It has been two years since I posted a copy of my chapter on the Pleistocene Conformity and my revitalization of the crustal shift conjecture previously championed by Einstein and Hapgood back in the Fifties. It is now timely to revisit the conjecture, since I am alluding to it again and again and other developments are enhancing our understanding.
I will not outline the supporting evidence which is ample and most importantly successfully eliminates contradictions and serious overreaches in our present understanding of the possibilities of the Pleistocene transition to the Holocene. It is enough to say that it works as a thirty degree pole shift to the center of present day Hudson Bay.
What I want to revisit are the two primary objections that need to be overcome if this conjecture can survive to the next level of investigation. These objections are angular momentum and crustal slipperiness. We can deal with the issue of angular momentum first.
The thirty degree shift released a balance problem created by the then present polar ice cap regime. First off, the South Pole was in the open ocean just adjacent to the West Antarctic Polar Ice cap. That placed the present day mass on one side of the pole only and with the balance of the Antarctic shifted north and carrying much less ice. The actual ice mass was somewhat less than at present but not significantly so. It is now much better balanced and is inherently more stable as the East Antarctic sheet has since grown.
The real difficulty was presented by the Northern Polar Ice Cap. Again, the bulk of the ice buildup took place on land mostly on the North American side of the Arctic Ocean. Much of the ice accumulated during the Ice Age landed again on one side of the pole. And what an accumulation! It has since added three hundred feet to the sea level and this means that this mass also altered the globe’s angular momentum on the same side of the global axis as the South Polar Ice Cap.
The key take home point is that this build up of ice changed angular momentum significantly and sufficiently to seriously load the crust should it begin to move and likely also induced a wobble. It has been conjectured by others that it had moved twice before within the past 100,000 years. I do not see that as necessary to the success or failure of the conjecture, except that recent evidence makes the deliberate nature of the last shift highly probable and such could not have taken place without clear prior histories. It is likely that the angular momentum displacement caused by the alignment of the mass of the two ice caps created a roving crust that was naturally catastrophic and naturally drove efforts to resolve it. Again, it is suggestive but unnecessary to this discussion.
The present configuration eliminated the Northern Ice Cap and has totally stabilized the crust possibly for millions of years. This ended a clear imbalance in angular momentum that had accumulated for at least a million years and likely a lot longer than that, replacing it with a well balanced Southern Cap and an unloaded Northern Cap that is a minor fraction of its peak.
Been rid of that objection we can now deal with the more serious objection. How is it possible for the crust to move at all? I also want to observe that the clear reality of plate tectonics is not an answer either. This provides completely ironclad evidence of mass transfer from one side of a continental plate to the other side. Even allowing it to be forced by heat transfer it still must overcome viscosity on an unimaginable scale. Simply put, current explanations are at best acknowledgement of the reality of the phenomenon.
Logically, plate movement and a complete movement of the crust can only occur if it is possible for a layer to exist whose viscosity approaches zero or whose contact layer exhibits friction approaching zero. That is why plate tectonics was rejected outright for seventy years until the evidence became impossible to explain away.
This deal breaker problem became resolvable when I began to take an interest in the properties of elemental carbon. Recent discoveries regarding graphene have allowed us to become even more confident.
Fundamental to this conjecture is that carbon has the highest melting point of any element and is well above the disassociation energy of any compound. That means that unmelted carbon can be dragged down to a melt layer below all the crust yet to just above the metallic core. That layer is likely at least a hundred feet thick and perhaps a lot thicker. The depth is almost one hundred mile beneath us which is really not very much.
I describe it as molten but the bulk of it is more likely in the form of graphene, now that we know that exists. This layer does have a viscosity approaching zero. We already know that from recent work on graphene, but we also know that from our understanding of diamond pipes.
A diamond pipe rockets through the crust at about seventy miles an hour, originating from this layer. They are typically eighty to a hundred feet across and yet survive the trip. This is surely possible only because they begin as pure carbon, picking up and altering material on the way to the surface. In fact, the high carbon content is necessary in order to reach the surface, but once that motion ends, the surrounding and contained rock consumes the carbon leaving a fine distribution of carbon crystals known as diamonds.
The mere existence of diamond pipes is proof of a super slippery layer between the crust and the denser metallic core, and the lack of chemical bonding at this temperature and depth assures us that that layer is actually smooth. The mere fact that a pipe loaded with liquid carbon could penetrate the crust in about sixty minutes makes the proposition of the crust shifting a few miles an hour for a few days completely feasible until it was braked by the temporary loss of the carbon layer at the equators.
