OK Nancy, Where Is It?
Nancy Lieder
> Use Google and search for what a richter 15 earthquake
> would do to this planet. Not even the thougest bacteria
> or amoeba would survive it.
First off, Richter is dependent upon SCOPE, as well as intensity. I
note from my Britannica that there have been several Richter 8.5 or 8.6
recorded, as follows:
8.7 1811 New Madrid
8.6 1905 Kasmir
8.6 1906 Chili
8.5 1920 Chile
8.5 1960 Chile
Chile is still standing, folks living through all that. If all of South
America were to likewise rock and roll (10 times what hit Chile), they
would not all be dead. Since you're such an adolescent, Stig, I'll
describe this all in terms he can relate to.
- For instance, you may stomp across the floor, making the vase on the
table jiggle, and this is Richter 2.
- If you stumble and fall against the table, you may tip the vase over,
a Richter 3.
- If you throw a fit because your mother yelled at your about being
clumsy, and gave the table a shove, causing the vase to roll off the
table and drop and crash to the floor, a Richter 4.
- Should your father, coming home in his Mack truck, hear you and your
mother arguing again, and while cursing at you and stomping hit foot
accidentally floor it and drive the truck through poarch into the living
room, causing the table AND the vase to shove forward, a Richter 5.
- Should the engine block crack and the heat of the spewing water ignite
the gas tank, causing the truck to explode and blowing the walls of the
house outward, simultaneously moving the table and vase a bit further
out than they were before, a Richter 6.
- If simultaneously the gaslines under the street ignite and explode,
causing the houses along the street to heave and bucket, a Richter 7,
etc.
Now, the effect on the vase is one thing, what is going on about the
vase another. The vase either jiggles or falls over or flies off the
table and falls to the floor or is blown for several feet before
smashing into something. Pretend the vase is YOU. If you, as the vase,
lay on the ground and ROLL instead of fly and smash, you may get by with
a crack or two. Someone comes by after it's all over and find you, the
vase, with a crack, amid the rubble, and would they say "amazing,
because with a Richter 7, NOTHING should survive!". If so, WRONG. This
is what the Zetas have said about surviving the quakes:
The earthquakes will essentially level all cities, and of
course railways, landing strips, and highways and
bridges will be unusable. Don't figure on any power or
water systems to be functional, and the telephones
will surely be permanently dead. Practically speaking,
one should shield any mechanical or electrical devices
one hopes to use after the cataclysms with extensive
padding such as rubber mats. Wrap everything as
though it were going to be dropped from a height of
500 feet. Test this, and see if your device survives. If
not, then sturdier devices may be required. Independent
power sources, such as windmills, need to be secured.
Batteries may be handy, but won't last long and will
not be replaceable. Your mechanical and electrical
structures will suffer damage from violent earthquakes
more than your flesh and bones. You may bruise and
break, but you heal. Your electrical device will stay
broken. When the earthquakes are expected, lie flat.
In this way you will skid and slide a few feet.
Standing, or positioned at a height, you will be dashed.
And by all means, do not be under a structure that
will fall upon and crush you.
ZetaTalk, Safety Measures
(http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p48.htm)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Nancy Lieder
> The problem with moving the crust over a several
> hours is that the imparted energy does not disappear;
> energy can be neither created nor distroyed. The
> energy imparted to move the crust must be dissipated
> by the crust as it slows to its new postion.
The Zetas have said:
Where mountain building occurs when the plates stop
moving, the stoppage is not simply a sudden jolt, like
a car hitting a brick wall. All is in motion, and the
stoppage is more like a car hitting a barrier of sand
filled plastic barrels - a series of small jolts, occurring
in quick succession.
ZetaTalk, Pole Shift
(http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p21.htm)
Since you're missing the point, and are an intelligent man, they wish to
expand on this a bit.
When riding in a train, where ALL are moving at 60
mph, do you devastate and KILL a fellow passenger
whom you happen to jossle while walking to the wash
room? This jossle is no more devastating than any
other, because you are BOTH moving. Translate this
to the crust of the Earth, pulled into motion en mass
when the core suddenly moves into opposition with
the passing Planet X. ALL are in motion. When the
impetus to move stops and slowing begins, does this
results in a sudden stop? It results in a series of
bumpings, where the strong parts of the Earth's crust
survive intact and the weak points give way and
crumble. Places where plates are already subducting
have the drama scripted for them as the forward force
cause the subducting plates to drive further UNDER -
an increase in mountain building. Since the Pacific
is deep and water has less resistance than land, the
Pacific will shorten. The push of solid plates into this
void will cause the subducting plates around the
Pacific to move futher than they would under the
earthquakes in man's recent memory. Once a break
is established, between plates, this tends to become
the weak point where the stress if directed.
Regardless, the motion stops not in a jolt, but in a
series of bumps, such that each stoppage is softened
because it reverts into motion forward again.
ZetaTalk
Greg Neill
news:3C52F976...@zetatalk.com...
> In Article <a210lg$i9v$1...@oslo-nntp.eunet.no> Stig Bull wrote:
> > Use Google and search for what a richter 15 earthquake
> > would do to this planet. Not even the thougest bacteria
> > or amoeba would survive it.
>
> First off, Richter is dependent upon SCOPE, as well as intensity. I
> note from my Britannica that there have been several Richter 8.5 or 8.6
> recorded, as follows:
> 8.7 1811 New Madrid
> 8.6 1905 Kasmir
> 8.6 1906 Chili
> 8.5 1920 Chile
> 8.5 1960 Chile
> Chile is still standing, folks living through all that. If all of South
> America were to likewise rock and roll (10 times what hit Chile), they
> would not all be dead. Since you're such an adolescent, Stig, I'll
> describe this all in terms he can relate to.
You know nothing. You do not understand the consequences of a
logarithmic scale. You do not understand the phenomenal difference
that it implies between a magnitude 8.5 and a magnitude 15 event.
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html
http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/Input/lahr/magnitude/energy_calc.html
A magnitude 12 event releases enough energy to split the Earth in two
right through the center. A magnitude 15 event is some 1000 times
more powerful. We're talking on the order of 500 billion megatons of
TNT. Think of it as 500 billion one megaton atomic blasts taking place
evenly spread through the crust of the earth. We're talking magma soup.
Greg Neill
> In Article <CGF18.6339$k86.1...@weber.videotron.net> Greg Neill wrote:
> > The problem with moving the crust over a several
> > hours is that the imparted energy does not disappear;
> > energy can be neither created nor distroyed. The
> > energy imparted to move the crust must be dissipated
> > by the crust as it slows to its new postion.
>
> The Zetas have said:
>
> Where mountain building occurs when the plates stop
> moving, the stoppage is not simply a sudden jolt, like
> a car hitting a brick wall. All is in motion, and the
> stoppage is more like a car hitting a barrier of sand
> filled plastic barrels - a series of small jolts, occurring
> in quick succession.
> ZetaTalk, Pole Shift
> (http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p21.htm)
>
You have no concept of the energies involved, and the difference
that time of expenditure has on the temperatures resulting from
energy being converted to heat. If the total energy release by
the impact of techtonic plates were to be released over a period
of days rather than millions of years, there would be vaporized
rocks instead of mountains.
[snip pointless babble]
Stig Bull
> In Article <a210lg$i9v$1...@oslo-nntp.eunet.no> Stig Bull wrote:
>> Use Google and search for what a richter 15 earthquake
>> would do to this planet. Not even the thougest bacteria
>> or amoeba would survive it.
>
> First off, Richter is dependent upon SCOPE, as well as intensity. I
> note from my Britannica that there have been several Richter 8.5 or 8.6
> recorded, as follows:
> 8.7 1811 New Madrid
> 8.6 1905 Kasmir
> 8.6 1906 Chili
> 8.5 1920 Chile
> 8.5 1960 Chile
> Chile is still standing, folks living through all that. If all of South
> America were to likewise rock and roll (10 times what hit Chile), they
> would not all be dead. Since you're such an adolescent, Stig, I'll
> describe this all in terms he can relate to.
I am perfectly aware of the fact that neither you or any of your minions do
understand the Richter scale, and thus have absolutely no idea of how much
energy is released for each step on the scale.
You have countless times demonstrated your total lack of knowledge which
even most teenagers posess today.
Why not just agree that you are making a total fool of yourself (and
embarassing yourself AND your cult) every day, and just admit that you're
a) plain wrong
and
b) absolutely without knowledge.
That would probably do us all good.
[ I snipped your usual ramblings which I didn't even bother to read in the
first place. ]
--
Stig Bull
No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this electronic
message. To reduce download time, this message is made of 100% recycled
bytes.
NancySux
> > The problem with moving the crust over a several
> > hours is that the imparted energy does not disappear;
> > energy can be neither created nor distroyed. The
> > energy imparted to move the crust must be dissipated
> > by the crust as it slows to its new postion.
>
Shaddap you lying old fraud. There are no fucking zetas. You are just
a crazy old kook and leader of a third-rate doomsday cult.
The truth about Nutty Nancy Lieder can be found here:
http://www.kook-watch.net/nancy/
NancySux
jrla...@shell.golden.net
NancySux <nanc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message news:<3C52F994...@zetatalk.com>...
>> In Article <CGF18.6339$k86.1...@weber.videotron.net> Greg Neill wrote:
>> > The problem with moving the crust over a several
>> > hours is that the imparted energy does not disappear;
>> > energy can be neither created nor distroyed. The
>> > energy imparted to move the crust must be dissipated
>> > by the crust as it slows to its new postion.
>>
>> The Zetas have said:[SLAP!]
>
>Shaddap you lying old fraud. There are no fucking zetas. You are just
>a crazy old kook and leader of a third-rate doomsday cult.
Shouldn't that be lieder? :-) Sorry, couldn't help it!
What's Nancy going to do when her planet doesn't show up? Maybe we should
start a pool!
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
Michael L. Cunningham
>
> In Article <CGF18.6339$k86.1...@weber.videotron.net> Greg Neill wrote:
> > The problem with moving the crust over a several
> > hours is that the imparted energy does not disappear;
> > energy can be neither created nor distroyed. The
> > energy imparted to move the crust must be dissipated
> > by the crust as it slows to its new postion.
>
> The Zetas have said:
>
> Where mountain building occurs when the plates stop
> moving, the stoppage is not simply a sudden jolt, like
> a car hitting a brick wall. All is in motion, and the
> stoppage is more like a car hitting a barrier of sand
> filled plastic barrels - a series of small jolts, occurring
> in quick succession.
> ZetaTalk, Pole Shift
> (http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p21.htm)
>
> Since you're missing the point, and are an intelligent man, they wish to
> expand on this a bit.
"They" need to pass high school science first.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand Am GT
e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre
Sept. 11, 2001
Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war!
Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
"If you want to be counted... stand up!
If you want to be heard... speak up!
If you want to be appreciated... shut up!"
We've been notified by Building Security that there
have been 4 suspected terrorists working at our office.
Three of the four have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin,
Bin Loafin, and Bin Drinkin have been taken into
custody. Security advised us that they could find no
one fitting the description of the fourth cell member,
Bin Workin, in our office.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Nancy Lieder
> Nancy Lieder (zeta...@zetatalk.com) wrote:
>> Where mountain building occurs when the plates
>> stop moving, the stoppage is not simply a sudden jolt,
>> like a car hitting a brick wall. All is in motion, and
>> the stoppage is more like a car hitting a barrier of sand
>> filled plastic barrels - a series of small jolts, occurring
>> in quick succession.
>> ZetaTalk, Pole Shift
>> (http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p21.htm)
>
> the difference that time of expenditure has on the
> temperatures resulting from energy being converted
> to heat. If the total energy release by the impact of
> techtonic plates were to be released over a period
> of days rather than millions of years, there would
> be vaporized rocks instead of mountains.
Speaking from experience, Greg? No?
Then perhaps you'd consider contemplating the GEOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE that these types of "energies" affected the globe as a whole
just some 3,600 years ago. Or do you have another explanation for the
following, done in several postings, which are not speculation but DATA.
Earth in Upheaval, Tidal Wave, by Velikovsky
Fissures in the rocks .. all over western Europe, are
choked with bones of animals, some of extinct races,
others, though of the same age, of races still surviving.
The bones .. are mostly broken and splintered into
innumerable sharp fragments and are evidently not
those of animals devoured by beasts of prey. The
Rock of Gibraltar is intersected by numerous crevices
filled with bones. The bones are broken and splintered.
The remains of panther, lynx, caffir-cat, hyena, wolf,
bear, rhinoceros, horse, wild boar, red deer, fallow
deer, ibex, ox, hare, rabbit, have been found in these
ossiferous fissures. On Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily
the broken bones of animals choke the fissures in the
rocks. The state of preservation of the bones indicates
that the animals, all of them, perished in the same
period of time. No hardened animal feces were found,
indicating that the dead beasts had not lived in these
hollows or fissures. No teeth marks of hyena or of
any other animal are found in the osseous mass. The
bones are those of animals of all ages down to the
fetus, nor do they show traces of weathering or
exposure. The extremely fresh condition of the
bones, proved by the retention of so large a
proportion of animal matter, shows that the event
was, geologically, comparatively recent. The fact that
animals of all ages were involved in the catastrophe
shows it to have been sudden.
Earth in Upheaval, Whales in the Mountains, by Velikovsky
Bones of whale have been found 440 feet above sea
level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another
whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500
feet above sea level; and still another in the
Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level.
Although the Humphrey whale and beluga occasionally
enter the mouth of the St. Lawrence, they do not climb
hills. To account for the presence of whales in the hills
of Vermont and Montreal, at elevations of 500 and
600 feet, requires the lowering of the land to that
extent. The accepted theory is that the land in the
region of Montreal and Vermont was depressed more
than 600 feet by the weight of ice and kept in this
position for a while after the ice melted. Another
solution would be for an ocean tide, carrying the
whales, to have trespassed upon the land. But along
the coast of Nova Scotia and New England stumps
of trees stand in water, telling of once forested
country that (has since become) submerged. And
opposite the mouths of the St. Lawrence and the
Hudson rivers are deep (land) canyons stretching
for hundreds of miles into the ocean. These indicate
that the land (has become) sea, being depressed in
post-glacial times. Then did both processes go on
simultaneously, in neighboring areas, here up, there
down?
Q: How is it, other than via flood tides rising hundreds of feet, that
these whale bones got deposited on mountain tops? How, if not by great
waves smashing dead/drown animals into the crevices, several hundred
feet above today's sea level, did those bone conglomerations come into
existence?
Nancy Lieder
Fossil tusks of the mammoth - an extinct elephant -
were found in northern Siberia and brought southward
to markets at a very early time. Northern Siberia
provided more than half the world's supply of ivory,
many piano keys and many billiard balls being made
from the fossil tusks of mammoths. In 1797 the body
of a mammoth, with flesh, skin, and hair, was found
in northeastern Siberia. The flesh had the
appearance of freshly frozen beef; it was edible, and
wolves and sled dogs fed on it without harm. The
ground must have been frozen ever since the day of
their entombment; had it not been frozen, the bodies
of the mammoths would have putrefied in a single
summer, but they remained unspoiled for some
thousands of years. In some mammoths, when
discovered, even the eyeballs were still preserved.
[All] this shows that the cold became suddenly
extreme .. and knew no relenting afterward. In the
stomachs and between the teeth of the mammoths
were found plants and grasses that do not grow
now in northern Siberia .. [but are] .. now found
in southern Siberia. Microscopic examination of
the skin showed red blood corpuscles, which
was proof not only of a sudden death, but that the
death was due to suffocation either by gases or
water.
Raising the Mammoth, Discovery Channel, 12 Mar 2000
Last October, amid the bitterness of the Siberian
tundra, the carcass of a male woolly mammoth
was lifted out of the ground where it had been
frozen for more than 23,000 years. Soon scientists
hope to begin searching that long-dead body for
clues of an ancient world. The effort of the team
led by French explorer Bernard Buigues to dig out
the frozen block of earth containing the mammoth,
then carry it almost 300 kilometers by a giant
helicopter, was only a first step. After spending
the winter above ground, the huge chunk of tundra
and mammoth will soon be moved inside an ice
cave in Khatanga, Siberia. There, a group of
scientists will slowly begin thawing small
sections of the animal and permafrost to look
back into the world in which mammoths lived.
Intact Mammoth to be Carved from Siberian Tundra
Reuters, 23 Jul 1999
An adult woolly mammoth mummified 23,000
years ago under Siberia's frozen tundra will be dug
out of the permafrost and may one day be cloned,
an international team of scientists said on Thursday.
In a scenario worthy of the fictional, cloned
dinosaurs in the "Jurassic Park" movies, French
explorer Bernard Buigues said the intact soft tissues
and the hair of the Jarkov mammoth held out the
possibility of recovering intact DNA. "It will be
interesting to know the habits of this animal and
what he was doing in this place that was a very
difficult place to live," Buigues said in a
teleconference with reporters from southwestern
South Dakota, a center for fossil finds. "In the
pictures we have, you see all the kinds of hair that
the mammoth has. The colour is intact," said
Buigues, who is affiliated with the National
History Museum of France. "The smell of the
skin is also there." ... This adult specimen is
different from others found in Siberia and
elsewhere because scientists will be able to
examine grass and other flora that were preserved
with it, and possibly recover organs and even
sperm. Many of the plants mammoths were
known to eat on the mountainous steppes of
what is now the North American Rocky
Mountains and Siberia are known to still exist,
but the mystery of the mammoth's extinction
persists, the scientists said. "In general, we
know a lot about the woolly mammoth from
(mostly skeletal) specimens found in France,
Spain and Russia," said Dick Mol, another
member of the team who is affiliated with the
Natuurmuseum in the Netherlands. "If we can
find more material of the woolly mammoth,
including soft parts such as the ears and the
tail, we can learn much more," he said.
Q: How is it that grasslands and the herbivors munching on them were
frozen solid, with no melting afterwards, as through the crust from
southern siberia had beenmoved suddenly into the polar circle?
Nancy Lieder
Science Frontiers #101 Sep-Oct 1995, by William R. Corliss
A decade ago, a trio of geophysicists published a
group of papers based on their measurements of the
remnant magnetism of the 16-million-year-old
layered lava flows at Steens Mountain, Oregon.
(SF#45) At that time, they claimed that these finely
bedded lava flows testified that, during a field
reversal, the earth's field swung around at the
astonishing rate of 3° per day! This rate is about
one thousand times the current rate of polar drift.
Mainstream geophysicists could not believe the
3°/day figure because it implied incredibly rapid
changes in the flow of those molten materials
within the earth that supposedly generate the
geomagnetic field. The Steens Mountain data were
"tabled"; that is, dismissed. The three researchers,
though, continued their labors at Steens Mountain
and have now offered additional, even more
impressive data. They now find that the
geomagnetic field probably shifted as much as 6°
in a single day. Their work has been carried
forward so professionally and meticulously that
other scientists are finding their conclusions harder
and harder to dismiss. Instead, the search is on
for explanations of the rapid field changes.
Three possibilities have been advanced - all of
them unpalatable to geophysicists:
- The Steens Mountain rocks are not faithful
recorders of the main geomagnetic field.
Should this be actually so, the whole field of
paleomagnetism, including plate tectonics, is
undermined, for it depends upon similar
measurements.
- The earth's molten core can change rapidly, at
least in some regions, in response to forces still
unrecognized. This, of course, is not really a
satisfying "explanation."
- The dynamo theory of the origin of the
geomagnetic field is incorrect.
Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics
During the 1950's, at least partly driven by the
military need to understand the ocean as the
arena of submarine warfare, intensive studies
of the ocean floor were carried out. It was found
that the center of each major ocean was occupied
by a ridge at whose center was a valley. On each
side of this, parallel stripes of rocks magnetized
in opposite directions were found. The pattern
of stripes on one side was the mirror image of
the pattern on the other side. The reversal of the
earth's magnetic field recorded in the rocks was
repeated on each side of the ridge. This led
H. H. Hess (1960) to propose the idea of sea-floor
spreading. Molten rock is continuously extruded
and cools to form the ridge. As it solidifies, it
records the magnetic field at that time. Since it
spreads to each side of the ridge, each side has
the same record magnetic field record (one is
the mirror image of the other). Since new crust
is being formed at the ridges, it must be
consumed somewhere. Hess proposed that his
happens at deep sea trenches, where oceanic
crust "dives" under a continent.
Q: Since lava hardens quickly, how can the core of the Earth be
dictating a different direction for the magnetic field in the hardening
lava unless the crust is shifted between these great volcanic outbursts
and period when the oceanic rifts are ripped apart?
Nancy Lieder
R.A. Daly observed that in a great many places all
around the world there is a uniform emergence of
the shore line of 18 to 20 feet. In the southwest
Pacific, on the islands belonging to the Samoan
group but spread over two hundred miles, the same
emergence is evident. Nearly halfway around the
world, at St. Helena in the South Atlantic, the lava
is punctuated by dry sea caves, the floors of which
are covered with water-worn pebbles, now dusty
because untouched by the surf. The emergence
there is also 20 feet. At the Cape of Good Hope
caves and beaches also prove recent and sensibly
uniform emergence to the extent of about 20 feet.
Marine terraces, indicating similar emergence, are
found along the Atlantic coast from New York to
the Gulf of Mexico; for at least 1,000 miles along
the coast of eastern Australia; along the coasts of
Brazil, southwest Africa, and many islands in the
Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. The
emergence is recent as well as of the same order
of magnitude, (20 feet). Judging from the condition
of beaches, terraces, and caves, the emergence
seems to have been simultaneous on every shore.
In (Daly's) opinion the cause lies in the sinking of
the level of all seas on the globe. Alternatively,
Daly thinks it could have resulted from a
deepening of the oceans or from an increase in
their areas. Of special interest is the time of the
change. Daly estimated the sudden drop of
oceanic level to (have occurred) some 3,000 to
4,000 years ago.
Q: What force, other than a total globe shaking (Richter 15 due to the
scope of the quake, as Richter includes both intensity and scope of area
affected) would cause the ocean rifts to separate so the water could
drop 16-20' worldwide?
Nancy Lieder
> Nancy Lieder (zeta...@zetatalk.com) wrote:
>> survive because they travel with the moving plates
>> of the Earth and experience no more severe a
>> shock when the plates stop moving than they
>> would during a Richter 9 earthquake. Where
>> mountain building ..
>
> Of course Nancy does not understand that there
> has probably not been a Richter 9 earthquake in
> the recorded history of mankind. If there were, and
> it was worldwide, there would not be a building
> left standing anywhere.
