It is important to distinguish between the geographic and magnetic poles. They move at different speeds. Continental drift - tectonic plates move very gradually, so that for example North and South America were once connected to Europe and Africa. That takes place very slowly. On the other hand, the magnetic poles, where the needle of a compass points, can shift very much more rapidly. Over recent decades the magnetic north has been shifting at a rate of about 34 miles per year. That is significant, by no means imperceptible. It is also known that the magnetic north and south have changed places more than once in the past. I'm not sure of the timescale.
Bruce Fenton on UFO/ET Contact 780,000 Years Ago |458|
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
It seems to be quite a long timescale compared with what I think Hurmanetar is suggesting for these crossings of the galactic plane - 12000 years:
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html
@Hurmanetar Does your theory rely on the Electric Universe theory to supply this huge current?
David
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html
@Hurmanetar Does your theory rely on the Electric Universe theory to supply this huge current?
David
The crustal displacement theory (ECD) is that the Lithosphere, the skin of the earth (roughly 60 miles deep) is unbalanced, but it is viscously and electromagnetically coupled to the mantle in the "Low Velocity Zone" where the semi-liquid acts as a magnetorheological fluid and is almost always plastic. This usually keeps the skin of the earth locked to the rotating ball of magma beneath which has such a relatively large angular momentum and with the oblateness of the bulge in the middle, there's no way the entire thing could be rotated.
But just as you can push a button in your Cadillac with MagneRide suspension and lower the viscosity in your dampeners giving you a comfy ride, changes in currents flowing through that Low Velocity Zone can (theoretically) dramatically lower the viscosity from plastic to basically that of water. During a period of cataclysm there is a breakdown of the geomagnetic field combined with intense solar flaring / CME / Micronova / galactic rays all of which have the potential to create currents in the LVZ which drop the viscosity and eliminate the coupling of the crust to the mantle allowing the skin of the earth to slide around and find a new balance point.
In the ECD theory, the tectonic plates and fault zones remain more or less where they are relative to one another during such a crustal displacement although they are certainly jostled with faults releasing causing major earthquakes.
Ben Davidson (Suspicious0bservers) conspiracy theory which sounds reasonable to me... is that Charles Hapgood who was both a professor and CIA agent (OSS agent before that) deliberately promoted a false version of ECD that would be debunked to steer the geophysical sciences away from the catastrophism which was known in the 40's and confirmed in the 50's and 60's - especially with the Apollo missions. Grant money steered science away from catastrophism and into uniformitarianism. The Chan Thomas book which was classified by the CIA lends credence to that conspiracy theory. Major White's book which describes that they found evidence the current poles had periodically been at the equator also lends credence to that theory. Einstein taking ECD and catastrophism seriously lends credence to that theory.
But just as you can push a button in your Cadillac with MagneRide suspension and lower the viscosity in your dampeners giving you a comfy ride, changes in currents flowing through that Low Velocity Zone can (theoretically) dramatically lower the viscosity from plastic to basically that of water. During a period of cataclysm there is a breakdown of the geomagnetic field combined with intense solar flaring / CME / Micronova / galactic rays all of which have the potential to create currents in the LVZ which drop the viscosity and eliminate the coupling of the crust to the mantle allowing the skin of the earth to slide around and find a new balance point.
In the ECD theory, the tectonic plates and fault zones remain more or less where they are relative to one another during such a crustal displacement although they are certainly jostled with faults releasing causing major earthquakes.
Ben Davidson (Suspicious0bservers) conspiracy theory which sounds reasonable to me... is that Charles Hapgood who was both a professor and CIA agent (OSS agent before that) deliberately promoted a false version of ECD that would be debunked to steer the geophysical sciences away from the catastrophism which was known in the 40's and confirmed in the 50's and 60's - especially with the Apollo missions. Grant money steered science away from catastrophism and into uniformitarianism. The Chan Thomas book which was classified by the CIA lends credence to that conspiracy theory. Major White's book which describes that they found evidence the current poles had periodically been at the equator also lends credence to that theory. Einstein taking ECD and catastrophism seriously lends credence to that theory.
