Pole Shift

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-12 01:40am

http://www.poleshift.org/ps/
http://www.viewzone.com/changingpoles.html

Does this shit offer any valid theories? I'm trying to explain to some people how technical-sounding talk doesn't necessarily mean correct talk.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-12 02:06am

I should have kept this in "Advice for Certain People" thread. Could a Mod move this to my other topic in Off-Topic?

Falkenhorst · Post by **Falkenhorst** » 2003-03-12 04:06am

All this pole-shift stuff is nothing but rear-echelon paranoia cooked up by shitbrained crackpots. I got screwed out of $25.00 back when I was 15 buying that book 5/5/2000. It was a major waste of money, but it had some cool shit about the Freemasons in it.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-12 10:00am

I think pole shift is recorded in rocks... the details of which eludes me at the moment..... aha:

http://www.earthsci.ucl.ac.uk/research/ ... rthmag.htm

Man, that was hard to find. "Pole Shift" sure brings up alot of crap on google.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-12 10:59am

Wow. Didn't think anyone would actually look into it that deeply.

meNNis · Post by **meNNis** » 2003-03-12 11:11am

sorry, was too lazy to read the links, but is this the whole thing with how the magnetic poles switch every x amount of years? if so, then yea, its true.

Cap'n Hector · Post by **Cap'n Hector** » 2003-03-12 01:17pm

meNNis wrote:sorry, was too lazy to read the links, but is this the whole thing with how the magnetic poles switch every x amount of years? if so, then yea, its true.

No, the pole shift thing is about how the Earth's crust will, as a whole, move 90 or 180 degrees out of alignment so that the poles end up at the equator. The theory seems to ignore continental drift and uses old evidence that has long since been disproven.

The Piri Reis Map, mentioned on the Viewzone page, is actually a distorted map of the coast of S. America, as I recall.

Their main evidence is the movement of the magnetic poles, which is well established. It doesn't mean the crust is shifting.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-03-12 08:36pm

True north can't shift without adverse effects on the environment. I think we'd notice that. Magnetic north, however, is a totally different story.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-03-13 12:13am

UltraViolence83 wrote:http://www.poleshift.org/ps/
http://www.viewzone.com/changingpoles.html

Does this shit offer any valid theories? I'm trying to explain to some people how technical-sounding talk doesn't necessarily mean correct talk.

To disprove the idea of a pole-shift, we'll look at one of the most notable examples of this theory, the psuedoscience book '5/5/2000' by Richard W. Noone. Now we will disprove it.

First, compute the mass of a hunk of ice that's say 3000 kilometers around by a hundred thick (very generous) with a density of about 1 gram per cubic centimeter.

Next, compute the mass of the Earth, a sphere with a radius of about 12000 kilometers that has a density of around five grams per cubic centimeter.

Compare the two. You'll notice that the mass of the antarctic ice sheet is nothing compared to the Earth's. Looks like we're going to have no pole-shift that way.

Let's look at the other supposed trigger of a pole-shift: A planetary lineup. Now, the planet Jupiter outmasses all the other planets in the solar-system put together. We could easily ignore the other planets and just focus on Jupiter. Now, any good physics textbook will have Newton's law of universal gravitation, which states that all bodies are attracted to each other, and that gravitational force falls off quadratically the further away you get from an object. And yet, when you plug in all the numbers, you quickly find that the Moon and the Sun have a significantly greater gravitational effect upon the Earth. Whoops, no pole-shift from there either.

To disprove a theory like the pole-shift theory, simply tell your friends to run through the numbers. They'll find that they just don't add up.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-13 02:30am

Hehe...Doesn't matter anymore. The person I tried to debate said to "agree to disagree" and didn't want to talk about it anymore. That board's biggest problem is with some people there. I mean their like near-total solispists. They refuse to look at scientific evidence to disprove a (pseudo)science theory. Oh well. I tried asking them to test the reality of gravity by flying off a 10 story building but, hey, common sense says bye-bye to people like that.

As for that Yellowstone supervolcano, couldn't we use explosives to bore sevral holes into it, and relieve some of the pressure? I don't like the idea of a gigantic volcano 'overdue' for eruption several hundred miles away from me.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-13 02:46am

UltraViolence83 wrote:As for that Yellowstone supervolcano, couldn't we use explosives to bore sevral holes into it, and relieve some of the pressure? I don't like the idea of a gigantic volcano 'overdue' for eruption several hundred miles away from me.

Ooh... good idea, my little droogie.

Hey, while we're at it, let's just depressurize the earth's core. That way no more volcanos would ever erupt!

...Granted it also means the hollowing out of the earth and the collapse of the earth's crust, but I mean... I don't like the crust anyway. Someone call Charlton Heston and tell him to bring a truckload of buckshot to the San Andreas fault. I've got a pyrotechnics job for him that would put Great White to shame.

... was that tasteless? I'm sorry... Wait. No I'm not. ::Points at sig::

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2003-03-13 08:37am

Well, we're all fucked if the core stops spinning!!!!

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Pole Shift

Pole Shift

Re: Pole Shift