Therefore, our conjecture that the moderately unbalanced crust will respond to a nudge in the right direction appears to be well founded. That it may have happened naturally a couple of times is possible but unnecessary. That human intervention triggered it appears likely but is also unnecessary. That it shifted thirty degrees is necessary to resolve a range of logical impossibilities in the geological record.
It is worth observing that the Andes and the Himalayas are on the proper axis to have absorbed the necessary braking energy while the Gulf of Mexico may have additionally subsided. Once the conjecture is accepted then a lot of interpretive evidence will spring out at us. The safest place to be during all this was the continent of Africa.
I will not outline the supporting evidence which is ample and most importantly successfully eliminates contradictions and serious overreaches in our present understanding of the possibilities of the Pleistocene transition to the Holocene. It is enough to say that it works as a thirty degree pole shift to the center of present day Hudson Bay.
What I want to revisit are the two primary objections that need to be overcome if this conjecture can survive to the next level of investigation. These objections are angular momentum and crustal slipperiness. We can deal with the issue of angular momentum first.
The thirty degree shift released a balance problem created by the then present polar ice cap regime. First off, the South Pole was in the open ocean just adjacent to the West Antarctic Polar Ice cap. That placed the present day mass on one side of the pole only and with the balance of the Antarctic shifted north and carrying much less ice. The actual ice mass was somewhat less than at present but not significantly so. It is now much better balanced and is inherently more stable as the East Antarctic sheet has since grown.
The real difficulty was presented by the Northern Polar Ice Cap. Again, the bulk of the ice buildup took place on land mostly on the North American side of the Arctic Ocean. Much of the ice accumulated during the Ice Age landed again on one side of the pole. And what an accumulation! It has since added three hundred feet to the sea level and this means that this mass also altered the globe’s angular momentum on the same side of the global axis as the South Polar Ice Cap.
The key take home point is that this build up of ice changed angular momentum significantly and sufficiently to seriously load the crust should it begin to move and likely also induced a wobble. It has been conjectured by others that it had moved twice before within the past 100,000 years. I do not see that as necessary to the success or failure of the conjecture, except that recent evidence makes the deliberate nature of the last shift highly probable and such could not have taken place without clear prior histories. It is likely that the angular momentum displacement caused by the alignment of the mass of the two ice caps created a roving crust that was naturally catastrophic and naturally drove efforts to resolve it. Again, it is suggestive but unnecessary to this discussion.
The present configuration eliminated the Northern Ice Cap and has totally stabilized the crust possibly for millions of years. This ended a clear imbalance in angular momentum that had accumulated for at least a million years and likely a lot longer than that, replacing it with a well balanced Southern Cap and an unloaded Northern Cap that is a minor fraction of its peak.
Been rid of that objection we can now deal with the more serious objection. How is it possible for the crust to move at all? I also want to observe that the clear reality of plate tectonics is not an answer either. This provides completely ironclad evidence of mass transfer from one side of a continental plate to the other side. Even allowing it to be forced by heat transfer it still must overcome viscosity on an unimaginable scale. Simply put, current explanations are at best acknowledgement of the reality of the phenomenon.
Logically, plate movement and a complete movement of the crust can only occur if it is possible for a layer to exist whose viscosity approaches zero or whose contact layer exhibits friction approaching zero. That is why plate tectonics was rejected outright for seventy years until the evidence became impossible to explain away.
This deal breaker problem became resolvable when I began to take an interest in the properties of elemental carbon. Recent discoveries regarding graphene have allowed us to become even more confident.
Fundamental to this conjecture is that carbon has the highest melting point of any element and is well above the disassociation energy of any compound. That means that unmelted carbon can be dragged down to a melt layer below all the crust yet to just above the metallic core. That layer is likely at least a hundred feet thick and perhaps a lot thicker. The depth is almost one hundred mile beneath us which is really not very much.
I describe it as molten but the bulk of it is more likely in the form of graphene, now that we know that exists. This layer does have a viscosity approaching zero. We already know that from recent work on graphene, but we also know that from our understanding of diamond pipes.