The theory is that the galactic current sheet passes over about every 12,000 years triggering both magnetic excursions and/or reversals on Earth and solar outbursts which result in catastrophes and ice age triggers. The magnetic poles could wind up back where they started after a few years of excursion. In some versions of ECD, the crust also winds up back where it is currently giving the appearance of having always been there.
I'm not familiar with most of the Electric Universe stuff except for what I've listened to from Ben Davidson at Suspicious0Observers... not sure if what he promotes is exactly the same or not. He does believe that the sun, plasma, and charged dust has a much bigger effect on Earth's climate and geologic processes than has been recognized by the mainstream in the past (although they appear to be catching up).
I'm not familiar with most of the Electric Universe stuff except for what I've listened to from Ben Davidson at Suspicious0Observers... not sure if what he promotes is exactly the same or not. He does believe that the sun, plasma, and charged dust has a much bigger effect on Earth's climate and geologic processes than has been recognized by the mainstream in the past (although they appear to be catching up).
Regarding Einstein and ECD some compiled info here:
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~meech/a740/2006/spring/papers/rull5.pdf
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~meech/a740/2006/spring/papers/rull5.pdf
Excellent summary. Thank you.
What is the basic difference between Hapgood's fake ECD theory and the one Davidson proposes?
In my understanding, Davidson says the flash-freeze of mammoths was caused by the crust slipping 90 degrees so the lands now on the equator move in about a day to where the north pole is now. Is my understanding wrong? I could be misremembering it.
What is the basic difference between Hapgood's fake ECD theory and the one Davidson proposes?
In my understanding, Davidson says the flash-freeze of mammoths was caused by the crust slipping 90 degrees so the lands now on the equator move in about a day to where the north pole is now. Is my understanding wrong? I could be misremembering it.
I think somewhat. Electric Universe posits that the Sun (and all stars) are giant electric anodes, not billion year-long hydrogen bombs.
The same enormous electric currents which travel through the galaxy on plasma and dust to light the stars also work with gravity to keep the planets in place, and sometimes move them around. E.U. doesn't really say much about electricity jostling the earth's crust.
In my understanding, Davidson's electric effects of the Sun on the earth are somewhat dependent on E.U.
The same enormous electric currents which travel through the galaxy on plasma and dust to light the stars also work with gravity to keep the planets in place, and sometimes move them around. E.U. doesn't really say much about electricity jostling the earth's crust.
In my understanding, Davidson's electric effects of the Sun on the earth are somewhat dependent on E.U.
Hapgood’s theory was that the pole wanders to a random tilt and a bit more slowly I think.
Chan Thomas’ CIA classified story and Major White indicated a 90 degree tilt in about a day and then at some point another 90 degree flip back. This allows congruence with other evidence which indicates the poles have been where they are for millions of years. I’m still unclear on how long before the flip back... the next 12,000 event? Sometime in between? I haven’t heard the flip back explained.
Some people pointed out the Dzhanibekov Effect visually looks like the sudden flip and sudden flip back, but Davidson did a couple videos explaining why it isn’t exactly that.
I don’t recall Davidson giving a fully fleshed out explanation for the frozen mammoths except to say what everyone else has: they indicate extremely rapid freezing combined with a geologic catastrophe.
Chan Thomas’ CIA classified story and Major White indicated a 90 degree tilt in about a day and then at some point another 90 degree flip back. This allows congruence with other evidence which indicates the poles have been where they are for millions of years. I’m still unclear on how long before the flip back... the next 12,000 event? Sometime in between? I haven’t heard the flip back explained.
Some people pointed out the Dzhanibekov Effect visually looks like the sudden flip and sudden flip back, but Davidson did a couple videos explaining why it isn’t exactly that.
I don’t recall Davidson giving a fully fleshed out explanation for the frozen mammoths except to say what everyone else has: they indicate extremely rapid freezing combined with a geologic catastrophe.