Well, not QUITE true, as the pyramids still stand and Stonehenge in the
main, but great cities worldwide tumble and lie in ruins after a major
shift, indeed. I wouldn't be in one of OUR great cities in late
Spring/early Summer 2003 either. There is NO explanation for the demise
of the great cities of China, when the ruins are found, or those in
South and Central American, when the ruins are found. People speculate
that weather affected crops growing in the area, or disease, or warfare,
or whatever caused relocation and die-off. But it's speculation. The
LAST thing to be considered is a globe shaking, crust moving, pole
shift. Too scary...
The Earth bears witness to the cataclysms in her past
and their periodic occurrence. Beyond her deep wound
in the Pacific basin, and beyond the drift of her
continents, there are scars more palpable by man.
- Mountain cliffs, which rise sheer in many cases
thousands of feet, represent tearing of solid rock.
These stands before mankind, who even make a
hobby of scaling their heights, ignored in their
deeper meaning. Have any experiments been
done to determine how much force would be
required to tear rock of this depth? None have.
The reason lies in the equally deep desire of
mankind to avoid thinking about the Earth's
past cataclysms.
- Beneath the sea in the Bahamas lies evidence
of civilizations that went under the waves -
highways and highway markers, clearly
manmade. These areas have been explored
by many fortune hunters, recorded by camera,
and published in full color repeatedly.
Likewise ancient Incan cities stand so high in
altitude that the cities could not have been built,
much less lived in. Yet the scientific community
continues to claim that Earth changes happen
gently, inch by inch, at the pace experienced
during the memory of their current civilization.
- Antarctica bears witness to her past as a steamy
swamp, and likewise the North Seas, where oil
is extracted. Likewise the temperate regions are
scared by what is termed the Ice Ages, where
these regions were as snow and ice packed as
the poles. A clue to these changes lies in the
magnetism frozen in hardened lava, which
demonstrates that Magnetic North and South
changed now and then. Has any adequate
explanation been proffered by the scientific
community? None has, as all the explanations
have the Earth's thin crust remaining in place,
as the thought that they are standing on a raft
that can move on the sea of magma beneath
them is too frightening to contemplate.
ZetaTalk, Past Cataclysms
(http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p62.htm)
Greg Neill
news:3C5C5DB0...@zetatalk.com...
> Greg Neill (gnei...@MOVE.sympatico.ca) wrote:
> > Nancy Lieder (zeta...@zetatalk.com) wrote:
> >> Where mountain building occurs when the plates
> >> stop moving, the stoppage is not simply a sudden jolt,
> >> like a car hitting a brick wall. All is in motion, and
> >> the stoppage is more like a car hitting a barrier of sand
> >> filled plastic barrels - a series of small jolts, occurring
> >> in quick succession.
> >> ZetaTalk, Pole Shift
> >> (http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p21.htm)
> >
> > You have no concept of the energies involved, and
> > the difference that time of expenditure has on the
> > temperatures resulting from energy being converted
> > to heat. If the total energy release by the impact of
> > techtonic plates were to be released over a period
> > of days rather than millions of years, there would
> > be vaporized rocks instead of mountains.
>
> Speaking from experience, Greg? No?
>
> Then perhaps you'd consider contemplating the GEOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL
> EVIDENCE that these types of "energies" affected the globe as a whole
> just some 3,600 years ago. Or do you have another explanation for the
> following, done in several postings, which are not speculation but DATA.
[mercy snip]
Velikovsky is not data, it is fiction. Try again.
>
> Q: How is it, other than via flood tides rising hundreds of feet, that
> these whale bones got deposited on mountain tops? How, if not by great
> waves smashing dead/drown animals into the crevices, several hundred
> feet above today's sea level, did those bone conglomerations come into
> existence?
Poor Nancy. Can't understand magnitude scales, can't understand
geological timeframes, can't understand plate tectonics, mountain
building, ice ages, heat, electricity...
are there any limits to what you can't understand?
Bill Nelson
> Bill Nelson (bi...@spock.peak.org) wrote
>>
>> Of course Nancy does not understand that there
>> has probably not been a Richter 9 earthquake in
>> the recorded history of mankind. If there were, and
>> it was worldwide, there would not be a building
>> left standing anywhere.
> Well, not QUITE true, as the pyramids still stand and Stonehenge in the
> main, but great cities worldwide tumble and lie in ruins after a major
> shift, indeed. I wouldn't be in one of OUR great cities in late
All the more reason to believe that Egypt around the pyramids has not
suffered a magnitude 9 earthquake. And it would take a far less intense
earthquake to completely level Stonehenge.
> Spring/early Summer 2003 either. There is NO explanation for the demise
> of the great cities of China, when the ruins are found, or those in
> South and Central American, when the ruins are found. People speculate
Aside from abandonment and simple weathering? They certainly did not
suffer any great earthquake damage.
> that weather affected crops growing in the area, or disease, or warfare,
> or whatever caused relocation and die-off. But it's speculation. The
> LAST thing to be considered is a globe shaking, crust moving, pole
> shift. Too scary...
No, impossible without doing far more damage than has occurred.
> - Mountain cliffs, which rise sheer in many cases
> thousands of feet, represent tearing of solid rock.
> These stands before mankind, who even make a
> hobby of scaling their heights, ignored in their
> deeper meaning. Have any experiments been
> done to determine how much force would be
> required to tear rock of this depth? None have.
> The reason lies in the equally deep desire of
> mankind to avoid thinking about the Earth's
> past cataclysms.
The mechanics of mountain building are well known.
> - Beneath the sea in the Bahamas lies evidence
> of civilizations that went under the waves -
> highways and highway markers, clearly
> manmade. These areas have been explored
> by many fortune hunters, recorded by camera,
> and published in full color repeatedly.
Well, at least what people imagine are highways etc have been
photographed and published.
> Likewise ancient Incan cities stand so high in
> altitude that the cities could not have been built,
> much less lived in. Yet the scientific community
Really? What cities are these?
> - Antarctica bears witness to her past as a steamy
> swamp, and likewise the North Seas, where oil
> is extracted. Likewise the temperate regions are
> scared by what is termed the Ice Ages, where
> these regions were as snow and ice packed as
So what?
> the poles. A clue to these changes lies in the
> magnetism frozen in hardened lava, which
> demonstrates that Magnetic North and South
> changed now and then. Has any adequate
> explanation been proffered by the scientific
> community? None has, as all the explanations
Yes. There is no mystery to the changing in the magnetic north
and south pole shifts or reversals.
This is far different that the physical north and south poles
moving.
> have the Earth's thin crust remaining in place,
> as the thought that they are standing on a raft
> that can move on the sea of magma beneath
> them is too frightening to contemplate.
Not frightening at all. The mechanism of crustal plate movement
is well known - and easily measured.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
>Bill Nelson (bi...@spock.peak.org) wrote
>> Nancy Lieder (zeta...@zetatalk.com) wrote:
>>> survive because they travel with the moving plates
>>> of the Earth and experience no more severe a
>>> shock when the plates stop moving than they
>>> would during a Richter 9 earthquake. Where
>>> mountain building ..
>>
>> Of course Nancy does not understand that there
>> has probably not been a Richter 9 earthquake in
>> the recorded history of mankind. If there were, and
>> it was worldwide, there would not be a building
>> left standing anywhere.
>
>Well, not QUITE true, as the pyramids still stand and Stonehenge in the
>main, but great cities worldwide tumble and lie in ruins after a major
>shift, indeed. I wouldn't be in one of OUR great cities in late
>Spring/early Summer 2003 either.
Hey Nancy, you old fraud. Please have your excuses ready for Summer
2003, as you can be sure I will taunt you immediately thereafter.
Aren't you the same fool who got all twitterpated over Hale-Bopp?
Still peddling the same fabrications I see.
If some idjit takes their own life because they believe your
prognostications, will you be prepared to take responsibility?
<snip>
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Sarah Mc
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 15:46:15 -0600, Nancy Lieder <na...@zetatalk.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Bill Nelson (bi...@spock.peak.org) wrote
> >> Nancy Lieder (zeta...@zetatalk.com) wrote:
> >>> survive because they travel with the moving plates
> >>> of the Earth and experience no more severe a
> >>> shock when the plates stop moving than they
> >>> would during a Richter 9 earthquake. Where
> >>> mountain building ..
> >>
> >> Of course Nancy does not understand that there
> >> has probably not been a Richter 9 earthquake in
> >> the recorded history of mankind. If there were, and
> >> it was worldwide, there would not be a building
> >> left standing anywhere.
> >
> >Well, not QUITE true, as the pyramids still stand and Stonehenge in the
> >main, but great cities worldwide tumble and lie in ruins after a major
> >shift, indeed. I wouldn't be in one of OUR great cities in late
> >Spring/early Summer 2003 either.
>
>
> Hey Nancy, you old fraud. Please have your excuses ready for Summer
> 2003, as you can be sure I will taunt you immediately thereafter.
>
> Aren't you the same fool who got all twitterpated over Hale-Bopp?
>
> Still peddling the same fabrications I see.
>
> If some idjit takes their own life because they believe your
> prognostications, will you be prepared to take responsibility?
She'd better be. If I hear one single person "offing" themselves to
gain access to the Zeta "lift", I'll be making more phone calls to the
authorities than she can shake a stick at. I'll make sure she she
takes the blame for any life lost due to her irresponsible behavior
and scams. I wonder if they allow "worm beds" in prison?
Michael L. Cunningham
> Q: How is it, other than via flood tides rising hundreds of feet, that
> these whale bones got deposited on mountain tops? How, if not by great
> waves smashing dead/drown animals into the crevices, several hundred
> feet above today's sea level, did those bone conglomerations come into
> existence?
Gee! Maybe Velikovsky is just plain stupid an knows nothing about
fossils. Maybe you're just plain stupid for believing him too.
Michael L. Cunningham
>
> Almost Inconceivable Changes in the Geomagnetic Field,
> Science Frontiers #101 Sep-Oct 1995, by William R. Corliss
>
> A decade ago, a trio of geophysicists published a
> group of papers based on their measurements of the
> remnant magnetism of the 16-million-year-old
Ok I'll bite. Post a link to the data.
Michael L. Cunningham
> Well, not QUITE true, as the pyramids still stand and Stonehenge in the
> main, but great cities worldwide tumble and lie in ruins after a major
> shift, indeed. I wouldn't be in one of OUR great cities in late
> Spring/early Summer 2003 either. There is NO explanation for the demise
> of the great cities of China, when the ruins are found, or those in
> South and Central American, when the ruins are found. People speculate
> that weather affected crops growing in the area, or disease, or warfare,
> or whatever caused relocation and die-off. But it's speculation. The
> LAST thing to be considered is a globe shaking, crust moving, pole
> shift. Too scary...
> ZetaTalk, Past Cataclysms
> (http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p62.htm)
Posting your link to Zetatalk babble is not proof. Only your opinion as
the author.
Bill Nelson
>>
>> A decade ago, a trio of geophysicists published a
>> group of papers based on their measurements of the
>> remnant magnetism of the 16-million-year-old
>> layered lava flows at Steens Mountain, Oregon...
> Ok I'll bite. Post a link to the data.
Nancy keeps posting this, although it has nothing to do with
any physical pole shifts.
No one claims that the Earth has not experienced fairly sudden
MAGNETIC pole shifts. But those do not cause any physical land
movement.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
The Small Kahuna
OK, I'll bite on this one. Where is the data that shows conclusively
that it is the magnetic pole (field) that shifts and not either the
crust or the Earth's axis?
