Planetary scientists propose two explanations for true polar wander

Nov 08, 2012 by Bob Yirka report
Planetary scientists propose two explanations for true polar wander
Modelling palaeomagnetically inferred TPW during the Neoproterozoic. Credit: (c) Nature 491, 244–248. doi:10.1038/nature11571

(Phys.org)—Researchers using computer simulations and modeling have come up with two possible explanations for the phenomenon known as true polar wandering. The team led by Jessica Creveling of Harvard University, suggest in their paper published in the journal Nature, that dramatic shifts in the Earth's surface over millions of years, and then a return to the previous state, can be explained by bulging at the equator and elasticity of the planets outer shell.

Scientists have known for many years that there are two kinds of shifting of the Earth's surface. One is continental drift; the other is true polar wander where all the continents move together due to an out-of-the-ordinary event, such as the melting of a large ice field or the formation of a large volcano. And while researchers have come to understand the processes that can cause large shifts to occur together over a period of time, they have been at a loss to explain how those very same parts mange to eventually move back to where they came from. In this new research, the team suggests it has to do with how the Earth is shaped, and the elasticity of rock in the planet's mantle.

The researchers note that the Earth is not perfectly round – it's more of a compressed sphere with bulging occurring at the equator. This works to keep the planet stabilized and causes the continents to bounce back slightly if nudged out of their normal . That's the first explanation for why the topography of the planet is able to bounce back from an unsteadying upheaval. The second, they say is due to the of the mantle itself. When an forces major movement of the mantle and the crust, is stored in the rock in the same way as happens with a when it's twisted. Once the forces that caused the initial changes subside, the potential energy takes over, pushing the continents back to where they were before the upheaval occurred.

The researchers came to these conclusions after studying metal deposits in the ground which are known to line up with the Earth's magnetic field. Doing so provides clues about the orientation of the planet during different times in history. Using such clues they built computer models and simulations that led to their proposed explanations of true polar wander. They suggest that such movement isn't about to happen again anytime soon however, as their study found that Earth has rotated just 30 degrees over the past 200 million years.

Explore further: Bridgmanite: World's most abundant mineral finally named

More information: Mechanisms for oscillatory true polar wander, Nature 491, 244–248 (08 November 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11571

Abstract
Palaeomagnetic studies of Palaeoproterozoic to Cretaceous rocks propose a suite of large and relatively rapid (tens of degrees over 10 to 100 million years) excursions of the rotation pole relative to the surface geography, or true polar wander (TPW). These excursions may be linked in an oscillatory, approximately coaxial succession about the centre of the contemporaneous supercontinent. Within the framework of a standard rotational theory, in which a delayed viscous adjustment of the rotational bulge acts to stabilize the rotation axis, geodynamic models for oscillatory TPW generally appeal to consecutive, opposite loading phases of comparable magnitude. Here we extend a nonlinear rotational stability theory10 to incorporate the stabilizing effect of TPW-induced elastic stresses in the lithosphere. We demonstrate that convectively driven inertia perturbations acting on a nearly prolate, non-hydrostatic Earth with an effective elastic lithospheric thickness of about 10 kilometres yield oscillatory TPW paths consistent with palaeomagnetic inferences. This estimate of elastic thickness can be reduced, even to zero, if the rotation axis is stabilized by long-term excess ellipticity in the plane of the TPW. We speculate that these sources of stabilization, acting on TPW driven by a time-varying mantle flow field, provide a mechanism for linking the distinct, oscillatory TPW events of the past few billion years.

Related Stories

Model suggests Earth is undergoing true polar wander

Oct 11, 2012

At various points throughout Earth's history, the planet's solid exterior has drifted about in relation to the planetary rotation axis. This solid body drift, which is known as "true polar wander," results in a wholesale ...

The continents as a heat blanket

Jan 22, 2009

Drifting of the large tectonic plates and the superimposed continents is not only powered by the heat-driven convection processes in the Earth's mantle, but rather retroacts on this internal driving processes. In doing so, ...

Recommended for you

Bridgmanite: World's most abundant mineral finally named

9 hours ago

A team of geologists in the U.S. has finally found an analyzable sample of the most abundant mineral in the world allowing them to give it a name: bridgmanite. In their paper published in the journal Science, the te ...

Volcano in south Japan erupts, disrupting flights

16 hours ago

A volcano in southern Japan is blasting out chunks of magma in the first such eruption in 22 years, causing flight cancellations and prompting warnings to stay away from its crater.

User comments : 104

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

R_R
1.1 / 5 (31) Nov 08, 2012
"thier study found the Earth has rotated just 30 degrees in the past 200 million years" dear physorgers, here is another example of how "they" twist evidence to fit the big ice age lie. This planets poles shifted 30 degrees in just a day or so 10500 BC. The north pole was at Hudson Bay and that is why North America was covered in ice and Siberia and Alaska were covered in Mammoths and Rhinos etc. I could go on and on but entertain one thing, I'm not guessing. In a plain english debate I could easily expose how this manipulation of evidence took place and how the evidence better supports recent pole shift but that wouldnt happen because the only real issue here is *power* as with all the other grand lies of this world. And nothings going to change untill enough people speak up. Have a good day
TopherTO
4.8 / 5 (21) Nov 08, 2012
Why is everything a conspiracy? Now there is a polar shift cover up? Let me guess, you are a Donald Trump twitter follower?
full_disclosure
2.9 / 5 (21) Nov 08, 2012
Power? Holy moly!
Donutz
4.8 / 5 (22) Nov 08, 2012
I have completely credible proof of my outrageous claims, but I left it in my other pants. Please believe me anyway.
Tangent2
4.7 / 5 (15) Nov 08, 2012
RR: Care to give some evidence for your wild claims?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Go on, convince us.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (18) Nov 08, 2012
R_R: Please tighten your tin-foil crown. The aliens are beaming too much energy for your one brain cell to stand.

Of course, your proposed shift can be shown to be nonsense through examination of any geology book (for anyone who might actually believe there is a modicum of truth in what you are saying).
R_R
1.2 / 5 (21) Nov 08, 2012
Topher, there is the obvious reason why everything turns to conspiracy but that would go nowhere with you so let me address it this way, pretend you are looking down on todays north pole during the so called ice age. Draw a straight line from Hudson Bay through the pole and an equal distance further to Siberia. Why was Hudson Bay surounded by miles thick ice fields while the same distance from the pole in Siberia was lush vegetation supporting herds of millions of mammals. Should you care to explain the scientific reasoning why there was such a lopsided ice cover, I will show you your belief in an ice age is simply because "they" told you so, not based on any evidence what so ever.
R_R
1.1 / 5 (17) Nov 08, 2012
Discloser, "Jeepers creepers use your peepers", theres a young pristine 500 km wide crater at lower right Hudson Bay just to start. Perfectly circular, raised rim, central uplift and filled rim to rim with lava after a giant rock pierced the continent 10500 BC. Ya power, wake up from your slumber lad
R_R
1.3 / 5 (19) Nov 08, 2012
Tangent, I'm a doing my best, remember Albert Einstien believed enough to write the forward for Mr hapgoods book "Path of the Pole" so I'm not just some dog in the dark. How was that :)
R_R
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 08, 2012
Thermodynamics, go ahead then and show it to be nonsense, dont just stand there preachin, open those textbooks and I'll show you the nonsense.
R_R
1.1 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2012
Donutz, the old sayings are so true. "you can leed a horse to water but you cant make it drink"
BloodSpill
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2012
Why is everything a conspiracy? Now there is a polar shift cover up? Let me guess, you are a Donald Trump twitter follower?