I'm trying to establish whether your theories are mainstream or not. The EU seems rather weird as it stands. Above all, the sun (and other stars) is meant to be powered by electrons falling in to it down a 10 MeV potential. The problem is, I don't know how that circuit is completed, and otherwise the sun would obviously become charged until it no longer pulled in electrons. I have asked Wal Thornhill, and although I got a reply, I didn't get a satisfactory answer - so since this seems like an ultra simple question, I have rather backed off that idea. I didn't think conventional theories postulate much inthe way of interstellar current flows.
David
David
)
E.U. theory is certainly not "mainstream".
I don't know enough about E.U. to answer your question about the charge flow.
I think you are asking how the charge travels across the Sun, like in this Z-pinch diagram?
From: https://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-sun-verified/
I don't know enough about E.U. to answer your question about the charge flow.
I think you are asking how the charge travels across the Sun, like in this Z-pinch diagram?
From: https://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-sun-verified/
I don’t believe Davidson disputes the nuclear power source in the sun, but I have heard him point out the sun has a lot of secrets - things we are still stumped about: why does the equator rotate significantly faster than the poles? Why is the sun a perfect sphere with almost no equatorial bulge? Why do we see transverse waves on the sun’s surface if it is a gas/plasma? Etc.
I tried listening to a bit of E.U. stuff a few years ago but turned it off when whoever it was said gravity didn't really exist that it was just magnetism...
I tried listening to a bit of E.U. stuff a few years ago but turned it off when whoever it was said gravity didn't really exist that it was just magnetism...
Right - but that is it - if the sun is an anode, where is the cathode? I mean the only possible place would be the poles, but wherever it is, the whole thing would be unstable and short circuit.
To me, all that talk about double layers just obfuscates the problem. If you gain energy by allowing electrons to accelerate into an anode, don't you have to pay back just as much energy (realistically somewhat more) to extract those electrons again and send them on their way back into space?
To make it harder, the EU pride themselves on only using traditional physics, so you can't sneak a worm-hole or whatever into the explanation.
David
To me, all that talk about double layers just obfuscates the problem. If you gain energy by allowing electrons to accelerate into an anode, don't you have to pay back just as much energy (realistically somewhat more) to extract those electrons again and send them on their way back into space?
To make it harder, the EU pride themselves on only using traditional physics, so you can't sneak a worm-hole or whatever into the explanation.
David
Last edited:
Yes, but if the sun is like a spherical capacitor - gradually losing its electrical charge as the electrons pile in - I calculated that given the power output of the sun (supposedly powered by those electrons falling down a 10 MeV potential drop), the sun would discharge in a few hundred seconds!
Oh I agree - and they are probably relevant to large scale phenomena in the universe - but I don't see how the sun (and by extension any other star) can be powered that way.
David
Oh I agree - and they are probably relevant to large scale phenomena in the universe - but I don't see how the sun (and by extension any other star) can be powered that way.
David
I find this idea pretty reasonable myself.
----------------
About the EU theory. The medium Andrew Jackson Davies ( The Poughkeepsie seer)
In one of his volumes wrote that the Sun has a Magnetic effect on the Earth & so heats things up.
But the Sun's reflection from the Moon has an Electric effect ,on things on Earth & cools things down.
& Viktor Schauberger on log transport:
'Never during the day, but at nights and generally when the Moon shone.' the reason for doing it this way:
Water exposed to the suns rays is tired & lazy, it therefore curls up & sleeps, at night however ,
especially in Moonlight water becomes fresh & lively & is able to support the logs of Beech ,& Silver Fir
which are in fact heavier than water.
Thanks for the video. Interesting idea. Perhaps recurrent solar novae add significant mass in addition to normal meteoritic impacts and accumulation of dust and solar wind. I don't know whether that would be enough or not. Doing quick rough calculations it seems the earth would have to grow by 8 Mount Everests per year or .0024% of current mass every 12,000 years for Earth to double its mass in the last 250 million years and that rate of expansion seems high. Is that doable without completely destroying the ecosystem? I don't know.
The rest of the stuff about moon and sun and sleepy water... not sure how to respond to that.
The rest of the stuff about moon and sun and sleepy water... not sure how to respond to that.
Last edited: