Pre-Columbian settlement.

[stan]

Very interesting, thanks everybody.

I want to know more about the shifting of the magnetic polarity of the earth...as well as the supposed flipping of crusts and continents.
I think the former is generally accepted, but I don't know about the latter.
The changing of polarity has do to with the molten core, which is...
molten..i.e., a liquid., whereas
with the surface you have a more or less solid crust that shifts about, but
I don't understand this flipping business.
Someone was talking about Einstein and the idea that the icecap was so heavy that it pushed in the crust, causing a bulge or compensation somewhere else....
does this mean that the earth wobbled on its axis, turned upside down, started turning the other way, or what?

[Minimalist]

I have to run out for the evening, Stan.

Chew on this for a while.

http://www.skrause.org/writing/papers/h ... _ecd.shtml

The geologic revolution that took place in the 1960s—namely the development of plate tectonics—seemed to remove Hapgood’s theory, which had never been taken seriously in academic circles, from the picture. However, Graham Hancock, a former correspondent for The Economist, revives Hapgood’s argument, presenting evidence in his book Fingerprints of the Gods that there did indeed exist an Atlantis, which was responsible for many of the unexplained connections between known ancient civilizations, such as the Egyptians, Sumerians, and Aztecs. He proposes Earth Crust Displacement not as a replacement for plate tectonics, but as a supplement.

There is a bit of Club-induced hyperbole here.....to my recollection, Hancock never uses the word "Atlantis" if for no other reason than the Club instantly shoots the messenger who brings that word. Still, he may have accepted some of Hapgood's ideas a bit too uncritically.

[stan]

Oh, goody...a homework assignment! While you are out cruising!



But really, Bob, I read about half of it and found it interesting. I don't agree with all of Krause's conclusions, though. (I am not really interested in whether old maps are accurate or whether Atlantis existed, but rather in the geological processes.) Sometimes he seems to be illogical, and in one place refers to opinions as "evidence."
I do agree that ECD seems unlikely because (it seems to me) that the existence of the tectonic plates would allow for slippage when some sort of mega- event happens on one part of the globe. Rather than the whole crust rotating, I can envision some sort of local plate movement
in relation to adjacent ones.

Thanks for the assignment, though!

[Cognito]

I want to know more about the shifting of the magnetic polarity of the earth...as well as the supposed flipping of crusts and continents. I think the former is generally accepted, but I don't know about the latter. The changing of polarity has do to with the molten core, which is... molten .. i.e., a liquid., whereas with the surface you have a more or less solid crust that shifts about, but I don't understand this flipping business.

As pointed out by the late Marduk on a different thread, the earth spins like a top at 24,000mph at the equator. Any shifting of crust as proposed by Hapgood would immediately tear the earth apart due to the forces involved in changing its inertia. Think about it: the earth spins on its axis while rotating around the sun while rotating around the center of the galaxy, etc. Any rapid shifting of the earth's crust would immediately be met by a counterforce that is incalculable. Spin a top on the floor and watch what happens when you mess with it ... instant obliteration!

[stan]

Yeah...and why aren't all the continents massed along the equator?

...

Another point, the earth must have a great gyroscope force.
Odd about that wobble, though.

[Minimalist]

I don't know about that, Cogs. Hapgood's argument was that the crust "floats" on the mantle. The inner core would continue to spin as before. However, IF the crust shifted then everything on it would be displaced...including the water...in the opposite direction. We would be talking about waves a thousand feet high or more not 450 feet and they would have been everywhere not just along a few river channels. We have evidence for superfloods as part of the ice age meltdown. How come we don't have evidence of a world wide catastrophe along the magnitude that must have happened if ECD is true?

[Cognito]

We have evidence for superfloods as part of the ice age meltdown. How come we don't have evidence of a world wide catastrophe along the magnitude that must have happened if ECD is true?

Because it never happened?

[Minimalist]

I'll go along with that.

