## Re: Rant about Ice Ages and real science

Expand Messages
• Rick - Responses to your comments: I have long felt that elements of both Velikovsky and Hapgood were correct, but they never got it all correct.I couldn t
Message 1 of 22 , Jul 31, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Rick -

I have long felt that elements of both Velikovsky and Hapgood were correct, but they never got it all correct.
I couldn't agree more.  V was a great compiler and connector of facts,but I never accepted his Venus or Mars items.  I do think he was on to something on, for example, the "manna" falling from the skies thing, but that is a minor issue.  One very specific issue I have with a near Venus flyby is that Venus' orbit is actually the most perfectly circular orbit, and that seems completely contradictory to it having a recent encounter with Earth - to have the encounter in the first place,its orbit would have to have begun as an elongated ellipse, and then how does it change from that to a near-perfect one?  Earth's gravity would have slung Venus into some other orbit, but the math (as I see it) could only make it more elliptical, not less.  For it to have become almost circular, it would have had to had an additional encounter at its present orbital position - but there is nothing thereto interact with.
I also feel that new data since their deaths may provide further insights.
This is true of all scientific ideas: new info brings further development of ideas.  Look at Newton even!
Hapgood's vision is flawed in one point, that being that as the ice accumulated it caused climatic changes and consequently would have moved the jet streams closer and closer to the equator, thus depositing the ice closer and closer to the equator, thus maintaining the axial balance.
I have no understanding of what ice accumulations would do to the jet streams, so I will assume you are right on that for the moment...

But "depositing the ice closer and closer to the equator" is exactly what Hapgood's point was.  As the ice center of gravity moves toward the equator (i.e., away from the pole), it must also move outward, away from the Earth's axis of rotation, since it must stay on the surface.  At 90 degrees south, the effective radius is 0.000 miles, and at - as an example - 85 degrees the effective radius becomes 345.4miles.  That is a lot; the thickness of the atmosphere is only about 20 miles!  As it does so, it gains more "throw" (centrifugal force).  But that throw tries to sling that mass to the outermost diameter it can get to - which is the equator.  If the mass of ice once starts moving along the surface of the mantle, the only thing that will stop it is reaching the equator, or if there is too much drag.  Actually, when it is near the pole, the throw has more effect than when it gets close to the equator, because the force vectors become more parallel to the axis of rotation, the closer it gets to the equator.  (That is why none of the pole shifts was more than about 40 degrees or so - the centrifugal force doesn't increase, but the weight of the ice fights it more and more, and the centrifugal force loses out eventually.)

My understanding of the geometries involved is that your statement "depositing the ice closer and closer to the equator, thus maintaining the axial balance" is exactly opposite of what would happen.  I don't think I am wrong on that, but if you've got some proof somewhere, throw it out and I will check it out.
In other words, no centripetal imbalance occurred to cause a catastrophic shift of the crust over the mantle.
Okay.  Gravity is the only centripetal force involved, and it holds everything down on the surface, especially at the equator - because that is where the centrifugal force is perpendicular to (normal to) the surface.  At the pole the centrifugal force is more at right angles to gravity.  As to an imbalance, as soon as there is any off-centered-ness to the ice's center of gravity, there is automatically an imbalance. The question is not "Is there an imbalance?", but "Are there other forces overcoming the unbalanced forces, in order to keep things stable?"  Usually there are - and most of it has to do with friction, gravity and the 'mechanical' fit of the bottom of the earth's crust against the top of the mantle.  That last thing - the mechanical fit -is literally the crust grabbing the mantle, and interlocking with it. Those three factors are hard as hell to overcome.  The question Hapgood was addressing was "Is the centrifugal force of the off-center ice mass enough to overcome those?"  He had very rudimentary information about the interface between the mantle and the crust.  We have better data now, but our understanding is still rudimentary IMHO, just not quite as bad.  I did not know if this information will ever be known in our lifetimes, but I doubt it.
This is somewhat testable,primarily by examining the stress fractures of the ocean floors. Except for a couple areas in the far south Pacific (at the far southern rim of the "ring of fire"), the ocean floors indicate that the stresses have always pivoted on the current rotational axis and are directly attributable to the tidal stresses. I highly recommend a careful look at Goodall's World Atlas sea floor maps to verify this. The caveat is that the period of time since a single shift may have been too short for the fractures to "catch up to" the new rotation. A multitude of shifts as Hapgood theorized would have resulted in a complete hodge podge of fractures.
This is one that I will have to put some thought into.

All of us are attracted to subjects like this because somewhere along the way we didn't accept what we were being told by the powers that be, because it didn't hold water.  You just touched on one of mine.  First of all, I have looked at several 'maps' of the sea bottom, and I am doubtful of the veracity of the shapes as we are given them.  Forgive me for not trusting the current geologists, but I am skeptical of what I see.  There are way too many straight lines to seem real.  It always looks like somebody faked them in.

As to fractures, I always look at the Great Rift Valley, and it tells me that that section of the crust used to be stretched over a smaller circumference, but then shifted to a larger one, and ripped the crust open, via tension.*  The fact that its extents north and south of the equator are so equal is to me a suggestion in support of crustal shifts - at least the last one.
(* Something I know as a mechanical engineer is that rock is very strong in compressive conditions, but when subjected to tensile forces, rock is actually pretty weak.)
I do agree that multiple shifts would have created a hodge podge of fractures.  At the same time, with the water surges that accompany any crustal displacement, the previous surface features would be to some extent scoured clean (witness Banda Aceh).  How much this would happen I do not know, but the Boxer Day tsunami showed me it would be much more than we had previously thought.  So, I stand with my position,though I do not try to sway you from yours.  My take on this particular point is that there may be sub-sea-floor fractures of which we are completely unaware.  In fact, I would actually predict their existence.
Please don't misinterpret that I am saying there has never been a shift, only that it wasn't annual ice accumulation that caused it and the shift that did occur wasn't nearly as dramatic as Hapgood envisioned. And, equally important, this is independent of a magnetic pole shift. Magnetic pole shifts won't cause crustal shifts or vice versa.
V recognized the inherent importance of finding a large enough 'vise' to grab the Earth and turn it over, and so did Hapgood.  V came up with a Venus flyby,and a later Mars one.  Hapgood came up with ice.  Of the two, ice is much, much more likely, IMHO.

At the same time, I know of no scientist positing any solid logic as to why the magnetic poles would reverse, or - to be faithful to the actual paleomagnetic history - to shift to all kinds of weird angles.  I mean Hudson Bay and Madagascar, not to mention the Chad Depression, are not 'reversals'!  They are complete random positions.  And the silliness about the magnetic field collapsing I won't even go into.  The people pushing that one are people I don't put any faith in their theories -they are mostly New Age guru wannabes.

You are right that magnetic pole shifts won't cause crustal shifts, but if the crust itself shifts, the apparent magnetic pole positions will have changed.

Velikovsky`s planetary near miss(more specifically, in Worlds in Collision, he posited that Mars and Earth actually touched) is flawed in that such an event as two planets colliding would almost certainly ended all life on the surface of Earth through massive, global volcanic activity.
V did not say they collided.  He said that before they did, they exchanged a huge electrical discharge, which then rendered them both with the same charge, which then cause them to repel each other, and very forcefully.  This part I am stating after over 20 years, so if I misstate it, I will apologize for presenting bogus info - but that is what I recall.  But there were still massive earthquakes and volcanos going off.

As to "would almost certainly [have] ended all life on the surface of Earth" was pretty much V's point.  His litany of extinction at the beginning of Earth In Upheaval is his evidence that it damned near did.
But there are elements of his theory that make quite a bit of sense when combined with newer evidence.
This rankles me, that so many have jumped on "the catastrophes to the left of me, catastrophes to the right of me, onward, onward" bandwagon, without even a nod to his having been half a century ahead of them all.

Both theorists were unaware that geologically ancient Mars once had two thirds as much water as is currently on Earth. Coupling that fact to the once much lower sea levels on this planet is very intriguing to me.
I am a skeptic about most of the Mars-water claims so far.  I recall all the hoopla about the Mars rocks, and that has - last I looked - been downgraded to merely possible.  I look at the same images from the Mars rovers and the satellite images, and I see different things than they do.  All the evidence I saw early on was "proxy" evidence, not direct, so I am taking a wait-and-see attitude.
If there were a close flyby of Mars, Earth's gravity well, being nearly twice as strong as Mars',would have had the capability of causing Mars' water and gaseous atmosphere to be drawn off that planet and towards this one. It would take a far better mathematician than I to figure how close it would have had to get to us for that to happen. But if that did happen, the once-Martian water would have been exposed to the near absolute zero temperatures of space during transit and would have frozen almost immediately after leaving Mars. The "almost" is important because of the micro-gravity aspect of not being "on" the planet. The water would have formed itself into near-spherical globules of varying sizes. It would also have brought with it grains of Martian sea bottom and traces of any organic matter or possibly even fossils that may have existed in Martian oceans.
Yes, the math/physics is extremely complicated.  I don't think V was correct about this flyby,so I can't defend him on it.  IMHO, what you say is all within arguments that would go back and forth between astrophysicists who would be broadminded enough to consider a flyby.
The globules of ice, or "space hail", would have fallen to Earth, but not necessarily all at the same time. And it would have accumulated in one hemisphere or the other depending on the time of year of the flyby. In view of Hapgood's analysis, it was almost certainly the northern hemisphere that bore that burden. Any space-borne ice that missed the Earth would eventually fall into the sun or onto the inner planets.
Did Hapgood discuss Velikovsky's flybys???  You must mean Velikovsky her, yes?
As for the orbital perturbations,Mars' gravity would have caused Earth's orbit to be drawn further from the sun resulting in a greater astronomical unit and thus a measurably longer year with substantially unchanged length of day. In other words,we added some number of days to our year. I feel Velikovsky got that part right, but wasn't correct in the reason why that happened.
Are you aware of Bode's Law?  It has no known causative mechanism, but it states - accurately - that there 'needs' to be a planet at certain distances from the Sun.  Whether it is by some resonance factor or some geometric principle, or some even more exotic principle, no one knows. But it works.  All the planets except Neptune abide by this 'law'. Since Pluto's orbit is so massively skewed, it is possible that Neptune is an 'intruder' into the Solar System.  But having the Earth at some close by orbit rather than its present one doesn't hold water. Although I liked V's argument that this is why we have a 360-degree circle and 12 months of about 30 days, I think there is a better explanation that will be found out some day.  Nevertheless, to quote Aragorn, "But it is not this day!"
Mars didn't change our rotation rate, just moved us further from the sun. It also helped stabilize our orbit, making it less eccentric. Actually, both planetary orbits became more circular as a result of the interaction. Earth's year became longer and Mars' year became shorter.
Again, near-collisions of planets can only make their orbits MORE eccentric, not less, IMO.  I don't see this as being possible.  Maybe one of them can get better,but certainly not the one that has to then travel out to another (Bode's Law) orbit and then somehow settle into a circular orbit.  Math fact:  An elliptical orbit has two focii, literally mathematical focii.  One focus is the attractive body, and the other one is literally nothing.  For the orbit to change to more circular, something has to affect the orbital path at with just the right force at just the right time moment that path.  The chances of that happening are -literally and figuratively - astronomical.
Also important is the fact that it would have had no effect on the order of the zodiac, but would have affected the rising and setting of the celestial bodies. If there were a crustal shift, it would also have affected the bearings of those zodiacal alignments. Hence, Velikovsky's evidence of repeated efforts by the ancients to re-establish the cardinal directions.
Whether he got all the interpretations correct or not, I believe that V got this pretty muchright.  I have studied the ancient civilizations for over 40 years (man,am I old!), and I am convinced that that was the reason behind all the gematria and all the pyramids (something to withstand the next shift),and all the other aligned buildings and structures.  Remember, that they didn't even know which way was north!  They had no polar star or constellation.  They had to figure out which was was up - literally. They didn't know their latitude.  It would have taken years, decades, maybe lifetimes to get it all straight - and many of them had to do itwith no infrastructure.  They still had their brains, and they workedout some fabulously ingenious methods for figuring all that out.  I think they had some geniuses that did all that.