RE: Conspiracy theories, anyone who is not a troll is mentally ill. Figure out which is which, and pity the latter.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2012
R_R:

Here are some accessible references that show you are incorrect.

http://en.wikiped...pothesis

http://www.nasa.g...eld.html

However, you can find many more conspiracy sites barking about the end of the world and rapid polar shifts. You take your choice. I'll stick with NASA. :-)
RealScience
5 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2012
@R_R: Remember that Einstein also wrote that forward before plate tectonics were known.

There are many anomalies that could be explained by recent and rapid true polar wander (e.g., the shoreline of lake Titicaca slanting hundreds of feet since Tihuanaco was built), and the asthenosphere low velocity zone may be soft enough that for it to be physically possible.

However until there is a convincing explanation for why the Hawaiian island chain doesn't show a huge leap from hot spot, which has deeper-than-the-asthenosphere roots, I'm skeptical.

R_R
1.1 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2012
Bloodspill, perhaps you could spill a little more blood on what you mean.
R_R
1.1 / 5 (16) Nov 08, 2012
Thermo, the first reference is a general recount of the pole shift theory, you would have to present specific evidence supporting the ice age or refutting pole shift for me to counter. The second is dealing with magnetic pole wander which is not the same as pysical pole shift. For instance recently a perfectly preserved hairless baby mammoth emerged from the frozen Siberian muck. Alive and well during an ice age and then frozen solid for thousands of years of a supposed warm interglacial. Now I know evidence and logic has no place in this debate but I like banging my head. Do you not think if the pole shifted over top of this creature, all is explained?
R_R
1.1 / 5 (17) Nov 08, 2012
Realscience, well put. While ECD, proposed by Mr Hapgood as the mechenism by which the pole shifted, is oft considered, there is another way the pole could shift, resulting in little auctual land movement, this is what happened 10500 BC. While the hawain hot spot did not change position, it has changed direction allthough as you know it could take a million years to show. I suspect the reason the last island is called the "big island" is a direct clue.
RealScience
5 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2012
@R_R: There are enough anomalies that true polar wander would explain that I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand (as many once dismissed continental drift).

But Hawaii, Yellowstone, and other hot-spot volcanos seem to have had the crust drift relatively steadily across them, and I haven't seen how that fits with rapid crustal displacement.

Also, James Bay does not look just 12K or 13K years old, if that is the crater you were referring to.
R_R
1.1 / 5 (18) Nov 08, 2012
Realscience, due to Mr Hapgoods proposal that earth crust displacement could be responsible for this recent pole shift, much overlooked is the other possibility, ESR, that the Earth stopped rotating and then started up again at a new angle (on a diferent axis). Try it with a tennis ball. Everything basically the same but new poles and equator. The hot spots remain in same place but will now track in a diferet direction due to the change in direcion of Earths spin.

Google Nastapoka arc to see the crater, the reason it has revealed no obvious rock fracture of impact site is due to the impactor piercing the continent and taking with it all the rock. After this impact the continent was cracked and the two halves of the crater shifted apart, you can follow the lava trail to the other half, now crushed.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (15) Nov 09, 2012
much overlooked is the other possibility, ESR, that the Earth stopped rotating and then started up again at a new angle (on a diferent axis).
Erm...ever heard of angular momentum, and the conservation thereof? Earth possesses a LOT of angular momentum, and nothing short of a planet-cracking impactor is going to change it quickly.
LED Guy
4.8 / 5 (16) Nov 09, 2012
Real science means you would calculate the torque needed to shift the angle of the earth's axis by 30 degrees in one day.

The impact from your supposed "young pristine" 500km impact crater in Hudson Bay still wouldn't have been enough, especially since the tilt reversed itself. Where is your second crater?

Also the energy from an impact that large 10,500 years ago would mean that none of us would be here today. It would have wiped out all the advanced life existing at the time.
LED Guy
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2012
Of course, maybe the Atlantians where able to shield the earth's climate from the effect of the impact and shifted the angle of the earth's axis back.

The energy required resulted in the sinking of their continent. The financial cost of the effort to their economy alone would have been enough to destroy their civilization.

Wow, it all fits now ! ! !

NOT
R_R
1.1 / 5 (17) Nov 09, 2012
Led, my second crater is the horseshoe crater of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron (where the Earth has been violently smashed down in a bowl formation called the Michigan Basin). My third crater is in Scandinavia at the center of the so called European isostatic rebound, just like the Hudson Bay crater centered in the North American isostatic rebound. I'll say impact rebound, you'll say no, never, rediculus, impossible etc. Just like no advanced civilization before Egypt, never, rediculus, impossible etc, untill 12,000 year old Gobekli Tepe was found.
R_R
1.1 / 5 (17) Nov 09, 2012
Silverhill, if you do not believe these impacts sufice, could an aditional close encounter of a planet sized object slow this planet to a stop? Ancient myth describes such an event.
DarkHorse66
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2012
All those craters....mmmm. I wonder what the angle of impact of each asteroid would have had to have been, in order to soo neatly change the direction of the earth's rotation. C'mon..., apart from the already mentioned fact that none of the asteroids (even collectively) were massive enough, what would have been the odds that they would have all struck at similar angles AND all from the same direction. Simple vector maths (& a basic knowledge of physics & forces generated by both direction & mass of impacts. not to mention that asteroids can come from any direction) should tell you just HOW unlikely this is. Besides, the earth is NOT quite spherical. It bulges more around the equator & is flattened at the poles. That is a natural effect from spin. If your theory were even remotely true, where is the residual evidence (if it happened, it WILL be there)of that kind of flattening from when the earth spun 'sideways' (remember, you would need 2 such places = 2poles) Regards, DH66
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2012
Silverhill, if you do not believe these impacts sufice, could an aditional close encounter of a planet sized object slow this planet to a stop? Ancient myth describes such an event.