A diamond pipe rockets through the crust at about seventy miles an hour, originating from this layer. They are typically eighty to a hundred feet across and yet survive the trip. This is surely possible only because they begin as pure carbon, picking up and altering material on the way to the surface. In fact, the high carbon content is necessary in order to reach the surface, but once that motion ends, the surrounding and contained rock consumes the carbon leaving a fine distribution of carbon crystals known as diamonds.
The mere existence of diamond pipes is proof of a super slippery layer between the crust and the denser metallic core, and the lack of chemical bonding at this temperature and depth assures us that that layer is actually smooth. The mere fact that a pipe loaded with liquid carbon could penetrate the crust in about sixty minutes makes the proposition of the crust shifting a few miles an hour for a few days completely feasible until it was braked by the temporary loss of the carbon layer at the equators.
Therefore, our conjecture that the moderately unbalanced crust will respond to a nudge in the right direction appears to be well founded. That it may have happened naturally a couple of times is possible but unnecessary. That human intervention triggered it appears likely but is also unnecessary. That it shifted thirty degrees is necessary to resolve a range of logical impossibilities in the geological record.
It is worth observing that the Andes and the Himalayas are on the proper axis to have absorbed the necessary braking energy while the Gulf of Mexico may have additionally subsided. Once the conjecture is accepted then a lot of interpretive evidence will spring out at us. The safest place to be during all this was the continent of Africa.
It struck me that I had not made clear that the crust is a thin 80 to 100 mile thick layer whose mass is a pittance compared to the earth whose diameter is a little over 10,000 miles. Thus with a low viscosity contact layer, it is enough to deliver a sharp blow in the right place to effect useful movement. This of course magically happened.
ReplyDeleteThis correspondence is also helpfull
ReplyDeleteThanks
Those are good points. My current interpetation of the earth's magnetic field is that it is generated by the carbon layer itself. Supporting that is the actual variation of the magnetic field over the globe and its ease of movement and yes its switching back and forth.
In other words assigning a magnetic field to the core itself is a 'speculation' that is possibly dead wrong. I do not need to in my conjecture.
The mass of the crust is around one one hundred thousandth of the total mass of the core at the least. Any thing able to move the core would blast the whole crust into space. Lots of folks have speculated on the effect of external magnetic fields and the like on the stability of the Earth's spin but that simply is a lack of appreciation for the sheer magnitude of the momentum.
The technical difficulty was in understanding how it was possible for the crust to be come unglued at all. The existence of kimberlite pipes actually solves and proves the method. Of course it will be awhile before this is accepted by anyone. geologiusts will need to talk to physicists in order to accept what their eyes are showing them.
The earth is not a perfect sphere so once it gets moving it will run into contact braking with the core sooner or later. I also think, but do not have a mathematical proof, that a thirty degree shift is a natural moduality for a momentum shift like this. At least it smells right and one reason it may have happened before.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Douglas Schulek-Miller dsm@experiencecorporation.com wrote:
Thank you.
But in another twist, as I can agree with your presentation on the asteroid illustration, what about the highly magnetic core?
I can imagine - “imagine” being the key word I suspect – that the core, if acted upon by a highly charged magnetic field (or a nearby gravitational field, perhaps) can re-orient itself to magnetically align with this external field very quickly, thus similarly initiating movement, as you noted with your asteroid example, which would similarly move the crust in line with the offset angular momentum deriving from the imbalance of mass at the poles.
In today’s environment, I suspect this would send Antarctica to somewhere more near the Equator – as I suspect it once was – until the friction between the crust and core stopped this movement.
While in my illustration I believed the momentum of the core shift would provide the transfer energy to the crust in a similar direction, it may indeed do so initially, but it would be quickly supplanted or modified by directional forces due to the imbalances of mass on the surface, Antarctica being the obvious one that springs to mind.
The medium-term issue I see with respect to this potential change is the position of the Earth relative to the galactic ecliptic anticipated around the 20th December, 2012 – an event we haven’t experienced for almost 30,000 years.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Doug
Sincerely and with best wishes/Mit freundlichen Gruessen/
Distinti Saluti/ Meilleures Salutations/ Dejjem tieghek,
Douglas Schulek-Miller, A.A., B.A., M.B.A., Ph.D., M.B.S.I.
www.experiencecorporation.com
+1 705 796 1470 – CA mobile
+1 613 983 1470 – CA mobile
+1 866 793 7314 – facsimile transmission
From: Robert Klein Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:57:55 -0700
To: Douglas Schulek-Miller Subject: Re: Vital data
hi
A quick note, and i was not as clear as i should have been. What shifts is the crust itself which is about eighty miles thick, and this is only possible because an inbalance developed by the growth of the two polar caps whose mass is off center.