. . . . Steve

P.S.  Rick, is this too far off-topic?  I suspect we are going off on a tangent, but maybe not.  Anybody have an opinion?
• Replying in blue to help keep responses straight -- Oz Responses to your comments: I have long felt that elements of both Velikovsky and Hapgood were correct,
Message 2 of 22 , Aug 1, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Replying in blue to help keep responses straight  -- Oz

I have long felt that elements of both Velikovsky and Hapgood were correct, but they never got it all correct.
I couldn't agree more.  V was a great compiler and connector of facts,but I never accepted his Venus or Mars items.  I do think he was on to something on, for example, the "manna" falling from the skies thing, but that is a minor issue.  One very specific issue I have with a near Venus flyby is that Venus' orbit is actually the most perfectly circular orbit, and that seems completely contradictory to it having a recent encounter with Earth - to have the encounter in the first place,its orbit would have to have begun as an elongated ellipse, and then how does it change from that to a near-perfect one?  Earth's gravity would have slung Venus into some other orbit, but the math (as I see it) could only make it more elliptical, not less.  For it to have become almost circular, it would have had to had an additional encounter at its present orbital position - but there is nothing thereto interact with.

Notice, I didn't bring Venus into this discussion because I feel the same way you do about the facts not fitting Emanuel's theory with regard to Venus. I agree with you regarding Venus, but not Mars.
I also feel that new data since their deaths may provide further insights.
This is true of all scientific ideas: new info brings further development of ideas.  Look at Newton even!
Hapgood's vision is flawed in one point, that being that as the ice accumulated it caused climatic changes and consequently would have moved the jet streams closer and closer to the equator, thus depositing the ice closer and closer to the equator, thus maintaining the axial balance.
I have no understanding of what ice accumulations would do to the jet streams, so I will assume you are right on that for the moment...

The jet streams' positions vary and even split on occasion , but generally follow a line of demarkation set by surface temperatures combined with lower and middle atmospheric temps, with the side closer to the equator being the warmer temps and opposite side being colder temps. The southern hemosphere has its own jet stream. Winter weather maps today plot the migration of the jets as pretty much following the snow cover line. Extrapolating back to an alleged "ice age", the northern jet stream would likely have come off Asia at varying latitudes (depending on snow or ice cover), taken a left turn at the Pacific, crossed more or less straight west to east, then taken a right turn at North America, much as it does today, but back then the turns would have been more drastic and caused a great deal of unsettled weather. In other words, an "ice age" weather system would be self perpetuating, not ending on some semi-regular schedule as the accepted theory contends, unless, of course, solar emissions increased enough to break the cycle and that would defeat Hapgood's scenario..

But "depositing the ice closer and closer to the equator" is exactly what Hapgood's point was.
YUP
As the ice center of gravity moves toward the equator (i.e., away from the pole), it must also move outward, away from the Earth's axis of rotation, since it must stay on the surface.
Yes, but it must do that on all the land surface at once. Since Eurasia has so much more area than North America and the southern hemisphere has so little land, the greatest weight / mass would be on Eurasia. In Hapgood's scenario, the weight would pull Eurasia closer to the equator and put the Siberian wooly mammoths into a warmer climate, not throw them into an instant deepfreeze.
At 90 degrees south, the effective radius is 0.000 miles, and at - as an example - 85 degrees the effective radius becomes 345.4miles.  That is a lot; the thickness of the atmosphere is only about 20 miles!  As it does so, it gains more "throw" (centrifugal force).  But that throw tries to sling that mass to the outermost diameter it can get to - which is the equator.  If the mass of ice once starts moving along the surface of the mantle, the only thing that will stop it is reaching the equator, or if there is too much drag.  Actually, when it is near the pole, the throw has more effect than when it gets close to the equator, because the force vectors become more parallel to the axis of rotation, the closer it gets to the equator.  (That is why none of the pole shifts was more than about 40 degrees or so - the centrifugal force doesn't increase, but the weight of the ice fights it more and more, and the centrifugal force loses out eventually.)

My understanding of the geometries involved is that your statement "depositing the ice closer and closer to the equator, thus maintaining the axial balance" is exactly opposite of what would happen.  I don't think I am wrong on that, but if you've got some proof somewhere, throw it out and I will check it out.

See previous comment for my reasoning. I don't know of any "proof" for either side of that particular debating point.
In other words, no centripetal imbalance occurred to cause a catastrophic shift of the crust over the mantle.
Okay.  Gravity is the only centripetal force involved,
Granted, wrong word choice.
and it holds everything down on the surface, especially at the equator - because that is where the centrifugal force is perpendicular to (normal to) the surface.  At the pole the centrifugal force is more at right angles to gravity.  As to an imbalance, as soon as there is any off-centered-ness to the ice's center of gravity, there is automatically an imbalance. The question is not "Is there an imbalance?", but "Are there other forces overcoming the unbalanced forces, in order to keep things stable?"  Usually there are - and most of it has to do with friction, gravity and the 'mechanical' fit of the bottom of the earth's crust against the top of the mantle.
Recent (past two years -- I'll look for the citations) seimic data interpretation says there are upside-down mountains and such on the bottom of the crust. You are correct about the mechanical fit being a major stumbling block to any crust slippage theory.
That last thing - the mechanical fit -is literally the crust grabbing the mantle, and interlocking with it. Those three factors are hard as hell to overcome.  The question Hapgood was addressing was "Is the centrifugal force of the off-center ice mass enough to overcome those?"  He had very rudimentary information about the interface between the mantle and the crust.  We have better data now, but our understanding is still rudimentary IMHO, just not quite as bad.  I did not know if this information will ever be known in our lifetimes, but I doubt it. Ditto

This is somewhat testable,primarily by examining the stress fractures of the ocean floors. Except for a couple areas in the far south Pacific (at the far southern rim of the "ring of fire"), the ocean floors indicate that the stresses have always pivoted on the current rotational axis and are directly attributable to the tidal stresses. I highly recommend a careful look at Goodall's World Atlas sea floor maps to verify this. The caveat is that the period of time since a single shift may have been too short for the fractures to "catch up to" the new rotation. A multitude of shifts as Hapgood theorized would have resulted in a complete hodge podge of fractures.
This is one that I will have to put some thought into.

All of us are attracted to subjects like this because somewhere along the way we didn't accept what we were being told by the powers that be, because it didn't hold water.  You just touched on one of mine.  First of all, I have looked at several 'maps' of the sea bottom, and I am doubtful of the veracity of the shapes as we are given them.  Forgive me for not trusting the current geologists, but I am skeptical of what I see.  There are way too many straight lines to seem real.  It always looks like somebody faked them in.

As to fractures, I always look at the Great Rift Valley, and it tells me that that section of the crust used to be stretched over a smaller circumference, but then shifted to a larger one, and ripped the crust open, via tension.*  The fact that its extents north and south of the equator are so equal is to me a suggestion in support of crustal shifts - at least the last one.

The crust is quite a bit thinner on the ocean floor than it is on the continents, so the fractures happen more easily there. If you can find a copy of Goodall's (the reference atlas I mentioned - found in some libraries), you'll see a classic stress pattern (since your background is engineering, I assume you've seen stress analysis done using polarimeters. This one fits the classic pattern of tidal or axial stress on a cylender).
(* Something I know as a mechanical engineer is that rock is very strong in compressive conditions, but when subjected to tensile forces, rock is actually pretty weak.)
I do agree that multiple shifts would have created a hodge podge of fractures.  At the same time, with the water surges that accompany any crustal displacement, the previous surface features would be to some extent scoured clean (witness Banda Aceh).  How much this would happen I do not know, but the Boxer Day tsunami showed me it would be much more than we had previously thought.  So, I stand with my position,though I do not try to sway you from yours.  My take on this particular point is that there may be sub-sea-floor fractures of which we are completely unaware.  In fact, I would actually predict their existence. I agree.
Please don't misinterpret that I am saying there has never been a shift, only that it wasn't annual ice accumulation that caused it and the shift that did occur wasn't nearly as dramatic as Hapgood envisioned. And, equally important, this is independent of a magnetic pole shift. Magnetic pole shifts won't cause crustal shifts or vice versa.
V recognized the inherent importance of finding a large enough 'vise' to grab the Earth and turn it over, and so did Hapgood.  V came up with a Venus flyby,and a later Mars one.  Hapgood came up with ice.  Of the two, ice is much, much more likely, IMHO.

At the same time, I know of no scientist positing any solid logic as to why the magnetic poles would reverse, or - to be faithful to the actual paleomagnetic history - to shift to all kinds of weird angles.  I mean Hudson Bay and Madagascar, not to mention the Chad Depression, are not 'reversals'!  They are complete random positions.  And the silliness about the magnetic field collapsing I won't even go into.  The people pushing that one are people I don't put any faith in their theories -they are mostly New Age guru wannabes.

You are right that magnetic pole shifts won't cause crustal shifts, but if the crust itself shifts, the apparent magnetic pole positions will have changed.

Absolutely. But if the academics are correct, nobody had a compass back then

Velikovsky`s planetary near miss(more specifically, in Worlds in Collision, he posited that Mars and Earth actually touched) is flawed in that such an event as two planets colliding would almost certainly ended all life on the surface of Earth through massive, global volcanic activity.
V did not say they collided.  He said that before they did, they exchanged a huge electrical discharge, which then rendered them both with the same charge, which then cause them to repel each other, and very forcefully.  This part I am stating after over 20 years, so if I misstate it, I will apologize for presenting bogus info - but that is what I recall.  But there were still massive earthquakes and volcanos going off.
And such a close flyby would have produced huge tsunamis, orders of magnitude larger than the one that convinced you of the near-planet-wide scouring effect. And, if there was water on Mars, as even some prestigous NASA scientists contend, those tsunamis were on both planets.

As to "would almost certainly [have] ended all life on the surface of Earth" was pretty much V's point.  His litany of extinction at the beginning of Earth In Upheaval is his evidence that it damned near did.
But there are elements of his theory that make quite a bit of sense when combined with newer evidence.
This rankles me, that so many have jumped on "the catastrophes to the left of me, catastrophes to the right of me, onward, onward" bandwagon, without even a nod to his having been half a century ahead of them all.
Yup, Emanuel used better evidence and logic (even if parts -many parts - ARE flawed) than the Alvarez's did in their dinosaur-extinction-by-asteroid theory, yet their theory is generally publicized as fact rather than theory.

Both theorists were unaware that geologically ancient Mars once had two thirds as much water as is currently on Earth. Coupling that fact to the once much lower sea levels on this planet is very intriguing to me.
I am a skeptic about most of the Mars-water claims so far.  I recall all the hoopla about the Mars rocks, and that has - last I looked - been downgraded to merely possible.  I look at the same images from the Mars rovers and the satellite images, and I see different things than they do.  All the evidence I saw early on was "proxy" evidence, not direct, so I am taking a wait-and-see attitude.

I am no longer skeptical on this issue. In fact, there is still some water in the crust of Mars and (tiny, by Earthly standards) artesian seeps still flow from the Martian aquifer. Citations if you want them
If there were a close flyby of Mars, Earth's gravity well, being nearly twice as strong as Mars',would have had the capability of causing Mars' water and gaseous atmosphere to be drawn off that planet and towards this one. It would take a far better mathematician than I to figure how close it would have had to get to us for that to happen. But if that did happen, the once-Martian water would have been exposed to the near absolute zero temperatures of space during transit and would have frozen almost immediately after leaving Mars. The "almost" is important because of the micro-gravity aspect of not being "on" the planet. The water would have formed itself into near-spherical globules of varying sizes. It would also have brought with it grains of Martian sea bottom and traces of any organic matter or possibly even fossils that may have existed in Martian oceans.
Yes, the math/physics is extremely complicated.  I don't think V was correct about this flyby,so I can't defend him on it.  IMHO, what you say is all within arguments that would go back and forth between astrophysicists who would be broadminded enough to consider a flyby.