R_R: You just don't understand what the I and the others have been trying to explain. The earth has enormous angular momentum. If you are talking about stopping it - the results woud be a complete melting of the planet. Friction of the stop would turn the earth back into something similar to the Great Bombardment. The idea of flipping the Earth 30 degrees does the same thing. Too much energy has to be dissipated for the to work. Don't misinterpret me. There are events in the Universe much more energetic than the effort needed to stop the Earth. However, exerting any of them on the Earth in the times you are predicting will remelt the planet. Please show us how to stop a planet without tearing it apart and melting it? We would like to know.
DarkHorse66
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2012
Here is just one article about a giant asteroid.
http://www.pbs.or...oid.html
It happened 65 million years ago. The asteroid was 10km across (1 mile = 1.6km), its crater was 150km. The biggest EVER known to hit the earth. It is blamed for the extinction of the dinosaurs. But even it wasn't big enough to change the earth's spin, esp not to the extent that you say.
http://en.wikiped...on_event
All that debris that saturated the atmosphere & floated around for a while, blocked sunlight & cooled the planet.
Your mammoth was NOT naked, nor was it found to have been living under tropical conditions: http://www.dailym...ars.html From the article: "Mammoths evolved from African elephants when the Ice Age set in." With those coats, they NEEDED the cold. (or they would overheat)...cont
DarkHorse66
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2012
cont....The rhino came in a woolly version as well(just right for ice & snow):
http://en.wikiped...inoceros
The earth at its coldest:
http://en.wikiped.../Ice_age
The earth at its hottest (including temperate arctic warming):
http://en.wikiped...an_Stage
Happy Reading! DH66
DarkHorse66
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2012
The lion attack that the link about the baby mammoth mentions was quite possible. There was even a cave lion (#6 in the link below) that was well adapted to hunt mammoths. But if you read the list, there was more than one giant cat that could live there under those conditions(eg #5) http://listverse....ic-cats/
A part of your confusion stems from the fact that you also seem to be confusing & mixing the periods of warming and cooling when you simultaneously claim ice age conditions for Hudson's Bay and temperate conditions for the arctic. You need to pay more attention to the real timelines involved with the presence of such conditions. The other thing that you might have guessed by now, is that you didn't have your facts straight (as Otto likes to say: google is your friend; he does have a point there) before you posted your 'theories'. I found all of my links quite easily -because I looked, before adding my two-cents worth to the conversation.Cheers, DH66
Shinobiwan Kenobi
3.1 / 5 (15) Nov 09, 2012
Gentlemen, gentlemen, there appears to be misinterpretation occurring regularly through this thread.

Allow me to translate what R_R has been saying into a more understandable format:

"Derp derpa, derp derp derp-er-do, derpa, derp-derp."

No need to thank me, I'm only here to help. =^-^=
R_R
1 / 5 (15) Nov 09, 2012
Thermo and Dark, I do understand and appreciate what you are saying and I'm looking for direction from the physics people here but you need to open to the possibility that your missing a piece of the puzzle. I dont expect you to believe me but in exactly the way Copernicus knew with mathematical certainty the sun was at the center of the solar system I know this planet stopped rotation 10500 BC. It is not unreasonable to think there is a scenerio whereby this planet slowed gradually enough for some people to survive, given they did. Now there is a 500 km wide bullet hole at Hudsonbay that could fit a 500 km wide metalic bullet travelling at gosh knows how fast, which is a good starting point. How much energy could this impact supply and how much energy do you propose is needed to stop this planet.If this doesnt work then theres still something missing is all and that something could be almost anything, from what I understand, science doesnt even know how and why this planet rotates.
R_R
1.2 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2012
Dark, that wasnt the baby mammoth I was refering to but it sure was neat, thanks for sharing. Now time for sleep
Shinobiwan Kenobi
3.7 / 5 (15) Nov 09, 2012
in exactly the way Copernicus knew with mathematical certainty the sun was at the center of the solar system I know this planet stopped rotation 10500 BC.


Then why didn't you save yourself the back-and-forth and post the math for it to be checked?
Shitead
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2012
If an object the size of the moon struck the earth at 400 km/sec it might change the precession of the earth's rotation by approximately 5 per cent, but it would not change the axis of rotation by even one degree. Meanwhile, the surface of the earth would be churned into an endless sea of boiling magma. Someone would probably notice.
Everything moves except the axis of rotation; the crust moves, the mantle moves, the outer core moves, the inner core moves, and they all move in different directions at different speeds and these speeds change over time. Each moving region makes a contribution to the earth's magnetic field, whose poles move wildly. There is no reason why the north magnetic pole could not move to Hawaii.
There is no "true" polar wander, and even if there was there is no fixed frame of reference from which to measure it.
rubberman
4 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2012
RR- You and I have had this discussion before in other threads. The only way for your hypothesis to work is an external Gravitational/magnetic force causing a global crustal "slip". Your impactor required is simply too large to accomplish what you say without destroying the planets surface conditions. If all of the intact frozen animals in Siberia were frozen at the same time and there are several hundred KM's between discovery sites, this would lend credence to your hypothesis about the shift, but the mechanism will still be a mystery.....
Tangent2
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2012
Tangent, I'm a doing my best, remember Albert Einstien believed enough to write the forward for Mr hapgoods book "Path of the Pole" so I'm not just some dog in the dark. How was that :)


Wow, you didn't really just compare yourself to Albert Einstein, did you??

Also, I see a whole lot of words but no facts/figures/evidence, like I had asked for.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2012
There was a special on the Discovery channel regarding the stopping of the earths rotation. In a nutshell, it predicted that life as we know it would end. The bulging of the planet at the equator due to rotation also includes the oceans. Any stoppage of rotation would cause massive flooding in the north and south due to the oceans rushing to equilibrium much faster than the earths crust could. Moreover the side of the earth facing the sun would get tremendously hot while the opposite side would go into a deep freeze. I'm sure if either of these events occurred 10,500 years ago the evidence of such would be obvious.
R_R
1.2 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2012
Kenobi, you are welcome to check the math. You can start here, add the lenght of the four sides of the Great Pyramid and use this as the circumfirence of an imajined half shpere, now calculate the radius for that sphere and see if that equals the hieght of the great pyramid. Next assuming the three pyramids at Giza represent the Orion belt stars, and knowing the angle we see these stars at in relation to the equator rotates back and forth over thousands of years due to earths wooble, see if the angle of the pyramids on the ground best relects the angle the belt stars would be viewed at in 10500 BC. If you want to check further please read my book, too long for here. Keep in mind the story of Atlantis comes from the Egyptians, as Plato said.
R_R
1 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2012
Shitead, I seem to remember hearing that the Idonesian earthquake alone changed Earths axis slightly, no external force at all. Seems to me the moon could easily do the job but I leave it to others to review your statement, not my field.
R_R
1.1 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2012
rubberman, yes I remember, greatly appreciate your approach, thanks. You may well be right about gravitational force, forgetting the consequences to Earths surface for the momment, if a planet sized object past close by the Earth, do you think this could slow our planet to a stop?
RealScience
5 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2012
R_R: Thanks for pointing out that what I called James Bay is called the Nastapoka Arc (just to the north of James bay). But it is much older than 13,000 years

Regarding stopping the earth's rotation, no, even a big planet passing close by wouldn't do it. And if it did, it would cook the earth in doing so.

