| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
This was all itemised in SLOT theory proper. You have left out the biggest 'balancing item' of all, indeed the biggest geographical feature on earth, the Pacific Ocean. This is a) circular b) centred on the equator and c) occupies half the globe's non-polar surface area. Possibly all accidental ....
One other factor which may or may not play a part and that is the only 'discretionary' weight factor, the Greenland ice cap. When dealing with a turning gyroscope at an angle (ie the earth), such an off-kilter bit of plasticine stuck on might make a real difference.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
The Earth's geography demonstrates that the current pole position is the only stable default position. Therefore any period when the oceans were at different depths would have been a period of instability and thus only transient in nature.
Earth has spent the vast majority of its (non formative) history rotating on its present poles, with only the occasional transgression from the norm. Otherwise we would not see the geography we see today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I profoundly disagree. The rate of erosion and the fact that 'land' is just the ocean bottom by another name at a different time means that our present geography is not to be relied on for such Grand Statements about the past.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
And remember, Gaia has lots of weapons up her sleeve to dictate the way geography goes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | Earth has spent the vast majority of its (non formative) history rotating on its present poles, with only the occasional transgression from the norm. Otherwise we would not see the geography we see today. |
Earth has never had a "non-formative year."
The pole has been at many places. I am confident I have identified many of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | This has to be the optimum, default position for the poles and any shift from this position would undoubtedly result in instability.... and a desire (so long as any pole shifts are within the system's recovery range) to return to the stable default position. |
Indeed, it is at least one of the optimum positions toward which the globe will trend in any pole shift. So think of this spot as the bottom of the hill.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | You could leave the pole where it is and increase the axial tilt... thereby increasing the size of the Arctic circle. |
Yes. Another valid solution. However not one I believe is correct. We would then have the problem of adjusting again the Earth's axial tilt to its present 23.5 degrees.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Think of a pendulum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | I profoundly disagree. The rate of erosion and the fact that 'land' is just the ocean bottom by another name at a different time means that our present geography is not to be relied on for such Grand Statements about the past. |
Yes, you are quite correct.
And yet even after the breach of the Pacific (one mother of a SLOT even) the Earth's geography remained well enough intact to allow you to pick out the features crucial to your theory.... the Pacific itself, the Mediterranean, the Arctic Ocean... had these features not endured, you would not have had an inkling.
I think the stable pole position may be more enduring than you are prepared to allow for... and I personally do not believe any SLOT event (of any size) would do anything other than cause a little wobble at the poles (unless you accept the notion of a thin crust and the possibility of crustal displacement).
The only mechanism that I have seen that could cause a significant axial shift on a planetary scale is, I'm afraid. Ishmael's Spanner... (or should that be Ishmael's Wrench?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
We went over this before. If a titchy event like the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 could make the poles move yea much, then a truly monster event like the breach of the Pacific would move it by YEA much.
But I accept this requires somebody or other to start measuring what forces truly can move a slowly-spinning gyroscope (which has disappeared, Ishmael, since last I looked). I wonder if such measurements are possible given our present knowledge of mechanics. You're a measurement dude, Chad, give us your thoughts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| We went over this before. |
Yes but I was of the opinion it was left a little bit up in the air.
| If a titchy event like the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 could make the poles move yea much... |
I wouldn't mind betting it has already returned towards its pre-tsunami position.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Since we heard about the first movement would we not have heard of the second? Perhaps not, who reads the correction the next day on p35 in the newspaper?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Thinking about it some more, wouldn't SLOT predict that the pole would go back to its ante-post? Because of course the water in the Indian Ocean would have returned to its original position. This is why ice-caps-on-Greenland might be important, because they acquire a permanent off-set.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | The only mechanism that I have seen that could cause a significant axial shift on a planetary scale is, I'm afraid. Ishmael's Spanner... (or should that be Ishmael's Wrench?) |
Archimedes' Lever
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
You mean Archimedes getting out of his bath would cause a pole shift? I find that difficult to believe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