(Note, I'm looking for data, not "Gee whiz, the amount of angular
momentum would simply be tremendous, so its not *logical* that it would
be anything *but* the magnetic field because the field itself is
weightless". Actual data that demonstrates the point.)
>
> --
> Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Greg Neill
"The Small Kahuna" <per...@company.com> wrote in message
news:3C5F1879...@company.com...
> Bill Nelson wrote:
>
> OK, I'll bite on this one. Where is the data that shows conclusively
> that it is the magnetic pole (field) that shifts and not either the
> crust or the Earth's axis?
>
> (Note, I'm looking for data, not "Gee whiz, the amount of angular
> momentum would simply be tremendous, so its not *logical* that it would
> be anything *but* the magnetic field because the field itself is
> weightless". Actual data that demonstrates the point.)
Cooling magma tends to take on the magnetic orientation of
the extant field at the time that it drops below its Curie
temperature. So anywhere you find lava being laid down
over geological periods of time, you get a record of the
Earth's field direction. Ocean floor spreading is an excellent,
long term case in point. Here's a nice link:
http://geo.lsa.umich.edu/~crlb/COURSES/270/Lec12/Lec12.html
John P Darcy
> Earth in Upheaval, Tidal Wave, by Velikovsky
Velikovsky = charlatan. I hope that answers everybody's questions.
--
Cheers
John
.
Bill Nelson
>>
>> No one claims that the Earth has not experienced fairly sudden
>> MAGNETIC pole shifts. But those do not cause any physical land
>> movement.
> OK, I'll bite on this one. Where is the data that shows conclusively
> that it is the magnetic pole (field) that shifts and not either the
> crust or the Earth's axis?
> (Note, I'm looking for data, not "Gee whiz, the amount of angular
> momentum would simply be tremendous, so its not *logical* that it would
> be anything *but* the magnetic field because the field itself is
> weightless". Actual data that demonstrates the point.)
Easy. We can measure the magnetic variation, just about on a daily
basis. We also have older maps that show where the magnetic north pole
was a few decades ago - and it isn't where it is now. This shows that
the magnetic poles move.
The lava records show that there have many complete reversals of the
magnetic field - although none in recorded history (at least of which
I am aware). This is all data that is fairly easily accessed.
There has not been any shift of the Earth's axis in recorded history,
and we are talking about thousands of years time. The same is true for
crustal shifts.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
The Small Kahuna
>
> The Small Kahuna <per...@company.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> No one claims that the Earth has not experienced fairly sudden
> >> MAGNETIC pole shifts. But those do not cause any physical land
> >> movement.
>
> > OK, I'll bite on this one. Where is the data that shows conclusively
> > that it is the magnetic pole (field) that shifts and not either the
> > crust or the Earth's axis?
>
> > (Note, I'm looking for data, not "Gee whiz, the amount of angular
> > momentum would simply be tremendous, so its not *logical* that it would
> > be anything *but* the magnetic field because the field itself is
> > weightless". Actual data that demonstrates the point.)
>
> Easy. We can measure the magnetic variation, just about on a daily
> basis. We also have older maps that show where the magnetic north pole
> was a few decades ago - and it isn't where it is now. This shows that
> the magnetic poles move.
Agreed. This data proves (i.e. strongly substantiates) that the
magnetic poles move within small bounds. Other data (and historical
records of astronomical sightings) proves that the rotational axis of
(at least) the crust has not moved except in the slow precession that is
known and has been demonstrated, and this has not happened within the
past few thousand years.
> The lava records show that there have many complete reversals of the
> magnetic field - although none in recorded history (at least of which
> I am aware). This is all data that is fairly easily accessed.
Lava records show that there is a difference between the *current* frame
of reference and the magnetic field at the time the lava solidified (in
the *past*). You are comparing two valid data points but at two vastly
different times. The validity of this is based on an assumption that
the axis of rotation has remained constant. My question is not "where
is there evidence that there is (was) a differential shift between the
two axes" my question is "where is the calibration of the (presumed)
constant axis of rotation".
> There has not been any shift of the Earth's axis in recorded history,
> and we are talking about thousands of years time. The same is true for
> crustal shifts.
This point is (I believe) arguable, but even if I give it to you, this
does not prove anything except that there is no anecdotal evidence for
axis migration over a very recent time period representing an
infinitesimal percentage of the Earth's history. Are you suggesting
that Science hang its hat on the *lack* of recording? What about the
statement in the Bible about the Sun standing still and Giants of renown
in the land who were the "suns of god" commingling with the "daughters
of men"? What does Science say about either of those two "facts"? If
you ask most scientists, Biblical evidence is not evidence even though
it purports to be accurate history. You cannot have it both ways where
you pick and choose those "historical records", legends, stories and
other "records" which substantiate the assumptions you have already made
based on whether or not they support the conclusion. The historical
data (or lack thereof) may have been in the library at Alexandria (which
burned) or may have been in the Mayan Codexes (which were systematically
destroyed by the invading priests) or may be yet to be discovered.
Since so few records of *any* type exist, it is hard to even define
"recorded history".
There are lots of "historical records" and they can be used to "prove"
most anything. There are stories and legends which are echoes of
something, but what that something is, is no longer clear as the
original facts are lost in the mists of time. If one were to assume
that the crust did in fact move, it is not too much of a stretch to
imagine such an event making the maintenance of historical records
somewhat difficult, so you have a self-erasing event.
Besides, I'm sure the same basic popularity rules were in place back
then as today. Which do you think is likely to be found in 10,000
years, a Tom Clancy novel or a college text on quantum mechanics?
(Given that there are 1,000 copies of Tom Clancy for every QM text.) As
a future archeologist, what should you conclude about "recorded history"
based on finding an ancient copy of "The Hunt for Red October"?
> --
> Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Greg Neill
news:3C6044F0...@company.com...
>
> Lava records show that there is a difference between the *current* frame
> of reference and the magnetic field at the time the lava solidified (in
> the *past*). You are comparing two valid data points but at two vastly
> different times. The validity of this is based on an assumption that
> the axis of rotation has remained constant. My question is not "where
> is there evidence that there is (was) a differential shift between the
> two axes" my question is "where is the calibration of the (presumed)
> constant axis of rotation".
The lava records of sea floor spreading are essentially continuous,
like a magnetic tape recording. The spreading process is very
constant, has been going on for geological time periods, and is ongoing
today. The record is unbroken, long, and continuous.
>
> There are lots of "historical records" and they can be used to "prove"
> most anything. There are stories and legends which are echoes of
> something, but what that something is, is no longer clear as the
> original facts are lost in the mists of time. If one were to assume
> that the crust did in fact move, it is not too much of a stretch to
> imagine such an event making the maintenance of historical records
> somewhat difficult, so you have a self-erasing event.
>
> Besides, I'm sure the same basic popularity rules were in place back
> then as today. Which do you think is likely to be found in 10,000
> years, a Tom Clancy novel or a college text on quantum mechanics?
> (Given that there are 1,000 copies of Tom Clancy for every QM text.) As
> a future archeologist, what should you conclude about "recorded history"
> based on finding an ancient copy of "The Hunt for Red October"?
You're more likely to find the QM text, it having been printed on high
quality acid free paper. The TC novel is unlikely to survive the
decade without yellowing, fading, flaking, and eventually crumbling
to dust.
Artemis18
<gnei...@MOVE.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>[mercy snip]
>
>Velikovsky is not data, it is fiction. Try again.
>
On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 02:09:40 GMT, "Michael L. Cunningham"
<boge...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Gee! Maybe Velikovsky is just plain stupid an knows nothing about
>fossils. Maybe you're just plain stupid for believing him too.
Whoops, more demonstrations of a lack of knowledge. You guys have
lost your credibility long ago! But keep going because it's fun
picking you apart!
http://knowledge.co.uk/velikovsky/
"Many scientists and historians have criticised Velikovsky's works
over the years and, unfortunately, many have done so inaccurately
resulting in the public's misconception that Velikovsky was
'completely proved wrong'".
"Reviews and criticisms of Velikovsky's work have tended to be
inaccurate, inconclusive or just plainly wrong. Velikovsky did make
mistakes, but his key proposal, that in historical times mankind
witnessed global catastrophes of cosmic origin, endures with
increasing numbers of organisations and people investigating his
work."
"The topics in [Velikovsky's Earth in Upheaval] are discussed on the
basis of reports by orthodox and reputable scientists, with Velikovsky
merely acting as master of ceremonies." (Norma Macbeth, Darwin
Retried, an appeal to reason, (Ipswich, MA, 1971), pp. 110-111.)
Professor Harry H. Hess, Professorof Geology at
Princeton University, President of the American Geological
Society and Chairman of the Space Science Board of the National
Academy of Science, told Velikovsky "that he knew the book by
heart." (Immanuel Velikovsky, Stargazers & Gravediggers, (New York,
1983), p. 326.)
"When the manuscript of Earth in Upheaval was complete, I
asked Professor Jepsen to read it; he pleasantly consented, but
after a while he called me back and asked to be excused from the
task since there was opposition in the department. However, in
Professor Jepsen's paleontology course at Princeton, Earth in
Upheaval was required reading for the next two decades, from its
publication on." (Immanuel Velikovsky, Stargazers & Gravediggers,
(New York, 1983), p. 323.)
Try again, loonies!
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 18:30:24 -0500, "Greg Neill"
><gnei...@MOVE.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>[mercy snip]
>>
>>Velikovsky is not data, it is fiction. Try again.
>>
>
>On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 02:09:40 GMT, "Michael L. Cunningham"
><boge...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Gee! Maybe Velikovsky is just plain stupid an knows nothing about
>>fossils. Maybe you're just plain stupid for believing him too.
>
>Whoops, more demonstrations of a lack of knowledge. You guys have
>lost your credibility long ago! But keep going because it's fun
>picking you apart!
>
>http://knowledge.co.uk/velikovsky/
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/vlkovsky.htm
Riiiiggght and *this* site is a paragon of scientific knowledge right?
"In a short article, entitled When Was The Moon's Surface Last Molten?
Velikovsky explains away ancient radiometric dates (three to four
billion years) on lunar rock samples. Velikovsky notes, correctly,
that heat does not affect the decay rates of radioactive atoms.
Therefore, he argues, the Moon' s surface could have been largely
molten only 3500 years ago without affecting radiometric ages! Now one
critical assumption in radiometric dating is that isotopes of a given
chemical element (say Strontium 86, 87, and 88) are uniformly mixed to
begin with. This is certainly true in a liquid, like molten rock, and
even true in solid rocks at high temperatures. Heating does not affect
the decay rates of atoms like Rubidium 87, which decays to Strontium
87, but it does redistribute isotopes uniformly. Essentially, melting
a rock resets the clock to zero, and the radiometric age of a rock is
the last time its isotopes were reshuffled. If the Moon had been
molten 3500 years ago, lunar samples would yield very young ages.
Velikovsky clearly does not understand radiometric dating.
Velikovsky inverted almost everything in planetary astronomy; the
orbits of planets are believed stable, so Velikovsky makes them
unstable. Astronomers believed Venus to be temperate and Jupiter cold,
so Velikovsky makes them both hot. The Moon is considered geologically
dead, so Velikovsky makes it recently active. The principal force on
the planets is said to be gravity, so Velikovsky invokes
electromagnetic fields, too. Since astronomy in 1950 (and every other
time as well) was imperfect, some generally-accepted ideas were bound
to be wrong. If you formulate a theory that controverts many
commonly-held ideas, you are certain to be able later on to point with
pride to some spectacular cases where you were right and the experts
were wrong, especially if you have a coterie of loyal fans who are
eager to accept anything even remotely correct as a successful
prediction. There will be many more cases where you were wrong, but
then, even the experts are wrong occasionally."
