exist in their reality.

This information would bring a state of cognitive Indifference to most because they are not even aware that this flipping of the planet has happened many times over our history and brought about the dark ages.

I am refering to this:

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
[...]

Hi Gary,

First of all I'd like to know which astronomers and where are the references with respect to the title of this thread?

Then, where are the data for the "fact" that Earth is moving off its axis, never mind what is meant by "moving off its axis?"

What troubles me with such title and content is that too many things are lumped together:

* Rotation axis

* Drifting of crust with respect to rotation axis

* Drifting of magnetic poles with respect to geographic poles/rotation axis

* Flipping of magnetic poles

* Flipping of geogaphic poles

So, if you could clarify what exactly you are talking about, I think it would be helpful?

Same for posters: Is it magnetic poles flip? Geographic poles flip? Crust slip with respect to rotation axis?

Thanks

Edit:

Thanks Bill!

I was composing this post while you posted...:-)