Regardless of how you stop it (short of some sort of focused moon-sized tractor beam tethered to something much bigger than the earth), the earth's rotational energy would become heat. And the rotational energy alone would be enough to fry every living thing on the planet and boil the oceans dry.

Smacking earth with an asteroid is even worse because something fast moving has to have much more energy to have enough momentum. Even something just dragged in by our own gravity would melt the entire crust and mantle. Thermodynamics is correct!

I love myths, but when an ancient myth violates the laws of energy and momentum, the myth is either misinterpreted or wrong.
JoeBlue
1.1 / 5 (17) Nov 09, 2012
The funny thing is that all of you are arguing against Polar Shift, which is a well-known and documented reality.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2012
No, we're arguing against *sudden* polar shift, which does not happen. Gradual shift, due to precession, does happen; one cycle is about 26,000 years long.
Silverhill
4.9 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2012
@R_R:
could an aditional close encounter of a planet sized object slow this planet to a stop? Ancient myth describes such an event.
Ancient myth is wrong. As RealScience noted, you could not stop Earth's rotation without tremendous disruption.
Then you have the problem of restarting the rotation, using enough torque to change the axial direction significantly, again without destroying the surface. Have you been reading Velikovsky?

I'm looking for direction from the physics people here
We are giving direction. However, you're ignoring it.

with mathematical certainty ... I know this planet stopped rotation 10500 BC.
(adapting a common challenge) "Maths or it didn't happen."

It is not unreasonable to think there is a scenerio whereby this planet slowed gradually enough for some people to survive, given they did.
Only if there is a plausible, even if extremely improbable, mechanism.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2012
Now there is a 500 km wide bullet hole at Hudsonbay that could fit a 500 km wide metalic bullet … How much energy could this impact supply and how much energy do you propose is needed to stop this planet.
Note: the crater from a large impact is much larger than the impactor.
I used the Purdue Impact Simulator ( http://www.purdue...ctearth/ ) to posit a 500-km-diameter impactor of solid iron, moving at 72 km/s. The energy delivered is about 1.4E30 J, compared to Earth's rotational kinetic energy of about 2E29 J. However, much of the energy of such an impact will be lost as heat, rather than noticeably opposing Earth's rotation.
The notes from the simulation say:
"The impact does not make a noticeable change in the tilt of Earth's axis (< 0.05°).
"The average interval between impacts of this size is longer than the Earth's age. Such impacts could only occur during the accumulation of the Earth, between 4.5 and 4 billion years ago."
Silverhill
5 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2012
add the lenght of the four sides of the Great Pyramid and use this as the circumfirence of an imajined half shpere, now calculate the radius for that sphere and see if that equals the hieght of the great pyramid.
This is true for *any* square pyramid whose height is set at 2/π times the length of the base edge. The ancient Egyptians had a usable approximation of π.

from what I understand, science doesnt even know how and why this planet rotates.
Asymmetries in the mass distribution in the protosolar nebula gave rise to torques which imparted rotation to various clumps of matter. The rotations are still present.

Addendum: use a spell-checker; it will catch typos (such as Hudsonbay, sufice, aditional, relects, shpere, hieght, metalic). It will also catch errors that are less likely to be typos (circumfirence, imajined, scenerio, theres). It would not catch the error of using "past" for "passed", though.
RealScience
4.9 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2012
@R_R - listen to Silverhill. That 500 km impactor would leave a crater roughly the size of the pacific ocean.
The total mass of the oceans is 1.4x10^21 kg, so that's a million kiloJoules per kG of water on earth. And it only take 2300 kJ to vaporize a kg of water, so that would vaporize the oceans 400 times over.
And that still had little impact on the earth's rotation.

Displacement of the asthenosphere over centuries?
Not impossible, but hot-spot volcanoes present evidence to the contrary

Sudden shift of the whole planet's rotation without destroying life on earth?
Not even close.
It would take an impact more than a million times bigger than wiped out the dinosaurs, and if that had happened 13K years ago we would not be having this conversation.
R_R
1 / 5 (15) Nov 09, 2012
Wolf, I would be careful believing anything on TV. That said let me say all the evidence is right there in front of us, read my first post again. I have looked at countless scientific reports related to this topic and without exception the core evidence always leads to a fork in the road and science always takes the road of the establishment and then assumption is presented as fact. For instance science calls the countless millions of out of place boulders laying around eratic boulders, I call them impact blast degree. I could back this up in spades but time limits. As for flooding every nation on earth remembers a global flood. The word would get around pretty quick whether global or regional, they werent stupid.
R_R
1 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2012
Realscience, you state the crater at Hudsonbay is far older then 13,000 years. Therefore according to ice age theory this crater was repetedly covered and uncovered with miles of moving ice for millions of years. How do you explain the intact simetrical raised rim and central uplift (beltcher islands), would that not have been wiped clean? How do you explian no ice scarring. No this crater is post ice, show what evidence there is that this formation is millions of years old and I'll show how incorrect assumption has been presented as fact.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2012
R_R I don't believe it because I saw it on TV. I believe because Isaac Newton frickin says so!! If the earth as a whole stopped rotating due to a external physical force such as an asteroid the oceans would most certainly keep going and roll right over the continents. Much sooner than they would rush towards the poles as I mentioned before. This doesn't even take into account the tremendous amount of heat and radiation that would be released as Silverhill and Realscience have already mentioned. Can you imagine the heat gradient the earth would experience if the rotation was only halved? Even if over a long period? Is it possible to move the earths rotational axis? Sure. But is hasn't happened in any time frame that doesn't have at least 9 zero's behind it I can assure you!
RealScience
5 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2012
@R_R - Many cultures have flood 'myths' and I suspect that most are based on fact. The melting of the ice-age accumulation released enough water to raise the sea levels ~100 meters, with a good portion released on land with plenty of ice around to form ice dams. Floods would have been very common ~12K-15K years ago.

The Belcher Islands look to me like they've been scrubbed clean of loose rocks and soil by glaciers, much like the tops of the White Mountains in New Hampshire (which do show scarred rocks - I've seen them myself).

It is very likely that there was a significant impact ~13K years ago.
It is quite likely that it was on the Laurentide ice sheet.
It is NOT realistic to think that it was big enough to create a 500 km crater (3x the diameter of Chixilub) without a huge mass extinction.
It is NOT possible that one shifted the whole earth's rotation 30 degrees without destroying complex life on earth.

You asked for feedback from scientists, and this is honest feedback.
RealScience
5 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2012
@rockwolf - That's what I though after reading a book on polar wander.
SO I approximated the math (with simplifying assumptions such as a frictionless asthenosphere LVZ) one day while driving to the city, and I was very surprised to find that if the mass of ice during the ice age were placed off center, it was of the right order of magnitude to rotate just the crust of the earth (not the whole earth) by 30 degrees over a few thousand years. And that would not release huge amounts of energy, either.