And *please* don't come back with Velikovsky's claim that radiocarbon
dating is unreliable.
also, try here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-velikovsky.html
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~btcarrol/skeptic/velikov.html
http://www.unmuseum.org/velikov.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/egg-earth.html
The sad sites put together with people with a failure to think
critically in order to keep a favourite myth alive (credophiles), does
not constitute proof.
I read Velikovsky's books. Just because I read 'em, it don't make 'em
true.
>Try again, loonies!
The burden of proof is on the claimant. It's a pity you are unable to
carry that burden.
Michael L Cunningham
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 02:09:40 GMT, "Michael L. Cunningham"
> <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Gee! Maybe Velikovsky is just plain stupid an knows nothing about
> >fossils. Maybe you're just plain stupid for believing him too.
>
> Whoops, more demonstrations of a lack of knowledge. You guys have
> lost your credibility long ago! But keep going because it's fun
> picking you apart!
>
> http://knowledge.co.uk/velikovsky/
>
> Try again, loonies!
OK, I'll let you off the hook just this once. Care to tell
me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a
psychologist.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT
Nancy Lieder
> We also have older maps that show where the
> magnetic north pole was a few decades ago - and
> it isn't where it is now. This shows that the magnetic
> poles move.
Or that the CRUST moved after or during the lava hardening, and the core
realigns with the general magnetic alignment of the solar system (you
know, the Sun’s dominance, as Ulysses recorded on its last pass, NO
change in the Sun’s magnetic alignment regardless of the favorite theory
of some.)
> The lava records show that there have many complete
> reversals of the magnetic field - although none in
> recorded history (at least of which I am aware).
Or that the CRUST moves, and serious Atlantic Rift ripping or volcanic
eruptions happen during serious pole shift when the CRUST moves more
dramatically than otherwise. No recorded history? That’s because human
record keeping goes to Hell during those times. The Egyptian census,
kept religiously up to the time of the Jewish Exodus, just STOPPED after
the last passage/pole shift.
> There has not been any shift of the Earth's axis in
> recorded history, and we are talking about thousands
> of years time. The same is true for crustal shifts.
I see, and what cause the oceans of the world, WORLD WIDE, to drop
16-20”, per scientific studies done by Daly and others? Where did that
water go? Into the deepened Atlantic Rift, for one thing, I suspect.
Greg Neill (gnei...@MOVE.sympatico.ca)
> Cooling magma tends to take on the magnetic
> orientation of the extant field at the time that it
> drops below its Curie temperature. So anywhere
> you find lava being laid down over geological
> periods of time, you get a record of the Earth's
> field direction. Ocean floor spreading is an excellent,
> long term case in point. Here's a nice link:
> http://geo.lsa.umich.edu/~crlb/COURSES/270/Lec12/Lec12.html
Yup, Atlantic Rift, er, rip (http://www.zetatalk.com/info/tinfo26k.htm)
and as in the Steens Mountain data
(http://www.zetatalk.com/info/tinfo27c.htm) occuring VERY RAPIDLY,
during violent plate movement and what happens when the moving CRUST
stops!
Then there is a slide, where the crust is dragged, over
minutes, to a new location, along with the core. During
the slide, tidal waves move over the Earth along the
coast lines, as the water is not attached and can move
independently. The water tends to stay where it is, the
crust moving under it, essentially. When the core finds
itself aligned, it churns about somewhat, settling, but
the crust, more solid and in motion, proceeds on. This
is in fact where mountain building and massive
earthquakes occur, just as car crashes do their damage
on the point of impact, when motion must stop.
Weak spots among the Earth's crustal plates give way.
The Pacific Ocean will shorten, and the Atlantic widen.
Subducting plates will subduct greatly. Mountain
building will occur suddenly, primarily increasing in
areas already undergoing mountain building. All
told, the better part of an hour, but at certain stages,
only minutes.
Greg Neill
> Bill Nelson (bi...@spock.peak.org)
> > We also have older maps that show where the
> > magnetic north pole was a few decades ago - and
> > it isn't where it is now. This shows that the magnetic
> > poles move.
>
> Or that the CRUST moved after or during the lava hardening, and the core
> realigns with the general magnetic alignment of the solar system (you
> know, the Sun's dominance, as Ulysses recorded on its last pass, NO
> change in the Sun's magnetic alignment regardless of the favorite theory
> of some.)
You've not done your homework (surprise, surprise). We're not
talking about lava taces inthe above. We're talking about historical
records of magnetic bearing as recorded by cartographers over decades.
>
> > The lava records show that there have many complete
> > reversals of the magnetic field - although none in
> > recorded history (at least of which I am aware).
>
> Or that the CRUST moves, and serious Atlantic Rift ripping or volcanic
> eruptions happen during serious pole shift when the CRUST moves more
> dramatically than otherwise. No recorded history? That's because human
> record keeping goes to Hell during those times. The Egyptian census,
> kept religiously up to the time of the Jewish Exodus, just STOPPED after
> the last passage/pole shift.
Hogwash. The lava records are in-situ, linear tracings. To achieve
the observed pattern by crustal movement would require a succession
of precise 180 degree rotations, accurate to a degree or so.
>
> > There has not been any shift of the Earth's axis in
> > recorded history, and we are talking about thousands
> > of years time. The same is true for crustal shifts.
>
> I see, and what cause the oceans of the world, WORLD WIDE, to drop
> 16-20", per scientific studies done by Daly and others? Where did that
> water go? Into the deepened Atlantic Rift, for one thing, I suspect.
Straw man argument. You are conflating sea level changes with magnetic
pole shifts. There are readily understood climatic mechanisms for
sea level change.
>
> Greg Neill (gnei...@MOVE.sympatico.ca)
> > Cooling magma tends to take on the magnetic
> > orientation of the extant field at the time that it
> > drops below its Curie temperature. So anywhere
> > you find lava being laid down over geological
> > periods of time, you get a record of the Earth's
> > field direction. Ocean floor spreading is an excellent,
> > long term case in point. Here's a nice link:
> > http://geo.lsa.umich.edu/~crlb/COURSES/270/Lec12/Lec12.html
>
> Yup, Atlantic Rift, er, rip (http://www.zetatalk.com/info/tinfo26k.htm)
> and as in the Steens Mountain data
> (http://www.zetatalk.com/info/tinfo27c.htm) occuring VERY RAPIDLY,
> during violent plate movement and what happens when the moving CRUST
> stops!
The sea floor spreading is not sudden nor violent. It is a
continuous, ongoing process. Hence its usefullness as a
longterm record of magnetic orientation.
[Blathering snipped]
Bill Nelson
> Bill Nelson (bi...@spock.peak.org)
>> We also have older maps that show where the
>> magnetic north pole was a few decades ago - and
>> it isn't where it is now. This shows that the magnetic
>> poles move.
> Or that the CRUST moved after or during the lava hardening, and the core
> realigns with the general magnetic alignment of the solar system (you
> know, the Sun~Rs dominance, as Ulysses recorded on its last pass, NO
> change in the Sun~Rs magnetic alignment regardless of the favorite theory
> of some.)
The crust is always moving - a few millimeters a year. It is not enough
to account for the continuous wandering of the magnetic poles.
The magnetic poles of the Sun have no effect on the the magnetic poles
of the Earth.
Just to put a twist in your knickers - it appears that the Sun is going
though a second sunspot peak. That is not unusual, as the same was also
true in the last two cycles.
>> The lava records show that there have many complete
>> reversals of the magnetic field - although none in
>> recorded history (at least of which I am aware).
> Or that the CRUST moves, and serious Atlantic Rift ripping or volcanic
> eruptions happen during serious pole shift when the CRUST moves more
> dramatically than otherwise. No recorded history? That~Rs because human
> record keeping goes to Hell during those times. The Egyptian census,
> kept religiously up to the time of the Jewish Exodus, just STOPPED after
> the last passage/pole shift.
As has been posted before, but you either didn't notice - or chose to
ignore: The shifting of the magnetic poles has nothing to do with
crustal movement.
Further, when the magnetic pole reversals occurred, they were about
180 degrees, not the 30 degrees or so that you claim happened.
It doesn't matter if human record keeping is completely lost. The
lava record is totally sufficient.
>> There has not been any shift of the Earth's axis in
>> recorded history, and we are talking about thousands
>> of years time. The same is true for crustal shifts.
> I see, and what cause the oceans of the world, WORLD WIDE, to drop
> 16-20~T, per scientific studies done by Daly and others? Where did that
> water go? Into the deepened Atlantic Rift, for one thing, I suspect.
Your weird characters make it hard to tell what you are writing. Is that
16-20 feet? The levels have changed far more than that with the changes
in the thickness of the ice caps and glacier sizes. And this drop would
be worldwide.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
josX
<a42qpj$s4c$7...@quark.scn.rain.com>:
>Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
>> Bill Nelson (bi...@spock.peak.org)
>>> We also have older maps that show where the
>>> magnetic north pole was a few decades ago - and
>>> it isn't where it is now. This shows that the magnetic
>>> poles move.
>
>> Or that the CRUST moved after or during the lava hardening, and the core
>> realigns with the general magnetic alignment of the solar system (you
>> know, the Sun~Rs dominance, as Ulysses recorded on its last pass, NO
>> change in the Sun~Rs magnetic alignment regardless of the favorite theory
>> of some.)
>
>The crust is always moving - a few millimeters a year. It is not enough
>to account for the continuous wandering of the magnetic poles.
Alice says: "gosh, that looks like a flower who needs water!"
Andrew replies: "no, water flows up and down with the tides, it has nothing
to do with spring or summer"
Smart boy, Andrew, but it didn't apply to the problem.
>The magnetic poles of the Sun have no effect on the the magnetic poles
>of the Earth.
That remains to be seen. First off, it sounds very unlikely, given that
Earth is continually in the magnetic field of the Sun, and the Earth
has probably no preference for this or that way of it's own accord.
>Just to put a twist in your knickers - it appears that the Sun is going
>though a second sunspot peak. That is not unusual, as the same was also
>true in the last two cycles.
If that is true for the last two cycles including this one, how is that
"not unusual".
>>> The lava records show that there have many complete
>>> reversals of the magnetic field - although none in
>>> recorded history (at least of which I am aware).
>
>> Or that the CRUST moves, and serious Atlantic Rift ripping or volcanic
>> eruptions happen during serious pole shift when the CRUST moves more
>> dramatically than otherwise. No recorded history? That~Rs because human
>> record keeping goes to Hell during those times. The Egyptian census,
>> kept religiously up to the time of the Jewish Exodus, just STOPPED after
>> the last passage/pole shift.
>
>As has been posted before, but you either didn't notice - or chose to
>ignore: The shifting of the magnetic poles has nothing to do with
>crustal movement.
`Andrewing' again.
>Further, when the magnetic pole reversals occurred, they were about
>180 degrees, not the 30 degrees or so that you claim happened.
>It doesn't matter if human record keeping is completely lost. The
>lava record is totally sufficient.
1. You don't know that, you cannot trust those measurements were reported
to you accurately, you cannot trust those measurements were interpreted
rationally, as we all know that science doesn't care about truth, it
cares about career only.