[Charlie Hatchett]

Oh, goody...a homework assignment! While you are out cruising!

Ain't Min nice!!

I'll go along with that.

Do we write off some sort of extraterrestrial influence?

And do we write off Einstein's slippage theory that easily?

Is there a source that presents his theory in detail?

Not saying I know the answer...it's got me stumped.

[Digit]

Afternoon Min. Let me just clarify one point, I am not suggesting that the Earth's mantle slipped, only that such an idea answers problems that other theories don't. That does not guarantee that the mantle slipped, only that as a possible solution it should be examined.
When the first bones of Neandertal man were recovered, as we all know, the examining 'expert' created a shambling, bowed, moron, when a few minutes with a medical practioner would have identified a bad case of arthritis.
The point I'm making is that experts showed a marked reluctance to talk to others outside of their own speciality. The same applies to the subject under discussion here.
The agreed wisdom on planetary formation is that the Earth, along with the other planets, was thrown off of the rapidly spinning sun to enable the sun to maintain its own equilibrium. This accounts for the planets orbiting close to the plane of the ecliptic, so far all good engineering physics. Then, as the planet swept up other debris, the infalling debris would transfer their energy of motion to the planet, which if not already spinning would now begin to do so.
Freely spinning objects, if flexible enough, must now become oblate spheroids with their equatorial circumference greater than their polar circumference, as is the Earth.
Why do the land masses not congregate at the Equator? For the same reason that the Earth's oceans don't, with the Equator having a larger circumference than the poles the water would be flowing uphill to reach the Equator.
We all know that the tectonic plates can drift, albeit slowly, and all the arguments in the post about crustal slippage have concentrated on the event happening rapidly, but would it, and what is rapid?
With the Earth having most of its mass in the centre it must function as a heavy hub fly wheel, as against a heavy rim fly wheel, so the first anomally is why does the Earth not spin at right angles to its orbit? Logic suggests the excessive weight in one hemisphere. Why does it wobble? Watch a top as it slows. The loss of so much ice in a hurry must result in a redistribution of mass as the water from the melting ice spreads out.
If crustal slippage were to occur the damage would be decided by how the slippage occurred and at what speed, but, what would happen if the slippage took place North/South as opposed to East/West? It could do it over a very long time at slow enough speed to prevent massive damage.
All that would show to non-scientific people would be a slow change of season lengths etc. as recorded by the Chinese and others.
Phew!

[stan]

Phew!

I second that emotion, Digit! (BTW, is it "dijit" or "dig it"?)

BUt I still can't buy the ecd business. Seems to me the system is too stable, the mass of the spinning planet too great, and the rate of changes too slow for these things to happen.

Also it doesn't make sense to me that the entire crust of the earth would slip....around a sphere. Still seems that the tectonic plate structure is where the any slippage would occur. We know that this has happened and continues to happen, so why propose something so bizarre as the entire envelope slipping?

As to the speed of change, why wouldn't the gradual ice buildup cause
gradual changes in the surface rather than a cataclysmic one?The ECD idea implies almost a 1/4 slippage on the North-South axis...that's huge.

And that idea seems to be based on a few questionable old maps.

[Minimalist]

Afternoon Min. Let me just clarify one point, I am not suggesting that the Earth's mantle slipped, only that such an idea answers problems that other theories don't. That does not guarantee that the mantle slipped, only that as a possible solution it should be examined.

Morning, Digit. The Phlogiston Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory was concocted in the 1770's to explain combustion....and was totally wrong, too.

When the first bones of Neandertal man were recovered, as we all know, the examining 'expert' created a shambling, bowed, moron, when a few minutes with a medical practioner would have identified a bad case of arthritis.

And a couple of centuries later we elected the shambling, bowed, moron, to the presidency.

The point I'm making is that experts showed a marked reluctance to talk to others outside of their own speciality. The same applies to the subject under discussion here.