Since I was driving I didn't try to get better than a factor-of-a-few estimate, but that's why I wouldn't rule out a slower shift of just the crust. I'm still skeptical due to Hawai'i, Yellowstone, etc. hotspots, but I do keep an open mind.

On the other hand I completely agree that a collision almost instantly changing the whole earth's axis just doesn't fly, and by many orders of magnitude. I'd say that the factor it misses by has about nine zeros behind it...
R_R
1 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2012
JoeBlue, thanks for chiming in, I sure would like to hear you expand on this!
LED Guy
5 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2012
RR: RealScience is saying that the shift would require the ice cap to be off center. Since it was located around the north pole, it was in the wrong place to provide the necessary torque.

RealScience also say that it would take THOUSANDS of years.

Rotating just the crust of the earth would still release huge amounts of energy unless you can come up with a what for the crust/mantle boundary to become frictionless. Even if that happens, then you have to figure out how to do with even though the crustal roots of mountain chains go much deeper.

You said the true polar wander happened in a day or so, not thousands of years. RealScience ignored a lot when he said just the crust would move. True polar wander takes millions of years. Not days.
RealScience
5 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2012
@LED Guy: Yes, I ignored one heck of a lot, and I was a generous as I could be to the theory to see if it could be ruled out completely. As I stated I assumed a frictionless zone in the asthenospehre at the depth of the low-velocity-zone, since it has been theorized by some geologists that there is a low-friction zone and no friction is easier to model than low friction.
Once the ice cap was (hypothetically) off center it would tends to become further off center, so I started the calculation with it significantly off center just to get a rough order of magnitude estimate.
I expected the answer to be 'No way it moves even in a million years', and was surprised to find that it could (if most unknowns turned out to be in favor of the shift) move in thousands of years.
So I keep an open mind to thousands-of-years polar shift due to on-the-earth imbalance of mass. However I'm highly skeptical until the hotspot volcanoes are explained.

But a few-day shift? NO WAY since we are still here.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2012
It would be interesting to know if the "large and relatively rapid" excursions caused by plate tectonics, on the order of tens or more percent of those predicted for non-Moon planets (up to 80 degrees IIRC), is a source or "sink" for diversity. The astrobiological constraints are interesting.

@ RR: It is obvious that there is no conspiracy. And that you have no accepted and current references for your ludicrous claims, or you would have given them.

First because these areas (polar wander, plate tectonics) are way older than the AGW regime climate science work.

Second because conspiracy is always the least likely pathway by construction. Conspirationists always move goal posts to 'hide' conspiracies. How can you test any of the increasingly daft ideas? You can't, which is why it isn't even wrong, not even a hypothesis.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Nov 10, 2012
In my theory the wandering of geomagnetic poles is effect of dark matter, which is penetrating the solar system. The neutrinos not only could affect the heating of magma with accelerating of the decay of radioactive elements inside of Earth mantle, but they could affect its motion in similar way, like the motion of solar plasma. This motion is driven with Corriolis force, which is affected with location of the center of mass of solar system. At the moment, when some dense cloud of neutrino passes through solar system, this center of mass will be shifted beneath the surface of Sun and it will stop the circulation here. But IMO the neutrinos could interact with charged particles of plasma or magma and they could affect their inertial motion directly. The dense cloud of neutrinos is quite heavy, but it doesn't affect the linear motion, only accelerated motion and rotation due its character of foam. It's gravitomagnetic effect, not just gravitational one.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2012
@ Darkhorse66:

Of course it wasn't the biggest known asteroid to hit the Earth. The biggest known asteroid to date is recently discovered, the Manitsooq impactor. [ http://www.ourama...und.html ] The impactor was ~ 30 km, compared to the K-Pg impactor of ~ 1 km.

The reason for the K-Pg impactor being a mass extinction trigger was not the ash as such. But it hit relatively rare sulfurous and calciferous deposits laid down by earlier life, making the Earth a poisonous and pH varying environment. The impactor wouldn't have caused extinctions if it hit in earlier time periods.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Nov 10, 2012
We have many indicia for this explanation already. As we know, the global warming is a matter of not only Earth, but another planets and their moons within solar system. We are observing changes in gravitational and light speed constants recently. We are observing not only warming, but period of increased geovolcanic activity too. The connection of sun flares and earthquakes has been revealed. During eclipses the motion of massive bodies manifests with Allais effect and with changes of Accutron resonator frequency. IMO it's time to connect all these indicia together.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2012
dramatic shifts in the Earth's surface over millions of years, and then a return to the previous state, can be explained by bulging at the equator and elasticity of the planets outer shell
IMO the changes in rotation of magma inside of Earth mantle can manifest and correlate well both with motion of geomagnetic poles, both with shape of the Earth as such - but can the shape of Earth explain the motion of plasma beneath it? IMO hardly so, because the Earth is semifluid sphere: it's shape is determined the circullation of matter inside of it, not vice-versa. It's the same nonsense, like to say, the bulge at the surface of coffee in the cup stirred is driving the rotation of coffee beneath it.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2012
@ Silverhill:

The impact crater size relative to the impactor differ on different planets, but a convenient rule of thumb is ~ 20 as you probably know. It is because moving mass in a hypervelocity (faster than speed of sound in minerals) impactor shock wave (hinted at by mechanical sound not having time to relax the energy) is under energy constraints.

A ~ 500 km crater would have ~ 20 km impactor. But as we all know Hudson Bay is not an impact crater, it is a subsidence. Ironically predicted from and so testing plate tectonics, IIRC.

Personally I doubt there was an impact somewhere in US ~ 10 ka bp. It seems a vocal minority is behind the hypothesis, and they can't get traction as the evidence is not there.

@ ValeriaT:

Neutrino fluxes, or dark matter, doesn't heat Earth appreciably or they would be easier to detect.