2. It is possible that they only could detect 180 reversals (or close to it),
and that the 30, 50 etc are lost as noise, or not detect at all.
3. Perhaps the scientist investigating this could not explain 30, 50, 120
changes, and has thus chosen to play that side down in his presentations.
We all know scientists are like that, don't we. At the very least, we
should tread everything that comes out of the "scientific community"
with extreme sceptisism and care.
>>> There has not been any shift of the Earth's axis in
>>> recorded history, and we are talking about thousands
>>> of years time. The same is true for crustal shifts.
>
>> I see, and what cause the oceans of the world, WORLD WIDE, to drop
>> 16-20~T, per scientific studies done by Daly and others? Where did that
>> water go? Into the deepened Atlantic Rift, for one thing, I suspect.
>
>Your weird characters make it hard to tell what you are writing. Is that
>16-20 feet? The levels have changed far more than that with the changes
>in the thickness of the ice caps and glacier sizes. And this drop would
>be worldwide.
What caused that melt of ice caps, include the current melting of Mars'
icecaps in your answer, since it is coinsiding with the current melting
of the Earth' icecaps, thanks.
--
Nancy Lieder
> There has not been any shift of the Earth's axis in
> recorded history, and we are talking about thousands
> of years time. The same is true for crustal shifts.
The Small Kahuna (per...@company.com) wrote:
> This point is (I believe) arguable, but even if I
> give it to you, this does not prove anything except
> that there is no anecdotal evidence for axis
> migration over a very recent time period representing
> an infinitesimal percentage of the Earth's history.
> Are you suggesting that Science hang its hat on the
> *lack* of recording?
Well, but we HAVE recording, of crustal shifts, in the geography of the
Earth. Would a swing of the magnetic field cause whales to be deposited
on mountain tops?
Earth in Upheaval, Whales in the Mountains, by Velikovsky
Bones of whale have been found 440 feet above sea level,
north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was
discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level;
and still another in the Montreal- Quebec area, about
600 feet above sea level. Although the Humphrey whale
and beluga occasionally enter the mouth of the St.
Lawrence, they do not climb hills.
Worlds in Collision, The Tide, by Velikosky
The traditions of many peoples persist that seas were torn
apart and their water heaped high and thrown upon the
continents. The traditions of the people of Peru tell that for
a period of time the sun was not in the sky, and then the
ocean left the shore and with a terrible din broke over the
continent. The Choctaw Indians of Oklahoma relate: "The
earth was plunged in darkness for a long time". Finally a
dark light appeared in the north, "but it was mountain-high
waves, rapidly coming nearer". According to the Lapland
epic, after the sea-wall fell on the continent, gigantic
waves continued to roll and dead bodies were dashed about
in the dark waters.
Nancy Lieder
> There has not been any shift of the Earth's axis in
> recorded history, and we are talking about thousands
> of years time. The same is true for crustal shifts.
The Small Kahuna (per...@company.com) wrote:
> This point is (I believe) arguable, but even if I
> give it to you, this does not prove anything except
> that there is no anecdotal evidence for axis
> migration over a very recent time period representing
> an infinitesimal percentage of the Earth's history.
> Are you suggesting that Science hang its hat on the
> *lack* of recording?
Well, but we HAVE recording, of crustal shifts, in the geography of the
Earth. Would a swing of the magnetic field cause the oceans of the
world to drop 16-20 feet?
Nancy Lieder
> it is not too much of a stretch to imagine such an
> event making the maintenance of historical records
> somewhat difficult, so you have a self-erasing event.
Indeed, and the chaos that ensues was well recorded during the Exodus.
When this time comes in 2003, the Bush Administration and their rich
buddies (ala Enron) will be safely away in enclaves protected by the
beefed up military, who will be protecting them from the taxpayers, ala
the mob. Ever wonder why they were so DESPERATE to gain the White House
that they had to STOP THE COUNTING of ballots. This is a democracy?
Ages in Chaos, Prophecy, by Velikovsky
The history of Egypt reaches back to hoary antiquity;
the Jewish people (have ) a history that claims to
describe the very beginning of (their) nation's march
through the centuries. They bore the yoke of bondage
(in Egypt). Historians have agreed that (their)
Exodus took place during the period called .. the New
Kingdom of Egypt. ... The beginning of the New
Kingdom is established to have been about 1580 B.C.
Ages in Chaos, An Egyptian Eyewitness, by Velikovsky
The (Egyptian) papyrus containing the words of Ipuwer
... according to its first possessor, Anastasi, was found
in the neighborhood of the pyramids of Saqqara. In
1909 the text was published by Alan H. Gardiner. The
text points to the historical character of the situation.
Egypt was in distress; the social system had become
disorganized; violence filled the land. Invaders preyed
upon the defenseless population; the rich were stripped
of everything and slept in the open, and the poor took
their possessions. ... Compare some passages from the
Book of Exodus (with) the papyrus.
Papyrus 2:5-6 Plague is throughout the land. Blood is
everywhere.
2:10 The river is blood.
Exodus 7:21 There was blood throughout all the land of
Egypt.
7:20 All the waters that were in the river were
turned to blood.
Papyrus 2:10 Men shrink from tasting .. and thirst after
water.
Exodus 7:24 And all the Egyptians digged round about
the river for water to drink; for they could
not drink of the water of the river.
Payrus 2:8 Forsooth, the land turns round as does a
potter's wheel.
2:11 The towns are destroyed.
7:4 The residence is destroyed in a minute.
Papyrus 2:10 Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are
consumed by fire.
Exodus 9:23 The fire ran along the ground. There was
hail, and fire mingled with the hail.
Papyrus 4:14 Trees are destroyed.
6:1 No fruit or herbs are found.
Exodus 9:25 And the hail smote every herb of the field,
and brake every tree of the field.
Papyrus 4:3 Forsooth, the children of princes are
dashed against the walls.
Exodus 12:27 (The Angel of the Lord) smote the
Egyptians.
Papyrus 9:11 The land is not light.
Exodus 10:22 And there was a thick darkness in all the
land of Egypt.
There was no longer any royal power in Egypt. In the
following weeks the cities turned into scenes of looting.
Justice ceased to function. The catastrophe that
rendered Egypt defenseless was a signal to the tribes of
the Arabian desert. The Egyptians did not defend
themselves.
Papyrus 6:9 Forsooth, the laws of the judgment-hall
are cast forth. Men walk upon them in the public
places.
6:7 Forsooth, public offices are opened and their
census-lists are taken away.
10:3 The storehouse of the king is the common
property of everyone.
10:3-6 Lower Egypt weeps. The entire palace is
without its revenues. To it belong (by right)
wheat and barley, geese and fish.
14:11 There are none found to stand and protect
themselves.
Anders Eklöf
> Earth in Upheaval, Dropped Ocean Level, by Velikovsky
Referring to Velikovsky doesn't exactly increase your
credibility, or anyone other's for that matter.
Jeff Root
>> We also have older maps that show where the magnetic north pole
>> was a few decades ago - and it isn't where it is now. This shows
>> that the magnetic poles move.
> Or that the CRUST moved
nobody noticed?
>> The lava records show that there have many complete
>> reversals of the magnetic field - although none in
>> recorded history (at least of which I am aware).
> Or that the CRUST moves, and serious Atlantic Rift ripping or
> volcanic eruptions happen during serious pole shift when the CRUST
> moves more dramatically than otherwise.
spreading right now, and the solidified lava dug up from both
sides of the rift shows that it has been been spreading almost
continuously for hundreds of millions of years.
The lava shows that the most recent magnetic field reversal
was 700,000 years ago. The field began to weaken several tens
of thousands of years ago, and is expected to reverse again in
about 2000 years.
In order for the reversal to be caused by a shift in Earth's
crust, the entire surface of the Earth would have to rotate
180 degrees from its current position, with the northern and
southern hemispheres switching places. This event would have
happened nine times in the last 3.5 million years. (The most
recent of hundreds of reversals known.) However, rotation of
Earth's crust does not account for the weakening of the field
before a reversal, and should produce lava with magnetic
alignments in intermediate directions, which are not found.
The field reverses direction, it does not rotate.
> No recorded history? That’s because human record keeping
> goes to Hell during those times. The Egyptian census, kept
> religiously up to the time of the Jewish Exodus, just STOPPED
> after the last passage/pole shift.
700,000 years ago?
>> There has not been any shift of the Earth's axis in
>> recorded history, and we are talking about thousands
>> of years time. The same is true for crustal shifts.
> I see, and what cause the oceans of the world, WORLD WIDE, to
> drop 16-20", per scientific studies done by Daly and others?
> Where did that water go? Into the deepened Atlantic Rift,
> for one thing, I suspect.
I don't happen to know what caused that particular change in
sea level, or where the water went, but the mid-Atlantic rift
is an elevation in the sea bottom, not a depression. Lava is
rising along the rift, building underwater mountains. In one
place the mountains rise above the surface, forming Iceland.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.
Greg Muncill
>bi...@spock.peak.org Sat Feb 9 11:12:19 2002 wrote in
>>The magnetic poles of the Sun have no effect on the the magnetic poles
>>of the Earth.
>
>That remains to be seen. First off, it sounds very unlikely, given that
>Earth is continually in the magnetic field of the Sun, and the Earth
>has probably no preference for this or that way of it's own accord.
>
Oh give me a break. If you are insinuating that the solar
magnetic field is overpowering our magnetic field then
why don't our compases shift every 11 years when the
sun's magnetic field swaps. How do I know It swaps?
Check:
http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~forsyth/reversal/
Now, let's see your data that the sun's magnetic field
is dominant. Scientific references would be preferable
but I see that you don't trust any of us scientists. We
are all in a consipiracy against you. You DO at least
have your own data to back this up, right?
Greg Muncill
Silver Spring, MD
Greg Muncill
>
>The Atlantic rift is spreading almost continuously. It is
>spreading right now, and the solidified lava dug up from both
>sides of the rift shows that it has been been spreading almost
>continuously for hundreds of millions of years.
>
Actually, the oldest igneous rocks from the seafloor are
about 200 million years old. This is the maximum age
of the oceans after the break up of Pangea.
>The lava shows that the most recent magnetic field reversal
>was 700,000 years ago. The field began to weaken several tens
>of thousands of years ago, and is expected to reverse again in
>about 2000 years.
>
Now I agree with most of your assertions but I would
like to know where it is postulated in the scientific
literature that the field is expected to reverse again in
2000 years. I was not aware that the present calculations
for the earth's dynamo could be this accurate. The usual
length of time between flips is on the order of 300,000
years but there are times when there have been no
flips for upwards of 10 million years. We are overdo for
a flip but I was not aware of a scientific consensus on
timing of the next flip.
>I don't happen to know what caused that particular change in
>sea level, or where the water went, but the mid-Atlantic rift
>is an elevation in the sea bottom, not a depression. Lava is
>rising along the rift, building underwater mountains. In one
>place the mountains rise above the surface, forming Iceland.
>
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
> .
Also true but Iceland is different than just a midocean
spreading center. Iceland also consists of a hot spot
{similar to that postulated under the Hawaiin Island
chain). So you have a stationary hot spot superimposed
upon a stationary midocean spreading center.
Bill Nelson
> Well, but we HAVE recording, of crustal shifts, in the geography of the
> Earth. Would a swing of the magnetic field cause whales to be deposited
> on mountain tops?