I can only think of one who might even consider doing an analysis, Dr. Tom VanFlandern. His Exploding planet hypothesis, though generally dissed by the academic community, put him at the forefront of "out there" science, thus following in the footsteps of the two learned men  who are the
main subjects of this discussion.
The globules of ice, or "space hail", would have fallen to Earth, but not necessarily all at the same time. And it would have accumulated in one hemisphere or the other depending on the time of year of the flyby. In view of Hapgood's analysis, it was almost certainly the northern hemisphere that bore that burden. Any space-borne ice that missed the Earth would eventually fall into the sun or onto the inner planets.
Did Hapgood discuss Velikovsky's flybys???  You must mean Velikovsky her, yes?

No. Apparently I didn't get my message across on this one. I do beleive there was a major accumulation of ice and it did cause a shift, either of the crust over the mantle or perhaps the angle of the axis in relation to solar orbit. So, yes, I did mean Hapgood's ultimate result, but for Velikovsky's flyby reasons. I'll explain how I think it could have happened later. Let me address you specific comments first.
As for the orbital perturbations,Mars' gravity would have caused Earth's orbit to be drawn further from the sun resulting in a greater astronomical unit and thus a measurably longer year with substantially unchanged length of day. In other words,we added some number of days to our year. I feel Velikovsky got that part right, but wasn't correct in the reason why that happened.
Are you aware of Bode's Law?
Very aware of it.
It has no known causative mechanism, but it states - accurately - that there 'needs' to be a planet at certain distances from the Sun.  Whether it is by some resonance factor or some geometric principle, or some even more exotic principle, no one knows. But it works.  All the planets except Neptune abide by this 'law'. Since Pluto's orbit is so massively skewed, it is possible that Neptune is an 'intruder' into the Solar System.  But having the Earth at some close by orbit rather than its present one doesn't hold water. Although I liked V's argument that this is why we have a 360-degree circle and 12 months of about 30 days, I think there is a better explanation that will be found out some day.  Nevertheless, to quote Aragorn, "But it is not this day!"
Yes, the 360 argument is one of the strongest points
The way I interpret Bode's Law, Earth being more massive than Mars (not even counting the added mass of Luna), we should be occupying Mars orbit and vice versa. And, of course, VanFlandern's exploded planet should be between Mars and Jupiter.

Mars didn't change our rotation rate, just moved us further from the sun. It also helped stabilize our orbit, making it less eccentric. Actually, both planetary orbits became more circular as a result of the interaction. Earth's year became longer and Mars' year became shorter.
Again, near-collisions of planets can only make their orbits MORE eccentric, not less, IMO.  I don't see this as being possible.  Maybe one of them can get better,but certainly not the one that has to then travel out to another (Bode's Law) orbit and then somehow settle into a circular orbit.  Math fact:  An elliptical orbit has two focii, literally mathematical focii.  One focus is the attractive body, and the other one is literally nothing.  For the orbit to change to more circular, something has to affect the orbital path at with just the right force at just the right time moment that path.  The chances of that happening are -literally and figuratively - astronomical.

Mars' orbit and Earth's orbit are both still eccentric. I disagree that the only possible outcome is for both orbits to become MORE eccentric. I will need to use a graphic program to demonstrate, but there is one scenario that would result in more circular / less eccentric orbits for both planets. I have to use graphics because my orbital mechnics math is non-existent.

Also important is the fact that it would have had no effect on the order of the zodiac, but would have affected the rising and setting of the celestial bodies. If there were a crustal shift, it would also have affected the bearings of those zodiacal alignments. Hence, Velikovsky's evidence of repeated efforts by the ancients to re-establish the cardinal directions.
Whether he got all the interpretations correct or not, I believe that V got this pretty muchright.  I have studied the ancient civilizations for over 40 years (man,am I old!), Again, ditto and I am convinced that that was the reason behind all the gematria and all the pyramids (something to withstand the next shift),and all the other aligned buildings and structures.  Remember, that they didn't even know which way was north!  They had no polar star or constellation.  They had to figure out which was was up - literally. They didn't know their latitude.  It would have taken years, decades, maybe lifetimes to get it all straight - and many of them had to do itwith no infrastructure.  They still had their brains, and they workedout some fabulously ingenious methods for figuring all that out.  I think they had some geniuses that did all that.
I disagree that they didn't know which way was north nor that they had no north star or constellation. At least, they wouldn't have remained without that knowledge for very long They needed to only look at the sky for the star or point in the night sky with the least change over the period of a night. The only tool they would have needed would have been a stick they could use as a gnomen.

. . . . Steve

P.S.  Rick, is this too far off-topic?
Maybe, I'll bow to the group wisdom on that question

I suspect we are going off on a tangent, but maybe not.  Anybody have an opinion?

Now, back to my comment that I think there was a major accumulatin of ice and that it was in the northern hemisphere.

I can envision one and only one scenario where ice could cause a shift that caused Siberian mammoths to be deep frozen instantly (and they are NOT edible except perhaps by sled dogs. In fact, they are quite rancid).

If  the vast majority of the once Martian water froze in space and fell onto North America, then the accumulated mass (remember, by some estimates coming out of NASA, that would have been two thirds the weight of all the water currently on Earth, or some major fraction of that mass) would have been on the opposite side of the planet from Siberia. That imbalance would fit Hapgood's ice mass reasoning, but also follow Velikovsky's Martian flyby. Impact evidence such as the Carolina bays and possibly even Lake Superior (which is a huge, but very ancient gouge in the outer crust) would testify to the ice-from-space scenario. So do geodes, but I'll come back to that.

Depending on the amount of time that ice spent in transit, the average temperature of the huge mass would have been approaching absolute zero for the duration of the transit. But it wasn't all one big ice cube, rather it was a loose collection of ice globules in its own orbit roughly the same as Earth's orbit. Almost certainly, not all of it fell to Earth. But if enough did become part of Earth's bioshere, the thermal mass of that huge amount of ultra-cold material would also throw the global weather patterns into chaos, cause extinctions of climatically sensative organisms, and totally disrupt long distance communications and travel by any civilization that may have been extant when it happened.

Before I fill this board with a bunch more of my ravings, I'll wait to see if we're too far off topic.