And no, while GW of course is vital, there is no general heat trend as in our AGW. Some planets are cooling, while others are heating, as would be expected.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Nov 10, 2012
Neutrino fluxes, or dark matter, doesn't heat Earth appreciably or they would be easier to detect.
We are detected changes in speed of decay of many radioactive elements recently. And we are detecting this heating right now with global warming. IMO it's caused with acceleration of decay of radioactive potassium inside of oceans. This decay is rather slow and the change of its speed was never measured near strong neutrino sources. It should be done IMO.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2012
The behavior of dense cloud of slow neutrinos is rather counterintuitive. These particles don't affect the gravitational lensing too much, because they do contain both positive, both negative curvature and they do violate equivalence principle heavily. They're merely transparent for light and they don't introduce the relativistic dilatation of time. Because they're in thermal equilibrium with CMBR noise fluctuations, they do move with high speeds, which are close to the escape velocity of Solar system (560 km/sec). The slower motion is therefore not affected with these thingies at all even at the large concentration. But they're slowing the noninertial motion, the motion of charged particles the less. Inside of superconductors the electrons are moving with high speed and such a materials can therefore shield or reflect neutrinos. But even the slow motion of solar plasma or magma of Earth can be affected with it. It even affects the rotation of Earth around Sun and Moon around Earth.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Nov 10, 2012
We can therefore say, the dense cloud of dark matter is pervading the space like thin but heavy superfluid, which interacts with accelerating objects only (with charged ones in particular). Because human brain is full of moving charged ions, I presume, the neutrinos can affect the human brain during solar activity and/or during solar eclipses and planetary conjuctions and vice-versa: the human brain can affect the motion of neutrinos too. Which can serve as a physically relevant basis of telepathy and telekinesis, for example. The neutrinos are solitons of scalar/gravitational waves and they can be prepared even with classical electromagnetic circuits under conditions, when the EM portion of their waves gets suppressed. These things give a meaning, but the mainstream physics deals with very energetic neutrinos only (only such a neutrinos are detectable easily as they affect the nuclear reactions). Whole remaining spectrum of low energy neutrinos and scalar waves remains hidden for us.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2012
Because human brain is full of moving charged ions, I presume, the neutrinos can affect the human brain during solar activity and/or during solar eclipses and planetary conjuctions and vice-versa: the human brain can affect the motion of neutrinos too.


Quick ValeriaT, don your tinfoil cap and hide in your closet! The neutrinoes are affecting your brain, causing you to spout meaningless pseudo-scientific babble!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2012
Maybe it's meaningless just because of your general lack of information, wider connections and experimental background. For example, the cold fusion was considered a nonsense and as such dismissed with mainstream during last twenty years, until someone realized, it could be mediated with weak force instead of strong force... And suddenly - whole these years of "pseudo-scientific nonsense" become suddenly acceptable... Such a situation happened in science many times already: the ideas which were dismissed many years were accepted just later, when their experimental and theoretical background expanded.

The only fact today is, may ideas are dismissed because we have no experimental support for it - and these experiments aren't published or even prepared, because we have no theory for it. It's vicious circle, which is comfortable for conservative physicists, but not so advantageous for the rest of human civilization, which is paying all this ignorance from public taxes.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2012
For example, during new Moon the people are more risking during street accidents or at the stock markets. During these periods we are living at the connection line of the Moon, Earth and Sun, so that the gravitational waves are shielded most intensively there. The neutrinos are formed just at the connection lines of large massive objects - so we can expect higher concentration of dark matter there. The elevated concentration of neutrinos is making us nervous and less mentally stable. If my model is correct, we should find a correlation with intensity of CMBR noise, which everyone can detect with his TV set: this noise should be more intensive during these periods too. The speed of decay of radioactive elements should be higher too. Until we haven't done such an experiments, then we are just predestined to speculate and dismiss all these theories.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2012
The mainstream physics of the last century is driven with deterministic low-dimensional models based on formal math, so it's really pretty good in extrapolation of various deterministic connections mediated with transverse waves in quantitative way. It's way not so good in predictions, when more than few factors are involved, like the climatic changes or cold fusion effects.

But unfortunately the dark matter phenomena are solely longitudinal waves of vacuum driven. They result from the lack of shielding of gravitational waves caused with all massive bodies in the Universe - rather with deterministic peer-to-peer interactions between pairs of massive bodies. So you should invert whole existing deterministic approach to physics for their understanding. Such an understanding is not less or more difficult (after all, the human brain is well equipped for holistic understanding - at least as well as for understanding of deterministic math) - it's just dual way of thinking.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2012
Solar activity from planetary tidal forces Can the tidal forces of planets affect the behavior of much heavier Sun - or are the another effects the actual culprit here?
R_R
1.1 / 5 (15) Nov 10, 2012
Science has somehow manufactured this colosal glass house of lies, built around this cushy illusion of an Ice Age, brainwashing whole generations. Its incredibly dangerous! Mankind has been continually brought to its knees from from impact and its just a matter of time till the next one. Nikoli Tesla sums up part of the problem "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Previous to poleshift 10500 BC we had a normal sized polar ice cap centered on Hudson Bay (no ice fields in Europe and Siberia temperate), after pole shift north american ice fields melt and Siberia freeze (simple, no super computer needed). How long till this glass house comes crashing down is anyones guess, I just hope before the next impact so we begin to take serious preperations. Good luck all
baudrunner
1 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2012
They suggest that such movement isn't about to happen again anytime soon however, as their study found that Earth has rotated just 30 degrees over the past 200 million years.
The Earth, or its magnetic field? I guess it's all relative, when you think about it.

As to why the magnetic field shifts, the answer is simple. I don't give it much thought, really, since the truth is easy to come by when one has mastered knowledge of all things. You see, there is a phenomenon called hysteresis, which is the frictional lag of electromagnetic fields around an inductive source. The Earth's precession is a subtle one, where a complete circle described by the axis occurs every 27,000 years (which also happens to be the time frame for the cycle of ice ages). The Earth's electromagnetic field lags this rotation, and every once in a while plays catch-up, in a dramatic shift to maintain alignment with its natural poles (the field's, not the Earth's). See, it's easily explained.
LED Guy
5 / 5 (9) Nov 11, 2012
RR where was the southern ice cap during your 30 degree shift? Are you saying that the Antarctic ice cap melted then refroze?

You should be careful about invoking glass houses. You are living in a large one. You "know with mathematical certainty" that the pole shifted by 30 degrees in a day or so, but you haven't given any PLAUSIBLE mechanism for it to happen.

Your supposed impact that left a 500km wide crater in Hudson bay would not have had time to cool in 10500 years. It also would have left a lot more debris than the glacial erractics that you mentioned. There would have been a huge ejecta blanket. Material would have been blasted across the entire planet.

Show some evidence for shatter cones or impact breccias in the area or accept that there wasn't an impact. It takes more than a gut feeling to prove something.
LED Guy
5 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2012
What you conspiracy theorists fail to realize is that you do not need a theory to publish results. What you do need is a careful analysis and enough details for someone else to REPRODUCE the results.

If anyone can use the same methods and equipment and get the same results then that is a discovery. It is then up to the theorists to explain the results, not the other way around.

Whenever anyone makes extraordinary claims, but refuses to reveal the details (usually until they say the patents have been filed), they are hiding something. You can file a patent in less than a month. Once it is filed you have your priority date. You don't have to wait until the patent is granted.
barakn
5 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2012
R_R has had two years to contemplate what's wrong with his notion ever since it was pointed out to him here http://phys.org/n...ion.html and here http://phys.org/n...ife.html and it hasn't dissuaded him yet. Any attempts now will fail. He's already written a book (help us all - hopefully he had an editor correct the misspellings) and is too heavy invested to give up this cherished fantasy. Any further comment on this page is wasted effort.
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2012
@barakan - thanks! I see that Thermo explained it clearly to R_R back then, and that R_R effectively decided that the laws of conservation of energy and angular momentum must be wrong, and all of modern science is a conspiracy to cover it up, because it conflicts with his interpretation of ancient myths.