That does not require crustal shifting. It requires either a drastic
change in sea level or mountains being built.
> Earth in Upheaval, Whales in the Mountains, by Velikovsky
> Bones of whale have been found 440 feet above sea level,
> north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was
> discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level;
> and still another in the Montreal- Quebec area, about
> 600 feet above sea level. Although the Humphrey whale
> and beluga occasionally enter the mouth of the St.
> Lawrence, they do not climb hills.
Bah. It is unlikely that the bones were from any modern whale.
I used to live in Eastern Oregon. There, at an altitude of over
5000 feet above sea level, there are chalk cliffs. In other words,
at one time all of Eastern Oregon was at the bottom of an ocean.
If I recall correctly, the land is still rising very slowly.
> continents. The traditions of the people of Peru tell that for
> a period of time the sun was not in the sky, and then the
> ocean left the shore and with a terrible din broke over the
> continent. The Choctaw Indians of Oklahoma relate: "The
Big deal. The ocean receeding and then returning "with a terrible
din" is a good description of what happens with a large tidal wave.
> earth was plunged in darkness for a long time". Finally a
> dark light appeared in the north, "but it was mountain-high
> waves, rapidly coming nearer". According to the Lapland
> epic, after the sea-wall fell on the continent, gigantic
> waves continued to roll and dead bodies were dashed about
> in the dark waters.
Again, just describing a large tidal wave.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> In (Daly's) opinion the cause lies in the sinking of the level
> of all seas on the globe. Alternatively, Daly thinks it
> could have resulted from a deepening of the oceans or from
> an increase in their areas. Of special interest is the
> time of the change. Daly estimated the sudden drop of
> oceanic level to (have occurred) some 3,000 to 4,000 years
> ago.
Daly has to be wrong. If it had happened that recently, the Egyptians
would have recorded it.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
>> recorded history, and we are talking about thousands
>> of years time. The same is true for crustal shifts.
> The Small Kahuna (per...@company.com) wrote:
> This point is (I believe) arguable, but even if I
> give it to you, this does not prove anything except
> that there is no anecdotal evidence for axis
> migration over a very recent time period representing
> an infinitesimal percentage of the Earth's history.
> Are you suggesting that Science hang its hat on the
> *lack* of recording?
The lava record in the Atlantic and Pacific is continuous. There
has NOT been any major crustal shifting for millions of years.
It has been several hundred thousand years since the magnetic poles
swapped.
Sorry, the point is not "debatable" - unless you propose that the
continents shifted without changing relationship to each other, and
that they dragged the magnetic poles along as well.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Jeff Root
>> The lava shows that the most recent magnetic field reversal
>> was 700,000 years ago. The field began to weaken several tens
>> of thousands of years ago, and is expected to reverse again in
>> about 2000 years.
> Now I agree with most of your assertions but I would like to
> know where it is postulated in the scientific literature that
> the field is expected to reverse again in 2000 years. I was
> not aware that the present calculations for the earth's dynamo
> could be this accurate. The usual length of time between flips
> is on the order of 300,000 years but there are times when there
> have been no flips for upwards of 10 million years. We are
> overdo for a flip but I was not aware of a scientific consensus
> on timing of the next flip.
previous message: The most recent reversal was 730,000 years
ago, and the next reversal is expected in only 1500 years.
The "expectation" is not the result of theory. It is the
result of extrapolating the current trend. If the field
continues to weaken at the current rate, it will zero out
in about 1500 years.
My figure of "tens of thousands of years ago" for the time
when the field began its current weakening was based on my
visual interpretation of a heavily-smoothed graph. The
article I'm looking at now says that transitions typically
take a few thousand years.
By far the longest period without a reversal was 35 million
years, in the middle of the Cretaceous. The average time
between reversals has been decreasing fairly steadily over
the last 60 million years.
'Ancient Magnetic Reversals: Clues to the Geodynamo' by
Kenneth A. Hoffman. Scientific American, May 1988.
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Sarah Mc <sara...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>She'd better be. If I hear one single person "offing" themselves to
>gain access to the Zeta "lift", I'll be making more phone calls to the
>authorities than she can shake a stick at. I'll make sure she she
>takes the blame for any life lost due to her irresponsible behavior
>and scams. I wonder if they allow "worm beds" in prison?
Has she actually started proposing that yet? Or is it buried somewhere on
her website?
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
Greg Muncill
>Jeff Root wrote:
>
>I have somewhat better figures than those I used in my
>previous message: The most recent reversal was 730,000 years
>ago, and the next reversal is expected in only 1500 years.
>
>The "expectation" is not the result of theory. It is the
>result of extrapolating the current trend. If the field
>continues to weaken at the current rate, it will zero out
>in about 1500 years.
>
Well, after taking a look with google I find that this
"expectation" is not the only proposal for how and
when flips occur. The American Geophysical Union
maintains an informational website that includes
information and the latest viewpoints on reversals:
http://earth.agu.org/sci_soc/hoffman.html#magfield
The more recent 1993 paper is interesting. In particular
the second graph showing a field weakening without
the subsequent reversal - a "failed" reversal. Overall,
the AGU site does agree that with current trends the
field would zero out withing 2000 years. Does this
mean a reversal will occur in 2000 or 1500 years?
Without knowing the mechanism of field reversal
and given the "failed" attempts I would still hesitate
to proclaim a reversal as a "given".
Another scientist proposes that there have
been several failed attempts at reversals within
the past 780,000 year regime.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-magnetic-99a.html
It would appear that the dynamics of the earth's
dynamo is complex (no surprise) and a simple
extrapolation to some zero point in the future
without understanding the mechanism of the
process in detail is pretty risky. I tend to be in
the camp of the National Geophysical Data Center
of NOAA:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/potfld/faqgeom.shtml#q15
"Is Earth's magnetic field going to reverse? While we now
appear to be in a period of declining magnetic field strength,
we cannot state for certain if or when a magnetic reversal will
occur. Based on measurements of the Earth's magnetic field
taken since about 1850 some paleomagnetists estimate that
the dipole moment will decay in about 1,300 years. However,
the present dipole moment (a measure of how strong the magnetic
field is) is actually higher than it has been for most of the last
50,000 years and the current decline could reverse at any time.
Even if Earth's magnetic field is beginning a reversal, it would
still take several thousand years to complete a reversal. We
expect Earth would still have a magnetic field during a reversal,
but it would be weaker than normal with multiple magnetic poles.
Radio communication would deteriorate, navigation by magnetic
compass would be difficult and migratory animals might have
problems."
Michael L. Cunningham
> Well, but we HAVE recording, of crustal shifts, in the geography of the
> Earth. Would a swing of the magnetic field cause whales to be deposited
> on mountain tops?
>
> Earth in Upheaval, Whales in the Mountains, by Velikovsky
Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a psychologist.
> Worlds in Collision, The Tide, by Velikosky
Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a psychologist.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS
2001 Grand Am GT
Michael L. Cunningham
> Well, but we HAVE recording, of crustal shifts, in the geography of the
> Earth. Would a swing of the magnetic field cause the oceans of the
> world to drop 16-20 feet?
>
> Earth in Upheaval, Dropped Ocean Level, by Velikovsky
Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
Michael L. Cunningham
> Ages in Chaos, Prophecy, by Velikovsky
Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a psychologist.
> Ages in Chaos, An Egyptian Eyewitness, by Velikovsky
Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
Swelknelk
"Michael L. Cunningham" <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C676317...@earthlink.net...
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>
> > Well, but we HAVE recording, of crustal shifts, in the geography of the
> > Earth. Would a swing of the magnetic field cause whales to be deposited
> > on mountain tops?
> >
> > Earth in Upheaval, Whales in the Mountains, by Velikovsky
>
> Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
> Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a psychologist.
>
> > Worlds in Collision, The Tide, by Velikosky
>
> Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
> Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a psychologist.
Would Einstein's credentials be acceptable? Einstein thought Velikovsky's
observations brilliant and worthy enough for Einstein to develop a
hypothesis to explain them. Unfortunately Einstein died before completing
that work.
Or how about this scientist:
Dr. Walter Baltensperger, Brazilian Center for Research in Physics, Rio de
Janeiro
On the Geographical Displacement of Poles after Close Passage of a Body of
Planetary Size
The aim of this work is not to prove or disprove ideas of Immanuel
Velikovsky, but to explain the Ice Ages. These began about 3 million years
ago, when the mean global temperature started to decrease. Irregularly,
several times in 100,000 years, the mean temperature sharply increased,
sometimes reaching values higher than at present. The lower the average
temperature, the stronger were these fluctuations.
During the Late Glacial Maximum, about 20,000 years ago, the ice cover was
asymmetrically distributed around the present position of the poles. On the
northern hemisphere it reached the region of present New York and covered
northern Germany, while eastern Siberia and parts of Alaska were ice free
and inhabited by mammoths. Some of these were found in deep frozen state,
indicating a rapid temperature drop in these areas. A postulate that the
North Pole was in the Baffin Bay region and swiftly moved to its present
position near the end of the Ice Age, 11,500 years ago, was refuted more
than a century ago. Indeed, deformations of both the solid or the liquid
state of matter, envisioned at that time for the Earth, relax too quickly to
allow a pole shift. However we find that a plastic Earth with a relaxation
time of a few hundred days or more makes the pole shift possible. Earth's
rotation is stabilized by the equatorial belt. The shift is made possible by
a one per thousand stretching deformation of the Earth in an oblique
direction. This could be produced by the tidal action of a mass like that of
Mars passing at a distance less than 15,000 km. The gyroscope Earth then
performs a tumbling motion while its shape relaxes to an equilibrium with a
displaced equatorial belt. Geographically, the poles spiral to the new
position, requiring about 400 days for a turn. Angular momentum is
conserved, and the rotation axis points to the same star before and after
the event. Since the present planetary system with its motion calculated
backwards does not show a close encounter between Earth and a planet, the
passing mass must have been an additional object. We assume it to be in a
highly eccentric orbit. At each passage near the Sun it is heated by solar
radiation and tidal work. From the hot surface atoms escape. Light pressure
expells most types of atoms, but some remain bound to the Sun. They build up
an interplanetary gas. Its dynamics is complex and involves the
gravitational coupling to other panets, inelastic collisions between
particles, ionisations, and the formation of molecules, which are readily
expelled. It is not unplausible, that the screening of sunlight by this gas
leads to the lower global temperature and its violent fluctuations. During
the close encounter, the additional hot planet is torn to pieces. The
fragments evaporate during the Holocene, or they drop into the Sun.
Swelknelk
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>
> > Well, but we HAVE recording, of crustal shifts, in the geography of the
> > Earth. Would a swing of the magnetic field cause the oceans of the
> > world to drop 16-20 feet?
> >
> > Earth in Upheaval, Dropped Ocean Level, by Velikovsky
>
> Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
> Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a psychologist.
Would Einstein's credentials be acceptable? Einstein thought Velikovsky's
Swelknelk
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>
> > Ages in Chaos, Prophecy, by Velikovsky
>
> Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
> Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a psychologist.
>
> > Ages in Chaos, An Egyptian Eyewitness, by Velikovsky
>
> Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
> Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a psychologist.
Would Einstein's credentials be acceptable? Einstein thought Velikovsky's
Greg Neill
news:tYR98.43447$Hu6.9...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
>
> Would Einstein's credentials be acceptable? Einstein thought Velikovsky's
> observations brilliant and worthy enough for Einstein to develop a
> hypothesis to explain them. Unfortunately Einstein died before completing
> that work.