Respectfully

Oz
• Steve, Oz, Mike and all. I ve been devouring your marvelous posts and Herb s from a boathouse along the WI/MI border. As far as I am concerned, absolutely NOT
Message 3 of 22 , Aug 1, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Steve, Oz, Mike and all. I've been devouring your marvelous posts and
Herb's from a boathouse along the WI/MI border. As far as I am
concerned, absolutely NOT off-topic. Please....keep going!
MSE
--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Osmon"
<ozman@...> wrote:
>
> Replying in blue to help keep responses straight -- Oz
>
> I have long felt that elements of both Velikovsky and Hapgood were
> correct, but they never got it all correct.I couldn't agree more.
V was
> a great compiler and connector of facts,but I never accepted his
Venus
> or Mars items. I do think he was on to something on, for example,
the
> "manna" falling from the skies thing, but that is a minor issue.
One
> very specific issue I have with a near Venus flyby is that Venus'
orbit
> is actually the most perfectly circular orbit, and that seems
completely
> contradictory to it having a recent encounter with Earth - to have
the
> encounter in the first place,its orbit would have to have begun as
an
> elongated ellipse, and then how does it change from that to a
> near-perfect one? Earth's gravity would have slung Venus into some
> other orbit, but the math (as I see it) could only make it more
> elliptical, not less. For it to have become almost circular, it
would
position
> - but there is nothing thereto interact with.
>
> Notice, I didn't bring Venus into this discussion because I feel the
> same way you do about the facts not fitting Emanuel's theory with
regard
> to Venus. I agree with you regarding Venus, but not Mars.
> I also feel that new data since their deaths may provide further
> insights.
> This is true of all scientific ideas: new info brings further
> development of ideas. Look at Newton even!
> Hapgood's vision is flawed in one point, that being that as the ice
> accumulated it caused climatic changes and consequently would have
moved
> the jet streams closer and closer to the equator, thus depositing
the
> ice closer and closer to the equator, thus maintaining the axial
> balance. I have no understanding of what ice accumulations would do
to
> the jet streams, so I will assume you are right on that for the
> moment...
>
> The jet streams' positions vary and even split on occasion , but
> generally follow a line of demarkation set by surface temperatures
> combined with lower and middle atmospheric temps, with the side
closer
> to the equator being the warmer temps and opposite side being colder
> temps. The southern hemosphere has its own jet stream. Winter
weather
> maps today plot the migration of the jets as pretty much following
the
> snow cover line. Extrapolating back to an alleged "ice age", the
> northern jet stream would likely have come off Asia at varying
latitudes
> (depending on snow or ice cover), taken a left turn at the Pacific,
> crossed more or less straight west to east, then taken a right turn
at
> North America, much as it does today, but back then the turns would
have
> been more drastic and caused a great deal of unsettled weather. In
other
> words, an "ice age" weather system would be self perpetuating, not
> ending on some semi-regular schedule as the accepted theory
contends,
> unless, of course, solar emissions increased enough to break the
cycle
> and that would defeat Hapgood's scenario..
>
> But "depositing the ice closer and closer to the equator" is exactly
> what Hapgood's point was.
> YUP
> As the ice center of gravity moves toward the equator (i.e., away
from
> the pole), it must also move outward, away from the Earth's axis of
> rotation, since it must stay on the surface.
> Yes, but it must do that on all the land surface at once. Since
Eurasia
> has so much more area than North America and the southern
hemisphere has
> so little land, the greatest weight / mass would be on Eurasia. In
> Hapgood's scenario, the weight would pull Eurasia closer to the
equator
> and put the Siberian wooly mammoths into a warmer climate, not throw
> them into an instant deepfreeze.
> At 90 degrees south, the effective radius is 0.000 miles, and at -
as an
> example - 85 degrees the effective radius becomes 345.4miles. That
is a
> lot; the thickness of the atmosphere is only about 20 miles! As it
does
> so, it gains more "throw" (centrifugal force). But that throw
tries to
> sling that mass to the outermost diameter it can get to - which is
the
> equator. If the mass of ice once starts moving along the surface
of the
> mantle, the only thing that will stop it is reaching the equator,
or if
> there is too much drag. Actually, when it is near the pole, the
throw
> has more effect than when it gets close to the equator, because the
> force vectors become more parallel to the axis of rotation, the
closer
> it gets to the equator. (That is why none of the pole shifts was
more
> than about 40 degrees or so - the centrifugal force doesn't
increase,
> but the weight of the ice fights it more and more, and the
centrifugal
> force loses out eventually.)
>
> My understanding of the geometries involved is that your statement
> "depositing the ice closer and closer to the equator, thus
maintaining
> the axial balance" is exactly opposite of what would happen. I
don't
> think I am wrong on that, but if you've got some proof somewhere,
throw
> it out and I will check it out.
>
> See previous comment for my reasoning. I don't know of any "proof"
for
> either side of that particular debating point.
> In other words, no centripetal imbalance occurred to cause a
> catastrophic shift of the crust over the mantle.
> Okay. Gravity is the only centripetal force involved,
> Granted, wrong word choice.
> and it holds everything down on the surface, especially at the
equator -
> because that is where the centrifugal force is perpendicular to
(normal
> to) the surface. At the pole the centrifugal force is more at right
> angles to gravity. As to an imbalance, as soon as there is any
> off-centered-ness to the ice's center of gravity, there is
automatically
> an imbalance. The question is not "Is there an imbalance?", but "Are
> there other forces overcoming the unbalanced forces, in order to
keep
> things stable?" Usually there are - and most of it has to do with
> friction, gravity and the 'mechanical' fit of the bottom of the
earth's
> crust against the top of the mantle.
> Recent (past two years -- I'll look for the citations) seimic data
> interpretation says there are upside-down mountains and such on the
> bottom of the crust. You are correct about the mechanical fit being
a
> major stumbling block to any crust slippage theory.
> That last thing - the mechanical fit -is literally the crust
grabbing
> the mantle, and interlocking with it. Those three factors are hard
as
> hell to overcome. The question Hapgood was addressing was "Is the
> centrifugal force of the off-center ice mass enough to overcome
those?"
> mantle and the crust. We have better data now, but our
understanding is
> still rudimentary IMHO, just not quite as bad. I did not know if
this
> information will ever be known in our lifetimes, but I doubt it.
Ditto
> This is somewhat testable,primarily by examining the stress
fractures of
> the ocean floors. Except for a couple areas in the far south
Pacific (at
> the far southern rim of the "ring of fire"), the ocean floors
indicate
> that the stresses have always pivoted on the current rotational
axis and
> are directly attributable to the tidal stresses. I highly recommend
a
> careful look at Goodall's World Atlas sea floor maps to verify
this. The
> caveat is that the period of time since a single shift may have
been too
> short for the fractures to "catch up to" the new rotation. A
multitude
> of shifts as Hapgood theorized would have resulted in a complete
hodge
> podge of fractures.
> This is one that I will have to put some thought into.
>
> All of us are attracted to subjects like this because somewhere
along
> the way we didn't accept what we were being told by the powers that
be,
> because it didn't hold water. You just touched on one of mine.
First
> of all, I have looked at several 'maps' of the sea bottom, and I am
> doubtful of the veracity of the shapes as we are given them.
Forgive me
> for not trusting the current geologists, but I am skeptical of what
I
> see. There are way too many straight lines to seem real. It always
> looks like somebody faked them in.
>
> As to fractures, I always look at the Great Rift Valley, and it
tells me
> that that section of the crust used to be stretched over a smaller
> circumference, but then shifted to a larger one, and ripped the
crust
> open, via tension.* The fact that its extents north and south of
the
> equator are so equal is to me a suggestion in support of crustal
shifts
> - at least the last one.
>
> The crust is quite a bit thinner on the ocean floor than it is on
the
> continents, so the fractures happen more easily there. If you can
find a
> copy of Goodall's (the reference atlas I mentioned - found in some
> libraries), you'll see a classic stress pattern (since your
background
> is engineering, I assume you've seen stress analysis done using
> polarimeters. This one fits the classic pattern of tidal or axial
stress
> on a cylender).
> (* Something I know as a mechanical engineer is that rock is very
strong
> in compressive conditions, but when subjected to tensile forces,
rock is
> actually pretty weak.)
> I do agree that multiple shifts would have created a hodge podge of
> fractures. At the same time, with the water surges that accompany
any
> crustal displacement, the previous surface features would be to some
> extent scoured clean (witness Banda Aceh). How much this would
happen I
> do not know, but the Boxer Day tsunami showed me it would be much
more
> than we had previously thought. So, I stand with my
position,though I
> do not try to sway you from yours. My take on this particular
point is
> that there may be sub-sea-floor fractures of which we are completely
> unaware. In fact, I would actually predict their existence. I
agree.
> Please don't misinterpret that I am saying there has never been a
shift,
> only that it wasn't annual ice accumulation that caused it and the
shift
> that did occur wasn't nearly as dramatic as Hapgood envisioned. And,
> equally important, this is independent of a magnetic pole shift.
> Magnetic pole shifts won't cause crustal shifts or vice versa.
> V recognized the inherent importance of finding a large
enough 'vise' to
> grab the Earth and turn it over, and so did Hapgood. V came up
with a
> Venus flyby,and a later Mars one. Hapgood came up with ice. Of the
> two, ice is much, much more likely, IMHO.
>
> At the same time, I know of no scientist positing any solid logic
as to
> why the magnetic poles would reverse, or - to be faithful to the
actual
> paleomagnetic history - to shift to all kinds of weird angles. I
mean
> Hudson Bay and Madagascar, not to mention the Chad Depression, are
not
> 'reversals'! They are complete random positions. And the silliness
> about the magnetic field collapsing I won't even go into. The
people
> pushing that one are people I don't put any faith in their theories
> -they are mostly New Age guru wannabes.
>
> You are right that magnetic pole shifts won't cause crustal shifts,
but
> if the crust itself shifts, the apparent magnetic pole positions
will
> have changed.
> Absolutely. But if the academics are correct, nobody had a compass
back
> then
> Velikovsky`s planetary near miss(more specifically, in Worlds in
> Collision, he posited that Mars and Earth actually touched) is
flawed in
> that such an event as two planets colliding would almost certainly
ended
> all life on the surface of Earth through massive, global volcanic
> activity.
> V did not say they collided. He said that before they did, they
> exchanged a huge electrical discharge, which then rendered them both
> with the same charge, which then cause them to repel each other, and
> very forcefully. This part I am stating after over 20 years, so if
I
> misstate it, I will apologize for presenting bogus info - but that
is
> what I recall. But there were still massive earthquakes and
volcanos
> going off.
> And such a close flyby would have produced huge tsunamis, orders of
> magnitude larger than the one that convinced you of the near-planet-
wide
> scouring effect. And, if there was water on Mars, as even some
> prestigous NASA scientists contend, those tsunamis were on both
planets.
>
> As to "would almost certainly [have] ended all life on the surface
of
> Earth" was pretty much V's point. His litany of extinction at the
> beginning of Earth In Upheaval is his evidence that it damned near
did.
> But there are elements of his theory that make quite a bit of sense
when
> This rankles me, that so many have jumped on "the catastrophes to
the
> left of me, catastrophes to the right of me, onward, onward"
bandwagon,
> without even a nod to his having been half a century ahead of them
all.
> Yup, Emanuel used better evidence and logic (even if parts -many
parts -
> ARE flawed) than the Alvarez's did in their
> dinosaur-extinction-by-asteroid theory, yet their theory is
generally
> publicized as fact rather than theory.
>
> Both theorists were unaware that geologically ancient Mars once had
two
> thirds as much water as is currently on Earth. Coupling that fact
to the
> once much lower sea levels on this planet is very intriguing to me.
> I am a skeptic about most of the Mars-water claims so far. I
recall all
> the hoopla about the Mars rocks, and that has - last I looked - been
> downgraded to merely possible. I look at the same images from the
Mars
> rovers and the satellite images, and I see different things than
they
> do. All the evidence I saw early on was "proxy" evidence, not
direct,
> so I am taking a wait-and-see attitude.
>
> I am no longer skeptical on this issue. In fact, there is still some
> water in the crust of Mars and (tiny, by Earthly standards) artesian
> seeps still flow from the Martian aquifer. Citations if you want
them
> If there were a close flyby of Mars, Earth's gravity well, being
nearly
> twice as strong as Mars',would have had the capability of causing
Mars'
> water and gaseous atmosphere to be drawn off that planet and towards
> this one. It would take a far better mathematician than I to figure
how
> close it would have had to get to us for that to happen. But if
that did
> happen, the once-Martian water would have been exposed to the near
> absolute zero temperatures of space during transit and would have
frozen
> almost immediately after leaving Mars. The "almost" is important
because
> of the micro-gravity aspect of not being "on" the planet. The water
> would have formed itself into near-spherical globules of varying
sizes.
> It would also have brought with it grains of Martian sea bottom and
> traces of any organic matter or possibly even fossils that may have
> existed in Martian oceans.
> Yes, the math/physics is extremely complicated. I don't think V was
you
> say is all within arguments that would go back and forth between
> astrophysicists who would be broadminded enough to consider a flyby.
>
> I can only think of one who might even consider doing an analysis,
Dr.
> Tom VanFlandern. His Exploding planet hypothesis, though generally
> dissed by the academic community, put him at the forefront of "out
> there" science, thus following in the footsteps of the two learned
men
> who are the main subjects of this discussion.
> The globules of ice, or "space hail", would have fallen to Earth,
but
> not necessarily all at the same time. And it would have accumulated
in
> one hemisphere or the other depending on the time of year of the
flyby.
> In view of Hapgood's analysis, it was almost certainly the northern
> hemisphere that bore that burden. Any space-borne ice that missed
the
> Earth would eventually fall into the sun or onto the inner planets.
> Did Hapgood discuss Velikovsky's flybys??? You must mean Velikovsky
> her, yes?
>
> No. Apparently I didn't get my message across on this one. I do
beleive
> there was a major accumulation of ice and it did cause a shift,
either
> of the crust over the mantle or perhaps the angle of the axis in
> relation to solar orbit. So, yes, I did mean Hapgood's ultimate
result,
> but for Velikovsky's flyby reasons. I'll explain how I think it
could
> As for the orbital perturbations,Mars' gravity would have caused
Earth's
> orbit to be drawn further from the sun resulting in a greater
> astronomical unit and thus a measurably longer year with
substantially
> unchanged length of day. In other words,we added some number of
days to
> our year. I feel Velikovsky got that part right, but wasn't correct
in
> the reason why that happened.
> Are you aware of Bode's Law?
> Very aware of it.
> It has no known causative mechanism, but it states - accurately -
that
> there 'needs' to be a planet at certain distances from the Sun.
Whether
> it is by some resonance factor or some geometric principle, or some
even
> more exotic principle, no one knows. But it works. All the planets
> except Neptune abide by this 'law'. Since Pluto's orbit is so
massively
> skewed, it is possible that Neptune is an 'intruder' into the Solar
> System. But having the Earth at some close by orbit rather than its
> present one doesn't hold water. Although I liked V's argument that
this
> is why we have a 360-degree circle and 12 months of about 30 days, I
> think there is a better explanation that will be found out some
day.
> Nevertheless, to quote Aragorn, "But it is not this day!"
> Yes, the 360 argument is one of the strongest points
> The way I interpret Bode's Law, Earth being more massive than Mars
(not
> even counting the added mass of Luna), we should be occupying Mars
orbit
> and vice versa. And, of course, VanFlandern's exploded planet
should be
> between Mars and Jupiter.
>
>
> Mars didn't change our rotation rate, just moved us further from the
> sun. It also helped stabilize our orbit, making it less eccentric.
> Actually, both planetary orbits became more circular as a result of
the
> interaction. Earth's year became longer and Mars' year became
shorter.
> Again, near-collisions of planets can only make their orbits MORE
> eccentric, not less, IMO. I don't see this as being possible.
Maybe
> one of them can get better,but certainly not the one that has to
then
> travel out to another (Bode's Law) orbit and then somehow settle
into a
> circular orbit. Math fact: An elliptical orbit has two focii,
> literally mathematical focii. One focus is the attractive body,
and the
> other one is literally nothing. For the orbit to change to more
> circular, something has to affect the orbital path at with just the
> right force at just the right time moment that path. The chances of
> that happening are -literally and figuratively - astronomical.
>
> Mars' orbit and Earth's orbit are both still eccentric. I disagree
that
> the only possible outcome is for both orbits to become MORE
eccentric. I
> will need to use a graphic program to demonstrate, but there is one
> scenario that would result in more circular / less eccentric orbits
for
> both planets. I have to use graphics because my orbital mechnics
math is
> non-existent.
> Also important is the fact that it would have had no effect on the
order
> of the zodiac, but would have affected the rising and setting of the
> celestial bodies. If there were a crustal shift, it would also have
> affected the bearings of those zodiacal alignments. Hence,
Velikovsky's
> evidence of repeated efforts by the ancients to re-establish the
> cardinal directions.
> Whether he got all the interpretations correct or not, I believe
that V
> got this pretty muchright. I have studied the ancient
civilizations for
> over 40 years (man,am I old!), Again, ditto and I am convinced that
that
> was the reason behind all the gematria and all the pyramids
(something
> to withstand the next shift),and all the other aligned buildings and
> structures. Remember, that they didn't even know which way was
north!
> They had no polar star or constellation. They had to figure out
which
> was was up - literally. They didn't know their latitude. It would
have
> taken years, decades, maybe lifetimes to get it all straight - and
many
> of them had to do itwith no infrastructure. They still had their
> brains, and they workedout some fabulously ingenious methods for
> figuring all that out. I think they had some geniuses that did all
> that.
> I disagree that they didn't know which way was north nor that they
> no north star or constellation. At least, they wouldn't have
remained
> without that knowledge for very long They needed to only look at
the sky
> for the star or point in the night sky with the least change over
the
> period of a night. The only tool they would have needed would have
been
> a stick they could use as a gnomen.
>
> . . . . Steve
>
> P.S. Rick, is this too far off-topic?
> Maybe, I'll bow to the group wisdom on that question
>
> I suspect we are going off on a tangent, but maybe not. Anybody
have an
> opinion?
>
> Now, back to my comment that I think there was a major accumulatin
of
> ice and that it was in the northern hemisphere.
>
> I can envision one and only one scenario where ice could cause a
shift
> that caused Siberian mammoths to be deep frozen instantly (and they
are
> NOT edible except perhaps by sled dogs. In fact, they are quite
rancid).
>
> If the vast majority of the once Martian water froze in space and
fell
> onto North America, then the accumulated mass (remember, by some
> estimates coming out of NASA, that would have been two thirds the
weight
> of all the water currently on Earth, or some major fraction of that
> mass) would have been on the opposite side of the planet from
Siberia.
> That imbalance would fit Hapgood's ice mass reasoning, but also
follow
> Velikovsky's Martian flyby. Impact evidence such as the Carolina
bays
> and possibly even Lake Superior (which is a huge, but very ancient
gouge
> in the outer crust) would testify to the ice-from-space scenario.
So do
> geodes, but I'll come back to that.
>
> Depending on the amount of time that ice spent in transit, the
average
> temperature of the huge mass would have been approaching absolute
zero
> for the duration of the transit. But it wasn't all one big ice cube,
> rather it was a loose collection of ice globules in its own orbit
> roughly the same as Earth's orbit. Almost certainly, not all of it
fell
> to Earth. But if enough did become part of Earth's bioshere, the
thermal
> mass of that huge amount of ultra-cold material would also throw the
> global weather patterns into chaos, cause extinctions of
climatically
> sensative organisms, and totally disrupt long distance
communications
> and travel by any civilization that may have been extant when it
> happened.
>
> Before I fill this board with a bunch more of my ravings, I'll wait
to
> see if we're too far off topic.
>
> Respectfully
>
> Oz
>
• Rick - For this one post, I am just going to address one of your points. I ll come back to others later, okay? As the ice center of gravity moves toward the
Message 4 of 22 , Aug 2, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Rick -