R_R: I have a very open mind, as do many scientists - it is your mind that is appears to be closed. If you don't believe basic physics you can verify the rotational energy and angular momentum of spinning object yourself in your garage with a bicycle wheel, a scale and a stop watch and some string, pulleys and weights to apply easily calculable forces and energies.
If you continue to write stories that would mean basic physics is a hoax, without even doing experiments to test it, then you are FICTION WRITER. There is nothing wrong with being a fiction writer, but if you push the same non-science on a science web site and insist that it is the truth, then you are a fraud.
R_R
1 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2012
OK, ya'll think you have an open mind, lets see. Do you really think that a few equations on a chaulk board can explain everything in this confusing world, how is that open? Now admitedly I dont understand the physics of how this planet stopped but I know it did, and I know there is a solution to the physics of it, perhaps even one that science doesn't understand yet. Thinking in terms of cant, never, impossible and you fail before you start, there is something you are missing is all and it might take years to have that euricka momment, or it might come to someone in a split second because it was right there in front of you all the time. I am not a scientist and that is why Im here, to get scientists thinking about this. If this scenario is so impossible then my only thought is that a major scientific principle may be flawed and/or undiscovered and there is a nobel prize awaiting someone out there.
R_R
1 / 5 (12) Nov 11, 2012
In the mean time science should investigate the Hudson Bay crater. It must be a half crater for a reason, draw a line to form this half circle and check the geologic charts. I found that from rim to rim to line it is filled with a lava and debris mixture found nowhere outside this half circle except for a long thin line leading north to where I suspect the other half will be found in the form of a crushed blob of magma that exactly matches the lava found in the half circle. If something pierced the continent you could expect the hole to fill with magma and you could expect continental movement and you could expect no typical impact rock fracturing because all the rock was driven into the core. Now your leadership does not want to get to the bottem of this, its up to you! Good day
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2012
@R_R you KNOW that the planet stopped? Sound like you think that there can't be any other explanation for the ancient myths and it is impossible that your explanation is wrong. That's a closed mind.

True scientists are always open to the possibility that they are wrong. However for scientists extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and one person's interpretation of ancient myths does not carry much weight against simple principles that anyone can verify for themselves.

As for there being some way of stopping a planet that is beyond known physics and that would be far less violent than a collision, there probably is. Take you 'evidence' and write it up as a science fiction story where a civilization millions of years more advanced than ours does something like that to a civilization like ours as a practical joke.

But don't go on a science web site preaching an event that would have destroyed all higher life forms, and call it a conspiracy when no one believes you.
LED Guy
5 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2012
RR it has been investigated. There was no evidence that the Nastapoka arc has anything to do with an impact.

http://en.wikiped...poka_arc
http://www.uwgb.e...t-No.htm
R_R
1 / 5 (12) Nov 11, 2012
LED, *Hudson Bay Could Hold Giant Crater Larry O'Hanlon, Discovery News*

"But recent studies of impact craters on Earth and other planets are helping zero in on what to look for in Hudson Bay — so much so that he visited the area on a recent "on the cheap" research excursion. Brookfield summarized the trip and his ideas for further exploration in a poster presented this week at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia.

The crater may have multiple concentric rings, said Michael Brookfield, as is the case in the recently discovered Vredefort Crater of South Africa, the famous Chicxulub Crater of the Yucatan, and on large craters on the moon and elsewhere in the solar system. If so, there could be evidence in the form of minerals that have been altered by sudden, violent fault movements. There also ought to be jumbles of older, broken rocks called breccia."
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2012
@LED_Guy - when I was growing up it was accepted that the circular arc above James bay was a few-billion-year-old impact crater, and it sure looks like one to me. I wouldn't expect shatter cones in a 2 billion year old crater that has been shaved down a few kilometers. Let's say that the jury is out on that one and both keep open minds.

@R_R: That there are no shatter cones, etc. shows that it is not a post-glacial crater. And the great lakes don't look at all like impacts. Give up on your theory of impacted stopping the earth's rotation - it isn't even believable science fiction. Throw in advanced aliens with planetary-scale tractor beams, or something else interesting that wouldn't destroy all advanced life on earth.
LED Guy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2012
@RealScience that was my point exactly. No shattercones means no 10500 year old impact. The nearby Sudbury complex is 2-2.5 billion years old. It doesn't look circular, but there is a lot of evidence for impact melt/metamorphism.

RR what about the Gulf of St. Lawrence around Prince Edward Island? You can fit a circle along the coast of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick over more than 180 degrees.

Too bad the age and geology of the rocks on the shore an on Prince Edward Island are too different for them to be a part of the same structure. It does fit your "circle arc = impact" theory though. Back up your theory with some nice confirming evidence.
R_R
1 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2012
Realscience, I have tried to explain a number of times this Hudson Bay impactor went right through the ice cap and the continent taking all the rock and shatter cones with it, the "bullet hole" then filled with lava. Please try and show how this is wrong with hard evidence, not assumption.
VendicarD
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2012
This is the only explanation of Polar wander that I find credible.

http://mix4fun.com/3093473/WTF
R_R
1 / 5 (11) Nov 11, 2012
LED, yes PEI very interesting, thanks. For now I am tring to concentrate on Hudson Bay otherwise to confusing. Its been years now since I did my research but heres what stands out. Isostatic rebound centered on HB crater with greatest rebound here (impact rebound?), Gravity anomoly here, strange mineral deposits deep underground showing signs of heat and compresion, crater filled rim to rim with lava/brecia, Belcher islands (central uplift?) looks like it was swirling lava as it cooled, nice crater rim showing no sign of ice cover disturbance.
lengould100
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2012
why North America was covered in ice and Siberia and Alaska were covered in Mammoths and Rhinos etc


R-R From this map, or others, it can easily be seen that N. America has landmasses (Ellsemere Island, Greenland) 1000 km further north than Asia, resulting in cold interior climate in N american artic vs. maritime climate northern Asia. Also the Gulf stream delivers a lot of energy into the artic above Europe and Asia, nothing similar for North America.

http://maps.natio...com/maps

Your theories are ridiculous.
R_R
1 / 5 (12) Nov 12, 2012
lengould, I hope people do look at your map to see what nonsense your statement is (and how improbable the ice age is). We are to believe that the Great Lakes way down on the left were covered by miles thick ice while Siberia on the right (so northern its right off the map) was ice free with millions of mammals living comfortably. Thanks for coming out.
Shinobiwan Kenobi
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 12, 2012
Realscience, I have tried to explain a number of times this Hudson Bay impactor went right through the ice cap and the continent taking all the rock and shatter cones with it, the "bullet hole" then filled with lava. Please try and show how this is wrong with hard evidence, not assumption.