Agreed....The CLUB does not like cross-dressers

The agreed wisdom on planetary formation is that the Earth, along with the other planets, was thrown off of the rapidly spinning sun to enable the sun to maintain its own equilibrium. This accounts for the planets orbiting close to the plane of the ecliptic, so far all good engineering physics. Then, as the planet swept up other debris, the infalling debris would transfer their energy of motion to the planet, which if not already spinning would now begin to do so.
Freely spinning objects, if flexible enough, must now become oblate spheroids with their equatorial circumference greater than their polar circumference, as is the Earth.

Why do the land masses not congregate at the Equator? For the same reason that the Earth's oceans don't, with the Equator having a larger circumference than the poles the water would be flowing uphill to reach the Equator.

We all know that the tectonic plates can drift, albeit slowly, and all the arguments in the post about crustal slippage have concentrated on the event happening rapidly, but would it, and what is rapid?

Well, if it didn't happen quickly what value would Hapgood's evidence of "Flash-frozen mammoths" have been?

With the Earth having most of its mass in the centre it must function as a heavy hub fly wheel, as against a heavy rim fly wheel, so the first anomally is why does the Earth not spin at right angles to its orbit? Logic suggests the excessive weight in one hemisphere. Why does it wobble? Watch a top as it slows. The loss of so much ice in a hurry must result in a redistribution of mass as the water from the melting ice spreads out.

I don't know about that. When ice melts it doesn't disappear it forms water which weighs just as much as the ice, even though it may have less volume. Over time the water may disperse but the formation of huge glacial runoffs lakes would not be much "lighter" than the ice they replaced.

If crustal slippage were to occur the damage would be decided by how the slippage occurred and at what speed, but, what would happen if the slippage took place North/South as opposed to East/West? It could do it over a very long time at slow enough speed to prevent massive damage.
All that would show to non-scientific people would be a slow change of season lengths etc. as recorded by the Chinese and others.

Perhaps but it isn't what Hapgood suggested.

Phew!

[Cognito]

Hey Digit. Hapgood's theory was popular right after continental drift was proposed by Wegener. Since then, plate tectonics has answered many of the questions left unanswered by former theories. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_plate

I believe that tectonic stress and isostatic rebound can answer many questions when you look at the tremendous changes that occurred all over the earth during the termination of the Younger Dryas. Although I do not believe the "geologically rapid" melting of pleistocene glaciers caused crustal displacement, the resulting stresses would have resulted in significant of volcanic activity and earthquakes in addition to the mega floods that occurred as ice dams broke. The situation would have been the same everywhere since the Last Glacial Maximum was a worldwide event.

If the volcanic activity didn't ruin your day then earthquakes and mega floods could do it. It must have seemed like the world was coming to an end.

[Minimalist]

If the volcanic activity didn't ruin your day then earthquakes and mega floods could do it. It must have seemed like the world was coming to an end.

And, as Hancock pointed out this was not a one-shot deal like the Indian Ocean tsunami....it went on for millenia.

[Digit]

I do not dispute any of what has been posted since my earlier post, but I would point out that nothing of what has been said answers what me and Min keep asking, which is, what mechanism would cause massive ice fields to melt in the centre?
Crustal movements would.
Remember, when Darwin postulated his theory of evolution he had no explanation as to what mechanism produced the variations his theory need to work on. That is why it was a theory. Proven theories move on to become laws.
Darwins theory was accepted without that proof simply because it was the best answer available to explain evolution.
Wegener's theory was rubbished at first on the simple basis that, at that time, there was no mechanism to explain it.
I tend to work from the other end.
As a student I was told that Pterosaurs could not fly as they had no breastbone. I argued that if it had wings it flew! That we could not explain how showed a deficit in our knowledge, not the Pterosaurs.
Therefore, the best argument against crustal movement melting the ice is to come up with a better argument.
I remain open to ideas.