For this one post, I am just going to address one of your points.  I'll come back to others later, okay?

As the ice center of gravity moves toward the equator (i.e., away from  the pole), it must also move outward, away from the Earth's axis of  rotation, since it must stay on the surface.   Yes, but it must do that on all the land surface at once. Since Eurasia  has so much more area than North America and the southern hemisphere has  so little land, the greatest weight / mass would be on Eurasia. In  Hapgood's scenario, the weight would pull Eurasia closer to the equator  and put the Siberian wooly mammoths into a warmer climate, not throw  them into an instant deepfreeze.
Regarding that last sentence:
My understanding is that Siberia went pretty much straight north, while North America went south.  In my picturing it, the arc of the Himalayas is directly indicative that the subcontinent of Asia (India) was pushed north by the southern ice mass.  This shows up in the way the Himalayas is all folded.  The Pangea believers say this happened millions of years ago with the plates of Gondwanaland moving this way and that, with the slow thrusting of India up under Tibet.  I think it happened in a several hours.

Notice that the Hudson Bay pole - the last previous one, according to Hapgood - is on the same great circle arc that includes both the current North Pole AND NEPAL.  That old North Pole moved directly SOUTH to the current Hudson Bay, while in the eastern hemisphere, things on that same line went straight north.  My globe has marvelous terrain, especially for the Himalayas, making the thrusting of the India plate under the Asian plate quite apparent.  Slightly further south on this same line in Asia is Bangladesh, which being on the plate that was driven under the Asian plate, subsequently has very low altitude and is subject to sea surges and flooding.  The line of the Himalayas has two kinks in it - north of Burma and at Kashmir - with the area between them forming an arc that dips to the south that appears to have come from that area more solidly resisting the under-thrusting, thus also making these mountains higher, since there was more folding going on.  The areas that resisted less were carried further north, and do not have the same degree of folding.

Your point about the mass of Eurasia is taken into consideration here, though with reservation.  The main thing in my view of it all is that after each shift, there is a state of equilibrium that happens and is more or less maintained for a long period of time (relatively speaking).  So, even though Eurasia may have more mass, it is heavy within a more or less balanced overall state.

Don't be confused by the area of the continents and equating that with more mass.  There are contradictory ideas on that.  One is that because they stick up higher than the oceans, there is more mass there, ergo more weight.  That may or may not be the case:

As I know it, the theory of plate tectonics and moving continents states clearly that the continents are actually LIGHTER rock than the oceanic plates, which is why they 'float upward' on top of the heavier basaltic underlying rock and are being pushed around by the convections in the mantle below.  There is a firm statement in geology that continents are light and ocean bottom is heavy.  They seem to think that, because it is lower, ocean bottom is therefore heavier.  I think that is far too simplistic.  The continents are viewed by them as being kind of like ice flows on top of a partially frozen pond.  Being a believer in pole shifts, and supported by the evidence that all the continents were - at some time or other - also ocean bottom, I think it is silly for them to claim that our current continents are lighter than ocean bottom, when the situation has been reversed so many times.  So how could those other, heavier areas ever become dry land, if they were heavier, and how could continents be at the bottom of the sea if they are lighter?

Something most people don't know, but people here might:
When the actual true roundness of the Earth is compared to a billiard ball (I have actually done the math on this to confirm it), the Earth - which is referred to as an "oblate spheroid" - is actually more of a perfect sphere than the billiard ball.  I did this even taking the height of Mt Everest and the Marianas Trench - the highest and lowest points on the solid surface of the Earth - the Earth is still the more perfect sphere.

So, it doesn't take a lot of vertical motion (relatively speaking) for a continent to become ocean bottom, or for the ocean bottom to be left high and dry.  In my mind, the entire globe's crust is essentially the same density.  (Yes, I know about gravity variations, but I think they are all within a very small range.) Even if some rock now on the surface seems less dense, wait a few thousand years and see if that doesn't reverse itself...

Part of the above statement reads
As the ice center of gravity moves toward the equator (i.e., awayfrom  the pole), it must also move outward, away from the Earth's axisof  rotation, since it must stay on the surface.  Yes, but it must do that on all the land surface at once.
That last statement is not true.  As some points on the surface move away from the axis, others are moving toward the axis.  As is pointed out in the wonderful fiction book The H.A.B. Theory, there are always two pivot points on the equator for any crustal shift.  Those two points only rotate, and are the only truly safe places in the event of a crustal displacement.  At 90 degrees on either side of those points are the longitudes of maximum displacement - one going south and one going north.  All other local displacements move parallel to these longitudes of maximum displacement.

All that is supposing that crustal displacements do happen.  None of it requires that the cause be the ice at the poles.  It is basic geometry.

It is quite late.  I hope that this is even slightly coherent.

Off to bed for moi...

. . . . Steve
• Again, in blue Rick - For this one post, I am just going to address one of your points. I ll come back to others later, okay?OK As the ice center of gravity
Message 5 of 22 , Aug 2, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Again, in blue

Rick -

For this one post, I am just going to address one of your points.  I'll come back to others later, okay?OK

As the ice center of gravity moves toward the equator (i.e., away from  the pole), it must also move outward, away from the Earth's axis of  rotation, since it must stay on the surface.   Yes, but it must do that on all the land surface at once. Since Eurasia  has so much more area than North America and the southern hemisphere has  so little land, the greatest weight / mass would be on Eurasia. In  Hapgood's scenario, the weight would pull Eurasia closer to the equator  and put the Siberian wooly mammoths into a warmer climate, not throw  them into an instant deepfreeze.
Regarding that last sentence:
My understanding is that Siberia went pretty much straight north, while North America went south.  In my picturing it, the arc of the Himalayas is directly indicative that the subcontinent of Asia (India) was pushed north by the southern ice mass.  This shows up in the way the Himalayas is all folded.  The Pangea believers say this happened millions of years ago with the plates of Gondwanaland moving this way and that, with the slow thrusting of India up under Tibet.  I think it happened in a several hours.

Yes, the shift moved North America southward and Siberia northward, and did so, as you say, in a matter of hours.

I also think that move of the Indian sub plate was expedited by the shift, but is still going on. And it may have been underway before the shift.

Notice that the Hudson Bay pole - the last previous one, according to Hapgood - is on the same great circle arc that includes both the current North Pole AND NEPAL.  That old North Pole moved directly SOUTH to the current Hudson Bay, while in the eastern hemisphere, things on that same line went straight north.  My globe has marvelous terrain, especially for the Himalayas, making the thrusting of the India plate under the Asian plate quite apparent.  Slightly further south on this same line in Asia is Bangladesh, which being on the plate that was driven under the Asian plate, subsequently has very low altitude and is subject to sea surges and flooding.  The line of the Himalayas has two kinks in it - north of Burma and at Kashmir - with the area between them forming an arc that dips to the south that appears to have come from that area more solidly resisting the under-thrusting, thus also making these mountains higher, since there was more folding going on.  The areas that resisted less were carried further north, and do not have the same degree of folding.

Your point about the mass of Eurasia is taken into consideration here, though with reservation.  The main thing in my view of it all is that after each shift, there is a state of equilibrium that happens and is more or less maintained for a long period of time (relatively speaking).  So, even though Eurasia may have more mass, it is heavy within a more or less balanced overall state.
My hypothesis is independent of the weight or mass of the land, I'm only counting the added mass of the ice. Without the ice, the Earth, as you surmised, stays in balance.

Don't be confused by the area of the continents and equating that with more mass.  There are contradictory ideas on that.  One is that because they stick up higher than the oceans, there is more mass there, ergo more weight.  That may or may not be the case:

As I know it, the theory of plate tectonics and moving continents states clearly that the continents are actually LIGHTER rock than the oceanic plates, which is why they 'float upward' on top of the heavier basaltic underlying rock and are being pushed around by the convections in the mantle below.  There is a firm statement in geology that continents are light and ocean bottom is heavy.  They seem to think that, because it is lower, ocean bottom is therefore heavier.  I think that is far too simplistic.  The continents are viewed by them as being kind of like ice flows on top of a partially frozen pond.  Being a believer in pole shifts, and supported by the evidence that all the continents were - at some time or other - also ocean bottom, I think it is silly for them to claim that our current continents are lighter than ocean bottom, when the situation has been reversed so many times.  So how could those other, heavier areas ever become dry land, if they were heavier, and how could continents be at the bottom of the sea if they are lighter?

Something most people don't know, but people here might:
When the actual true roundness of the Earth is compared to a billiard ball (I have actually done the math on this to confirm it), the Earth - which is referred to as an "oblate spheroid" - is actually more of a perfect sphere than the billiard ball.  I did this even taking the height of Mt Everest and the Marianas Trench - the highest and lowest points on the solid surface of the Earth - the Earth is still the more perfect sphere.
NASA's laser atimetry studies found that the sphere is oblate to the extent of about only fifty feet.-- Completely neglible compared to a 7,926.28 miles diameter

So, it doesn't take a lot of vertical motion (relatively speaking) for a continent to become ocean bottom, or for the ocean bottom to be left high and dry.  In my mind, the entire globe's crust is essentially the same density.  (Yes, I know about gravity variations, but I think they are all within a very small range.) Even if some rock now on the surface seems less dense, wait a few thousand years and see if that doesn't reverse itself...