Please show how you are right with hard evidence, not assumption.
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2012
@R_R - you have already been given hard evidence - the laws of conservation of energy and angular momentum, both of which you can check for yourself in your garage.

I also just zoomed in on Google earth on the Belcher Islands at 56-15'03" N / 79-16'42" W and I see nice striped sedimentary/metamorphic rock that clearly DIDN'T get melted or punched into the mantle. And the rock all around it sure looks ice-scrubbed to me.
The Nastapoka Arc may indeed be a meteor crater, but if so it is old enough to have either eroded below the shattered level or to have had the rocks twisted afterward.
Open your eyes and your mind.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2012
this Hudson Bay impactor went right through the ice cap and the continent taking all the rock and shatter cones with it, the "bullet hole" then filled with lava. Please try and show how this is wrong with hard evidence, not assumption.
Earth has a LOT of inertia. A (large) impactor does not simply punch straight through the crust, leaving a hole only as big as itself---as if it behaved like a bullet at a paper target. There is so much resistance to its passage---remember, it's trying to push a *planet*---that its energy is converted almost entirely to heat. The object is largely vaporized, with some chunks of itself and the surroundings thrown clear. Also vaporized (or at least melted) is a large amount of the material surrounding the point of impact. This is why such craters are much larger than the impactors. They don't just fill with lava the way a new well fills with water.
R_R
1 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2012
Silverhill and RealScience, no offence but science has not studied an impacter that pierced the Earths crust before and therefore should not state what would or would not happen. Now I understand this may sound "far side' to you but there were survivors of a highly advanced civilization that recorded what happened and these eyewitnesses report the previous north pole was at Hudson Bay at 10500 and furthermore that we were struck by a meteor(s) at this pole . To me it cannot be coinincidence there is a perfectly circular crater formation there (nature does not create such perfect circles). The question for me was should I believe the eyewitnesses or science wich quickly became a no brainer. All the evidence does support thier account.
Shinobiwan Kenobi
3 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2012
Silverhill and RealScience, I applaud you both for humoring R_R and attempting to interject with some common-sense in this discourse (as have a few others present), but the following statement leads me to believe you will not reach R_R by appealing to reason:
there were survivors of a highly advanced civilization that recorded what happened and these eyewitnesses report the previous north pole was at Hudson Bay at 10500 and furthermore that we were struck by a meteor(s) at this pole... ...The question for me was should I believe the eyewitnesses or science


Clearly, level-heads and concrete observation are meaningless when ancient eye-witnesses are riding shotgun.
R_R
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2012
Kenobi, even you would admit that 12000 years ago mankind had the same brain capacity as today and therefore witnessed and understood the ice age end. Funny how no account of a slowly retreating ice cap, just endless accounts of flood and destruction such as Noah reporting the Eath had tilted. Now you want to stick your head in the sand, that your business.
RealScience
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2012
@R_R - And you spoke to these eye witnesses yourself, of course, to minimize the chance of misunderstanding?
Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2012
just endless accounts of flood and destruction such as Noah reporting the Eath had tilted. Now you want to stick your head in the sand, that your business.


Even you would admit that flood stories in long dead authors' accounts are regional occurrences rather than global events, unless of course, you're sticking your head in the bible, that's your business and not science.
R_R
1 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2012
Kenobi, so you believe that some dumb ancient guy with a spear who could not have known the Earth was round just come up with a story that the Earth had tilted outa the thin blue air? Or how do you see it.
Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2012
I see ample evidence provided by other members of the forum being ignored so you may retain your grasp on a broken theory that does not agree with reality.
R_R
1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2012
If you dont mind I will, because its been a long time since I was a young fella who let others do my thinking for me.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2012
I see ample evidence provided by other members of the forum being ignored so you may retain your grasp on a broken theory that does not agree with reality.

That's a real problem with the scientifically illiterate. They want to believe stuff that sounds cool or outrageous - just because it sounds cool and outrageous.

...and they think by believing in all the crazy stuff out there they will - by pure chance - hit on something that the scientifically literate have missed.

I really think it's a psychological thing. They have the feeling that they've been left so far behind by others (and with good reason) that only by playing the lottery is there any chance that they'll ever be in a position to say "I knew it".
(Even though gttig lucky doesn't even count as "I knew it". It's an as usless attitude as the one from people who simply say "I don't know and I don't care")
R_R
1 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2012
antialias, Its a psychological thing all right, its about your disgusting selfishness and arrogance. Same Mr Hapgood faced and Mr Velekovski and many others in many fields. A closed science where lies are OK and challages are to be ignored and ridiculed and no one feels comfortable speaking up anymore.

I think this gone far enough.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2012
I think this gone far enough.

I hope it has. This site has more than its fair share of crazies. It doesn't need any more.

An open mind is all well and good. But a scientific mind must be open AND (self)critical (why else do you think scientific theories are constantly put to the test?)

And to be critical you need to be able employ the tools that delineate science from crank science - which requires a minimum of education.

I know it may seem arrogant to demand of people who want to play at scientific debate to be (at least minimally) scientifically literate. But that's true of any other profession. If you think you can debate on the level of a pro then you need to have the skills of a pro. Trying to fake it doesn't work - ESPECIALLY not in science. And you shouldn't be surprised when you are called on trying to fake it.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2012
A closed science where lies are OK and challages are to be ignored and ridiculed and no one feels comfortable speaking up anymore.
(That's "challenges", BTW.)
You're quite free to speak up, and you'll be welcomed when you do -- IF you provide the math and science to support your view. It does no good to simply claim that you have a better model or theory -- you have to SHOW that it is better, and in exactly what way(s). The mere claim of certainty is one that anyone can make, but few people should.
The ball is in your court. Provide well-founded notions and properly gathered data, integrated into a true theory, or you will not ever be able to be taken seriously.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2012
It does no good to simply claim that you have a better model or theory -- you have to SHOW that it is better

This is something even scientists have to learn when starting out, BTW. Invariably the first time you write a paper you will write it in a qualitative way (because we all learned how to write essays in school). But those kinds of papers are rejcted.

What you need to do is write in a QUANTITATIVE way. Put numbers to your theories. Make DEFINITE predictions that differ from current best theories (and also match with past observations).

"I think that..." is not good enough for science. Not by a long shot.
Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.9 / 5 (12) Nov 15, 2012
antialias, Its a psychological thing all right, its about your disgusting selfishness and arrogance.


Correcting misinformation and continuously advancing relevant discourse beyond the scope of what is covered in the articles is selfish and arrogant?

A closed science where lies are OK and challages are to be ignored and ridiculed and no one feels comfortable speaking up anymore


No one is ignoring your challenges, in fact there are quite a few responses shooting them out of the water, time to put down the ad hominem&m's (the misdirected ones at least) and start backing up your claims.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.