The lack of viscosity at the contact means that a shock from an asteroid at the right location will initiate movement which is then accelerated by the inbalance of the angular momentum. a little like adding a small lead weight to your car rim. this was then braked as the crust's imperfect sphericity jamed up against the equatorical bulge.
The crust is a thin outer skin that is 80 to 100 miles thick sitting on the surface of a ball that is about ten thousand miles across. So the you are only changing the momentum of a small fraction of the Earth's mass.
When i first tackled this problem i had to estimate the survivability of something much much larger and way less survivable.
Read my article either in the blog two years ago or on viewzone.com a year ago.
regards
arclein
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Douglas Schulek-Miller wrote:
Sir,
I’d like to be kept informed of what is going on here.... The reason may be apparent from my own blogpost copied in below moredruhl.blogspot.com
It is not as elegant as your post nor perhaps as well reasoned and supported by physical science hypothesis, but the conclusions are not that far different. This idea came to me after mentally ruminating on this issue for the past 6-7 years or so. After all, the pole and geographic shift is a “given”, but the idea of the entire planet moving as a whole always struck me as slightly improbable, though the evidence for physical shifts is fairly strong.
Then again, what do I know?
Thanks and cheers,
Doug Schulek-Miller
Sincerely and with best wishes/Mit freundlichen Gruessen/
Distinti Saluti/ Meilleures Salutations/ Dejjem tieghek,
Douglas Schulek-Miller, A.A., B.A., M.B.A., Ph.D., M.B.S.I.
www.experiencecorporation.com
+1 705 796 1470 – CA mobile
+1 613 983 1470 – CA mobile
+1 866 793 7314 – facsimile transmission
As the World Turns...
As long as we can remember, man has wondered how on earth, so to speak, he has become what he is. This has encompassed studies of religion, philosophies ranging from the deistic to the profane, behavioural sciences (sic), economics, physical sciences, and endless opinions. In fact, given 6 Billion people on the Globe and around the same number in history, more or less, that probably means 12 to 15 billion different opinions on what we are and how we came to be here. That might be as high as 20 Billion since there are some folks who could never make up their mind and spent their lives straddling the fences of esoteric decisions.
However, there are some things remarkably consistent amongst global cultures. One of those are the stories of a deluge, a great and watery destruction of most of humanity and its civilisations at the time. The story lives strongly in the Judeo-Christian tradition as it lives in South American and Far Eastern tales. Irrespective of the causality and rationales for the event, its happening is consistent. But what was this deluge? And, if it was a global event as is indicated, that sort of puts a damper on the Mediterranean Sea explanations for the events solely attributed to the Biblical environment. So what was it?
We have no way of knowing exactly what happened. However, there are a few other events that appear entirely disconnected, yet might have a commonality of causation and might be important in talking about the cross culturally agreed deluge. First the disconnected issues.
* Core and ice samples from the Arctic and Greenland areas show that those areas were at one time tropical environments.
* North Sea drilling rigs, while drilling for oil wells, brought up, in and amongst the rock and sand, utensils and tools from what were probably communities and civilisations – from the bottom of the North Sea?
* Magnetic rocks thrown up by volcanic action at various times in the Earth’s history show widely varying magnetic poles on the planet, quite different from the current pole alignment; some are at right angles, others at other degrees of difference – thereby proving that the planet had a different pole alignment at various times in the past than it does now.
* Under Antarctica, there is a land mass with river beds, mountains, and perhaps even frozen trees, showing it to have been a verdant and abundant land mass at some time in the past.
* Ancient maps, meaning the first maps we still have preserved, show the Antarctic land mass relatively accurately even though it wasn’t discovered for hundreds of years after the dates of the maps.
* Rich oil and gas deposits are abundant under the Arctic, though such deposits come from the remains of plants and animals associated with tropical environments millions of years ago – so what are they doing there?
* In Siberia there are fields of literally flash frozen Woolly Mammoths, Siberian Tigers, and tropical plants in full bloom. Ice ages advance over at least decades, if not centuries, so in order to get this phenomenon, whatever froze the animals and plants had to do so with almost instantaneous change, not a slow progression of time as ice ages take.
