parados wrote:Your link led me nowhere but it appears you are talking about the Hapgood's theory of crustal shift.
The link works fine if that is what you mean, but I suspect that what you mean is that you are either too dense to understand the complex theory of pole shift or you simply refuse to consider it because it doesn't uphold your global warming doctrine.
Quote:New technology and experiments appear to have disproven it.
Care to document this claim? What technology? What experiments?
Quote:You don't have to have observational proof if you have mathematical proof that can be tested in other ways.
If your mathematics cannot take into account all other sets of conditions, then your mathematics cannot explain anything. I doubt that we understand even the smallest fraction of what may have once been possible because we cannot possibly anticipate every set of conditions that theoretically may have once existed.
Quote:Even after all the scientists had done the research and figured it out there will still numbskulls saying the scientists were wrong.
That doesn't answer my question. We may know all of the pertinent facts, but not have scientists with enough intuition to understand them. We may have scientists who could understand all of the pertinent facts, but then not have all of the pertinent facts.
Quote:That isn't what Hapgood's theory said.
Hapgood's idea did include the accumulation of ice in polar regions:
From the Wikipedia article, which you apparently cannot find or cannot read:
"Hapgood speculated that the ice mass at one or both poles over-accumulates which destabilizes the earth's rotational balance, causing slippage of all or much of earth's outer crust around the earth's core, which retains its axial orientation."
Hapgood believed that such changes took thousands of years to come about and periods of change were separated by thousands of years of stability.
Later Flem-Ath and other researchers expanded on Hapgood's work and suggested that pole shift events could be accomplished in a matter of years, months, days or even hours. You could suggest that a redistribution of mass on the earth relative to the poles could be achieved over a few thousand years, but how could you suggest that such a redistribution could happen in just years, months, days or hours without a physical change in the earth's axial tilt?
Quote:Of course it would.
You have documentation for this claim?
The Indian Ocean earthquake that lead to the tsunami that killed so many people was so strong that it shook the entire earth and altered the earth's axial tilt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake. The earthquake wasn't so severe that the change in axial tilt is permanent (other geological forces will be able to "correct" the change). But you claim that a geological event that would be orders of magnitude more severe than the Indian Ocean Earthquake would not alter the earth's axial tilt at all. Utterly amazing.
Quote:At one point someone had posted a wonderful animated piece that shows the movement of the plate tectonics over a billion or more years. I don't have the time to track it down for you.
It likely wouldn't tell me anything that I don't already know, and at any rate it wouldn't answer my question. If the earth's axial tilt has always been constant and Antarctica was once close to the equator, then continental drift means that throughout history Antarctica has had tropical, subtropical, temperate and polar climates. So where's the physical evidence for all of these climates? Until such evidence is found a rapid change in climate due to sudden pole shift caused by a change in the earth's axial tilt is just as plausible an explanation as continental drift over millions of years is.
Quote:A science source. Certainly more than just your say so. Even Hapgood's theory doesn't change the axial tilt of the earth.
But from what I remember of the little bit that I read of one of Flem-Ath's books, he did suggest that the earth's axial tilt was altered by ice accumulation at the poles.
I think you are asking for proof regarding something that you apparently don't understand to begin with. I might as well ask you to prove Darwinism without mentioning genetics or chromosomes or population biology or anything else that has been added to Darwin's theory in last 140 years. You cannot combat a theory now based on what the theory said 40-50 years ago when that theory has been changed over time to account for more known data.
Quote:It only changes how the crust sits on the spinning earth.
From the Wikipedia article:
"A pole shift theory is a hypothesis that the axis of rotation of a planet has not always been at its present-day locations or that the axis will not persist there; in other words, that its physical poles had been or will be shifted."
If the axis of rotation has changed hasn't the tilt on the axis been effectively changed as well? If the earth's crust moeves when the axial tilt does not, then the physial poles of the axis have not changed. But current pole shift theory does leave open the possibility of pole shift through changes of axial tilt. The earth may still rotate around the same axis, but the tilt of that axis relative to the plane of the earth's orbit may not be the same after a pole shift event.
Quote:It could be caused by a hotter sun. One small little detail. We can actually measure the energy we receive from the sun. The increase in sun's energy can not account for the increase in temperature.
Why not? If the change in temperature downward could be caused by changing the sun's heat output downward, why can a change in temperature upward not likewise be caused by a change in the sun's heat output upward?
If you are saying that the known temperature increase on the earth is too great to have been caused by changes in the sun's heat output, then I must point out how difficult it has been to actually measure temperatures on the earth in order to prove global warming. Temperature measurements have been inconclusive at best.
Quote:A good question that perhaps you should ask of yourself.
Exactly what I am doing and exactly why I don't fall for the global warming propaganda. I am well aware that the earth is far more complicated than the global warmongers admit it is.