Part of the above statement reads
As the ice center of gravity moves toward the equator (i.e., awayfrom  the pole), it must also move outward, away from the Earth's axisof  rotation, since it must stay on the surface.  Yes, but it must do that on all the land surface at once.
That last statement is not true.  As some points on the surface move away from the axis, others are moving toward the axis.  As is pointed out in the wonderful fiction book The H.A.B. Theory, there are always two pivot points on the equator for any crustal shift.  Those two points only rotate, and are the only truly safe places in the event of a crustal displacement.  At 90 degrees on either side of those points are the longitudes of maximum displacement - one going south and one going north.  All other local displacements move parallel to these longitudes of maximum displacement.

I think I both misread your point and again failed to convey my point.  Your statement is correct. My point is that, in Hapgood's theory, assuming no unusual outside influence on the Earth's weather, the ice must accumulate to roughly the same latitudes and roughly the same thickness on all land masses. That would make much more total ice mass on Eurasia than on North America. Since the slippage moved North America to the south, the vastly greater ice mass must have been there. Otherwise, the move would have been in the opposite direction. The ice accumulation was comparatively very localized, i.e., compared to "normal" weather patterns and conventional glaciation theory.

All that is supposing that crustal displacements do happen.  None of it requires that the cause be the ice at the poles.  It is basic geometry.

It is quite late.  I hope that this is even slightly coherent.

It is more coherent than some of my answers, I'm sorry to say.

Off to bed for moi...

. . . . Steve

Ever wonder how a geode forms?

Off to get ready for the show.

Oz

• I also think that [the] move of the Indian sub plate was expedited by the shift, but is still going on. And it may have been underway before the shift. I ll
Message 6 of 22 , Aug 2, 2007
• 0 Attachment

I also think that [the] move of the Indian sub plate was expedited by the  shift, but is still going on. And it may have been underway before the  shift.

I'll try this again.  (In trying to post some pictures, I <back>ed myself into erasing what I'd written.)

This is entirely possible, if continental drift is anything more than a wet dream, and I don't know if it is true or not.   If they thought that the differential between the equatorial and polar diameters was 13 miles, but it is only 50 feet (per your comment noted below), then I think it entirely possible that their claims to being able to measure the continents moving apart at 1/8" a year or whatever may have some debatability to them.  I honestly don't know, but I don't think they do yet, either.

NASA's laser altimetry studies found that the sphere is oblate to the  extent of about only fifty feet.-- Completely negligible compared to a  7,926.28 miles diameter
To me, this is amazing.  Even at 13 miles, the Earth is more more spherical than a billiard ball, and now that it is only 50 feet - what can I say?

Well, here is what I say:

If right, then once again, scientists are caught with their pants down.  They had conjured up a bunch of hooey, based on that 13 miles, explaining it as due to this or that, centrifugal force, blah, blah, blah...  All of those explanations were just drivel, logicking backward from something they thought was valid and wasn't, but giving the public the idea that they actually knew what they were talking about.  What they were doing was speculating - which if you and I did it would be called pulling it all out of our arses.  Well, if the arse fits, where it, scientists!

... I think I both misread your point and again failed to convey my point.   Your statement is correct. My point is that, in Hapgood's theory, assuming no unusual outside influence on the Earth's weather, the ice  must accumulate to roughly the same latitudes and roughly the same  thickness on all land masses.
I don't think this last statement is correct, from what I know.  The latitude part is basically correct, I think, but not the thickness part.  Antarctica, for example, being a desert, has several areas that are bare rock - including open water in at least one place.  This argues counter to your statement.  Now Greenland, on the other hand, does have fairly consistent ice thickness overall, not counting the southern shoreline areas.  But that may have a large additional component to blame besides the latitude - the ocean currents and the way they bring moisture in the form of snow.  Antarctica's wind patterns are quite different, though I don't know squat about it; I am intuitively certain of it, but have no evidence to present to support it.

... That would make much more total ice mass  on Eurasia than on North America.
If  Hudson Bay was at the pole, would you not think that most of the ice mass would be in North America?  Doesn't this conlfict with your next sentence? :

Since the slippage moved North America  to the south, the vastly greater ice mass must have been there.

Otherwise, the move would have been in the opposite direction. The ice  accumulation was comparatively very localized, i.e., compared to  "normal" weather patterns and conventional glaciation theory.
This is pretty much the direction that Hapgood's logic was going.  The main physics and mechanics that he had to show were in answer to these questions:
1. Was there enough mass for centrifugal force to propel not only the ice cap up toward the equator, but also to drag the crust with it?
2. Was the eccentricity of the center of gravity enough?
3. Was there enough grip between the ice and the crust?
4. Why didn't the ice cap just flow in that direction by itself?
• I may have a partial answer to that:  If the 'grain of the valleys ran counter to the direction the the ice cap wanted to go, then the ridges would have both prevented the ice flowing that direction, but also given the ice a shoulder to 'push' against...
I could use some help in posting images here.  I want to show what the earth's alignment might have been, pre-shift.  I think it illustrates general latitudes of locations and affords some interesting speculations about ocean currents and wind currents.

Can someone help me?

. . . . Steve
• I see you figured out how to post to the photo file. It gives a whole new meaning to calling Australia the land down under . If you wish to put the pic inside
Message 7 of 22 , Aug 3, 2007
• 0 Attachment
I see you figured out how to post to the photo file. It gives a whole new meaning to calling Australia the "land down under". If you wish to put the pic inside the post, you have to get better help than I can provide. I'm sure it can be done, because I've seen posts with pics. They were always copied from other web sources then pasted here.

I also think that [the] move of the Indian sub platewas expedited by the  shift, but is still going on. And it may havebeen underway before the  shift.

I'll try this again.  (In trying to post some pictures, I <back>ed myself into erasing what I'd written.)

This is entirely possible, if continental drift is anything more than a wet dream, and I don't know if it is true or not.   If they thought that the differential between the equatorial and polar diameters was 13miles, but it is only 50 feet (per your comment noted below), then I think it entirely possible that their claims to being able to measure the continents moving apart at 1/8" a year or whatever may have some debatability to them.  I honestly don't know, but I don't think they do yet, either.

NASA's laser altimetry studies foundthat the sphere is oblate to the  extent of about only fifty feet.--Completely negligible compared to a  7,926.28 miles diameter
To me, this is amazing.  Even at 13 miles, the Earth is more more spherical than a billiard ball, and now that it is only 50 feet - what can I say?

Well, here is what I say:

If right, then once again, scientists are caught with their pants down.  They had conjuredup a bunch of hooey, based on that 13 miles, explaining it as due tothis or that, centrifugal force, blah, blah, blah...  All of those explanations were just drivel, logicking backward from something they thought was valid and wasn't, but giving the public the idea that theyactually knew what they were talking about.  What they were doing was speculating - which if you and I did it would be called pulling it all out of our arses.  Well, if the arse fits, where it, scientists!
They would first have to acquire grant money to study how one fits an arse, then drag out the research well beyond the assigned study period, acquire additional funds for follow up studies, then publish and peer review the process. The end result is informed speculation.

...I think I both misread your point and again failed to convey mypoint.   Your statement is correct. My point is that, in Hapgood'stheory, assuming no unusual outside influence on the Earth's weather,the ice  must accumulate to roughly the same latitudes and roughly the same  thickness on all land masses.
I don't think this last statement is correct, from what I know.  The latitude part is basically correct, I think, but not the thickness part.  Antarctica,for example, being a desert, has several areas that are bare rock -including open water in at least one place.  This argues counter toyour statement.  Now Greenland, on the other hand, does have fairly consistent ice thickness overall, not counting the southern shoreline areas.  But that may have a large additional component to blame beside sthe latitude - the ocean currents and the way they bring moisture inthe form of snow.  Antarctica's wind patterns are quite different,though I don't know squat about it; I am intuitively certain of it, but have no evidence to present to support it.
I think that perhaps part of the reason there is a difference in southern vs. northern weather in general is the fact that Earth's eccentric orbit takes it closer to the sun during southern summer / northern winter.  This goes to the theory of Milankovitch cycles
Which is based, in part, on the eccentric orbit of Earth, the precession, and axial tilt

... That would make much more total ice mass  on Eurasia than on North America.
If Hudson Bay was at the pole, would you not think that most of the ice mass would be in North America?  Doesn't this conlfict with your next sentence? :

Well, if Hudson bay were the pole, then yes, if would be in conflict, but my hypothesis puts the former pole position at about 84N, 4.6W.  Understanding how I arrived at that requires a very long story. But it means I believe in slightly less than 6 degrees of change, totaling about 355 miles of crustal movement or almost six degrees induced wobble to the axis, or some combination of the two -- either one would have the same effect, i.e., moving the plane of the equinox from the point of view of the ancients.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_icesheet_hg.png

[  click here  for  map of Laurentide Ice Sheet 15,000 years ago ]

Notice that the glacier didn't cover Alaska or Greenland. In Hapgood's theory, with the pole centered in Hudson's Bay, both those land masses should have been in the north polar or Arctic region before the shift. Also be aware that there was glacial ice covering northern Europe at the height of the glaciation. There is some (disputed) evidence that, in the Atlantic, the pack ice extended as far south as the 42nd parallel.

Since the slippage moved North America  to the south, the vastly greater ice mass must have been there.

Otherwise,the move would have been in the opposite direction. The ice accumulation was comparatively very localized, i.e., compared to "normal" weather patterns and conventional glaciation theory.

Thisis pretty much the direction that Hapgood's logic was going.  The main physics and mechanics that he had to show were in answer to these questions:
1. Was there enough mass for centrifugal force to propel not only the ice cap up toward the equator, but also to drag the crust with it?
2. Was the eccentricity of the center of gravity enough?
3. Was there enough grip between the ice and the crust?
4. Why didn't the ice cap just flow in that direction by itself?
• I may have a partial answer to that:  If the 'grain of the valleys ran counter to the direction the the ice cap wanted to go, then the ridges would have both prevented the ice flowing that direction, but also given the ice a shoulder to 'push' against...

In North America the mountains and valleys, in general, run north and south, while in  Europe, they run primarily east and west. In Asia, they are a hodge podge.
I could use some help in posting images here.  I want to show what theearth's alignment might have been, pre-shift.  I think it illustrates general latitudes of locations and affords some interesting speculations about ocean currents and wind currents.

Can someone help me?

. . . . Steve
• This is a nice give and take dialog, Rick. I am enjoying it and getting to stretch and apply my mind in this direction for the first time in a while... Yes, I
Message 8 of 22 , Aug 3, 2007
• 0 Attachment
This is a nice give and take dialog, Rick.  I am enjoying it and getting to stretch and apply my mind in this direction for the first time in a while...

Yes, I did find the Photos place to post my images, but had wanted to paste them within the post, and it didn't work, though the site says we can use HTML language.  I am not an expert on HTML, but thought I could manage it, but it didn't work.  If it si possible, I will figure it out, then let you know what I did.

I would also like to add lines of latitude to the images, as well as do a polar shot looking down, also with lines of latitude shown as circles.  What I would really like to do is a 3D model, but cannot even find one so far.

BTW, one aspect of your info about NASA finding there is only a 50-foot differential between the polar and equatorial diameters is that, if true, it shoots down my own rationale about the Great Rift.  With only 50 feet difference, there would certainly not be enough tension induced to rip it open.  I would like to know if you can steer me to that info, so I can see if there is anything about it that may be fishy?  If nothing comes up, I need to revise my thinking a bit, for sure.

I think that perhaps part of the reason there is a difference in  southern vs. northern weather in general is the fact that Earth's  eccentric orbit takes it closer to the sun during southern summer /  northern winter. This goes to the theory of Milankovitch cycles   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles>  Which is based, in part, on the eccentric orbit of Earth, the  precession, and axial tilt.
I am aware of Milankovitch cycles, but not really knowledgeable about them.  I agree with part of the principle idea, that the variations of the obliquity (tilt relative to the Sun) and the variations in the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit would effect the severity of the seasons, as well as the durations of them.  That seems a no brainer.  Some of the other parts of the M cycles - the Earth going higher or lower above the ecliptic, or the precession - these seem to be more subtle and not as easy to see how they could effect climate here.  At the same time, the periodicity of each of the types of variations seems to hold true, so something is going on.  The 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles are almost exactly 4 precession cycles; is that an accident?  Yet, if precession is a causative factor, why doesn't it kick in every precession cycle, and not just one out of four?

Like the scientists who took the 13-mile difference in the Earth's equatorial vs polar diameters and ran with that (now proven to be false) information, are the scientists in this case projecting backward based on some ill-gotten belief in ice ages?  One's paradigm dictates what one perceives or even can perceive.

If the Milankovitch cycles are real, what is the data?  I know that almost all data points in climate graphs are from what are called "proxy" records - ice cores, ocean bottom cores, tree rings, etc.  "Proxy" means that the temperatures are implied, not measured.  This leads to large tolerance on the temps implied and used to draw those graphs.  And the farther back in time the data points are, the greater the tolerance.  Add to that the fact that those data points do not represent the entire earth, although that is what the climatologists suggest by using them.  There are very, very, very few data points for the time periods (one division equals 100,000 years) covered by the Milankovitch cycle graphs.  It would be like projecting the average temperature of the planet for the whole 10,000 years since the 'ice age' from one single solitary temperature measurement in Chicago in 1952, as measured from tree ring data - not even from a thermometer.  How accurate do you think that would be?  It might give you something within 20 degrees F.  What would it tell you about what was going on in the tropics?  In Australia?

... That would make much more total ice mass on Eurasia than on North  America.  If Hudson Bay was at the pole, would you not think that most of the ice  mass would be in North America? Doesn't this conlfict with your next  sentence? :
Well, if Hudson bay were the pole, then yes, if would be in conflict,  but my hypothesis puts the former pole position at about 84N, 4.6W.   Understanding how I arrived at that requires a very long story. But it  means I believe in slightly less than 6 degrees of change, totaling  about 355 miles of crustal movement or almost six degrees induced wobble  to the axis, or some combination of the two -- either one would have the  same effect, i.e., moving the plane of the equinox from the point of  view of the ancients.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_icesheet_hg.png
That map has this caption:
"Northern hemisphere glaciation during the last ice ages. Theaccumulation of 3 to 4 km thick ice sheets caused a sea level loweringof about 120 m. Also, the Alps and the Himalayas were covered byglaciers. Winter sea ice coverage was much more limited in the south."
I have a serious problem with that map in particular.  Velikovsky in Earth In Upheaval, pointed out the - literally - mountains of mammoth bones and the bones of other very large mammals on the Liakhov and New Siberian Islands in the Arctic Ocean north of Siberia - all deposited at the same time as the end of the last 'ice age', i.e, 10,500 bce or so.  The islands had, in the 1800s, cliffs 200 feet high, of mostly bones.  In addition, the number of the bones is completely unfathomable - again, literally, since a huge number of them are on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean all the way to the mainland of Siberia.  How many are on the sea bottom is anybody's guess.  My point here is that those animals, could not have lived at that latitude - only 15 degrees from the present North Pole - in the conditions that existed during the ice age as they represent it and as mapped.  With 3000-4000 meters of ice, what food existed for those huge animals that each have to eat 200 pounds a day?  3000 meters is about 10,000 feet thick.  4000 meters is about 13,000 feet thick.  It is known how old those bones are, and they do date from about 10,500 bce, so you cannot have both things present at that time, the mammoths and the ice.  One of them simply doesn't fit.  Since the mammoths are hard fact, while the map is someone's best guess, I vote that the mammoth bones and carcasses dictate our conception of the reality: There had to be something there to eat, therefore the ice sheets did not exist there at that time.

Instead of them presenting any mechanism to explain the existence of these islands' huge heaps of such bones, they choose to ignore these 'inconvenient truths'.  That is the only way they could possibly have drawn such a map.

In Path of the Pole, Hapgood mentions that we all have this misconception that during the last 'ice age' the ice sheets extended down to approximately the same latitude all around the poles, in both hemispheres, but he says that was not the case at all.
...Our assumption of a pole in Hudson Bay confronts us with the problem of explaining why, with that location of the pole [Hudson Bay, at about 60N, 83W], there was  a glaciation in Europe, the northern part of which would have been farther from the pole than now, and the same problem arises with Alaska.  Why, during the ice age, did Alaska have many mountain glaciers but no continuous ice sheet?

The explanation of the glaciation f northwestern Europe is, I think, as follows.  First, the heaviest glaciation of Europe was not contemporary with the Wisconsin ice sheet but was the consequence of an earlier polar position, which will be discussed further on.

for map of Laurentide Ice Sheet 15,000 years ago ]

Hmm - I have never seen the ice sheet go all the way to the Pacific Ocean in any mapping before.  It is also a bit weird that that it shows the ice sheet not extending across the Arctic Ocean to Siberia.  That actually agrees with Hapgood, but the close configuration of the edges of the ice sheet with the coasts makes me suspicious of their methodology.  (Color me slightly confused...)

. . . . Steve

• Rick and all - Has anyone, anywhere, ever done any thinking about the idea that Clovis man - who couldn t have numbered any more than half a million or so (my
Message 9 of 22 , Aug 4, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Rick and all -

Has anyone, anywhere, ever done any thinking about the idea that
Clovis man - who couldn't have numbered any more than half a million
or so (my wild guess) on the whole of North America - wiped out the
mammoths here, when at the same time the mammoths in northern Siberia
were getting their bones piled up in small mountains and spread all
over the sea bottom north of Siberia?

These things supposedly happened at the same time.  Was that a
coincidence?  If either event did not happen, we likely would have
mammoths alive to this day.

I am well aware that the Clovis First theory has finally been found to be
another one of those intransigent scientists' (but ultimately unscientific) reconstructions based on false assumptions that is now shot to hell.
But Clovis First had a lot of corollary hypotheses that need to also
be thrown out and then re-thought out.

Was there a connection between the extinction in the eastern
hemisphere and the one in the western hemisphere?  The mammoths in
North America extended much further south - at least as far south as the Valley of Mexico,  the area around Mexico City (18N), far south of the ice sheet limits.  The vast majority of the ones killed in Asia were at 75N, present alignment.  What is common to both?  In the non-catastrophic paradigm, wherein the temps just happened to cool down by 20-30 degrees F or whatever, there is no common thread between the two.  It simply doesn't make a lot of sense that they would be living in such vastly different climates, IMHO.

But if crustal shift is taken into account, with the North Pole at
Hudson Bay, then the two mammoth populations would have been at nearly
the same latitudes. Since those areas are no longer at those
latitudes, it follows that a shift (crustal or otherwise) must have
happened.  And since it did not happen slowly - we would have lots of
evidence of that, if it happened - it must have been violent.

That brings up the question: Has anyone thought to look at North
American mammoth skeletons for evidence of a tsunami-like or
avalanche-type catastrophe causing their deaths?  Any seriously
smashed bones?  Any striations?  Have these been noticed but assigned
to Clovis man?

If they were in Asia, how far north were they?  One site has this about elephants in Asia (sounding like a web page where they were shooting down non-scientist's assertions):
(Incidentally, even modern Asian elephants tolerate cold fairly well. Elephants lived as far north as the Honan province in China into early historical times (1500 B.C.). Asian elephants also lived in what is now Syria, Iraq, and Iran. African loxodonts used to inhabit the whole of the African continent into historic times.)
Now, if you laughed at this last sentence, join the club.  To refer to Syria, Iraq and Iran as cold, relative to extreme northern Siberia is an utter joke.  And if you will look at the map of Chinese provinces, Hunan ("Honan") is at about 30N latitude.  That is about as "far north" as New Orleans!  Syria is at about 35N, Iraq is about 30-36N, Iran is about 25N-39N.  What drug is that guy on?

. . . . Steve

P.S. More on Mammoths later - including some good, solid facts about the frozen ones, Berezovka and all...
• Oops!
Message 10 of 22 , Aug 4, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Oops!
• This is a nice give and take dialog, Rick. I am enjoying it and getting to stretch and apply my mind in this direction for the first time in a while... Yes, I
Message 11 of 22 , Aug 4, 2007
• 0 Attachment
This is a nice give and take dialog, Rick.  I am enjoying it and getting to stretch and apply my mind in this direction for the first time in a while...

Yes, I did find the Photos place to post my images, but had wanted to paste them within the post, and it didn't work, though the site says we can use HTML language.  I am not an expert on HTML, but thought I could manage it, but it didn't work.  If it si possible, I will figure it out, then let you know what I did.

I would also like to add lines of latitude to the images, as well as do a polar shot looking down, also with lines of latitude shown as circles.  What I would really like to do is a 3D model, but cannot even find one so far.

BTW, one aspect of your info about NASA finding there is only a 50-foot differential between the polar and equatorial diameters is that, if true, it shoots down my own rationale about the Great Rift.  With only 50 feet difference, there would certainly not be enough tension induced to rip it open.  I would like to know if you can steer me to that info, so I can see if there is anything about it that may be fishy?  If nothing comes up, I need to revise my thinking a bit, for sure.
To the best of my recollection, that info  came out of the ICESAT mission. I looked through some of the info at NASA's self-promotion site, but didn't find the reference (there is a lot of material, very little of it related directly to this discussion, and I'm a little pressed for time this morning). I think I saw it first in Science Daily. The latter has a pretty good search tool for their archives.
http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/list.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
I think that perhaps part of the reason there is a difference in  southern vs. northern weather in general is the fact that Earth's  eccentric orbit takes it closer to the sun during southern summer /  northern winter. This goes to the theory of Milankovitch cycles   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles>  Which is based, in part, on the eccentric orbit of Earth, the  precession, and axial tilt.
I am aware of Milankovitch cycles, but not really knowledgeable about them.  I agree with part of the principle idea, that the variations of the obliquity (tilt relative to the Sun) and the variations in the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit would effect the severity of the seasons, as well as the durations of them.  That seems a no brainer.  Some of the other parts of the M cycles - the Earth going higher or lower above the ecliptic, or the precession - these seem to be more subtle and not as easy to see how they could effect climate here.  At the same time, the periodicity of each of the types of variations seems to hold true, so something is going on.  The 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles are almost exactly 4 precession cycles; is that an accident?  Yet, if precession is a causative factor, why doesn't it kick in every precession cycle, and not just one out of four?
And THAT, dear Steve, is the \$64,000 question.

Like the scientists who took the 13-mile difference in the Earth's equatorial vs polar diameters and ran with that (now proven to be false) information, are the scientists in this case projecting backward based on some ill-gotten belief in ice ages?  One's paradigm dictates what one perceives or even can perceive.

If the Milankovitch cycles are real, what is the data?  I know that almost all data points in climate graphs are from what are called "proxy" records - ice cores, ocean bottom cores, tree rings, etc.  "Proxy" means that the temperatures are implied, not measured.  This leads to large tolerance on the temps implied and used to draw those graphs.  And the farther back in time the data points are, the greater the tolerance.  Add to that the fact that those data points do not represent the entire earth, although that is what the climatologists suggest by using them.  There are very, very, very few data points for the time periods (one division equals 100,000 years) covered by the Milankovitch cycle graphs.  It would be like projecting the average temperature of the planet for the whole 10,000 years since the 'ice age' from one single solitary temperature measurement in Chicago in 1952, as measured from tree ring data - not even from a thermometer.  How accurate do you think that would be?  It might give you something within 20 degrees F.  What would it tell you about what was going on in the tropics?  In Australia?

... That would make much more total ice mass on Eurasia than on North  America.  If Hudson Bay was at the pole, would you not think that most of the ice  mass would be in North America? Doesn't this conlfict with your next  sentence? :
Well, if Hudson bay were the pole, then yes, if would be in conflict,  but my hypothesis puts the former pole position at about 84N, 4.6W.   Understanding how I arrived at that requires a very long story. But it  means I believe in slightly less than 6 degrees of change, totaling  about 355 miles of crustal movement or almost six degrees induced wobble  to the axis, or some combination of the two -- either one would have the  same effect, i.e., moving the plane of the equinox from the point of  view of the ancients.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_icesheet_hg.png
That map has this caption:
"Northern hemisphere glaciation during the last ice ages. Theaccumulation of 3 to 4 km thick ice sheets caused a sea level loweringof about 120 m. Also, the Alps and the Himalayas were covered byglaciers. Winter sea ice coverage was much more limited in the south."
I have a serious problem with that map in particular.  Velikovsky in Earth In Upheaval, pointed out the - literally - mountains of mammoth bones and the bones of other very large mammals on the Liakhov and New Siberian Islands in the Arctic Ocean north of Siberia - all deposited at the same time as the end of the last 'ice age', i.e, 10,500 bce or so.  The islands had, in the 1800s, cliffs 200 feet high, of mostly bones.  In addition, the number of the bones is completely unfathomable - again, literally, since a huge number of them are on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean all the way to the mainland of Siberia.  How many are on the sea bottom is anybody's guess.  My point here is that those animals, could not have lived at that latitude - only 15 degrees from the present North Pole - in the conditions that existed during the ice age as they represent it and as mapped.  With 3000-4000 meters of ice, what food existed for those huge animals that each have to eat 200 pounds a day?  3000 meters is about 10,000 feet thick.  4000 meters is about 13,000 feet thick.  It is known how old those bones are, and they do date from about 10,500 bce, so you cannot have both things present at that time, the mammoths and the ice.  One of them simply doesn't fit.  Since the mammoths are hard fact, while the map is someone's best guess, I vote that the mammoth bones and carcasses dictate our conception of the reality: There had to be something there to eat, therefore the ice sheets did not exist there at that time.

Instead of them presenting any mechanism to explain the existence of these islands' huge heaps of such bones, they choose to ignore these 'inconvenient truths'.  That is the only way they could possibly have drawn such a map.

In Path of the Pole, Hapgood mentions that we all have this misconception that during the last 'ice age' the ice sheets extended down to approximately the same latitude all around the poles, in both hemispheres, but he says that was not the case at all.
...Our assumption of a pole in Hudson Bay confronts us with the problem of explaining why, with that location of the pole [Hudson Bay, at about 60N, 83W], there was  a glaciation in Europe, the northern part of which would have been farther from the pole than now, and the same problem arises with Alaska.  Why, during the ice age, did Alaska have many mountain glaciers but no continuous ice sheet?

The explanation of the glaciation f northwestern Europe is, I think, as follows.  First, the heaviest glaciation of Europe was not contemporary with the Wisconsin ice sheet but was the consequence of an earlier polar position, which will be discussed further on.

for map of Laurentide Ice Sheet 15,000 years ago ]

Hmm - I have never seen the ice sheet go all the way to the Pacific Ocean in any mapping before.  It is also a bit weird that that it shows the ice sheet not extending across the Arctic Ocean to Siberia.  That actually agrees with Hapgood, but the close configuration of the edges of the ice sheet with the coasts makes me suspicious of their methodology.  (Color me slightly confused...)

. . . . Steve

I'll have to come back to this discussion on Monday evening as I have to take care of some pressing business the rest of today and will be away all day tomorrow. Good points to ponder, Steve.

Later

Oz

• Rick - Something to add to our discussion - This is about Clovis points, and has to do with their duration. (Are Clovis points and their dissemination
Message 12 of 22 , Aug 4, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Rick -

Something to add to our discussion -

This is about Clovis points, and has to do with their duration.  (Are Clovis points and their dissemination on-topic on this forum?  I am not at all sure where the line gets drawn.  Are we mostly about the period when there was likely commerce between North America and Europe?  And if so, how much afield can we go?)

I was watching something on National Geographic (I believe) about a theory that there was a cometary impact called the Younger Dryas Impact Event that may have occurred shortly before the Clovis points started showing up all over North America.

They made the point that Clovis points are all found in a very narrow time window, which is something I hadn't heard before.

The scientists on the show actually were posing the Younger Dryas event as a possible killer of the mammoths.

Although TV science shows all point to humans as the exterminators of the mammoths, in scientific circles it is NOT anything close to a confirmed "kill".  I've never considered it a remote possibility, partly from an intuitive POV, but also thinking about how many mammoths there were and how widespread they were, and to think that the very few humans on the continent could have even located all of them seemed ludicrous.

Now, to find out that Clovis was only around for a short time makes my argument even stronger.

And with the Younger Dryas impact event option out there, too, maybe the humans killed all the mammoths fantasy can be laid to rest before too long.

Here is what Wikipedia -> Younger Dryas Impact Event  has to say about the impact:

The evidence for such an impact event is a layer of unusualmaterials (Nanodiamonds, magnetic grains, carbon spherules, magnetic spherules, charcoal, soot, fullerenesenriched in Helium 3, etc.) at the very bottom of the "black mat" oforganic material that marks the beginning of the Younger Dryas.

It is hypothesized that this impact event brought about theextinction of many North American large mammals. These animals included camels, mammoths, the short-faced bear and numerous other species. The markers for the impact event also appear at the end of the Clovis culture.

The "black mat", on the show, was explained as burned carbon, probably from massive conflagrations set off by the impact, something they said that had been thought to be possibility but not actually seen before.  All the Clovis points were in the layers just above that black mat.

Wikipedia -> Clovis point  has these two passages:
The Clovis tradition "known as a sophisticated stone technology basedon a point that was fastened to the end of hunting spear flourishedbetween 12,000 and 11,000 B.P. in the central Plains, on their westernmargins, and over a large area of what is now the eastern United States.

...At this time, there have been no Clovis points found in the Old World or in Alaska. However, the Solutrean hypothesis suggests that Clovis culture developed from the similar Solutreanof southwestern Europe, and that the technology may have been broughtto America through migration along the Atlantic pack ice edge usingsurvival skills similar to that of modern Inuit people.
The duration is incredibly short, IMHO, suggesting to me some kind of disruption ended the Clovis culture.

I am familiar with the Solutrean hypothesis and think it is prima facie evidence of European-American contact then, if not outright commerce.  (Yeah, this is certainly on-topic!)

The timing of European-American contact so close to this Younger Dryas event, as well as to the extermination of the mammoths makes for interesting contemplations... Puzzles of this type are exciting to delve into, knowing that the evidence available now is insufficient and that as further developments come along the ideas will change.  What will be the end reality, I wonder?

I imagine most of you know more than I do about this.  Anyone want to chip in?

. . . . Steve
• Sorry it took so l ooong to get back to this. Been really, really busy. Clovis is not so much a culture as it is a technology. The gist of what the academics
Message 13 of 22 , Aug 11, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Sorry it took so l ooong to get back to this. Been really, really busy.

"Clovis" is not so much a culture as it is a technology. The gist of what the academics are saying is that whatever catastrophic event wiped out the megafuana also was the demise of the people who knew how to make those points.

The YDE deposits sit on top of Clovis sites, not under them.

Also germane to this discussion and my hypothesis, is the description by the principle investigators  that the Michigan site is considered to be very near the main impact site.

"Gainey, north of Detroit, Michigan, is a PaleoAmerican campsite that was located a few tens of kilometers from the southern margin of the Laurentide Ice Sheet at 12.9 ka. Gainey gave its name to the distinctive fluted point style found there, and Gainey sediments contained some of the highest abundances of YDB markers found, suggesting that the YD impact was centered nearby"

Remember the Martian meteorite that supposedly had fossilized bacteria in it? It was found in Antarctica and dates to about the same time as the Younger Dryas event. But I never did find any information about how NASA knew it was of Martian origin, only how they dated it (ice cores). Somewhere around here, I have a photo of myself, my then Congressional Rep, and one of the NASA scientists who worked on that project. He couldn't answer my question either, since his specialty was other than astronomy.

That age, 13,000 years, is also the age where C14 dating accuracy starts falling off drastically.

If you consider that all that carbon, in places 5 mm thick, was in the atmosphere before settling over the entire northern 2/3rds of North America, you can see how much sunlight was blocked for some indeterminate period. My other major question is, does a corresponding layer sit atop the Siberian mammoths? Predominant winds pattern says "almost certainly", but I don't think anybody has actually looked for it.

The other intriguing aspect of the timing is Plato's dating of Atlantis' demise...but I'll save that one for later.

P.S. -- Geodes are fossilized hailstones

Oz

--- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> wrote:
>
> Rick -
>
> Something to add to our discussion -
>
> This is about Clovis points, and has to do with their duration. (Are
> Clovis points and their dissemination on-topic on this forum? I am not
> at all sure where the line gets drawn. Are we mostly about the period
> when there was likely commerce between North America and Europe? And if
> so, how much afield can we go?)
>
> I was watching something on National Geographic (I believe) about a
> theory that there was a cometary impact called the Younger Dryas Impact
> Event that may have occurred shortly before the Clovis points started
> showing up all over North America.
>
> They made the point that Clovis points are all found in a very narrow
> time window, which is something I hadn't heard before.
>
> The scientists on the show actually were posing the Younger Dryas event
> as a possible killer of the mammoths.
>
> Although TV science shows all point to humans as the exterminators of
> the mammoths, in scientific circles it is NOT anything close to a
> confirmed "kill". I've never considered it a remote possibility, partly
> from an intuitive POV, but also thinking about how many mammoths there
> were and how widespread they were, and to think that the very few humans
> on the continent could have even located all of them seemed ludicrous.
>
> Now, to find out that Clovis was only around for a short time makes my
> argument even stronger.
>
> And with the Younger Dryas impact event option out there, too, maybe the
> humans killed all the mammoths fantasy can be laid to rest before too
> long.
>
> Here is what Wikipedia -> Younger Dryas Impact Event
> <> has to say
>
> The evidence for such an impact event is a layer of unusualmaterials
> (Nanodiamonds, magnetic grains, carbon spherules, magnetic spherules,
> charcoal, soot, fullerenesenriched in Helium 3, etc.) at the very bottom
> of the "black mat" oforganic material that marks the beginning of the
> Younger Dryas.
>
> It is hypothesized that this impact event brought about theextinction of
> many North American large mammals. These animals included camels,
> mammoths, the short-faced bear and numerous other species. The markers
> for the impact event also appear at the end of the Clovis culture.
> The "black mat", on the show, was explained as burned carbon, probably
> from massive conflagrations set off by the impact, something they said
> that had been thought to be possibility but not actually seen before.
> All the Clovis points were in the layers just above that black mat.
>
> Wikipedia -> Clovis point <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_points>
> has these two passages:
> The Clovis tradition "known as a sophisticated stone technology basedon
> a point that was fastened to the end of hunting spear flourishedbetween
> 12,000 and 11,000 B.P. in the central Plains, on their westernmargins,
> and over a large area of what is now the eastern United States.
>
> ...At this time, there have been no Clovis points found in the Old World
> or in Alaska. However, the Solutrean hypothesis suggests that Clovis
> culture developed from the similar Solutreanof southwestern Europe, and
> that the technology may have been broughtto America through migration
> along the Atlantic pack ice edge usingsurvival skills similar to that of
> modern Inuit people.
> The duration is incredibly short, IMHO, suggesting to me some kind of
> disruption ended the Clovis culture.
>
> I am familiar with the Solutrean hypothesis and think it is prima facie
> evidence of European-American contact then, if not outright commerce.
> (Yeah, this is certainly on-topic!)
>
> The timing of European-American contact so close to this Younger Dryas
> event, as well as to the extermination of the mammoths makes for
> interesting contemplations... Puzzles of this type are exciting to delve
> into, knowing that the evidence available now is insufficient and that
> as further developments come along the ideas will change. What will be
> the end reality, I wonder?
>