* What on earth caused Pangaea to begin to drift apart? Further, why are the plates still drifting? If you recall, the entire land mass of the earth is thought to have been a large land mass and something, sometime caused the plate or plates to separate and drift away from each other – holding the thought on the Indian sub-continent for a moment which is moving Northward and caused the Himalayas to push up – but may be due to being pushed Northward by another plate.
* We humans and most non-bacterial species live on this thin crust of the Earth – maybe six kilometres of rock and dirt in some places, more or less in other locations. Current thought is that this crust is separated from the core by a few layers of various composition, but perhaps even porous rock and sediment. Nobody knows, actually, but the implication is that under homeostatic conditions there is a relatively consistent relationship between the core and the surface, barring volcanic and earthquake activity that mostly represents activity in the outermost layers. However, it is also possible that the intervening layers are semi-solid, allowing for crust-core dislocations if the pressures are sufficiently strong. What might be sufficiently strong pressures? Obviously, the volcanic activity represents what might be termed “pressure release” from contractions in the deeper layers caused, perhaps, by internal movements as well as thermodynamic activity. The point being that the earth is not a solid spheroid, but the crust may well be homeostatically aligned with the interior but may also float upon the semi-liquid layers depending on significant gravitational or magnetic events. We just don’t know except to be relatively, somewhat certain that there is a current geographic coherence between the outer core layers and the crust.
The existence of tropical conditions in very northern environments millions of years ago is taken on by the general public – since they have been told this by convincing sounding people – to mean that the entire earth was once of a tropical condition. I think this is hokum. The angular axis of the planet almost dictates that conditions at the poles are less temperate than those along the equator – so if this was true, then the equatorial areas would have been thoroughly uninhabitable and far too warm to support life as we currently define it biologically. The records and geological records do not support this thesis since there are life records through the current equatorial climates as far back as the core samples referenced above.
An alternative, but apparently more radical proposal is that the surface of the Earth at various times through the millennia and due to significant magnetic shifts within the core and perhaps initiated or amplified externally as from solar and galactic influences, shifts. The process as I hypothesise it is that the core of the planet turns, magnetically, as it is the central magnetic influence of the planet; and, as it does so, the tenuous locational relationship between the core and crust breaks and the crust rotates in a follow the core fashion, i.e., similarly. At first, the shifting of the core is sudden and the stress on the crust is similarly catastrophic and swift, causing volcanoes, earthquakes, high winds, and the displacement of the oceans due to inertial mass effects. However, as the crust move follows the shift in the core, it travels on those semi-liquid layers much like a poorly oiled ball-bearing collar would travel on a metal rod and eventually comes to rest, but not with the exact previous location reference to the core, meaning that it likely overshoots the original positioning and continues to rotate begrudgingly until either there are structural impediments or it simply and quickly runs out of inertial energy. I actually suspect that it is structural impediments in that the crust thickness is not uniform and structural elements in the existing core-crust relationship maintain its current position. However, due to the great forces exerted by the core in its almost instantaneous shift, many of those structural relationships are broken, crushed, moved or otherwise stressed to the point where the crust moves slightly beyond its original positioning relative to the core.
This explains a number of things. First, such an event would account for the sudden breaking apart of Pangaea aeons ago and the continued movement and separation of the plates, their 'crusty' interaction often represented by earthquake patterns. But per the points above:
* If the data says Arctic areas were equatorial – then under this hypothesis, they probably were and there are, likely under the oceans, somewhere, areas that were formerly the Arctic areas of the planet. It accounts for the displacement of entire parts of the planet to new environments. Notably, this idea also accounts for drastic shifts in environments as we know happened around 60,000 years ago, as in the North African Sahara used to be productive and verdant, even rain forest type land and the reason for the sudden shift to arid conditions is unknown, though this hypothesis would account for that. Another known is that the environmental distress on the Sphinx is due to water wear, not wind and sand, so this hypothesis would account for the sudden change in conditions where it lies. This also means that the civilisation that built the Sphinx was probably destroyed in one of these shifts, meaning that intelligent civilisations on Earth predate any of the existing and popular theories of the palaeontologists. That is an entirely different can of worms. Where are their artefacts? Remember that stuff that was piped up out of the North Sea - that is one possibility in terms of the shifting land mass. Further, every time you dig into the Sahara you begin to find "stuff". Sand is an ubiquitous covering for a lot of things that may be lurking underneath - like the early statue they recently uncovered near the Pyramids, 16 inches below the surface.
* Since sea beds and land masses are likely shifted with such a move, civilisations that were formerly on dry land might now be underwater as the seas come to rest eventually after the “deluge” because excepting the highest mountains, this kind of shift would result in most land being at least temporarily covered in water as the oceans’ inertia would act like the water in one of those plastic turtle environments when you pick it up to move it, sloshing all over the plastic palm tree and gravel area above the water, then eventually watching the water returning to the pond-like area (with a thoroughly stressed little turtle bobbing around in the water).
* The resulting volcanic activity would throw up new rock, taking on the polarity of the new bipolar environment as it hardened, thus explaining the inconsistent polarity directions evidenced in various rock formations on the planet.
* Under this hypothesis, the current land mass under Antarctica could have been in a relatively temperate climate prior to a major re-alignment. There are some who believe that it might be the lost Atlantis – but we’ll have to wait for the next change to investigate that – whomever is left, that is.
* One might presume that the ancient maps were copied, as we know they were, from earlier maps upon which a thriving continent was known in the location currently taken by Antarctica – the only question is where is North in this equation? We have always turned the maps so that they reflect the current polar situation, but what if they were drawn originally at right angles to the orientation that was in force when they were copied? This assumes that somehow, in some way, a map from pre-shift times survived the catastrophe that destroyed most of the remnants of the previous civilisation. It is possible, surely, and that map became the basis for all maps copied off it after that – accounting for the existence of the Antarctic mass, but this ancient map would have been copied in accordance with the current polar environment, rather than the environment that existed when the maps were originally drawn.
* If the current Arctic was once at the equator, then this surely accounts for all the oil deposits which are appropriate to tropical rather than frigid climates. Dinosaurs, if cold blooded as we believe, could not survive long in those environments. There is also the slight matter of land dinosaurs possibly in what is now an aquatic, but currently icy environment.
* Because of the sudden shift in the core and crust, the almost instantaneous freezing of animals and plants is explained – but this pole shift is not the centuries long process that is being touted publicly in science programs on television explaining the weakening of the dipole. No, it has to take place virtually in seconds. How can that be with such a massive structure as a planet? Well, we don’t know. However, if the core is molten and the forces around its dipole change suddenly, then how long is the piece of string that represents the time it takes the core to swirl and shift? It can be either agonisingly slow or almost instantaneous since we believe it is a molten ball, not a semi-liquid square, eh? It takes that kind of instant movement to produce the effects we see in Siberia. Therefore, I think we can conclude that when it happens, it happens – now! The consequences of this on the crust level are pretty obvious: everything falls. People, animals, monuments, trees, buildings, baby prams, fences, everything that has a certain mass above the ground probably meets it (the ground) in less than the Newtonian calculation for a gravitational fall because there are forces acting here in supra relative to normal gravity. The next moment the animals and people may regain their standing position, only to confront raging winds, instantly strong storms, and if on normal land, an immediately impending onrush of water that sweeps everything that is not thoroughly fastened down to something unmovable to somewhere else as the ocean masses react with their inertial movement; first rushing over land as the land is swept under it, so to speak, then rushing back to some extent as it takes on the inertia of the shift and sweeps back and over land masses which were initially left "high and dry" so to speak. Eventually, this inertial energy subsides and water seeks, in part anyway, to return to lower cavities where it was, if the cavities are still there. Not all the oceans will return to the seabed. Some of it will find places to settle on what was formerly raised land. However, by the time the ocean sweeps everything away, there won’t be much left where it was excepting the mountains, mostly, and probably not all of them. Given the propensity of man to build tall buildings, whether the oceans hit them or not, they’ll fall with the first turn. Thus, the Tower of Babel, perhaps?
* Given these forces, what is the likelihood that the Isthmus of Panama will still attach what used to be North and South America when this happens? What will happen to the Indonesian archipelago? Many parts of the seabed could rise in this circumstance and great, new land masses appear from nowhere. Similarly, land masses fall into the sea as the under-crust support for that land disappears. One theorist foresees that the next shift will witness much of the sea between Australia and New Zealand disappearing, giving way to land; while most of Europe will become an archipelago itself, sparing the Alps, Pyrenees, and larger mountain ranges. This hypothesis certainly covers the idea that a sufficient shock was delivered with one shift aeons ago that broke Pangaea apart or freed up its separate plates which began to drift for countless millennia to their current locations.
* While not part of the original thought process, such a large, 90 degree shift could also account for the mass die-off of Dinosaurs (or one of the other mass extinctions known in prehistoric palaeontology) in that their previously equatorial environment was no longer habitable when it became frigid as the Arctic or Antarctic environment.
Now, it is also very possible that such shifts such as the one which literally turned the world on its side are few and far between with smaller shifts occurring occasionally. The smaller shifts would still bring catastrophic effects, though they would probably not likely wipe out most of the indigenous life excepting that in unprotected circumstances or living in tall buildings. I’m not kidding with the Tower of Babel reference, above. While the Lord may do things occasionally, he might not have to if he allows physics and natural forces to work for Him (apologies to Bill Cosby).
As a side light and for those of you who research ancient symbolism, one of the most ancient is the double circle, one inside the other. Well, if this hypothesis is correct, then this could well be a symbolic representation of the actual construction of the Earth and its tendency to shift like a ball bearing sleeve inside another circle that moves with it. We live on the outer circle and the inner one is the Earth’s core. And if truly ancient, the symbol could well be the warning of being mindful of the ability of the planet to turn without much warning.
This hypothesis may be fairly radical and may only be consistent in terms of the circumstantial evidence – but since nobody has any concrete contradictory data at this time this option is probably as rational as anything else we have; in particular, it beats the zany idea that the Arctic was once tropical since that would make equatorial living impossible for the spectrum of animal life that was living on the planet at the time. However, what this means for today and the near future is interesting.
One of the projections we have seen is that the Winter Solstice of 2012 corresponds to the precise time when the Earth will be at its apogee in reference to the Galactic plane, virtually sticking up there for the entire maelstrom of galactic and solar magnetic flows to do with it what they will. And what they might do is re-align the poles that have been showing an increasingly weaker and erratic dipole strength for years.
Now in almost every hypothesis there is a “plug” factor, something like the balancing fund account used to offset accounting problems until the source of the imbalance is found. In this hypothesis the “plug” factor is the idea that due to the magnetic influence and flow from the Sun, the Earth is virtually required to maintain the North-South polar relationship just about the way it is – North is up and South is down; tilted at 23 degrees is handy, but polar direction is deemed absolute. Otherwise, the poles could just as well be at about the 45th degree of Latitude – and that just doesn’t make sense if you think about it for a while. People may already know this but Druhl doesn’t – yet – and he posits that the polar direction has to remain stable in reference to the solar wind and magnetic flow from the Sun. Given that static position, then, the only way that we can have different directions for the magnetic flow on the earth, as verified in those rocks, remember?, is that the crust turns. Druhl just can’t see another alternative except that the entire planet turns as one - which may have happened, but the shifting crust makes more sense at this time. However, back to The Date.
So, when the Earth is sitting up above the plane of the Galaxy, it will have completed the cycle that the Mayans determined for the Earth’s position when their calendar started. Indeed, the calendar simply starts over, but what effects will the Earth experience in that position? It has only been 30-some thousand years or so since the US was in this galactic position, so there wasn’t any great turbulence as great as that which tore apart Pangaea because that change has taken aeons. By this logic, then, there could well be a shift in the poles and a concomitant shift of the crust. The degree of shift and its ferocity with respect to living things on the planet cannot be estimated, but there will be an effect if this hypothesis is correct.
There is another theory being bandied about, though. There is this theory, strongly believed in some circles, of Planet X: one with an elliptical orbit with a cycle time of around 3200 years – and they say that it, too, is expected back and to pass close by right about the same time. Some folks say that it is expected to smash right into the Earth this time. Druhl is not convinced of that one. However, Druhl could be convinced that this planet, if it exists and is twice the size of Earth, was sufficient to shift the crust far more fully than the simple dipole shift could do if it passed close enough. The combined forces of a dipole shift and gravitational pull could have been influential in turning the planet’s crust by 90 degrees. However, this is far more conjecture than the hypothesis can support at this time, though it accounts for the massive shift that tore Panagea apart.
Further discussion and revisions of this hypothesis will be posted when Druhl knows more than he does today, 27th February 2009. Druhl will accept ideas, discussions, and polite disagreements based on facts at enlightenthepeople@gmail.com