References please.
To my knowledge, Einstein was working on his unified field theory
right up to the end.
Swelknelk
opinions.
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:A3S98.8512$lM1.5...@wagner.videotron.net...
Michael Davis
>
> "Michael L. Cunningham" <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3C676317...@earthlink.net...
> > Nancy Lieder wrote:
> >
> > > Well, but we HAVE recording, of crustal shifts, in the geography of the
> > > Earth. Would a swing of the magnetic field cause whales to be deposited
> > > on mountain tops?
> > >
> > > Earth in Upheaval, Whales in the Mountains, by Velikovsky
> >
> > Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
> > Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a psychologist.
> >
> > > Worlds in Collision, The Tide, by Velikosky
> >
> > Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
> > Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a psychologist.
>
> Would Einstein's credentials be acceptable? Einstein thought Velikovsky's
> observations brilliant and worthy enough for Einstein to develop a
> hypothesis to explain them. Unfortunately Einstein died before completing
> that work.
Got proof of that claim? Net kooks like you have Einstein working on
every lunatic fringe idea imaginable at the time of his death. Problem
is, this isn't even his field. So post proof or get lost.
>
> Or how about this scientist:
>
> Dr. Walter Baltensperger, Brazilian Center for Research in Physics, Rio de
> Janeiro
Nope. Not if this clown is spouting the "flash frozen mammoth" crap.
The rest of it is even worse garbage. Where the hell did this clown
learn his physics anyway? I've never seen anything so stupid and
utterly wrong that didn't come right off the ZetaCrap web site.
--- Snip the stupidity ---
The simple fact is that Velikovsky was a nut, not a scientist. His
drivel is complete garbage with no basis in fact. It's nothing more
than feel good stories for the clueless and the credulous.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the
palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." - H. L.
Mencken
Greg Neill
Readers are kindly invited to note the following about this Swelknelk
character:
1. He makes a claim that appears to be at odds with the historical facts,
in support of what is generally taken to be very dodgy pseudo science.
2. When asked to provide a reference to his "fact", he avoids the issue
by claiming to not have time to respond to opinion.
3. He cannot tell the difference between an opinion and a request for
information.
4. Without references, his own post is nothing but opinion (and a bad one
at that).
Conclusion: The man is a trolling idiot.
Michael L Cunningham
> Do your own research. I have neither the time nor desire to respond to
> opinions.
Why not quote ZetaTalk? You people love to point to it as proof!
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT
Swelknelk
http://www.varchive.org/cor/einstein/
You do know how to read don't you?
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:%OT98.8644$lM1.5...@wagner.videotron.net...
Greg Neill
> The Einstein-Velikovsky Correspondence
> http://www.varchive.org/cor/einstein/
>
> You do know how to read don't you?
>
The contents does not appear to support your proposition that
Einstein was working on Velikovsky's theory. What it does
do is show that:
1. Einstein was polite in dealing with unsolicited manuscripts.
2. Einstein did not agree with Velikovsky's astrodynamics, but
did appreciate his efforts in assembling data related to
Earth-side catastrophes.
2. Velikovsky was actively seeking approval from people in
the scientific spotlight in order to further his own image.
Wally Anglesea™
>The Einstein-Velikovsky Correspondence
>http://www.varchive.org/cor/einstein/
>
>You do know how to read don't you?
None of which suggest anything that you claim, Specifically:
>Would Einstein's credentials be acceptable? Einstein thought
>Velikovsky's observations brilliant and worthy enough for Einstein to develop a
>hypothesis to explain them. Unfortunately Einstein died before
>completing
wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
JTRIV
Velikovsky. He seemed to agree that there was evidence of past
catastrophes, but was very specific in not supporting
Velikovsky's conclusions.
Jim
Jeff Root
> The Einstein-Velikovsky Correspondence
> http://www.varchive.org/cor/einstein/
>
> You do know how to read don't you?
do not support what you say, but refute it. Einstein rejected
Velikovsky's theories, agreeing only that the evidence he gave
for historical catastrophes was convincng, offering sympathy
for the rejection of his work by the scientific community, and
admiring his dramatic talent.
Stig Bull
> Do your own research. I have neither the time nor desire to respond to
> opinions.
Typical kookery nonsense.
First, one makes a claim. Then, one are totally unable to back up said
claim and ask people to do the research themselves - on behalf of the
*kook* with the claim.
--
Stig Bull
No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this electronic
message. To reduce download time, this message is made of 100% recycled
bytes.
The Small Kahuna
>
> Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, but we HAVE recording, of crustal shifts, in the geography of the
> > Earth. Would a swing of the magnetic field cause whales to be deposited
> > on mountain tops?
>
> That does not require crustal shifting. It requires either a drastic
> change in sea level or mountains being built.
>
> > Earth in Upheaval, Whales in the Mountains, by Velikovsky
>
> > Bones of whale have been found 440 feet above sea level,
> > north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was
> > discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level;
> > and still another in the Montreal- Quebec area, about
> > 600 feet above sea level. Although the Humphrey whale
> > and beluga occasionally enter the mouth of the St.
> > Lawrence, they do not climb hills.
>
> Bah. It is unlikely that the bones were from any modern whale.
Now there is a point I'm sure you have data to support...
>
> I used to live in Eastern Oregon. There, at an altitude of over
> 5000 feet above sea level, there are chalk cliffs. In other words,
> at one time all of Eastern Oregon was at the bottom of an ocean.
>
> If I recall correctly, the land is still rising very slowly.
OK, and so what does that mean for the past or the future? Because its
rising slowly now does it mean it was always rising slowly and will
forever?
>
> > continents. The traditions of the people of Peru tell that for
> > a period of time the sun was not in the sky, and then the
> > ocean left the shore and with a terrible din broke over the
> > continent. The Choctaw Indians of Oklahoma relate: "The
>
> Big deal. The ocean receeding and then returning "with a terrible
> din" is a good description of what happens with a large tidal wave.
Except that the ocean does not meaningfully "receede" just prior to a
tidal wave, except for that brief break over. Also, when was the last
time it was possible for a tidal wave to be in Oklahoma?
The Small Kahuna
That's just pure bull. There are too many cases in recorded history to
recount where sudden change either destroyed records or made their
maintenance difficult. The collapse of civilization is precisely when
records stop *because* the civilization is collapsing. The Aztec
civilization was virtually destroyed by the invading Spanish, but
literally no Aztec records remain of such a cataclysmic event. Does
this mean it did not happen? Suppose the Spanish had not been so
careful to document their own destruction? Would not our current
scientists shake their head in wonder at "what happened to the Aztec -
they just *dissapeared*?"
>
> --
> Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
The Small Kahuna
>
> >> There has not been any shift of the Earth's axis in
> >> recorded history, and we are talking about thousands
> >> of years time. The same is true for crustal shifts.
>
> > The Small Kahuna (per...@company.com) wrote:
> > This point is (I believe) arguable, but even if I
> > give it to you, this does not prove anything except
> > that there is no anecdotal evidence for axis
> > migration over a very recent time period representing
> > an infinitesimal percentage of the Earth's history.
> > Are you suggesting that Science hang its hat on the
> > *lack* of recording?
>
> The lava record in the Atlantic and Pacific is continuous. There
> has NOT been any major crustal shifting for millions of years.
How can you prove this WITHOUT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS?
>
> It has been several hundred thousand years since the magnetic poles
> swapped.
>
> Sorry, the point is not "debatable" - unless you propose that the
> continents shifted without changing relationship to each other, and
> that they dragged the magnetic poles along as well.
And this *cannot* be true, because... ?
>
> --
> Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
The Small Kahuna
>
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>
> > Well, but we HAVE recording, of crustal shifts, in the geography of the
> > Earth. Would a swing of the magnetic field cause whales to be deposited
> > on mountain tops?
> >
> > Earth in Upheaval, Whales in the Mountains, by Velikovsky
>
> Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
> Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a psychologist.
>
> > Worlds in Collision, The Tide, by Velikosky
>
> Care to tell me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
> Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a psychologist.
Well, dang right, at least somebody is standing up and saying psychology
isn't science!
;-)
>
> --
> Michael L. Cunningham
> etc...
Jeff Root
>>> The traditions of the people of Peru tell that for a
>>> period of time the sun was not in the sky, and then the
>>> ocean left the shore and with a terrible din broke over the
>>> continent. The Choctaw Indians of Oklahoma relate: "The
>> Big deal. The ocean receeding and then returning "with a terrible
>> din" is a good description of what happens with a large tidal wave.
> Except that the ocean does not meaningfully "receede" just prior
> to a tidal wave, except for that brief break over.
for some minutes before a tsunami hits.
> Also, when was the last time it was possible for a tidal wave
> to be in Oklahoma?
by the white invaders about 100 years ago. Their home was
originally in southern Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana,
along the Gulf of Mexico coast.
djarvinen
> Nancy Lieder quoted Velikovsky:
>
> >>> The traditions of the people of Peru tell that for a
> >>> period of time the sun was not in the sky, and then the
> >>> ocean left the shore and with a terrible din broke over the
> >>> continent. The Choctaw Indians of Oklahoma relate: "The
>
> Bill Nelson replied:
>
> >> Big deal. The ocean receeding and then returning "with a terrible
> >> din" is a good description of what happens with a large tidal wave.
>
> "The Small Kahuna" replied to Bill Nelson:
>
> > Except that the ocean does not meaningfully "receede" just prior
> > to a tidal wave, except for that brief break over.
>
> My understanding is that the water can recede dramatically,
> for some minutes before a tsunami hits.
There are some home movies that made national television on the harbor
in Kodiak , Alaska when that huge tidal wave hit in the 60's. The
speed at which the water receded from the harbor was incredible. Very
scary and alarming stuff.
I have no idea where Nancy comes up with these fantasies. One thing
you can count on---she will almost always get it backwards.
DJ
Thomas McDonald
Small Kahuna,
Well, in point of fact, modern scientists would be quite able to
reconstruct the Aztec civilization, and the fact, and method, of its
destruction. Archaeology would still show the remains of Tenochtitlan
below modern Mexico City, and would be able to trace the development of
the city from its beginnings, only a couple of centuries before the
Spanish conquest.. The Aztec language is still spoken, and stories
still told in it. Many other areas of science some to mind that would
also help build the picture of the end of Aztec civilization. That you
can't imagine how modern scientists could do so is merely an argument
from incredulity. It carries no weight whatsoever.
There is another problem, however, with your analogy. For your
story to work requires that both the conquerors and the conquered keep
no stories or traditions from the Aztec civilization's demise, and that
all, repeat ALL, traces of the last days of the civilization be
eradicated from memory. You provide no mechanism for this to happen,
but merely assume it as a device to support your theory.
The biggest problem with your analogy is that it has no connection
to the real situation WRT the cultures with written languages ca. 3500
years ago. While there were certainly disruptions around that time,
very broadly, we know about them at least partially because they were
_written_ about by folks that both survived and remained literate. The
bald fact is that there is no evidence for the kind of massive,
unrecorded disruption at the appropriate time in antiquity that your
story would require.
Tom McDonald
Artemis18
<boge...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>OK, I'll let you off the hook just this once. Care to tell
>me what Velikovsky's discipline was? Try psychology.
>Yes, that's right. He wasn't a scientist, he was a
>psychologist.
As Tholen would say, irrelevent. Read my post again, loony.
[PLONK]